Lord Chelwoodasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree that at least as many, if not more, woodland and non-woodland trees were so badly damaged in the October hurricane (or leaning so badly that they should be felled) as were blown down; and if not, what is their estimate based on the aerial and other surveys they have carried out, taking account of the estimates of local authorities and the Forestry Commission; and
Why it is possible (as promised HL Debs 11th April, col. 966) to estimate the number of non-woodland trees badly damaged in the October hurricane but not the number of woodland trees.
The Earl of CaithnessIt is certainly the case that, outside woodlands, as many trees were badly damaged as were blown down, although ground surveys used to validate air survey data for sample sites have indicated that precise estimates cannot be made. For woodland trees no estimates could be made because access to badly damaged woodlands was impracticable and it was therefore impossible to assess whether counts made from air photographs were in fact accurate. However it is unlikely that more than 20 per cent. of the trees in woodlands affected by the storm were badly damaged rather than blown down.