§ 4.4 p.m.
§ House again in Committee (according to Order).
§ [The LORD HOLDEN in the Chair]
§ Clause 12:
§ Provisions as to tree preservation orders
§ 12.—(1) Notwithstanding anything in a tree preservation order, a licence granted or directions given by the Commissioners under this Act after the date on which the order comes into force shall be sufficient authority for the felling of any trees to which the order relates; and no application shall be entertained under any such order for consent thereunder in respect of any felling for which such a licence is required under this Act.
§ (2) Where application is made to the Com-missioners for such a licence in respect of any felling of trees for which consent is required under a tree preservation order, or where the Commissioners propose to give directions under this Act in respect of trees to which such an order applies, the Commissioners shall (unless in the case of an applicalion for a licence they propose apart from the order to refuse the licence) consult the authority by whom the order was made in respect of the application or directions; and in dealing with any such application under section three of this Act the Commissioners shall have regard to the purposes of the tree preservation order as well as to the considerations mentioned in subsection (2) of that section.
§ (3) The Commissioners may, instead of re-fusing or granting a licence under this Act in pursuance of an application for a licence in respect of such felling as aforesaid, refer the application to the authority by whom the tree preservation order was made; and where an application is so referred—
- (a) the provisions of this Act (other than this subsection) shall not apply in relation to the trees to which the application relates so long as the order remains in force; and
- (b) the provisions of the order and any provisions of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, relating to the order shall apply as if the application were an application made to the said authority under the order for consent for the felling of the trees.
§ (4) Where an application for a licence under this Act for the felling of any trees is referred to an authority under subsection (3) of this section, then, without prejudice to the provision of paragraph (a) of that subsection, no account 150 shall be taken, in calculating any compensation payable under section five of this Act in con-sequence of any previous refusal of a licence in respect of the trees, of deterioration occur-ring after the date of the reference.
§ (5) Notwithstanding anything in section twenty-eight of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, the making of an advance under section six of this Act in respect of any land shall not prevent the making of a tree preservation order in relation to the land.
§ VISCOUNT GAGE moved to leave out subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4), and to insert:
§ "—(1) In considering whether or not to make any tree preservation order in pursuance of section twenty-eight of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, a local planning authority shall have regard to the interests of good forestry as well as to considerations of amenity and before making any such order shall consult with the Commissioners and shall take into consideration any observations submitted by or on behalf of the Commissioners.
§ (2) A licence granted or direction given by the Commissioners under this Act shall not authorise the felling of any trees, groups of trees or woodlands to which a tree preservation order made in pursuance of section twenty-eight of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 relates."
§ The noble Viscount said: This is the only clause in the Bill which specifically deals with the question of amenities. It also provides that in certain cases the Forestry Commission can virtually over-ride a tree preservation order. I acknowledge at once that, if this principle is necessary, nothing could have been devised to give effect to it in a more painless or frictionless manner; everybody's convenience has been carefully studied. But I ask whether this principle of diarchic control is really necessary at all. If the Government were anxious lest these tree preservation orders would seriously interfere with the essential timber supplies of the country (and I can well see that they might) I should have thought that the simplest thing would be to prevent tree preservation orders of that particular kind being made. I feel that there is ample power under existing legislation to enable them to do that.
§ Perhaps I may remind the Commitlee of what is involved in the making of a tree preservation order. You have to make a survey and give notices, you hear objections, and you lay down conditions; you may pay compensation; and, finally, the order has to be approved by the Minister of Local Government and Planning, if necessary after a local inquiry. 151 The County Councils Association, on whose behalf I am moving this Amendment, feel that if, after having gone to all this trouble and procedure, as well as a certain amount of expense, the local planning authority obtain the Minister's confirmation and then find their order quashed, the authority will look rather ridiculous. Perhaps that is not a very serious consideration, but nobody likes being made to look ridiculous. Furthermore, local authorities do not wish to spend their ratepayers' money any more abortively than they need, and I should imagine that having once had an order quashed they might be hesitant about using again the powers under Section 28 of the Town and Country Planning Act. If, on the other hand, the Minister of Local Government and Planning were to say beforehand that he did not propose to confirm any tree preservation order unless it had been approved by the Forestry Commission, or were to use some alternative wording of that kind, then at least the authorities would know where they stood.
§ My own view is that the local planning authorities ought to consult the Forestry Commission before making these tree preservation orders. I think that a provision of that sort ought to have been in the Town and Country Planning Act. We worked fairly hard when that Act was before your Lordships' House, but we missed one or two points, and I believe that this was one. I also think that the Forestry Commission might be encouraged to consult with the local planning authorities, particularly in regard to certain woods which have an amenity value, lists of which they might well furnish to the Forestry Commission. I also agree that something will have to be done in regard to tree preservation orders that have already been made. It might be necessary to have some minor amendment of the Town and Country Planning Act to enable the Minister of Local Government and Planning in certain cases to modify such orders. As a matter of general principle, however, I submit that when we are considering permanent legislation to cover the future, we ought to make tree preservation orders that are good and effective in the first instance, and having made them, we should stick to them. Speaking for myself, I should not in the least 152 mind if in future we had to restrict these tree preservation orders to well-known landmarks, to such amenity woods used by the public as those about which Lord Lawson was talking the other day, and to trees in built-up areas. That may be a matter of personal opinion, but if we are to have tree preservation orders that are frequently being modified to suit the convenience of somebody or other, they will not be worth making. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 36, leave out subsections (1), (2), (3) and (4), and insert the said new sub-sections.—(Viscount Gage.)
