Forestry Bill (Hansard, 11 June 1991)

The Earl of Lindsay
My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. I am very pleased to have been given the opportunity to introduce this Bill, which has passed through all its stages in another place. It was a Private Member's Bill there and it obtained support from all parts of the House. Also, it was warmly welcomed by the Government. I offer congratulations, which I am sure your Lordships will wish to endorse, to my honourable friend Sir Hector Monro, the Member for Dumfries, for initiating this Bill and for guiding it successfully up to this point.
Before I go further, I declare an interest. I am both a woodland owner and, by profession, a landscape architect involved in design, land use and other environ mental issues.
This Bill is very short but that does not detract from its importance. Forestry represents a crucial part of our countryside and heritage. Therefore, it is important that all forestry proposals are carefully considered and that decisions reached are seen to be fair and to take full account of environmental and other interests. The Forestry Commission's regional advisory committees—also known by the acronym RAC—have an important role to play in this process, and it may hell) noble Lords in considering this Bill if I set out briefly where the regional advisory committees fit into the scheme of things.
When a planting or felling application comes forward to the Forestry Commission, it first satisfies itself that the application contains all the information required and that it is completed to a satisfactory standard. The commission then sends details to the appropriate statutory bodies which are to be consulted. Agreements have been reached between the commission and the authorities concerned on the circumstances in which such consultation will take place. If, during the course of consultations, objections are raised to any aspects of the application, then the. commission will try to resolve these by discussion with the parties involved. When it is not possible to resolve objections and the applicant wishes to continue with his application, it will be referred to the commission's appropriate regional advisory committee to assist in trying to find a solution acceptable to all the parties concerned.
It is important to stress that the regional advisory committees' role is purely conciliatory and advisory. 1074 They do not take decisions; nor do they perform any executive functions. If no solution emerges, then the case is referred to the forestry commissioners together with the committee's advice. I should mention that, until recently, the committees' advice in disputed cases was not made public. However, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced in April that that is to change. In future, an account of the committees' deliberations, together with their advice to the forestry commissioners, will be made public by way of a press release.
After taking account of the RAC discussions with all the parties, if the commissioners decide that an application should be refused, they may refuse it without reference to Ministers. In all other cases, the commissioners are required, before overriding any objections, to seek the endorsement of Ministers. There are thus important safeguards to ensure that the views of other land use interests are taken fully into account before decisions on planting or felling applications are reached.
The system works well in practice. Between 1984 and 1990 only 113 cases out of 40,000 applications for planting or felling licences had to be referred to the regional advisory committees. Nevertheless, some of these disputed cases have tended to hit the headlines and to raise questions on the relationship between forestry and the environment. Inevitably, the RACs have been placed in the front line and that has brought their membership into sharp focus.
The RACs are constituted under the provisions of Sections 37 and 38 of the Forestry Act 1967. Their purpose is to advise the commissioners as to the performance of their functions under the Act, which provides that: Each regional advisory committee shall consist of not less than seven nor more than nine members, and of those members (other than the chairman) not less than four shall be persons appointed by the Commissioners after consultation with organisations appearing to them to represent the interests of owners of woodlands and timber merchants respectively and organisations concerned with the study of promotion of forestry".
In 1974 the committees were first given the additional task of seeking to reconcile differences of view over grant and felling licence applications. No change was made to the statutory membership of the committees at that time but, within the framework set by the Act, places were assigned on each committee to cover agriculture, planning and environmental interests. For some years a place had also been allocated to a trade union representative, which it was decided should continue.
With all nine places thus filled, it was clear that the planning and environment members could not possibly cover the wide range of environmental interests, such as landscape, recreation and nature conservation, that were involved. That has long been of concern to the forestry commissioners, as well as to environmental bodies, and has given rise to the perception in some quarters that the committees are biased in favour of forestry.
That takes me on to the Bill. It is a straightforward measure to increase the maximum membership of each regional advisory committee from nine to 12. That will enable the commissioners to appoint 1075 additional members to strengthen the representation and range of countryside interests. I have been given an assurance that the commissioners will allocate the additional three places to environmental interests. There would thus be four members from forestry backgrounds, four covering the broad spectrum of environmental interests, and one member each for the agricultural, planning and trade union interests, and an independent chairman. I am sure that such representation will satisfy the great majority of people, and, indeed, will be consistent with the forestry commissioners' statutory duty to seek to achieve a reasonable balance between the needs of forestry and the environment. It will help to demonstrate that the committees reach their decisions in a balanced way and to ensure that they carry out their valuable work in an atmosphere of public confidence. I commend the Bill to the House.

§ Lord John-Mackie
My Lords, as an ex-chairman of the commission I should like to say a few words. I congratulate the noble Earl for the way in which he introduced the Bill and the way he covered the detail. He said much of what I wish to say. There is no doubt about the importance of RACs; they do a good job of work and are necessary in the work of the commission, though they are purely advisory and do not make decisions.
In the original 1967 Act the commission is given instructions as to the quality of the four members; no other instruction is given. In the present important one-sentence Bill there is also no question of whether any particular qualifications are required of the three new members.
The noble Earl said that the commission agrees that it would like some environmental strength in the RACs and that it will ensure that that is done. However, I should like to point out that environmentalists are inclined to think that foresters have no environmental know-how. I emphasise that an enormous number of foresters are better environmentalists than many so-called straightforward environmentalists. I hope that the commission will watch carefully whom it appoints and ensure that they are not only environmentalists but also have some knowledge of policy.

