Northern Ireland: Afforestation

HL Deb 03 February 1988 vol 492 cc1157-80

8.16 p.m.

The Duke of Abercorn rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they intend to promote further afforestation in Northern Ireland.

The noble Duke said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. I should like to declare an interest in regard to this debate as follows: first, as president of the Ulster Timbergrowers Association in Northern Ireland; secondly as non-executive director and shareholder of a softwood mill near Enniskillen in County Fermanagh; and, finally, as a wood owner in County Tyrone.

I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Brookeborough is making his maiden speech on this occasion and I know that the House looks forward to hearing from him. His father will long be remembered in this House as a man of great charm, personality and courage and always deeply concerned with the interests of the people of County Fermanagh. Indeed, the word courage is synonymous with Fermanagh because in recent months and in tragic circumstances the world has had a vivid insight into the courage, dignity and resilience with which those remarkable Fermanagh people have, like other Border areas, sustained almost two decades of violence.

In asking the Government to make a statement on their policies and objectives for the encouragement of further afforestation in Northern Ireland, perhaps a brief overview of the situation prevailing in the Community and, indeed, on a global basis might be appropriate. Within the Community, agricultural products such as cereals, dairy goods and meat remain over-supplied and therefore future expectations for price increases for these commodities must be limited, while throughout the Community there is an under-production of timber. Currently, the Community is approximately 50 per cent. self-sufficient in wood. Surely, in the context of the community, this situation indicates a misallocation of land and also demonstrates that there is no danger whatever of a timber mountain appearing even on the horizon.

On a global basis the situation is again interesting. World forestry is also out of balance due to an increasing world demand and contracting stock as more and more natural forests throughout the world become worked out and thus more reliance is placed on established plantations. Surely the time must now be opportune for the Government to examine both in depth and with urgency whether Northern Ireland, particularly in the hill areas west of the Bann, can take advantage of the situation which I have just outlined and also alleviate to an extent some of the inevitable future hardships which will arise in agriculture due to community overproduction problems by encouraging further afforestation.

At this stage I should like to emphasise my belief and trust that the farming industry, which is indeed the very backbone of the entire community in Northern Ireland, employing as it does some 43,000 people with another 18,000 employed in ancillary industries, will remain our most important industry. Again, clearly, the preservation of the life and character of the rural community is of the utmost importance. I believe that further afforestation in Northern Ireland will prove a positive, not negative, factor in maintaining this objective in rural areas.

Forestry is a national renewable resource and where forestry has expanded in other parts of the United Kingdom it is an increasingly important contributor to rural employment. Furthermore, Ireland, whether North or South, is the most suitable location for forestry in the entire temperate northern hemisphere, yet the country remains one of the least afforested in Western Europe. Depending on location, sitka spruce takes between 35 and 50 years to grow in Northern Ireland. The average growth period for similar species is about 50 years in Scotland, 80 years in Germany and 90 years in most parts of Scandinavia.

There is an unfortunate tendency in Northern Ireland to dwell on our economic problems and thus neglect our economic opportunities. Surely, therefore, these most favourable temperate conditions should be further developed—in fact, exploited—particularly on land classified as severely disadvantaged, in the Counties Tyrone, Fermanagh and Londonderry. However, the percentage of land area under afforestation in Northern Ireland is only 5.2 per cent., compared with 12 per cent. in Scotland and a Community average of 22 per cent.

Furthermore, in order to reduce public expenditure, the department has been slowing down its forestry programme in Northern Ireland, resulting in approximately 1,000 hectares per annum currently being either planted or re-established. The annual planting rate in 1970 was 1,893 hectares, while by 1985 it had been gradually reduced to 1,285 hectares. Again, the level of forestry employees has been drastically reduced, particularly in remote rural areas.

That is in direct contrast to the rest of the United Kingdom, where new planting is currently running at 24,000 hectares per annum. Here in Great Britain there is a significantly different and more realistic attitude by government towards forestry. As a result, both employment and investment in the developing, integrated British forestry industry will continue to grow in the period to the year 2000 as forest output expands and labour input rises.

Sadly, and wrongly, in Northern Ireland there will be a substantial decline in forest output around the year 2020, due to the present low level of planting. This situation is not only unacceptable but it is also ironic, since, according to the Department of Economic Development in its November 1987 Summary of the Review of the Timber Industry in Northern Ireland, paragraph 10: In the long term, world timber supply is expected to be severely constrained by the year 2000, and consideration needs to be given now to action to maximise planting either by the Forest Service or by encouraging private sector participation, e.g. by way of present trends towards afforestation as an alternative land use.

The afforestation situation in the Irish Republic is indeed vibrant, with the state planting approximately 9,000 hectares in 1987 while the private sector planted 2,700 hectares. That is a dramatic increase by the private sector from a virtual standard start of 498 hectares in 1982. Clearly a different and radical attitude towards Northern Ireland forestry is therefore urgently required by government.

In spite of its dedicated and professional work over many decades, particularly with the establishment of the most successful and innovative leisure parks providing all types of recreational pursuits for the community, the Forest Service has been inadequately directed and led by the Department of Agriculture, since in the context of agriculture it has always been regarded as a poor relation. Again, according to the Department of Economic Development review, there is a serious imbalance between the timber supply position and the wood processing capacity in Northern Ireland. The report states that production from Northern Ireland forests at the beginning of the group's work stood at around 115,000 cubic metres per annum against an estimated industry processing capacity of 260,000 cubic metres per annum, including capacity then in the process of installation. Perhaps my noble friend can inform the House exactly how and why that situation has occurred.

If the Government are determined to establish an integrated Northern Ireland forestry industry similar to that in Great Britain, but obviously on a much smaller and more modest scale, clarity of objective is essential. First, I believe it is essential that one government agency alone should be responsible for financial assistance to the Northern Ireland timber processing industry, thus avoiding further encouragement of over-processing capacity. Secondly, I suggest that the headquarters of the Forest Service, comprising approximately 60 personnel, should be located west of the Bann, either in Omagh or Enniskillen, since 75 per cent. of the Forest Service woodlands is located in Western Counties. Doubtless this House will recall that the Forestry Commission was relocated from Hampshire to Edinburgh for similar reasons.

I believe that if the Forest Service is removed from Dundonald House and given a free-standing status that will provide a new impetus and recognition of its importance, particularly to the severely disadvantaged areas of the Province. Again, the location of the Forest Service headquarters in the West would considerably increase consumer spending in that area, where there is no alternative form of employment. I trust that the facts and figures already provided in this debate demonstrate that the commercial arguments for further afforestation in Northern Ireland are both significant and compelling.

