§ Mr. WigginTo ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he is in a position to announce the Government's conclusions on the recommendations made by the House of Commons Select Committee on Agriculture and by the forest windblow action committee for further financial assistance for the restoration of woodlands damaged by the storm of 16 October 1987.
§ Mr. MacGregorI am replying today to the Select Committee and a copy of my response will be placed in the House of Commons Library. Both the Select Committee and the forest windblow action committee recommended further financial assistance to deal with the rehabilitation of storm damaged woodland. The action committee in particular recommended:
- (i) a short-term transport subsidy aimed at encouraging the movement of pine and beech wood to more distant markets (supported by the Select Committee);
- (ii) a supplement to the normal Forestry Commission grants for replanting woodlands damaged in the storm of 16 October 1987.
After careful consideration of these recommendations, I have taken the view that the action committee's second proposal would provide a longer-lasting and more direct benefit than a transport subsidy in respect of the woodlands concerned. I recognise that owners whose woodlands suffered storm damage on 16 October 1987 will incur additional costs both in preparing sites for planting and in the planting itself. As an incentive to replant in these circumstances, I therefore intend to make special supplements of £150 per hectare for conifers and of £400 per hectare for broadleaves available over the next five years on top of the Forestry Commission's normal planting grants in respect of restocking in these storm-damaged woodlands. These supplements will be provided for eligible restocking carried out by applicants under the new woodland grant scheme and for those who still qualify under the commission's old schemes. On mature consideration the Government have concluded that such a supplement is the best way of meeting the Select Committee's concern that we consider whether 492W more support should be available to help repair the damage. The European Commission is being informed under the provisions of article 93 of the treaty of Rome.
I have decided that there is an insufficient case for a transport subsidy. In reaching this conclusion, I have to take account of the fact that the loss of timber value, as opposed to the replanting cost, is insurable. The effect of a subsidy would be to reduce the insurable loss which it is not appropriate for the Government to undertake. Moreover, where there is a local glut after a storm prices will decline in any event and as a result it will be more economic for purchasers of timber to transport it, including over greater distances. Such a subsidy in these circumstances would be unlikely to provide cost-effective benefits.
Full details of the administrative arrangements for the new supplements will be announced by the Forestry Commission as soon as possible, but any owners who have already taken steps to secure the replanting of their storm-damaged woods under the commission's grant schemes will not be placed at a disadvantage as we have agreed that the supplement may be applied to them retrospectively.
It is estimated that the total cost of the supplements, covering the replanting of some 5000 hectares of conifers and 7000 hectares of broadleaves, will come to £3.5 million over the five-year period. There will be no addition to the overall provision for public expenditure programmes set out in Cm 288-II.
I hope that full advantage will be taken of these special supplements, so that the much-loved landscapes so sadly affected by the storm can eventually be restored to their former state.