§ Lord Gallacher
My Lords, perhaps I may add my appreciation to the noble Earl, Lord Lindsay, for the able manner in which he introduced the Bill. Had I known that it was to be done in such a competent way, I could have saved myself much time spent on homework; for example, I read the whole of the proceedings of Standing Committee C in another place on 1st May 1991. Nevertheless, it was useful to have confirmation of those proceedings so eloquently placed before your Lordships' House by the noble Earl.
1076 I understand that the Bill was recommended by the Select Committee on agriculture in another place and that its purpose is to increase the membership of regional advisory committees from nine to 12 members to give greater representation to environmentalists. Generally, my reaction to proposals of this kind has always been that size does not necessarily reflect quality. As the noble Earl pointed out, the regional advisory committees carry out a conciliation role in settling differences between applicants and conservators. The statistics of their performance as conciliators are mightily impressive in that of 40,000 applications to plant or fell in the United Kingdom only 113 were referred to the RACs.
My noble friend Lord John-Mackie said some wise words about who the environmentalists are in the world in which we live. I assume that if the Bill becomes law persons appointed to the RACs will be chosen in an individual capacity rather than as nominees of specific bodies or organisations. That has hitherto always been what the Government have said when people ask how those appointments are made. If so, I hope that in making the appointments in individual capacities the net will be widely spread. We are all environmentalists in one way or another and many people of all ages have the ability to contribute to the work of RACs and to maintain their record in conciliation.
That said, I support the Bill. I hope that it will pass speedily through your Lordships' House.

§ Lord Mackie of Benshie
My Lords, as so often happens everything that could be said about the Bill has been said, but that will not stop me saying it again. I congratulate the noble Earl on the clarity with which he put forward the case. Like the noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, I am doubtful that increasing the size of a committee makes it more effective. The evidence appears to be that they have been able to settle matters in most cases without trouble.
Obviously, representation of different bodies is important, and I accept that. Like my noble kinsman, I trust and hope that the environmentalists will have some knowledge of the countryside and will want to protect not only the rare species of plants, of which they seem to be enormously fond, but also the rare species of humans in the countryside who often depend on forestry for their living. That said, I support the Bill and I shall be interested to see what the Government have to say about it.

§ The Earl of Strathmore and Kinghorne
My Lords, I am glad to have the opportunity to welcome the Bill, which was ably presented by my noble friend Lord Lindsay. I should like also to echo his remarks in drawing attention to the important part played by my honourable friend Sir Hector Monro in introducing the Bill in another place and attracting such widespread support.
As my noble friend mentioned, the Government welcome the measure. We share the Forestry Commission's concern that the present balance of 1077 membership on the regional advisory committees has led to the view that the committees are less than even-handed and are unduly biased in favour of forestry when considering disputed cases, though we have seen no evidence to justify that view. We are satisfied that the committees act in a fair and impartial way and perform a valuable if at times thankless task.
Taken as a whole, the Forestry Commission's consultation procedures, backed up by the environmental assessment regulations and the high standards of forest design demanded by the commission for its grant schemes, represent an effective system of regulating the environmental impact of forestry operations. However, there is no doubt that obtaining an increase )n the regional advisory committees' membership from nine to 12 as proposed in the Bill will be a major step in meeting the criticisms of the present imbalance of representation on the committees. I am sure that that will lead to a wider understanding and acceptance of their work.
As my noble friend Lord Lindsay made clear, it is the intention to allocate the three additional places to those with an environmental background. That, together with the seat at present allocated to environmental interests, would make a total of four, thus giving parity with those members representing forestry on the committees.
The regional advisory committees are not asked to consider many disputed cases. Indeed, some of them have not had any referred to them for a number of years. But I am sure that their deliberations and advice will be made easier by having more members who can provide experience and expertise on environmental matters. The Government are happy to support the Bill.

The Earl of Lindsay
My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in this debate especially for their kind and generous remarks and for the support which they have clearly expressed for this measure. Such support from all sides of the House bodes well for the Bill's passage through its later stages. The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, made the point that foresters are the best environmentalists. I thoroughly agree with him and I believe that the Forestry Commission does so as well. It is because of that point that it has had so few disputed cases passed back to the RACs over the past six years. Nevertheless, that point has been well realised.
The noble Lord's kinsman, the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, mentioned that human beings are just as important as rare species. I have no doubt about that. The Forestry Commission intends that out of every four environmental places on each RAC, one of the places should go to someone with some experience of recreation and public access so that the human dimension will not be lost to, for example, the newts or the lesser spotted toad.
The noble Lord, Lord Gallacher, made the point that appointments should not be made on a nominee basis but to those who are qualified to serve in their own right. I believe that the Forestry Commission intends to get the most out of this extra representation on each committee. It has been anxious that out of nine members on each RAC only one has officially stood for environmental interests. I believe that it is anxious to illustrate the much greater breadth of wisdom that it can introduce to the committees. I thank noble Lords and I hope that they will give the Bill a Second Reading.