I should now like to discuss the practical argument, particularly the acquisition of further land for afforestation. Any afforestation programme is dependent on the availability of suitable land and consistent levels of investment. Again, I am only too aware that additional forestry should in no way conflict with our outstanding environment in Northern Ireland. Therefore, I put forward for the Government's consideration that the target for Northen Ireland afforestation should be double the present overall afforestation by the year 2010. The percentage of total land under afforestation would then be approximately 10 per cent. That would involve a modest planting rate of 3,000 hectares per annum overall.

In 1970 the then Stormont Government published a White Paper suggesting a target of 30,000 hectares of private forestry by the year 2000. There are only approximately 13,000 hectares of private forestry to date, so clearly the Government should provide the required stimulus to encourage further private investment in the remote rural areas of Northern Ireland, since I believe that the main thrust and drive for further afforestation should come from the private sector, as is the case in Great Britain. Moreover, I believe that the Government can and should provide this stimulus in two significant ways.

First, there should be privatisation of certain Forest Service woodlands. That will immediately alert the attention of pension funds and individuals to the opportunity of purchasing a forestry investment in Northern Ireland, since economic logic surely dictates that forestry investment should take place in areas where the returns are highest. Northern Ireland pension funds are indeed potential investors—the biggest pension fund, the Northern Ireland Local Government Officers' Superannuation Committee, has recently purchased 5,300 acres of afforestation in Great Britain. I understand that this pension fund is looking for further investment in afforestation.

This House is aware of the remarkable success of the Government's programme of privatisation. Likewise the privatisation of certain Forestry Commission woodlands in Great Britain has taken place successfully. The Department of Energy in the Irish Republic has also adopted this policy and thus generated a real awareness of forestry as an investment in that country. During 1988 it is proposed to sell off IR £3 million of state forestry in the Irish Republic. Therefore I remain amazed that the Minister, who supports the policies of this Government and their ideology, should be so reticent and reluctant to implement a similar scheme in Northern Ireland.

Moreover, why should this situation be accepted, since surely every avenue of attracting new inward investment to Northern Ireland should be actively encouraged and explored? Having served for five years on the Industrial Development Board of Northern Ireland, I am only too aware of the difficulties in attracting new investment to Northern Ireland. Again, in remote rural areas of Northern Ireland it is not feasible to attract alternative inward investment. Therefore I trust that the Minister will announce this evening that it is the intention of his department to embark upon a policy of limited privatisation of certain Forest Service woodlands and that the valuation will be based on the same methodology as that adopted by the Forestry Commission. In other words, the valuation must be realistic and must reflect market conditions.

In 1985 the Department of Agriculture commissioned a respected and well-known forestry consultancy firm to make a report on the possibilities of expanding forestry in Northern Ireland through additional private capital. This report resides in Dundonald House and matures slowly, but to date has not been published. Doubtless some innovative proposals were contained in it, and I trust that my noble friend will enlighten the House this evening on some of those proposals. I need hardly remind the Minister that Ulster people are also highly innovative and will respond rapidly to an investment opportunity like forestry which is indeed a credible and a secure venture.

Clearly an investment of such a long-term nature needs more incentive from government. To prove this viewpoint, the private sector in the Irish Republic responded with alacrity to the forestry grants available under EC Directive 1820, known generally as "the western package". I have no doubt therefore that the private sector in Northern Ireland would respond in a similar positive way if a similar package of incentives were to be introduced in Northern Ireland.

I understand that the current thinking of the Community remains sympathetic; namely, that forestry should be developed on a regional basis and regions need not necessarily be divided by national boundaries. I believe the Government would receive a sympathetic hearing in Brussels if they were to apply to the Community for financial assistance to encourage further afforestation in the western counties of Northern Ireland similar to that already available to the Irish Republic under Directive 1820. I should also mention that Northern Ireland has a very similar landowning pattern to the Irish Republic. Therefore I do not foresee a great problem of procuring further land for afforestation in the upland areas of Northern Ireland.

Economists from the University of Ulster confirm that the forestry uptake in the Irish Republic is not only dependent upon but also results from grant aid. Their estimation is that in the Irish Republic 10 per cent. in grant levels in real terms would generate an increase of about 11 per cent. in private afforestation over a five-year period. The farm woodland scheme is a welcome step in the right direction. However it is certainly modest in scale and will be of only marginal beneficial effect to the upland areas of Northern Ireland.

In conclusion I trust that my noble friend, in replying to this Question, will explain why in this industry Northern Ireland is lagging behind both the rest of the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic.

I trust that the Minister will also confirm the Government's awareness of Northern Ireland's climate advantages for further afforestation. I hope that my noble friend will announce a private sector initiative to pre-empt inevitable future pressure from the Community to diversify from farming into forestry, since afforestation offers the only large-scale land use alternative to agriculture.

8.38 p.m.

Lord Blease

My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to debate this Question about the future of afforestation in Northern Ireland as tabled by the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn. First, there is the importance of the subject along with the fact that the issues have been raised by the noble Duke, whose family has contributed much to our Ulster heritage and to nature conservation, especially through the work of the noble Duke's father, who was widely acknowledged as an expert of international standing on the subject of forestry.

Secondly, with other noble Lords, it gives me the opportunity formally and warmly to welcome the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, to the House. As all noble Lords will, I shall listen with keen interest to his maiden speech. I know that the noble Lord is strongly committed. With youth on his side, I feel sure he has much good to contribute to the business of the House and to the future peace and prosperity of Northern Ireland. We all wish him well.

I have consulted with farming friends 'and trade union colleagues directly concerned with agriculture and the forestry service. I have also had discussions with qualified and professional people in Northern Ireland who have responsibilities for developments in forestry, conservation and agriculture. I have listened with keen interest to the constructive and challenging speech of the noble Duke. I agree with much of what he said and I believe that I can support—with a little qualification—the specific objectives which he proposes for afforestation in Northern Ireland.

The noble Duke has drawn attention to many matters—the acquisition of land and the management of forests and woodlands—that require careful and thorough examination. There is an adequacy of financial provisions and suitable investment capital. There are training and employment prospects for all grades of forestry personnel. Then there are the critical matters of conservation and of general community well-being. I am sure the noble Duke will agree that those are all vital elements which require carefully balanced decisions and legislation in support of any successful and realistic policies for afforestation.

State forestry has had a long and honoured tradition in Northern Ireland. That fact has been recorded in a recently published book, which is an excellent history, by a former Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland chief officer, Mr. Cecil Kilpatrick. In its 78 years some 150,000 acres have been planted mostly in the western counties where upland and high rainfall make farming difficult. Forestry policy has been similar to that in Great Britain; that is, mainly the planting of spruce for maximum commercial return. Such policy has been profitable but that profit has also been combined with amenity. The Northern Ireland forestry service has placed great emphasis on public recreation in forest areas and has pioneered this concept within the United Kingdom. In setting up, with much success, forest parks and amenity areas, the forest service has also enjoyed good relations with voluntary statutory conservation bodies. By co-operating with the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Ulster Trust for Nature Conservation and the Conservation Service, it has set up nature reserves and wildlife sanctuaries.

