asked the Minister of Land and Natural Resources how many civil servants he has in his Department to advise him on forestry matters; and in what ways the arrangements made by him for dealing with forestry matters differ from the previous system.

The arrangements made by the appropriate Ministers for the discharge of their responsibilities for forestry are at present being considered in the light of the Report of the Estimates Committee. At the moment, none of the civil servants in my right hon. Friend's Department is solely engaged on forestry matters.

The difference between the present arrangements and the old is that in view of an assurance given in 1945, Ministers of Agriculture in the past have not consulted civil servants in the Ministry of Agriculture on matters affecting forestry alone, whereas my right hon. Friend and I are free to consult Departmental officials on forestry matters.

Are we to understand that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is to be primarily responsible and not the Minister himself? Is it not a fact that under the old arrangements the responsibility was squarely on the shoulders of the Minister of Agriculture and that neither his permanent Secretary nor the Parliamentary Secretary had any responsibility whatever? Is it the idea to change this?

My right hon. Friend is certainly responsible for the Department. He will, of course, be advised by the Forestry Commission on all technical matters and will feel free to consult any other advice, including that of his Department. But he is, in fact, responsible.

Can the hon. Gentleman tell me how many civil servants with particular responsibilities for forestry matters will be in the Welsh Office in Cardiff? In regard to the divided responsibilities for forestry in Wales, can he shed a little more light on exactly who will make the decisions on Wales—the Secretary of State or his right hon. Friend—on important questions of forestry policy?

I think it would be best if the hon. Gentleman put down a specific Question on that point.

Is it not the case that where schemes for afforestation are made the alternative land use is almost invariably for agricultural use? Can he explain how these disputes will be better resolved by two Ministries instead of one?

It seems to us a considerable advantage in having a Minister who can look at the wider problem, which sometimes the Minister of Agriculture might find difficult to do when trying to serve two objectives.