VISCOUNT RIDLEYI should like to support the Amendment moved by the noble Viscount, and I do so from the same point of view. Under this clause of the Bill we see a conflict between true forestry interests and those of planning and amenities. Like the noble Viscount, I, as a member of a planning authority, have had some experience of trying to make and operate these orders, and it is on behalf of the County Councils Association that I am putting forward these views. We have found that so long as the making of orders is restricted to the categories of trees mentioned by my noble friend— that is to say, small and isolated groups of conspicuous trees, and so on, the scheme works fairly well. But in the early stages of the working out of the practice and procedure under the Town and Country Planning Act, so far, at any rate, there has been a strong tendency, which has come about as a result of public demand, to make orders covering fairly wide areas of what is really forestry land. In one case I know of there was considerable agitation for a preservation order to cover a certain area, but unfortunately it was found, by the time the order was proposed, that the trees had already been felled. That was a misfortune for those interested, but it so happened that in that case it was a true forestry operation.
However, the point really is that there is in this Bill a procedure whereby one Government authority can override another Department. The Minister of Local Government and Planning makes a preservation order and the Minister of Agriculture, through the Forestry Com-mission, can order the felling of the trees. That does not seem to me to be the 153 best way to leave the matter. I appreciate that it is much simpler if there is one person to whom to apply for a felling licence and a felling licence may be issued in spite of a tree preservation order; but we must remember that forestry is regarded as important in the Town and Country Planning Act and that in that Act dedicated woodlands are exempted. Under the Act, woodlands which have preservation orders made upon them can be removed from that order by a simple act of dedication. I think that is true. So I feel that it is not at all contrary to the ethics of planning that forestry in such cases should be regarded as having overriding importance. It is, of course, of importance that procedure should be simplified if possible, and it is necessary to correct confusion between two different points of view. It would be better to confine preservation orders to those cases where they should be appropriately made, and then leave them in the hands of the planning authorities to enforce.
In planning work, you find that if you make an order over what is really a forestry area, you are bound in the end to frame it in such a way that forestry operations are allowed to continue. You prevent the felling of trees except under certain conditions which are generally those of replanning. But the curious situation arises of the planning authority acting as if they were (which they are not) foresters or people with knowledge of forestry themselves. It would be far better that all that should be done in conjunction with the Forestry Commission. Indeed it might almost be suggested that while the Minister of Local Government and Planning has to approve all these preservation orders before they can come into effect, the planning authority should consult the Forestry Commission; and it is almost conceivable that the decision might be in the hands of the Minister of Agriculture, as head of the Forestry Commission, rather than in the hands of the Minister of Local Government and Planning.
The order having been made, the planning authorities would then have the enforcement of it. At any rate, there seems no reason why the planning authority should not consult the Forestry Commission. In practice some do. In our county we do occasionally consult the Forestry Commission. It leads to rather 154 more time being taken up, of course, and a certain amount of trouble. There was for some time a system in operation whereby the Forestry Commission, on applications for licences being made, would more or less automatically consult the planning authorities in case the planning authorities wanted to make a preservation order. That practice is not covered, I think, in any legislation; it was administrative procedure. I do not know whether it is proposed to continue that practice under this new legislation, or if it is carried out now, but that is another illustration of the sort of co-operation which is necessary between the two authorities. All these factors go to show the difficulty and complexity of the situation, and anything which tends to simplify the administration from the point of view of the planning authorities is an undoubted advantage.
I would suggest that if people wishing for orders so desire, the matter should be left in the hands of the planning authorities, but that orders be made only in the appropriate cases, the Forestry Commission acting, if necessary, as the deciding authority upon which cases were appropriate. That would mean that some of these very wide areas would then be amended or possibly removed. That could be done as the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has suggested by a small amendment of the Town and Country Planning Act. If that were done, I think the position would be clarified. As to the position of the owner when applying for a felling licence, if orders were made only in appropriate cases only a very small number of trees would be involved. Ordinary forestry operations would not be interfered with because there would be few of the special trees that would be likely to attract felling licences; they would hardly ever be likely to attract such licences because of the compensation provisions in the Town and Country Planning Act under which tree preservation orders are en-forced. So, in practice, the ordinary forestry owner would hardly be any worse off for having in those few cases to apply to two authorities. I hope it will be found possible to alter the Bill in the way proposed.
LORD HYLTONI hope the Government will give careful consideration to this Amendment. I ventured on Second Reading to call attention to this clause, 155 and the reply of the Lord Chancellor was to the effect that it was a question of one or two applications to get a felling licence. This Amendment goes much further than that. We are not really talking about whether a man shall make one application or two applications to fell; what we are discussing is whether the planning authority shall be the supreme authority on this question of tree preservation orders or whether the Forestry Commission shall have a sort of roving commission to come in suddenly and—it is true, after consultation with the planning authority—issue a felling licence which will upset the whole thing. Or shall the boot remain on the other foot: that is, shall the planning authorities be masters in their own house in this matter? We think that it had better be left primarily to the planning authorities.