Conservationists are thus concerned that the integrity of the state forest service should be maintained in Northern Ireland and that resources should be made available for continued maintenance for public recreation as well as for commercial profit. Conservationists would not favour privatisation of the existing forestry held under the DANI forestry service.

The reasons for the strong community support for, and dependence upon, state forestry in Northern Ireland are founded on very practical grounds together with 78 years of experience. I repeat what the noble Duke has already mentioned. The Province is comprised of relatively small owner-occupied family farms with currently some 5 per cent. of the land under trees compared with 8 per cent. for Great Britain and some 23 per cent. for other EC countries. This small-scale land ownership means that extensive block planting of coniferous forests is not so prominent in Northern Ireland compared with the visual monotony of many uplands in Great Britain. The loss of variety in wildlife habitats is less of a problem in Northern Ireland.

However, farm amalgamation and the creation of larger holdings could make more extensive plantings possible. Should this happen, I hope that the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland will be mindful of mistakes made in Great Britain. The small scale of much of Northern Ireland's scenery requires sensitivity in forest planting if the quality of the landscape is to be maintained. That quality of landscape is one of Northern Ireland's most precious assets and part of its great heritage. It must not be bartered for a mirage of commercial immediacy.

The noble Duke has dealt with the number of hectares of forest in Northern Ireland and the fact that holdings include few privately owned estates. Only some 13,000 hectares are in private agricultural holdings; some of these estates are partly managed and provided with the necessary services by the Department of Agriculture Northern Ireland forestry service. Therefore in Northern Ireland few of them are engaged commercially in forestry. Notwithstanding government efforts and financial grants to encourage private woodlands and afforestation, comparatively little has been undertaken by private ownership over the past 50 years. Perhaps the noble Duke's proposals might create the necessary incentives for new private forestry developments. But I repeat that such developments must not be to the detriment of existing forest services.

Perhaps forestry in the uplands could become increasingly important for farmers facing major changes in farm economy as a result of the European common agricultural policy. Upland forestry could be encouraged for such owners as part of a diverse economy in which traditional farm practices and stock rearing are combined with forestry, conservation and outdoor recreation. That consideration is especially important in the more scenic areas which have tourist potential and where developments require careful planning. I urge the Minister to do what he can to encourage closer co-operation in this respect between the Department of the Environment and the Department of Agriculture. I am sure that the Minister has heard what I have just said. But perhaps he can tell us whether there are any plans or proposals that could help and encourage those upland farmers to plant suitable trees and adopt new farming practices.

Deciduous planting is especially in need of encouragement. Ireland's native woodlands were wiped out centuries ago and there are no Royal forests that enjoy kingly protection. Estate woodlands are now decaying and the small farmers, who succeeded the large landowners, lack incentive to invest in deciduous woods.

I strongly believe that in the interests of conservation and landscape amenity, as well as long-term investment, deciduous planting needs more effective incentives. There is little response to the present planting grant scheme as few of our small farms find it sufficiently attractive. Does Northern Ireland need different approaches to the replacement of deciduous forests and the establishment of new ones? That issue raises important questions. However, I think the noble Duke made forceful points in this connection.

I mentioned earlier that I had discussed with trade union colleagues the matters concerning afforestation in Northern Ireland. I shall quote from a letter that I have from the Northern Ireland Public Service Alliance, which is the trade union that caters for all grades of professional and manual forestry employees. It says: we would wish to make the point that although we are opposed to privatisation of public sector services, including the State Forest Service, that does not mean we are opposed to the expansion of private forestry within the country. Indeed we would very much welcome the establishment of more forests within Northern Ireland through the development of both State and private forestry projects, but any expansion of the private sector must not be at the expense of the service currently owned and run by DANI"— that is, the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.

The letter continues to deal with matters concerning personnel and employment in the forest service and states: Since 1979 the Forest Service in Northern Ireland has been the subject of numerous reviews both by DANI and by DFP"— Department of Finance and Personnel— through their Manpower and Management Resource Division. These reviews have included staff inspections, efficiency reviews and policy reviews and have resulted in drastic cuts in the numbers of professional, technical, administrative and industrial staff employed in the State Forest Service…at the end of the last decade the URIC"— the Urban and Rural Investment Campaign— scheme was wound up with disastrous results in terms of employment levels for people in this country. Within the Forest Service…somewhere in the region of 1,000 jobs were lost mainly amongst the industrial grades…since then … many more jobs involving administrative and other grades have been lost …within the last few months [we] received a further report of a staff inspection of the Forest Service …this has recommended even further cuts amongst our members … this is bound to affect the overall efficiency of the service which is…a most professional one and includes a unique research and development function not provided by anyone else", in the Province.

Those quotations underscore the concern already expressed by the noble Duke. In the absence of a forestry commission for Northern Ireland, there could be much public support for the noble Duke's proposal for the establishment of a distinct executive-type forestry division within the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland. Although headquarters' staff for such a division may be better sited in the west, in my opinion Cookstown would be more central. The strengthening of the existing seven district field staff operational units is much more urgent and relevant if there is to be any economic change in forestry and woodland policies.

I should also see to the re-establishment of the urban and rural investment scheme, or a similar scheme, in which the forestry division would have a prominent part to play with rural councils and others in planning, drainage, replanting and the new planting of forestry areas.

I welcome the noble Duke's initiative. It calls for action, and that is important. We do not want another sheaf of plans put on shelves only to be brought down and reread. We hope that the Minister will give a favourable response to that call for action.

8.52 p.m.

Viscount Brookeborough

My Lords, I beg your Lordships' indulgence for those who speak for the first time in this House. I thank my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn for asking this Question and thereby giving me a chance to speak on a non-controversial subject. I am sure your Lordships realise that it is difficult for an Ulsterman to be non-controversial.

I live near Enniskillen in County Fermanagh— the lakeland of Northern Ireland. For those of your Lordships who do not know the area, it is, to say the least, a little damp. In fact, it has been said that in summer Lough Erne is in Fermanagh and in winter Fermanagh is in Lough Erne. As a result, three things grow especially well there—grass, sitka spruce and an abundance of fish. It is the westernmost county of the United Kingdom, of which it is a most important and beautiful part.

While many Fermanagh people have been to John O'Groats and Land's End, I fear that many of your Lordships may never have been to Fermanagh. I can assure your Lordships that you will he most welcome, provided that you bring your Barbours and wellington boots, or at this time of the year, even better, your waders. I believe—I learnt this only recently—that the Minister will agree that even chest waders would not have saved him from the ducking that he received in Fermanagh recently. Perhaps he will tell us more about that story.

