CLAUSE 3.—(Powers and Duties of Commissioners.) (Hansard, 8 August 1919)

HC Deb 08 August 1919 vol 119 cc812-35 812

§ (1) The Commissioners shall be charged with, the general duty of promoting the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation, and the production and supply of timber, in the United Kingdom, and shall exercise and perform any powers and duties which are or may be conferred or imposed on, or transferred to, them under the provisions of this Act.

§ (2)There shall be transferred to the Commissioners the powers and duties of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland in relation to forestry, and also the powers of those Departments under the Destructive Insects and Tests Acts, 1877 and 1907, so far as those powers- relate to insects or pests destructive only to forest- trees and timber, but, so far as they relate to other insects or pests destructive or injurious alike to fruit trees or farm crops and to forest trees and timber, the Commissioners shall exercise such powers in consultation with the said Departments;

§ Provided that the Departments from whom the powers and duties aforesaid are transferred to the Commissioners shall, if arrangements are made for the purpose, continue to exercise and perform on behalf of the Commissioners such of the transferred power and duties as may, from time to time, be agreed between the Commissioners and the Department concerned.

§ (3) The Commissioners shall have power to do any of the following things:

(a) Purchase or take on lease and hold any land suitable for afforestation or required" for purposes in connection with afforestation or with the management of any woods-or forests, and manage, plant, and otherwise utilise any land acquired, and erect such buildings or execute such other works thereon as they think necessary:
(b) Sell or let any land which in their opinion is not needed or has proved unsuitable for the purpose for which it was acquired, or exchange any such land for other land more suitable for that purpose, and pay or receive money for equality of exchange:
(c) Purchase or otherwise acquire standing timber, and sell or otherwise dispose of any timber belonging to them, or, subject to such terms as may be mutually agreed, to a private owner, and generally promote the supply, sale, utilisation, and conversion of timber:
(d) Make advances by way of grant or by way of loan, or partly in one way and partly in the other, and upon such terms and subject to such conditions as they think fit, to persons including local authorities) in respect of the afforestation (including the replanting) of land belonging to those persons:
(e) Undertake the management or supervision, upon such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed upon, or give assistance or advice, in relation to the planting or management of any woods or forests belonging to any persona, including woods and forests under the management of the Commissioners of Woods or under the control of any Government Department, or belonging to any local authority:
(f) Establish and carry on or aid in the establishment and carrying on of woodland industries
(g) Undertake the collection and preparation of statistics relating to forestry, and promote and develop instruction and training in forestry by establishing or aiding schools or other educational institutions or in such other manner as they think fit:
(h) Make or aid in making such inquiries, experiments, and research, and collect or aid in collecting such information, as they may think important for the purpose of promoting forestry and the teaching of forestry, and publish or otherwise take steps to make known the results of such inquiries, experiments, or research, and to disseminate such information:
(i) Make or aid in making such inquiries as they think necessary for the purpose of securing an adequate supply of timber in the United Kingdom and promoting the production of timber in His Majesty's Dominions:

Provided that any advance by way of a grant under this Section shall be subject to the condition that any profits resulting from the operations in respect of which the grant was made shall, after allowing for. a return to the owner of four per cent, compound interest on the cost incurred by him (exclusive of the amount of the grant), be charged with tie repayment to the forestry fund of the amount of the grant together with compound interest at four per cent. Any question arising between the Commissioners and the owner with, respect to the amount of any repayment under this proviso shall, in default of agreement, be decided by a person nominated by the President of the Surveyors Institution, and for the purposes of this proviso the expression "owner means the person for the time being entitled to the profits on the operations in respect of which the grant was made.

814

§ [(4) Àn advance shall not after the commencement of thin Act be made tinder Sub-section (1) of Section one of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, for the purposes of forestry unless before that date the Development Commissioners have made and the Treasury have approved a recommendation for the advance.]

§ (5) It shall be lawful for any of the persons under a disability referred to in Section seven of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845, or of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act, 1845, to enter into agreements with the Commissioners for the purposes of this Section in like manner in all respects as they are entitled to enter into agreements for the purposes of those Sections.