A tree preservation order is, of course, merely a power to control felling in the first case. That order has to be confirmed by the Minister of Local Government and Planning. Is it good administration that at a later date the Forestry Commission, the organ of the Minister of Agriculture, should, after consultation with the planning authority, cancel the provisions of the preservation order by issuing a felling licence? We do not think that that can be sound administration. It stands to reason that it will lead not only to great doubt in the minds of ordinary citizens but to great confusion between the two Government Departments concerned, and among all the officials in the local government offices and in the service of the Forestry Commission, because it will be difficult for the ordinary citizen to discover what is happening. I think the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor had this point in mind in replying to the debate on the Second Reading, when he said, referring to the woodland owner who had carried out various negotiations:
When the owner had done all these things, if he were still available and reasonably hearty he could perhaps proceed to cut down his tree or trees.I think that shows reasonable doubt in the mind of the noble and learned Viscount. There is also doubt in the minds of many noble Lords who have to deal with this matter every day of the week. Both the noble Lords who have spoken are members of their county planning 156 committees, and the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, is well known as chairman of his committee. Even under present conditions we find it difficult to administer this legislation effectively, and we feel that what is proposed in the Bill will be a retrograde step. It makes administration harder, and anything that makes the Town and Country Planning Act harder to operate will be a most grievous thing. I hope the Government will agree that on this point the amenity consideration in the hands of the local planning authority is more important than the forestry consideration in the hands of the Forestry Commissioners. I feel it will be so. and if it will enable some friendly arrangement to be made by consultation with the Forestry Commissioners before a tree preservation order is made, I think this Amendment will be a useful improvement to the Bill as drafted.
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)I think we all agree with the three noble Lords who have spoken that it would be undesirable for the interests of forestry to ride roughshod over the interests of amenity. These are two interests of great importance to the public. What we want to do is to strike a fair balance between the two. Perhaps one or two observations I can make will relieve the minds of noble Lords from the anxieties they have expressed. The first part of the noble Viscount's Amendment is in fact a formulation of existing administrative practice. What happens now is that when a local authority wish to issue a tree preservation order to cover certain trees which they think may be of interest to the forestry commissioners, they immediately inform the Commissioners and ask for their views on the proposal. When these views are obtained they are naturally given the closest consideration. This has always been the administrative practice, and I can give your Lordships the assurance that it will continue. I think that an administrative arrangement of this kind is best made by agreement between the two parties, especially when the two parties are in complete agreement, as they are in this case, rather than by Statute.
The second part of the noble Viscount's Amendment would defeat the whole object of the clause. As the noble Lord, Lord 157 Hylton, said, the object is to cut away red tape, to relieve the woodland owner of a great deal of paper work. This clause enables him, when a tree he wishes to fell is covered by a tree preservation order, to make one application instead of two. He does not have to obtain both a licence from the Forestry Commissioners and consent from the planning authority. Furthermore, this part of the noble Viscount's Amendment would give the amenity authority a veto over the forestry interests. If there is a tree preservation order, then it stands. Surely that is not the right way to balance the two interests that are concerned. What we all want to work out is a fair arrangement if there is a difference of opinion between the Forestry Commissioners and the planning authority. What happens when the Forestry Commissioners wish to issue a licence to a woodland owner to fell trees which the planning authority say ought to stand? The noble Viscount says in his Amendment that if there is a tree preservation order, then in no circumstances can that order be cancelled. It must stand, whatever the forestry interests may be.
VISCOUNT GAGEI did not say that: I said that in the first place a tree preservation order ought to be made having regard to forestry interests but that, having been made with those interests in mind, it ought to stand. I never said that it ought to be made in the first instance without reference to the Forestry Commissioners.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI do not think there is any difference between us, and I hope that I did not misrepresent the noble Viscount. I agree with what he said, and I tried to bring out the fact that that is the existing practice. The second point he made was that once a tree preservation order was in existence, it ought to stand.
What is intended in the Bill? In the first place it is mandatory on the Forestry Commissioners to consult the planning authority whenever a tree preservation order covers trees for which they have been asked to provide a felling licence. If the planning authority decide that, in spite of a tree preservation order, the need of the country for timber or the value of the tree to be felled is so great that they are willing to agree to cancel the order, I cannot see why they should not be 158 allowed to do so. I think the noble Viscount will agree that if the planning authority themselves consider it is desirable that the order should be cancelled, then that should be done. But suppose they consider that the order should be continued, what is the next step? Surely the right thing is to try to secure a settlement between the officials on the spot. If the officials do not agree, then the matter has to come to headquarters, and it becomes a difference between Government Departments—between the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for forestry, and the Minister of Local Government and Planning, who is responsible for planning. The officials of these two Ministers will try to work out an agreement, but if they cannot, it will go to the Ministers and will become their responsibility. That is the usual practice, and all we are suggesting is that if there is a difference of opinion between two sets of interests, that difference should be re-solved in the ordinary way. I hope the noble Viscount will feel, first, that existing practice meets part of what he is asking for. I feel that it strikes a fair balance between these two possibly conflicting interests, and it would be unfair to give one interest priority over the other in every case.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYPerhaps I may say a few words on this Amendment. I cannot help feeling a little malicious amusement over the situation in which the Government are placed. Up to now it has always been a question of some difference of opinion between the owner of the woodlands and some Government Department; and we have been told, rather smugly, that the interests of the whole must outweigh the interests of any particular section. Now we come up against a much more awkward proposition for the Government. The position now is a difference of opinion between two Government Departments, both of which presumably represent the interests of the community, and the question is which of them will have the final decision. I listened carefully to the speech of the noble Earl. Lord Listowel, and even now I do not know who has the final decision. If I do not misinterpret him, he said that the existing practice is that the regional planning authority consult the Forestry Commission, but that the final decision rests with the regional planning authority. That I understand to 159 be the present position, but it is not what the Bill says.