There are two areas in the vast subject of forestry that I should like to mention. The first is the forecast of forestry expansion in Northern Ireland, and the second is the grants available to the private sector—the proposed farm woodland scheme and the forestry grant scheme, as it stands at present. The government target for expansion of forestry—the planting of ground not previously used for timber production—is 750 hectares a year. Of that, 600 hectares would be forest service plantations and 150 hectares would be private. The forest service is achieving its target at present, but in two years' time there will be insufficient funds to continue at a rate of more than 300 hectares a year. That is half the target.

The forest service has been planting from a pool of land acquired a few years ago, and that will be largely used by the end of 1990. Will the Minister assure the House that the situation will be remedied? More funds should be made available by the Government, and, if and when some of the smaller blocks of state-owned forest are rationalised, the funds generated could go towards acquiring new land for planting. Land prices are higher in Northern Ireland due to the small size of farms and the land pattern problems. However, it would take only an extra £250,000 a year from 1990 to put the forest service back on target.

Your Lordships may have noted the increase in private forestry in 1987, which was 254 hectares as compared to the previous three-year average of 69 hectares. However, those figures should be qualified. Of that, 75 per cent. was planted by a forestry investment company and therefore does not truly reflect the private sector; that is, areas planted by owner-occupiers. Therefore I welcome the experimental farm woodland scheme as an incentive to farmers.

I thank the Minister for securing a one-hectare minimum for Northern Irish farmers compared with the three-hectare minimum in the rest of the United Kingdom. That is due to the much smaller average size of farms in the Province. The points raised in my noble friend's opening speech justify the Province being given a large share of that scheme, especially in the less favoured areas. I note that within the three-year scheme and the 36,000 hectares to be planted, 3,000 hectares only are allocated to less favoured areas within the United Kingdom. That figure should be increased with Northern Ireland in mind.

In the future, no doubt an extension or various improvements to the scheme may be thought wise. However, one condition should be included at that stage. Anyone taking up the scheme should be legally committed to the marketing of mature timber at the end of the cycle, natural disasters such as gales permitting. I say that because I can see a large number of small isolated woodlands being uneconomical and difficult to work with large machinery.

There may also be many devious people who will see the scheme as a way of satisfying their short-term needs; for example, for firewood and fencing posts. Should that occur, insufficient funds may be generated at the end of the growth cycle to enable the farmer to replant. We should remember that by that time the annual income from the scheme will have ceased—after 20 years for soft woods, 30 years for mixed hard and soft woods of which 50 per cent. must be hard woods, and 40 years for 100 per cent. hard woods. That is an important condition as the scheme is intended, among other things, to produce a long-term increase in timber production.

I should like to mention the forestry grant scheme as it is at present. Will the Minister give further consideration to the private sector west of the River Bann and, in particular, Fermanagh? As already stated, we have a large amount of wet land. In addition, there are unproductive scrub areas with briars, gorse and birch trees.

That means that an expensive ground preparation programme is needed. I am talking about drainage and clearance before the establishment of a plantation. In such areas, extra funds, in addition to the normal grant must be made available to encourage the private sector. In this part of the country it is not only the trees which grow fast, as my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn said; the weeds grow just as fast. The weeding problem is immense. Weeding must be carried out far more often and more thoroughly than in other parts of the United Kingdom. Additional funding should be made available for that.

Conservation is an important factor, and the better management of these derelict areas can only help wildlife and the natural habitat in general. At this stage I should like to commend the forest service for its promotion of forestry in the private sector. It has not met with a great deal of success but it puts much effort into such promotion and it runs good lectures, exhibitions and roadshows at agricultural meetings.

In conclusion, I would point out the relevant figures that justify a new appraisal and additional funding of Northern Irish forestry. Overall 22 per cent. of the EC and 10 per cent. of Great Britain is afforested while in Northern Ireland the figure is only 5 per cent. The 1988 Republic of Ireland forecast for new plantations is rising to 10,000 hectares in the public sector and from 2,500 hectares last year in the private sector to 5,000 hectares this year. This is not just a target. These are realistic forecasts that will be achieved, considering what has been done in the previous few years. The figures for Northern Ireland are these. There are 600 hectares in the public sector. That figure will drop by half in two years' time if nothing is done. There is a very small increase in the private sector.

I hope that the Minister realises that action must be taken in the next 12 months to remedy this potentially disastrous situation for the Province's timber industry. I suggest to noble Lords that while investment in industry in Northern Ireland is often considered extremely high-risk, our unique problems in the Province should have little or no effect on the value of timber production in the future.

9.2 p.m.

Lord Dunleath

My Lords, I thank the noble Duke for having introduced this interesting and important topic. However, before moving to it, I hasten to congratulate most warmly the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, on an outstanding maiden speech. I am sure that I speak for the entire House in so saying. The delivery of his speech did not surprise me. I was present at the memorial service following the tragic and untimely death of his father where he had to read the lesson amid all the emotion that was involved and in front of television cameras transmitting live, and he was rock steady. I should have been scared out of my wits; I should have lost my breath control. But no; he is made of sterner stuff than I am.

Nor was I surprised at the content of his speech or the careful preparation that had obviously been given to it. When his family sets its hand to anything, it does so thoroughly. I know that well because our families have had close links over many generations. Indeed, his grandfather was one of my godparents. He was my favourite godparent because every time we met he would tip me half a crown. That was in contrast to some of my other godparents who either took a cost effective view and gave me only a miserly shilling, or took a negative cash flow view and gave me nothing. I therefore had a high regard for the noble Viscount's grandfather.

His family has an outstanding record of public service, both civil and military. Even before the noble Viscount came to your Lordships' House this evening he had shown already that he has every intention of continuing that distinguished record of public service. We greatly welcome him here.

I welcome the Question raised by the noble Duke this evening. I salute him for the convincing case that he made. I beg leave to touch on one or two of the realities of the situation. They do not conflict with what the noble Duke said, but perhaps complement his remarks. After three centuries of decline, re-afforestation was resumed in a deliberate manner between the wars when the Ministry of Agriculture acquired areas, mostly of less favoured tracts of land at high altitudes. This was disadvantageous land where, for the most part, the Ministry planted conifers. This was commendable in that it gradually began to increase our capacity for timber production. It also put to use land that would otherwise have gone to waste.