§ (6) In this Section the expression "timber" includes all forest products.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY
I bog to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "duties" [" powers and duties of the Board of Agriculture "], to insert the words "including the obligation to implement current contracts."
I consider this is an Amendment of some importance. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that when the Development Commission was in charge of afforestation, to meet the views of some landed proprietors who were unwilling to part with the forestry portion of their estates, both the Development Commissioners and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland framed schemes, under which the ultimate proceeds were to be divisible in proportion to the contribution of each. Under the proposals of those two bodies, at least one proceeds-sharing scheme was initiated in Scotland. It was in respect of that scheme, which I would consider to be a current contract, and in respect of any other schemes which may have been entered into, that I placed this Amendment on the Paper. In the speech made by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) on the Second Reading, he said undoubtedly, that idea of proceeds-sharing, which was adumbrated and, I believe, actually started in one case by the Development Commissioners in Scotland, is going to be one of the main ways in which we hope to be able to aid afforestation. That I consider to be a very important pronouncement. After a question from me, he went on to say: The Bill undoubtedly provides that where the Development Commission has made an existing contract with the consent of the Treasury the future financing of that contract shall rest with the Development Commissioners. I have not heard any suggestion from the Development Commissioners that they wish to give up the control of contracts which they have made, 815 although they may involve the expenditure of money in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th August, 1919, col. 270.] I have placed this Amendment on the Paper because I can see nothing in the Bill which places upon the Forestry Commission the obligation to implement current contracts of the nature of the particular one alluded to by the right hon. Member for Camborne, and it is in order that the Commission may be empowered to take over these contracts that I move my Amendment.

§ Mr. ACLAND
This is just a little bit technical. There are contracts of the sort to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred in each part of the United Kingdom. There is the single instance of the proceeds-sharing arrangement in Scotland, and there are arrangements in England, such as the arrangement with the Liverpool Corporation for the afforestation of the area there. There are others. There are several arrangments for purchasing the land and gradually afforesting it in Ireland, where the only afforestation of the Development Commission has been done. In each case these were contracts made by the Boards or the Departments concerned, with advances from the Development Commissioners' Fund. It is at present provided in the Act, Clause (3), in the proposed Sub-section (4) —the underlined portions which we are not supposed to see, but which we can see—that An advance shall not after the commencement of this Act be made under sub-Section (1) of Section one of the Development and Road-Improvements Funds Act, 1909, for the purposes of forestry unless before that date the Development Commissioners have made and the Treasury have approved a recommendation for the advance. That assumes, of course, that the contracts that the Development Commissioners have made through the Boards will continue to be implemented by them out of their funds, in each case being contracts, of course, which the Treasury have approved. I think the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend is quite a good one. The matter should come under the Forestry Commission. There should not, even in regard to the comparatively small number of arrangements made in the past, be two bodies. It is better to implement arrangements so that the matter should be dealt with by one body of persons. Therefore, it might well be an advantage that the current contracts of the Development Commissioners, 816 carried out through the Department of Agriculture, should be transferred and exercised by the Forestry Commissioners.
On the other hand, it is a little difficult, without consultation with the Development Commissioners, and without getting their approval, to put them in rather a sudden way in the Bill. I think we can be certain of this, that the Forestry Commissioners will not want to take on contracts involving future expenditure unless the Treasury arrange that the money also should pass through their hands. If the House takes the same view, it will only be a matter for mutual arrangement between the Departments concerned. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill can quite easily arrange it between the Development Commissioners, the Treasury, and the Forestry Commissioners. It is only a question of finding out exactly what these contracts are and getting an agreement with the Forestry-Commissioners, about which I think there is no doubt whatever. Transfer the money out of that which would have been paid out of the Development Fund into the Forestry Fund. I do not think it needs legislation. If the general opinion of the House were in favour of the Amendment, I think it would be sufficient that the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill should undertake to confer with the Treasury in order to get that arrangement made. If it was done now by Amendment you have this rather unsatisfactory state of things: whereas all the duties were transferred to the Forestry Commissioners, the money to carry out those duties would remain in the Development Fund. I think it would be rather hard that the Forestry Commission, which will have plenty of work of its own to do, should be charged with carrying out further financial provision for schemes started in Scotland, England, and Ireland, without having the funds with which to do it. It would be much better to do it after the financial arrangements are transferred to the necessary fund, than to put the duty on the Forestry Commissioners before you have arranged the manner in which it is to be carried out.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
I sympathise with my hon. and gallant Friend on his point that the Forestry Commission should take over the existing obligations, but I really do not think it is necessary to put that in the Bill. I think we should endeavour to arrange with the Development Commis- 817 sioners, who have been supplying the money up to date for the existing contracts, and the Treasury and the various Departments of Agriculture, that this work and the money shall be transferred to the Forestry Commission. If my hon. and gallant Friend withdraws his Amendment I am willing- to undertake steps to see that what he desires shall be carried out, but it will only complicate the machinery if we make this a statutory enactment.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY
I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his sympathetic reply, but I am bound to take notice of the somewhat vague character of his promise. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) assumed that under the Section it would be possible for the Development Commissions to hand over these contracts, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman said he would endeavour to arrange, as far as possible, that those contracts can be taken over. If I can be assured that these current contracts will not be allowed to lapse and that some arrangement will be made under which they will be continued, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
The hon. and gallant Member can take it from me absolutely that; they will not be allowed to lapse, but I cannot say precisely in what manner they will go on.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Major COURTHOPE
I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (3), to insert the words, "Subject to any Regulations that may be issued by the Treasury."
Anxiety has made itself apparent in various quarters of the House as to whether there was sufficient Treasury control of the operations of the Commissioners under Clause 3. There was an' Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kincardineshiro (Lieut.-Colonel Murray) to insert the words "special Treasury approval" in one of the Subsections of Clause 3, but I am strongly of opinion that if any words are required at all to provide for special Treasury Regulations that this is the place at which they should be inserted

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
I quite agree that some such words ought to appear, but 818 I prefer that they should be in this form: "Subject to any direction which may be given by the Treasury."