The noble Earl says, further, that we need not worry too much, because the matter is being dealt with in this very satisfactory way, and there is no necessity for any violent alteration. But the Bill says:
Notwithstanding anything in a tree preservation order, a licence granted or directions given by the Commissioners"—that is, the Forestry Commissioners—under this Act … shall be sufficient authority for the felling of any trees …That means that it is no longer the regional planning authority who take the final decision, but the Forestry Commission. I am not saying that that is wrong, but it is exactly the opposite of what has happened up to now. Then the noble Earl went on to say what happens. If there is a difference of opinion, the matter is taken up between the two Departments; gradually it goes up to the two Ministers, and eventually to the Cabinet; and the Cabinet decide. The noble Earl cannot expect us to believe that every time there is a dispute over a tree preservation order, about one, two or three trees in Gloucestershire, Wiltshire or Caernarvonshire, the Cabinet are consulted.I should have thought that in an efficient administration the Government must make up their mind which Department is to have the final decision—it may be one or the other. The view taken by the Amendment put down by the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, which has been supported this afternoon by other noble Lords, is the view, as I understand from the noble Earl, Lord Listowel's speech, that has been universally accepted up to now—namely, that the final decision rests with the planning authority. They must, of course, take into account the views of the Forestry Commission but, as the planners for the region, they have the final responsibility for making the decision. I believe that to be right. It is not much good having town and country planning unless it really is town and country planning. If every other Government Department is to be able to drive their horse and cart through it, the planning will not be a reality at all. It is one of the difficulties at present, under our system of controls, that the only sections of the community who are excluded 160 from town and country planning are Government Departments, who are the only people able to do any really dangerous harm. We have seen it happen in many cases, and here it crops up again. I believe that it is important—though, of course, full account must be taken of the views of the Forestry Commission—that where the tree preservation order has been made for reasons of natural beauty and amenity, the regional planning authority should have the final decision.
I should like to make a suggestion to the Government. This is clearly a matter on which they may want to have further discussion with the County Councils Association, or some appropriate body. Would they like to think over this point and discuss it with whatever bodies they think proper—those representing the regional planning authorities, the County Councils Associations, and so on—and then let us have their further considered views? I believe that action on the lines of the view expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would lead to absolute chaos. It depends upon every decision between the two Government Departments ultimately going up to the Cabinet; and that is not practical politics. There-fore, I suggest that the Government must make up their mind as to who is to have the final decision. And I submit, on the grounds that have already been put forward by noble Lords on this side of the House, that it must be the regional planning authority.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELWe shall be glad to reconsider this matter, in the light of what has been said; but at the same time I feel that perhaps there is some misunderstanding about existing practice. The Bill does not propose any change in the essentials of existing practice. Perhaps I may describe what would happen if a tree preservation order covered certain trees which an owner wished to fell, and the owner found that the local authority who made the order refused to revoke or cancel it. The owner would then appeal to the Minister. The Minister, as noble Lords know, is the Minister of Agriculture or, in the case of Scotland, the Secretary of State for Scotland. The matter then has to be settled between the Minister responsible for forestry and the Minister responsible for local government and planning. It is exactly the same.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYWho takes the final decision under the present system? Somebody must take it. Is it the Minister of Agriculture or the Minister of Local Government and Planning?
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThey have to settle it between them. The noble Marquess knows from his great experience, even better than I do, that there are often differences between Ministers which have to be settled, and that decisions have to be taken. I should like noble Lords opposite to be quite clear about existing practice. I would point out that it is on all fours with what we propose in the Bill, and is not by any means what the noble Viscount suggests when he says that a tree preservation order should be the last word. However, we shall be very glad to reconsider the matter, in the light of everything that has been said.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI have read the clause, which says that when an application to fell is made, it is made to the local planning authority, and there is an appeal to the Minister. Then somebody, I suppose the planning authority, goes to the Commissioners. But, with great respect, that does not seem to be what Clause 12 says. Clause 12 says:
Notwithstanding anything in a tree preservation order, a licence granted or directions given by the Commissioners under this Act after the date on which the order comes into force shall be sufficient authority for the felling of any trees to which the order relates….Presumably, therefore, if I want to fell a tree which is the subject of an order, I make my application to the Commissioners. That is right, is it not?