After the war the Government began to offer incentives to private landowners to plant. This was also to be welcomed. However, in both the public and private sector, the policy advocated by the Government was to plant conifers and softwoods in order to provide as quick a crop as possible and to make the uptake of these offers to private owners as attractive as possible. Unfortunately, this resulted in large blankets of conifers—sitka spruce, Norway spruce, perhaps Japanese larch—often over some of our most scenic areas, which was detrimental to the appearance of the countryside and to the environment. Conifers are very suppressive both of flora and fauna. They also tend to encourage the presence of predators at the expense, for instance of song birds.

More recently, however, there has been a greater appreciation of the broadleaved varieties. We welcome the new incentives which are to be offered, I understand, with effect from next autumn, under the farm woodland scheme. If this is successful, it will enhance the environment and indeed the habitats for our natural wildlife. But even though these incentives are more generous and attractive than ever before, I cannot help asking how effective they will be. A price of £190 per hectare is offered for a broadleaved plantation over a period of 40 years. This is in addition to the standard forestry planting grant which is over £800—an instalment on planting and a further instalment on establishment. Once that has been paid out, that is it. Can one expect a farmer to make a living out of that when by comparison, if he is any good at all, he should be able to make more than £500 per hectare from milk and £250 to £300 from cereals on good arable land? Will it be attractive' That is the question I respectfully ask.

I refer next to the psychological barrier with regard to broadleaved planting. How many people will be attracted to the idea of establishing a crop that will not mature in their life-time and almost certainly not in the lifetime of their immediate successor? They will wonder about the market for timber in 100 years' time. On present indications it will probably be very good, possibly even better than it is now. But it is an uncertainty. What other crop can one think of where such a long-term commitment is involved? What other investment can one think of on the farm? Even if one invests in a costly, extensive range of buildings for, say, dairying, and then decides to go out of milk after 15 or 20 years, there is a reasonable chance that the buildings can be converted for some other purpose, even if at some expense. If one has established a stand of oak or beech, who will cut them down after 20 years if the outlook for timber is not so bright? The problem is that one is locked in. Planting hardwoods for amenity is certainly a most attractive proposition. As a crop, I do not disagree with it; I merely point out the reality of how many people would be attracted by the scheme. This is the case with our traditional varieties of hardwoods such as beech and oak, which are quoted in the farm woodlands scheme.

Gradually and steadily, I come to my point: have we been too conservatve in our view of the species that we plant? The noble Viscount pointed out how very much more quickly certain varieties grow in Northern Ireland than elsewhere. I wonder whether we have taken advantage of this to a sufficient extent.

In principle I am entirely in favour of planting indigenous trees. Let us consider agriculture. If we stuck to native livestock and were denied the use of Friesians, Charolais or Simmental, our dairy and cattle industry would not be in a very good way today. If we stuck to indigenous varieties of plants and were denied the rye grasses and cereals that come from elsewhere, our arable enterprises would not be in a very good way.

I venture to ask this: should we not be considering for commercial production varieties of trees that we know grow well in Northern Ireland and that beat the native species? Have the Minister and his department considered varieties such as Nothofagus Dombeyi, a beech indigenous to Chile and Argentina? In the encyclopaedia of plants and trees I read recently it said that Nothofagus grows to 30 feet in height. I know of one at home which is 75 to 80 feet in height with a girth of 9 feet 6 inches yet it is younger than I am. It was planted in about 1935 or 1936. What indigenous beech or oak could put on growth at that rate? This would produce a high density hardwood when mature, which it almost is now.

Similarly, I wonder whether his people in the forestry division of the Department of Agriculture have considered Eucalyptus globulus. Again, the encyclopaedia states its height as being 50 feet with a spread of 20 feet. The height of ours is 90 feet with a spread of 50 feet. I have planted examples of this which have made 40 feet in height in only 12 years. Surely this rate of growth that can be achieved in Northern Ireland is something of which we should take advantage. Whoever compiled the encyclopaedia was obviously writing in good faith and taking evidence from what he had seen in the South of England; but what is not realised, as the noble Duke and the noble Viscount said, is that we can grow trees much faster in Northern Ireland than they can in the South of England, even though we are further north.

I should like to suggest that some of these more exotic varieties should be considered. I speak with hesitation because the noble Duke knows much more about this than I do. He has a garden centre. I know, because I have been there, that amid the Grecian urns and plastic gnomes he has a wide selection of most interesting plants, many of which I am sure could be developed and grown on a commercial basis, although maybe he sells most of them for amenity purposes at the moment.

I should like to ask the noble Lord on the Front Bench whether he will tell us what his department's view is of selecting species for commercial production in order to make the farm woodlands scheme more attractive to owners of the arable land which I know it is the Government's desire to take out of agricultural production.

9.16 p.m.

Lord Prys-Davies

My Lords, I should like to begin by joining with the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, in congratulating the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, on his well reasoned and well researched maiden speech. By any standards it was an excellent speech. His late father was a regular contributor to the debates on Northern Ireland affairs in your Lordships' House. He brought to our debates a certain unionist perspective which must always be taken into account by the legislator. We knew that here was a man whose heart and soul was in Northern Ireland. We hope that the noble Viscount, Lord Brookeborough, will maintain his family's long tradition of service to the Province and that henceforth his rational voice will be often and regularly heard in your Lordships' House.

We are grateful to the noble Duke, the Duke of Abercorn, for addressing the Question before us to Her Majesty's Government and for giving the House the benefit of his wealth of knowledge of the subject. His speech too was well researched. It could achieve something worth while for many of the rural communities of Northern Ireland. That is why, with the agreement of my noble friend Lord John-Mackie, who is the Labour Party's spokesman in this House on agricultural matters, I wish to support the general argument advanced by the noble Duke for strengthening the role of afforestation in Northern Ireland.

The starting point must be the forestry target. The 1970 White Paper on Forestry in Northern Ireland laid down the target of 300,000 acres of state and privately owned forests by the end of the century. Can the Minister tell the House whether this target has been increased or lowered since 1970, or are we still talking about 300,000 acres by the end of the century? Can he also tell the House how that compares with the target set for Wales, Scotland and England in terms of the percentage of their land under afforestation? The noble Duke has indicated that there is a significant difference between Northern Ireland and Scotland and that in general Northern Ireland is dragging behind the rest of the UK. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us about that.

The noble Duke has made a powerful case for a very substantial increase in the land area under afforestation. His case is based on three main arguments. The first is that the changes within agriculture require the transfer of land from dairying and livestock to afforestation. Secondly, the climate in Northern Ireland is excellent for growing forests, making it one of the most suitable places in Europe for that purpose. Thirdly, the Province is not self-sufficient in the domestic supply of timber, whereas, if I understand it correctly, it could be a timber exporter. Each argument is strong but if the three arguments are valid then taken together they seem to me to be almost irresistible.