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Major COURTHOPE
I beg to move at the beginning of Sub-section (3), to insert the words "Subject to any direction which may be given by the Treasury."

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY
Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain exactly what is the reason for this alteration, and why he suggests his own words instead of the words of the hon. and gallant Member? Is there any particular reason why the change of words should be made?

§ Mr. ACLAND
It is simply because the Treasury prefer it in that form. They want to give general directions under which the Forestry Commission may act, and in consulting them about the Amendments they preferred that form, and the Government adopted it.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY
Do those words give them wider or less power?

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
I have not the slightest idea what the reason is. I know the Treasury desire it in this form, and as I have great respect for the Treasury, I said I would move those words.

§ Amendment agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY
I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (3), to insert the words Subject to the approval of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Board of Agriculture for Scotland or the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland. In my view, this is the root point of the whole Bill. Some hon. Members opposed the Bill altogether on Second Reading because it did not provide for adequate statutory co-operation between the Board of Agriculture and the Forestry Commissioners. So far as I was concerned, I said that the Bill would be acceptable to me on Third Reading if some such provision as indicated in my Amendment were inserted. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) said a few moments ago that Scotland did not want this Bill. I agree that it does not want the Bill as it is framed at the present moment. Scotland does desire that there should be some statutory co-operation between the Board of Agriculture and the Forestry Commissioners. I am very glad that on Second 819 Reading the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division (Mr. Acland) used these words: I very much welcome what my hon. and gallant Friend has said with regard to the need of the closest possible co-operation between the Forestry Commissioners and the Departments of Agriculture. I hope if any Amendment is moved in Committee to make it more certain, if possible, than it is now, that it will be favourably regarded by the Government. Then he went on to say: It is evidently the intention of the Forestry Commissioners to keep in the closest touch with the Board of Agriculture and in acquiring certain areas to agree with them before they acquire them." — [Official Report, 5th August, 1919, cols. 262–63.] That deals with another point, i hope that the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment or some Amendment which will carry out the object which I have in view. So far as Scotland is concerned, I think all Scottish Members will be prepared to agree that this is vital. At any rate, I suggest that is so, and other Scottish Members will be able to speak for themselves. While the bulk of Scotland desire a Forestry Bill in order that a move may be made with afforestation, they are anxious that land settlement schemes should be developed side by side with afforestation schemes, and in order to achieve real social progress in those two respects for the Scottish people some such Amendment as this should be made in the Bill.