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELYes.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONThen why does the noble Earl say that I make application to the planning authority, and that if I do not get satisfaction from them I go to the Minister of Local Government and Planning? We have had the story about how the two Departments wrangle all the way up to the Cabinet. I entirely agree with my noble Leader that that is a fantastic suggestion. The decision must be taken by somebody. I would rather have a wrong decision, and get one, than wait for years in the hope of the matter going up to the Cabinet. With great respect, the noble Earl must understand his Bill. In his Bill, as the Lord Chancellor has now 162 told him, the application is not to the town planning authority. Under the first subsection of this clause the application is made to the Commissioners. Before we part with this clause now, and get into the complex Report stage, will the noble Earl explain to us whether he wishes us to stand by the clause of the Bill or how he wishes to alter it?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VIS-COUNT JOWITT)May I give my understanding of the matter? As things are to-day, or would be but for this clause, this is the position. There are two Ministers, and either of those Ministers could prohibit the cutting of the trees. Under this clause art owner would not be able to cut any trees without the consent of the Forestry Commission and ultimately, of course, of the Minister who controls them. That is plain. Equally, if they gave the owner a consent, and if we did not have this clause, he could not cut down a tree which he had been ordered by the planning authority to pre-serve. At the present moment, the position is that unless we have this clause— and I do not attach much importance to the point, because I always thought that this clause was meant to be helpful— before the land owner cuts his trees he has to go, first of all, to the Forestry Commission and say: "Please may I cut these trees?" Then he has to go to the planning people and say. "I have now received permission from the Forestry Commission to cut these trees. May I have your permission to do this, in view of the fact that you have made a tree preservation order upon me?" If we left things like that, just as the Forestry Commission's refusal might be subject to an appeal to their Minister, so the planning people's refusal would be subject to appeal to their Minister. The unfortunate man, having exhausted him-self by filling up one form for the Forestry Commission and getting permission, then has to start the battle all over again, and go to the planning people and fill up another form to get their consent. That will be the position if we do not have this clause.
This clause is an endeavour to simplify the procedure in the interests of the owner of the tree. In future, he will fill up only one lot of forms, and apply only to the Forestry Commission; and they, behind the scenes, will clear it with all the other Departments. If that is not 163 thought to be desirable, I personally do not mind abandoning it. But it is just as well, before anybody makes up his mind that he does not want this clause, that he should understand that the whole object is to obviate the owner having to fill up two different forms. The proposal is that he shall deal with one Government Department. In the last resort either Minister can object, and if either Minister imposes a veto the tree cannot be cut down. With a little common sense, that is the sort of thing which can be dealt with on Ministerial level. Let us by all means see these people, and explain to them what is intended, because I think there is a good deal of misapprehension about the matter. If it is felt that this is not a good scheme, so far as I am concerned—speaking without authority— I am perfectly prepared to abandon it. It is designed in the interests of the owner of the trees, to prevent his having to make two applications. If he prefers to make two applications, he is perfectly at liberty to do so. I suggest that a little thought had better be given to this matter. However, between now and the Report stage, by all means see these people and find out whether they really want this clause to go. If that is so, I am certainly not going to die in the last ditch defending it.
VISCOUNT GAGEI came here full of praise for the system proposed for dealing with owners. I thought that everything had been done to simplify their position However, on this occasion I am representing the County Councils Association, and I am not concerned with the owners' point of view. Whatever noble Lords opposite may think, the owners look upon this as a matter of principle. So far as I can see, on this matter of principle the only difference between the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, and myself is that he thinks, as I do, there has to be a Whitehall "war" at some stage, but he wants it to take place after the tree preservation order has been made, and I want it before. I came prepared to praise the procedure suggested by the Government on the grounds of simplicity, but having heard this debate I rather wonder whether I was right to come in that naïve frame of mind. The County Councils Association deals with these matters all the time, and, as this offer has been made, I think it would be a useful step to have these consulta- 164 tions before the Report stage. On that understanding, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 4.45 p.m.
LORD KINNAIRDI regret that my noble friend Lord Airlie is not here to move this Amendment. After the discussion we have heard as to the difficulties which may arise in applications going from one authority to another, I think your Lordships will agree that there should be a time limit to indicate how soon a reply to an application should be received. At present the clause contains no time limit. In discussing Clause 3, the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that he approved of the principle of a time limit and thought that it would be a reasonably good thing. Therefore, it does not need many words from me to recommend this straightforward Amendment, and I hope the Government will accept it. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 13, after ("aforesaid") insert ("within eight weeks of such application being made ").—(Lord Kinnaird.)