I turn for a moment to the annual report of the Forest Service for 1986–1987. I was surprised to read in its second opening passage on page 1 that the rate of acquisition of land for afforestation over the last 5 years will not enable White Paper targets to be achieved". If the targets cannot be achieved, that at least calls for an explanation and a remedy. Therefore we should like to know what the problems are, why the programme is slipping and what steps can be taken to remedy the position. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, can enlighten us.

I must confess that that slippage raises another worry. If the Forest Service cannot maintain the build-up towards the existing target is it likely, as it is at present constituted and with the instruments at present available to it, to achieve the much more ambitious target which the noble Duke has in mind? As I understand it the target that he has in mind is double the existing target. One is left wondering whether it can be achieved without a radical initiative from the top of the department.

Another major theme running through the speech of the noble Duke is that the department should give more generous financial support to the private investor in forestry. I believe that that theme is also supported by the noble Viscount. Reference has been made to the grants—the Western Package as it is called—which are available in the disadvantaged parts of the Republic. I am told that the grants paid to private foresters in the Republic are much more favourable than those paid in Northern Ireland.

I am sure that there is much more to this point than the noble Duke wishing to keep up with the Joneses. But a number of questions arise and I should like to pick out one or two of them. First, are there any EC directives or regulations which govern the value of the financial grants which a member state can make available to private forestry and indeed also to public forestry? After listening to the remarks of the noble Duke it seems to me that there is none.

My second question has also been touched upon. It relates to the price of land to be acquired for afforestation. Can the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, tell the House how prices per acre for forestry land in Northern Ireland compare with prices in the Republic and in the rest of the UK? We appreciate that prices vary within each country. However, we want to know whether there is a substantial differential between similar sites in different countries of the United Kingdom.

I was also going to ask whether the Secretary of State has the power to pay a different level of grant to the private investor in Northern Ireland to that being paid in the rest of the United Kingdom or the power to have a substantially different policy from that in force in the rest of the United Kingdom. However, the noble Viscount has answered that question. Perhaps the Minister will be able to confirm that the Secretary of State has that power.

The noble Duke also raised the topic of the role of privatisation, which he favours and which is currently popular with the Government. However, it is a controversial theme. Some of us, including my noble friend Lord Blease and members of the trade union movement, are dubious about it. Perhaps, though, it will be of some consolation to the noble Duke that my noble friend Lord John-Mackie considers that privatisation could have a limited role to play on some sites, provided that the sums raised by privatisation could be retained by the Forest Service and used by it to improve and strengthen its programme of acquisition and planting. That condition is not likely to be attractive to the present Government. Therefore, the moneys available from the pension funds would not be paid to the Forest Service but would be paid over to a consolidated fund.

It emerges from the 1986–87 annual report that the total number of people employed by the Forest Service of the Department of Agriculture—that is, the public sector—is no more than 520, though that figure does not include those who are employed in the processing mills. Moreover, the number has been going down since 1983 and my noble friend Lord Blease anticipates that it will go down even further. I was surprised that the number was so low. Can the Minister tell the House the cost of job creation through forestry? How does that compare with the cost of job creation through tourism and light industry? I am afraid that the comparative cost must be very high indeed.

Given the difficulties which the IDB and LEDU are experiencing in attracting inward investment into rural communities—the noble Duke spoke on that matter with experience because he has been a member of the IDB—and given the surplus capacity of the processing mills in the timber industry—that matter was again referred to by the noble Duke—I am bound to conclude that the high cost of job creation through forestry is not a conclusive argument against further substantial afforestation.

Our concern on these Benches is for the well-being of the rural community. We seek a viable rural economy; we fear, as we approach the end of the century, the slow disintegration of many rural communities and particularly those west of the Bann. It would be helpful if the Minister could tell the House what priority the Government have given to preventing rural stagnation and depopulation 15 and 20 years hence. Can he tell us something about the Government's thoughts concerning the likely movement of labour from the countryside between now and the beginning of the next century? To what extent can forestry, tourism and light industry offer additional employment?

We think that there is a lot of good sense in the suggestion made by the noble Duke that the headquarters of the forest service should be relocated west of the Bann. Given that there is a need to move away from the traditional pattern of agriculture and that the climate in Northern Ireland is ideal for afforestation, is it not the case, as the noble Duke has argued, that afforestation offers an opportunity which the Government must grasp now if it is to bear fruit in the next century?

9.30 p.m.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell)

My Lords, your Lordships' House is deeply indebted to my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn for this opportunity to examine what is happening in the forestry industry in Northern Ireland.

At the outset I shall take just a moment of your Lordships' time to follow those speakers who have offered congratulations to my noble friend Lord Brookeborough on the occasion of his maiden speech tonight. We have listened to an excellent maiden speech of very high quality. I should like to add my personal congratulations and to say how pleased we all are to have a recruit of such quality with us.

My noble friend the Duke of Abercorn and also the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, referred to my noble friend's father who, as we all know, was never afraid to give his views on any subject, not just those relating to Northern Ireland. My noble friend's voice is always welcome, and I appreciate the opinions that he has expressed this evening. He will always be welcome whenever he can join us. Noble Lords know what a tremendous job he does in Fermanagh. Your Lordships will agree with me on the importance in this House of having a voice from Northern Ireland on all subjects and especially one from County Fermanagh, whose tie I am proudly wearing this evening.

As for my noble friend's views about my visits to that county, I hope that I can visit it much more often—and the wetter I get the happier I shall be. I note that thigh waders must be part of my equipment for visits to County Fermanagh, even in what is known as summer, although the summers of 1985 and 1986 did not merit that name.

Before turning to the specific points which noble Lords have raised in the debate on forestry this evening, perhaps I may take a moment to explain forest policy in the Province. The Government are committed to a forestry programme in the Province on the lines laid down in the 1970 White Paper on forestry to which several noble Lords have referred. I should like to comment on the main thrust of that paper since, though subject to periodic review and to substantially reduced objectives, the policy direction that it contains remains basically unchanged. The main objectives stated in that White Paper were to develop a total of 120,000 hectares of state and private forestry by the end of the century, and to encourage afforestation and tree planting by public and of course private agencies and individuals. Since there were 52,000 hectares—or, as we say in Scotland, thereby—in forestry in 1970 (there are now 71,000 hectares), the first of these targets implied new planting of 2,300 hectares per year of both public and private planting over the 30-year period. These targets were rapidly shown to be unattainable because of the main bugbear that affects forestry in Northern Ireland. I refer to the lack of land being offered to the industry and to the fact that in recent years we have aimed at buying what is available, which generally turns out to be smaller areas of better and therefore more expensive land.

These targets were reviewed in 1982 and revised downwards to 750 hectares per annum. This was split into 600 hectares of state planting and 150 hectares per annum of private planting. That decision went to amplify the lack of suitable land coming on to the market at realistic forestry prices, a point which I stressed earlier. There was also the relative failure of the private sector to develop, although there were a number of shining exceptions.

