Skip to main content

Timber

Volume 465: debated on Tuesday 31 May 1949

The text on this page has been created from Hansard archive content, it may contain typographical errors.

77.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what licensing restrictions are now in force regarding the felling of home-grown hardwoods, and the sale of home-grown hardwood, whether converted or in the round.

When an owner wishes to sell trees for felling, he and the intending buyer must obtain a licence; home-grown logs may be sold only to a buyer licensed to acquire them; all converted home-grown hardwoods may be sold without restriction except in the case of ash for which the user requires a licence.

86.

asked the President of the Board of Trade the current licensing procedure for the acquisition and use of home-grown hardwood.

A licence from the area officer of Timber Control is required for the acquisition of home-grown round timber in the log. No licence is needed for the consumption of any home-grown sawn hardwood except ash.

asked the President of the Board of Trade what are the detailed reasons for the substantial reduction in softwood imports from Germany, Finland, Canada, and the United States of America, respectively, during the first four months of 1949 as compared with the same period during 1948; if he is buying all that Canada and the United States of America are offering; and to what extent it is now estimated that softwood imports during 1949 will exceed those during 1948.

The reasons for the reduction in softwood imports referred to vary with the countries named. The 1949 figures for Germany reflect the cessation of the import of softwood logs from the Western zones after November, 1948, following the closing down of the British Timber Production Agency. For seasonal shipping reasons, imports from Finland during the first four months of any year have no particular significance in themselves. In the case of Canada and the United States, the shortage of dollars prevented a repetition of the substantial 1947 contracts reflected in 1948 deliveries, and continues to prevent us from buying all that these two countries have to offer. With regard to the last part of the Question, it would prejudice our future buying negotiations if we were to express any view about the level of imports which we anticipate in 1949.