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELWe agree with the purposes of this Amendment and are much indebted to the noble Lord for putting it down. It is clearly desirable that the Commissioners should make up their minds within a reasonable time whether or not to pass on the application to the planning authority, and also that the woodland owner should not be kept waiting unreasonably. We therefore accept the Amendment, but think that it should be inserted in another place in the Bill. If the noble Lord would be good enough to withdraw it, on Report stage I will myself—or if he wishes to do so I shall be quite prepared for him to do it—put down another Amendment in the same terms but in a different place.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThe next Amendments to Clause 12 are purely drafting Amendments, submitted in order to make the Bill clearer. During our first discussion a number of noble Lords based their remarks on a misinterpretation of the wording. It was difficult, and 165 I hope that this Amendment and the sub-sequent Amendments in my name will make it rather clearer. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 9, line 16, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
("(a) so long as the tree preservation order remains in force, no licence under this Act shall be required for the felling of any trees to which the application relates, and no. direction shall be given thereunder requiring the felling of such trees;").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRI do not want to raise any objection, but I understand that there is an undertaking that the whole of this clause will be included in the discussion.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI beg to move this Amendment. The words come a line later than was originally proposed, because they have to be dovetailed into the Amendment just moved by the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 9, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("no") in line 28 and insert—
("and
(c) without prejudice to the provisions of subsection (4) of section five of this Act in a case where a notice has been given under that subsection.").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThis is a drafting Amendment, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 29, leave out ("section five of this Act") and insert ("the said section five"). —(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD DERWENT moved to leave out subsection (5). The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to leave out subsection (5). The Committee will remember that in the Town and Country Planning Act, Section 28, it is forbidden to make a tree preservation order for two classes of land—dedicated land, and areas for which advances have been made by the Forestry Commissioners. Clause 6 of this Bill deals with exactly the same classes of land—dedicated land and areas for which the Commissioners may make advances. Under this subsection, however, these classes of land are made subject to tree preservation orders. This 166 does not make sense, because they are the same classes of land both in the Act and in the Bill. Moreover, I feel fairly certain that tree preservation orders were never meant to apply to areas whose management was under the control of the Forestry Commissioners. I hope, therefore, that the Government will not find any difficulty in accepting this Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 33, leave out subsection (5).— (Lord Derwent.)
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELWe entirely agree that land of this type ought to be exempt from tree preservation orders. I am much obliged to the noble Lord, not only for having put down the Amendment but for putting it in such a form that it can be immediately accepted.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 13 agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, after Clause 13 to insert the following new clause:
§ A dvisory Committee
§ " .—(1) For the purpose of advising the Commissioners as to the performance of their functions under the foregoing provisions of this Act, and such other of their functions as the Commissioners may from time to time determine, the Commissioners shall maintain—
- (a) a central advisory committee for Great Britain, to be known as the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee;
- (b) a regional advisory committee for each conservancy in Great Britain.
§ (2) The chairman and other members of any committee maintained under this section shall be appointed by the Commissioners, and shall hold and vacate office in accordance with the terms of the instrument by which they are appointed.
§ (3) The Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee shall consist of not more than twenty-five members, and of these members (other than the chairman)—
- (a) not less than six nor more than eight shall be persons appointed by the Commissioners after consultation with organizations appearing to them to represent the interest of owners of woodlands;
- (b) not less than six nor more than eight shall be persons appointed by the Commis sioners after consultation with organizations appearing to them to represent the interests of timber merchants.
§ (4) 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 167 them to represent the interests of owners of woodlands and timber merchants respectively and organisations concerned with the study and promotion of forestry."
§ The noble and learned Viscount said: I beg to move this new clause, which is really the result of the ingenuity of the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. It gives effect to a suggestion made by the Opposition, which we are glad to accept. I think that, in substance. I am in this instance carrying out the noble Earl's wishes. It is most important, as noble Lords have said, that we should carry the good will and the confidence of the woodland owners, and this clause is drafted in the hope that we shall do so, As the Committee will see, it sets up on a formal and statutory basis these two committees, which hitherto existed in rather informal form, and deals with the way in which they should be constituted and the constituents from whom they will spring. In moving this Amendment I want to emphasise the fact that this Bill, as has been said before, is not a Party Bill. It is a serious effort on the part of this House to deal with an emergency which confronts this nation, and I hope that it will go down from this House as a Bill to which all Parties have contributed. Certainly this particular contribution comes from noble Lords opposite, and I am glad to accept it. I beg to move this new clause.
§
Amendment moved—
After Clause 13, insert the said new clause. —(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRThe noble Viscount has repeatedly said, during the passage of this Bill, that it is a non-Party measure, and I am sure that no Amendment moved so far has given a greater demonstration of this fact, and of the generosity and completeness with which the noble and learned Viscount and his colleagues have attempted to meet our point of view. As the Committee know, we completely accept the constitution proposed in this Amendment of the bodies to be set up. There are certain reservations which we wanted to make clear— for instance, exactly what are the functions of these bodies. That has been dealt with elsewhere, however, and we welcome this Amendment. Naturally, I shall not move the new clauses standing in my name.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
168§ Clause 14 agreed to.
§ Clause 15:
§ Amendment of compulsory purchase procedure.
§ 15.—(1) The proviso to subsection (3) of section four of the Forestry Act, 1945 (which provides that a compulsory purchase order under that section shall be provisional only if objected to) shall cease to have effect.
§ (2) Subject to the provisions of this section, where objection to a compulsory purchase order under the said section four is duly made in accordance with Part II of the First Schedule to the Forestry Act, 1945, by any such person as is mentioned in paragraph 2 of that Part and is not withdrawn before the order is made, the order shall be subject to special parliamentary procedure and the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, shall have effect accordingly.
§ (3) If in the case of any such objection as aforesaid—
- (a) it appears to the appropriate Minister that the objection relates exclusively to matters which can be dealt with by the tribunal by whom the compensation for the compulsory purchase would be assessed; or
- (b) the objector, being requested by the appropriate Minister to furnish a statement in writing of the grounds of the objection, has failed to furnish such a statement within the period (not being less than fourteen days) specified in the request,
§ (4) Where a compulsory purchase order under the said section four is subject to special parliamentary procedure, the notices to be published and served by the appropriate Minister under paragraph 1 of Part III of the said First Schedule shall contain a statement that the order is to be laid before Parliament under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945.