There is certainly a distinct difference between the rate at which trees are being privately planted in Northern Ireland and in the rest of the United Kingdom. When one compares the areas of grant aided private planting in Northern Ireland and in Great Britain in relation to the amount of available land, one sees that planting in Northern Ireland is pro rata only one-twelfth of that in Great Britain. In recent years only 88 hectares on average have been planted against 15,300 hectares in Great Britain. Eighty-eight hectares may not appear to be exactly one-twelfth but I am told that if one takes the land area of Great Britain and compares it with Northern Ireland these figures match up.

I should like to emphasise to my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn that when one considers that exactly the same fiscal arrangements apply and that we have similar planting grants with rates adjusted to favour the small planter, this contrast is particularly stark. I should stress that my department is making every effort to remove any outdated constraints on the planting programme. I am pleased to confirm that it no longer demands that the planting of land inside the original less favoured area must be cleared by the local county agricultural office. In Europe it is called the specially disadvantaged area. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is nodding. He has considerably more experience of these matters, as well as of Eurospeak, than I do. Any planting inside the original less favoured area used to have to be cleared by the local county agricultural office. That is no longer the case. We hope that that will be one less constraint on those who wish to plant. It is one less hurdle to cross.

The department itself through its forest service will be concentrating within the tight budget on having to plant better land in future. The future programme of forest service planting is especially important. This point was stressed by my noble friend in his opening speech. The pattern of land acquisition for forestry over the years and certainly over the past 18 years means that the tremendous bulge in new planting, both private and public, in the 1960s and 1970s will be harvested between 1990 and 2020. During that period the present capacity of the modern sawmilling industry in Northern Ireland could be fully supplied from our own production. Thereafter supplies would fall sharply because of the decline in new planting in the 1980s.

As the forest service is the main supplier of the Northern Ireland timber industry's requirements, and as, despite a great deal of effort, the private sector is not expanding as fast as all of of us would wish, we have to look in large measure to the state forest service to ensure the continuity of timber supplies in the years ahead, particularly to the indigenous sawmilling industry. We have made substantial efforts to see that the private sector starts on planting. Quite apart from the system of planting grants and the fiscal arrangements, the forest service regularly runs open days to bring forestry interests to the public notice. I was pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Blease, raised that point as did at least one other noble Lord.

Farmers and members of the public receive advice on forestry, and the forestry grant schemes are publicised at any agricultural events round the Province. I stress to your Lordships that these efforts have borne fruit in an increase in applications for planting schemes. I am also pleased that within the last couple of years private forestry interests in the Province have developed afforestation in investment operations with some success. But I have to add that the continuing relatively high price of land, together with the small pattern of land ownership in Northern Ireland, tends to discourage the private investor. The use of private investment companies would be the quickest way in which to establish large areas of private forest.

Your Lordships will agree that these companies would be unlikely to be attracted by the small farm size, since contiguous parcels of land come on to the market so rarely. But our efforts to encourage the private sector will continue and, given some reduction in agricultural land prices, I am sure that we shall see increases in private planting in the Province.

My noble friend the Duke of Abercorn—indeed, all your Lordships—touched on the proposed farm woodland scheme. We welcome all the interest that has been shown in the scheme and in our proposals within the Province. Changes were made to the scheme following consultation, and these have resulted in Northern Ireland being allocated a minimum planting area of one hectare compared to three hectares in the rest of the United Kingdom. It was kind of my noble friend Lord Brookeborough to pick that up in his maiden speech, which showed all the hard work and research that he had done. I congratulate him on that.

The small derogation we had in Northern Ireland recognises the pattern of land ownership in the Province and we hope that it will go a long way to increase the uptake in the scheme, although one hectare compared to three hectares for the same number of applications will result in a relatively small area being planted. But every extra hectare we can get will be welcome. I am confident that the farm woodlands scheme will be a success in the Province.

My noble friend the Duke of Abercorn in his opening remarks stressed the need to grow more timber. That pattern ran through all the remarks on the Question this evening. I have made it clear that we have not been able to keep up with the growth in timber production in Great Britain, especially in the private sector. The various planting schemes in Northern Ireland differ from those in the rest of the United Kingdom. They give additional flexibility to aid small plantings and we are able to give planting grants on coppice biomass, which is a very interesting new experiment being carried out within my own department. Forestry investment companies exist in Northern Ireland. They have had encouragement, advice and all the help they require from the forest service. But the fiscal arrangements are just the same and just as generous in Northern Ireland as they are in the rest of the United Kingdom.

I want to stress that simply selling public sector forestry to the private, sector at any price—this will interest the curiosity of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, though whether it will answer his questions I am not too sure—does not deal with the main thrust of the questions this evening: that is, the need to increase timber production. The forestry industry in Northern Ireland should be given credit where it is due. It is held in healthy respect by environmental interests. I was pleased that your Lordships mentioned the RSPB and all the other recreational activities that are so popular in the forests in Northern Ireland.

The main problem to which I must return is the slow development of private sector and to some extent public sector afforestation in Northern Ireland. The problem lies not in the efficiency or effectiveness of the forestry service or private sector companies but in the pattern of land ownership which is reflected in the price of land in Northern Ireland.

The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, also asked about the European Community directive. My noble friend the Duke of Abercorn spoke about European Community Regulation 1820 dated 24th June 1980. The means by which the 1820 regulation was implemented was the Western Package in the Republic of Ireland. I believe that the treatment of this directive is a matter for the United Kingdom Government and I do not want to enter into the full treatment of that package in the Republic this evening.

In his remarks my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn raised the problem of rationalisation in the Northern Ireland forest service. The approach which is being adopted by the service is identical to that of the Forestry Commission. It is presently being implemented in two phases which are running concurrently. During 1988 the service will offer for sale unplanted land amounting to 220 hectares and 92 hectares of plantations in varying stages of silviculture. These sales may help further to assess the private sector investment potential of forestry in the Province. This is a first hesitant yet significant step. We shall have to see how the sales go before making further decisions. Noble Lords have suggested to me that similar attempted sales, and sales which have been completed in the Republic of Ireland last year, do not seem to have been terribly successful. Although the hectarage has increased, much of it has been on the private side. There are other factors which apply in the Republic but do not apply in Northern Ireland as far as we are concerned.

The noble Lord raised a query about forestry activity. The future development of forestry in Northern Ireland, both public and private, will largely be conditioned by movements in land prices, linked with policies in agriculture in both the Community and the United Kingdom. I am particularly hopeful that the Government's ALU RE proposals will increase private sector awareness of the opportunities which are presented by forestry, even in Northern Ireland. There are 53 nature reserves on state forestry land in Northern Ireland. That shows that the forest service, as well as receiving tremendous help for the private forestry sector, is taking the lead in playing a major role in conservation. Your Lordships have heard that the growth of activity holidays is being seized by the service as an opportunity to further assist and enrich the recreational value of forestry by the promotion of activities such as bird watching and photography.