§ (5) Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Part III of the First Schedule to the Forestry Act, 1945 (which relate to the validity and date of operation of compulsory purchase orders under the said section four) shall not apply to any such order which is confirmed by Act of Parliament under section six of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, but except as aforesaid shall apply to any such order to which the lastmentioned Act applies as if in paragraph 2 for the reference to the publication of the notice of the order there were substituted a reference to the date on which the order becomes operative under the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945, and as if in paragraph 3 the words from "and shall become operative" to the end were omitted.
§ (6) Part III of the First Schedule to the Forestry Act, 1945, shall have effect subject to the following amendments:—
- (a) in paragraph 1 for the words "a newspaper" there shall be substituted the words "one or more newspapers";
- (b) in paragraph 2 for the words "the publication" there shall be substituted the words "the first publication"; and
- (c) paragraph 4 shall cease to have effect.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThis is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 11, line 12, at end insert—
("() in paragraph 3 for the word 'published ' there shall be substituted the words 'first published';".)—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 4.56 p.m.
§ VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved to leave out Clause 15. The noble Viscount said: I move this Amendment because the clause is causing some alarm among those interested in the areas likely to be concerned. This clause gives the Forestry Commissioners powers for the acquisition of land which are similar to those possessed by most, in fact all, Government Departments. It provides for a more lengthy procedure, and the process of appeal is less easy, both for the owner and for all other persons or bodies. Moreover, we have to bear in mind that once land is turned to a new purpose it is difficult, if not impossible, to alter the situation. You cannot easily restore land to agricultural land, or pull down buildings, when you realise that you have made a mistake. That is not the question here, however. It is a question of how long it should take for the Forestry Commission to acquire land compulsorily, and what form of objection should be allowed. It can be said that as forestry is by its nature a long-term process, it is necessary for the Commission to have ownership for several years—perhaps four or five years might be a minimum. That means that they must look ahead, and take plenty of time; and, indeed, they do so. In their Report they show considerable areas which they have available for the future and this is an argument against giving them more speedy means of compulsory purchase if that means putting other people at a disadvantage.
§ The disadvantage that would be found in this procedure, as applied to forestry, is largely confined to the question whether or not there should be a local inquiry, and the type of Parliamentary procedure that would be necessary. Instead of requiring an affirmative Resolution in Parliament, the proposed new system requires that the objector should 170 be able to organise a petition and have a Motion opposed. If that is not done, the Motion concerning the purchase order goes through. It is not always only the owner who is interested in such a matter. A great deal of objection to afforestation has come not from the owners of the land but—in cases where, I believe, the land has been sold or handed over voluntarily to the Commission—from farming interests, who do not want to see some of what they think is their best sheep land taken and planted. Objection has also come from the amenities societies, who do not want to see the view in some parts of a particular area altered or spoilt by the planting of trees and so on. In the interests of objections of that sort, I think one must be certain that plenty of time and due consideration are given before it is decided that land is to be used for afforestation against the wishes of the owner or other objectors. I think I am right in saying that under the terms of the 1945 Forestry Act, other objectors who are not the owners have a right also to say something about it. Somewhere, there is a phrase which at any rate gives the right to people to object—"and the Minister may entertain an objection of anybody who appears to him to be affected," or some such phrase as that.
§
Another point for consideration concerns subsection (5) which, referring to the First Schedule of the 1945 Act, describes the procedure to be adopted, and also gives the right of appeal in certain cases. It is an appeal which says whether or not the purchase is within the terms of the Act. The point that might arise there is that, within the terms of the 1945 Act, there are restrictions on the compulsory acquisition of land by the Minister for the Forestry Commission. Certain land is excluded. Section 5 of the Forestry Act, 1945, says this:
Nothing in the last foregoing section shall authorise the compulsory acquisition of
note the word "park" again—
garden or pleasure ground, or which forms part of the home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house …
§ Those are matters about which there may be some dispute as to facts. At present, under the 1945 Act it is possible for an 171 appeal to be taken to court to decide whether the order comes within the terms of that Act. As I understand it, subsection (5) of Clause 15 removes the right of appeal in that respect. It means that the Minister, having made up his mind that it is a proper purchase, declares that the terms of the Act. are met, and from that decision there is no appeal. He will always decide, of course, in the light of what he is told and what he gets to know, and will make the best decision he can; but there may well be a case for a different view of that decision. It may well be worth while taking it to court to have a decision made by a body independent of the Minister and his Department.
§ It may be that the Commission are beginning to think that they must acquire land more quickly than they have been able to do in the past. I do not know whether they have ever used the compulsory powers which they now possess, or whether they find that it would take too long. They have, I am sorry to say, found opposition to some of their afforestation schemes. That opposition has been mostly from the type of objections to which I have referred. So far as one can tell, many of the objections should not have been made; but some of them have undoubtedly been right, and a genuine objection of that sort needs to be given every facility for a careful hearing. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 15.—(Viscount Ridley.)
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThe object of this clause is simply to bring Parliamentary procedure under the Forestry Act of 1945 into line with Parliamentary procedure under other Acts which have given Ministers power to buy land compulsorily. The advantages of the modern procedure are that it is quicker and less costly. An objector—a man or a public body who objects to a compulsory purchase order— will not have to deal with a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, which was the old procedure, but will be able to take up his objection under the procedure of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act, 1945. This does not mean that an objector will have any less right of access to Parliament than he has had hitherto. He can insist, and indeed would insist if he thought that his objection was a valid one, on its consideration by Parliament 172 under the new procedure. But if the noble Viscount's Amendment were carried, the whole of that would go, and we should be left with the old procedure which, I think most people would agree, is disadvantageous from the point of view of time, efficiency and cost.
I am advised that nobody is deprived under subsection (5) of a right that he enjoys at the present time to object to a compulsory purchase order because he maintains that it is ultra vires, that it is outside the four corners of the Act. It is, of course, the desire of the noble Viscount that all the interests affected should be given a fair hearing. I do not know whether he has noted that under subsection (6) (c) of this clause we are, in fact, giving a right of appeal that does not exist at the moment. The result of that provision will be to restore to the House of Lords the power to give leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal in the case of a person who has questioned the validity of a compulsory purchase order. I hope that, on consideration, your Lordships will feel that it is an advantage to have at the Parliamentary end the modern procedure for cases of compulsory purchase under the forestry legislation. It will bring it into line with many other forms of legislation under which Government Departments have power to acquire land.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYThe noble Earl says that the right of appeal is not removed. I am interested to hear that. I must have misunderstood him. I should be grateful to him if he could tell me a little more about that, because subsection (5) of Clause 15 of this Bill says:
Paragraphs 2 and 3 of Part III of the First Schedule to the Forestry Act. 1945 … shall not apply to any such order which is confirmed by Act of Parliament …Paragraph 2 of Part III of the Forestry Act, 1945, is the one which says:If any person aggrieved by such an order as aforesaid desires to question the validity thereof on the ground that it is not within the powers of this Act or that any requirement of this Act has not been complied with, he may within six weeks after the publication of the notice of the order, make an application for the purpose to the High Court"—and then there is set out what the court does, and so on. I have no doubt that on this matter the noble Earl is more correctly informed than I am, but I should have thought it was a fairly direct removal of the right of appeal.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI will gladly look at the matter again in the light of what the noble Viscount has said. I can only give him this view on the basis of my existing information. I will look at it again and, if I am wrong, I will tell him so.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYI expect the noble Earl's information is better than mine, but perhaps he will look into it and see what it means. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 16 agreed to.
§ Clause 17 [Regulations]:
§ EARL DE LA WARRThis Amendment is really covered by an undertaking given by the Government on previous Amendments, that they would go into the question of consultation with the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee. Therefore I do not think I need weary the Committee with arguments that I have already put forward. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 44, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee ").—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELWe agree with the noble Earl that this advisory body should be consulted about regulations made under the Act. If he thinks it necessary, we shall be very glad to accept his Amendment.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThis is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 11, line 44, after ("may") insert ("by statutory instrument").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThis also is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 1, leave out subsection (2).— (The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 18 agreed to.
174§ Clause 19 [Application to Scotland]:
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThis is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 41, ("(6)") insert ("In this section").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 19, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 20:
§ Transitional Pro visions
§ (2) An application for a licence under this Act authorising the felling of any trees may be made by any person who has obtained the right to fell the trees by virtue of a contract made before the seventh day of February, nineteen hundred and fifty-one, notwithstanding that he is not the owner of the trees within the meaning of this Act; and in relation to any such application subsection (3) of section three of this Act shall not apply, and if the person entitled to such interest in the land as would enable him to comply with conditions relating to the restocking or management of the land is not joined as a party to the application, any licence granted in pursuance of the application shall be granted without such conditions.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThis is an Amendment of substance. I think it is important because it removes what would otherwise be an injustice. It safeguards the position of timber merchants who have bought standing timber before the introduction of this Bill. It enables them to apply for a licence to fell. Without this provision they would be dependent upon the good will of the owner. I think that the Committee will agree that these people having concluded a contract, it would be unfair for us to deprive them of the right to fell and sell the timber. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 32, after ("contract") insert ("for the sale of the trees").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 20, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 21 [Financial Provisions]:
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThis is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 1, after ("to") insert ("the members of any committee appointed under section four of this Act or").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
175§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThis again is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 2, leave out ("section four or ").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThis, also, is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 4, at end insert ("and the Commissioners may pay to the members of any advisory committee maintained by them in pursuance of this Act such allowances as they may so determine").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 21, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 22 [Interpretation]:
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThis is simply an Amendment to set out quite clearly the way in which conservancies, which are now eleven in number, are to be defined. I think it is satisfactory that this should be left to the Commissioners. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 15, line 13, at end insert ("'conservancy' means any area in Great Britain which may for the time being be designated by the Commissioners as a conservancy for the purpose of the performance of their functions;").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 22, as amended, agreed to.
§ Remaining clause agreed to.
§ On Question, Whether the Bill shall be reported to the House with Amendments?
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI do not know whether this is a very unusual procedure, but before we leave the Com-mittee stage I should like to put one proposal to the Government. We have left several rather difficult issues out-standing on the Committee stage, and before we come to the Report stage it would be helpful if the Government would put down the Amendments which they propose to introduce as a result of our discussions, or, in cases where they 176 cannot meet us, if they would tell us so in good time; otherwise there may be further delay on the Report stage.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House resumed.