The average farm size in Northern Ireland, which will have a great bearing on the success or otherwise of the farm woodland scheme, is only 24 hectares. The large hill farms, which go some way to promote the major forestry development in Scotland are not in the main present in Northern Ireland, although there may he one or two exceptions. Last night my noble friend stressed to me one or two interesting details in County Fermanagh. It is the pattern of land ownership and above all the relatively small size of the farms which will tend to be a limiting factor on how far and how fast we can go forward.

I shall try to cover some of the points made by noble Lords. However, if I do not cover them all, my colleagues will undertake to reply to the points which have been made by my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn and by others in writing. My noble friend was very much in favour of increased planting in the less favoured areas but he likened that to reducing agricultural surpluses. While 1 am sure that we should not ignore the less favoured areas for forestry, he will appreciate that the better the land we take out of agriculture the more we shall reduce the surpluses. That goes on to show that the environmental arguments will tend to favour planting trees in the lowlands, and that is reflected in the rates which the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, mentioned. The emphasis under the new farm woodland scheme is on planting the better lowland areas, with the higher rates which are available for planting in those areas.

My noble friend also referred to the gap between supply and demand for timber as far as the timber industry was concerned. I believe that he went a good way to answering his own question. However, we have allowed timber processing capacity to run ahead of timber supply, though I think that that will be put right by increasing supplies in the 1990s and in the later part of this century. After the bulge in the timber supplies planted in the 1960s and 1970s is cut, there will be problems, but in the 1990s and in the next 12 to 15 years I believe that the gap between supply and demand will narrow.

My noble friend also asked about performance, comparing the Republic of Ireland with Northern Ireland. I believe that one reason for the slower progress may be that competition for land for agriculture seems stronger in Northern Ireland. Also there are the more widely developed co-operative agricultural arrangements in the Republic.

The noble Lord, Lord Blease, made a very helpful speech. Above all we welcome his support for the development which respected the existing Forest Service enterprises. Certainly I undertake to ensure that co-operation between the Department of the Environment and my own department continues at its present high level because I spend a great deal of my time in the forests and continually it is stressed to me the high priority that we give to conservation, matters like birds and above all the fauna, not just the flora, that exist in forestry areas. We place great emphasis on the farm woodland scheme, and certainly forestry grants will help in plantation, and not just in deciduous plantation.

The noble Lord also asked about co-operation. There are forest district conservation committees which meet to consider aspects of forest management and with particular reference to conservation. The qualified personnel draw up landscape plans which cover large areas of forest and these are certainly looked after in environmentally sensitive areas.

My noble friend Lord Brookeborough had one particular query regarding the farm woodland scheme. We certainly will be receiving our proper share of the United Kingdom's scheme. However, it will be up to all the landowners in the Province to justify our efforts in taking up the funds which are available. I believe that they will be taken up and we shall do everything we can to promote their uptake.

The noble Lord, Lord Dunleath, stressed the attractiveness of the farm woodland scheme. Certainly we would have expected him to have done his sums, but I think he will agree that the milk producer is able to gain £500 per hectare if he has any problems with his quota, or he might even be under quota. Therefore, he might be prepared to put a small portion of his land into trees which will be particularly fast growing on some of the better land, while he may be able to farm fewer and more productive cows. Indeed, far more than notes on forestry it is notes on quotas which still flow into my office like snow in the new year.

The noble Lord raised a number of interesting points concerning exotic species. I am afraid I did not take on board all the exotic names but I shall certainly read them in Hansard with interest, I am able to confirm that the Forest Service has planted test areas with the species mentioned but I have to say that it has been with varying degrees of success. However, I shall certainly ask all the officials of the forest service to make suitable arrangements to meet the noble Lord—I shall accompany them if I can—to discuss any ideas he has for planting some of the more exotic species. If the noble Lord is achieving the growth rates that he mentioned I should like to know a little more. That is an open invitation which I am sure the noble Lord will not hesitate to take up.

I was asked for an approximate value for land which could be called good quality planting land. I am given to understand that it varies between £1,000 and £1,200 per hectare. I do not have the relevant figures for Great Britain but I understand that those I have given are a little higher than they would be for Great Britain.

Both my noble friend Lord Brookeborough and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised a point of detail about the different levels of private planting grants payable by the Forestry Commission in Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The amounts are similar but they are marginally adjusted to cater for those in Northern Ireland who wish to plant fairly small areas. I alluded to this derogation as between one and three hectares for the farm woodlands scheme. For areas up to 50 hectares, forestry grants give the Northern Ireland planter of trees approximately a 10 per cent. to 20 per cent. advantage over his counterpart in Great Britain. For areas over 50 hectares the private planter in Northern Ireland would be at a disadvantage by some 5 per cent. and it could go as high as 10 per cent. We have had only three individual applications involving more than 50 hectares. Once again, I think this goes back to the average farm size I mentioned earlier.

My noble friend the Duke of Abercorn and the noble Lord, Lord Blease, referred to the possibility of moving the forest service headquarters out of Dundonald House to west of the Bann. I can stress to the House that of the forest service staff, which numbers in the region of 500 persons, 88 per cent. are already placed outside Belfast, near the areas where they work. Reference was made to the Forestry Commission and its headquarters in Edinburgh but those noble Lords who may refer to a map, let along drive in Scotland as 1 do, will agree that the headquarters staff in Edinburgh have much further to travel to visit their far-flung empire than do the Belfast staff. However, any efficiencies that we can make by moving staff nearer to their place of work will be certainly taken into account.

I have taken up enough of your Lordships' time and I am sorry if I have been unable to answer all the questions put to me. There are one, or possibly two, points that I may have missed and I certainly undertake to write to your Lordships on anything I have not dealt with. As far as possible I have made a quietly positive reply to the Question asked by my noble friend this evening on the forest service in Northern Ireland. I wish to stress to your Lordships that the Government are as committed to forestry in Northern Ireland as they are to forestry in the rest of the United Kingdom. There can be no special afforestation policy for the Province so far as the fiscal regime is concerned. Whatever we are able to do in afforestation as regards the forest service, as well as giving assistance to the private sector, must be funded from existing resources. When we are discussing these matters I shall continue to push the question of agricultural resources when considering the Northern Ireland budget. The forest service has a very high priority among those resources. The answer to the question from my noble friend the Duke of Abercorn is that Her Majesty's Government intend to promote further afforestation in Northern Ireland.

House adjourned at one minute past ten o'clock.