Mr. TYSON WILSON
When this matter was discussed by the Committee that considered afforestation, a considerable time was spent on deciding whether the principle of this Amendment should be recommended or not. At first I was very much inclined to support the proposals that the Boards of Agriculture, not only of Scotland, but of England and Ireland, should be the predominant partner in any schemes of afforestation which might be adopted. But on further consideration I came to the conclusion that they would be overlapping the Forestry Commissioners in the work they had in hand, and I was forced to the conclusion that it would be far better, subject to the control of the Treasury, that the work of afforestation should be left in the hands of the Commissioners. I am very much inclined to think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray) would be quite satisfied if part of his Amendment were accepted, the Scottish Board of Agri- 820 culture being included in the Bill, and the rest left out. I think he would be quite satisfied with that. [Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray: "Yes!"] I must say, however, that the discussion and the evidence in connection with this scheme of afforestation were distinctly in favour of the matter being left entirely in the hands of the Commissioners, subject, as I said before, to the approval of the Treasury, and the words inserted by the Amendment which has just been accepted will, to my mind, safeguard the Treasury and the country and leave the Commissioners to do their work unhampered by other bodies.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
I quite appreciate the importance of this question and the importance of bringing about what I may call a liaison between the Boards of Agriculture in Scotland and in England and Wales and Ireland and the Forestry Commissioners. But I think it would be disastrous if, we will say, we found the Board of Agriculture of England and Wales competing for some light, sandy soil for the purposes of reclamation against the Forestry Commissioners who had ideas of afforestation respecting it. Also, I think it would be disastrous if the Forestry Commissioners acquired a lot of land suitable for agriculture or for land settlement or something of that sort. I feel, therefore, speaking now not merely as being in charge of this Bill but as representing the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, that it is absolutely necessary we should come into close contact, and have these various bodies working together. In the interests not only of agriculture, but in the interests of small holdings, in the interests of reclamation, and in the interests of forestry, we must come into touch so far as possible. But I could not accept an Amendment in the words of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray), because he will see, I think, that it goes very much too far. It would come to this, that without the leave of the Board of Agriculture the Commissioners could do practically nothing: they could not purchase a single acre of land, they could not sell any land that they found unsuitable, they could not purchase or sell standing timber, they could not plant anything. Why should the Board of Agriculture be concerned in the purchase or sale of standing timber? And if he looks over the page he would see they could not go into the collection and preparation of statis- 821 lies relating to forestry, and so forth. I fully accept the intention, which the lion, and gallant Member has, and I think he is perfectly right in his intention, but this Amendment, as it stands, goes much too far. There are one or two other Amendments which deal with the same question. There is an Amendment in, the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Renfrew (Colonel Greig), and there is. one in the name of the hon. and gallant. Member for the Bye Division of Sussex (Major Courthope). The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew, I see, specifically limits the opera-lion of the Clause to Scotland. I have already accepted the Scottish Amendment, and I am afraid I cannot draw any further distinction without leading to much more serious trouble with my English and Welsh Friends than I have already done. But I am prepared in a comprehensive manner, dealing with all parts of the United Kingdom, to propose an Amendment lower down which I hope the Committee will agree will carry out the object which we all have in view. I propose to move, at the, end of Sub-section(2) of Clause 3, to insert the words, Provided also that, before acquiring any land under this Act, and before selling or otherwise disposing of any land £0 acquired but not required by them for the purposes of this Act, the Commissioners shall consult the appropriate agricultural Department, and in the case of land proposed to be sold or disposed of, shall give that Department an opportunity of acquiring the same. The appropriate agricultural Department shall be, in England and Wales, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; in Scotland, the Board of Agriculture; in Ireland, the Department of Agriculture and Technical instruction for Ireland. What would be the effect of that? The Forestry Commissioners, before they acquired any land, would have to consult the appropriate Board of Agriculture. That would avoid any kind of overlapping or competition for the land. It would enable the appropriate Board of Agriculture to point out that the land proposed to be acquired for forestry was really wanted for agriculture or for small holdings or for some other purpose. It would in many eases enable a plan to be worked out between the Departments whereby part of the land—the poorer land—could be used for afforestation, and the better land might be used for small holdings. It would enable the two Departments to work out comprehensive schemes for the provision of small holdings for the men who are employed in the woods and forests, and in 822 that way there would be the liaison between the appropriate Board of Agriculture and the Forestry Commissioners which, to my mind, is absolutely desirable. At the same time, it does not go so far as my lion, and gallant Friend's Amendment, which would really shackle the; hands of the Forestry Commissioners to such an extent that they would not be able to carry-on their work. I hope, therefore, that the Committee, after hearing this explanation, will be willing to consider my suggested Amendment to be a good substitute for that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardine and for those that are on the Paper in the names of my hon. and gallant Friends behind me.

§ Mr. ACLAND
The hon. and gallant Gentleman has spoken in this matter to some extent on behalf of the Board of Agriculture. I should like to say a word or two on behalf of the Interim Forest Authority, which has considered this question very carefully. I think the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Gentleman now suggests does really provide everything that can reasonably be wanted. What we want is surely, in the first place, that before any land is acquired the Boards of Agriculture shall be informed and consulted. It would not be fair to limit it even to agricultural land, because there is the case of land which may be better utilised for reclamation, for the making of agricultural land, than for forestry; and we all agree that if you can make use of land for agricultural purposes it is better than using it for forestry. Therefore before any land is acquired the Boards of Agriculture must be consulted. The second-point is that you may have some land which you have acquired after consultation, and you may find—possibly some years later—that you are able to dispose of a piece. An offer may have been made for a piece. There, again, if you are going to dispose of a piece of your land, you ought to give the Board of Agriculture the opportunity of saying that they would like that piece of land for some purpose of their own. If they say, "No," it does not involve any great delay; you can go ahead. But you ought not to sell to a private person without giving the Board of Agriculture concerned the chance of saying whether they would like it.
The other thing provided in the Amendment is that when the forestry authority has acquired land and found because they have had to acquire the whole subject that 823 some of it is surplus to their requirements for forestry and purposes connected therewith, such as making necessary roads, building cottages for their employés, setting up saw mills or whatever it may be, they should give to the Board of Agriculture a chance of utilising it—and, indeed, it will be very much, better that the Board of Agriculture should utilise it. It would be absurd that the forestry authority should have to have land agents looking after agricultural farms which they had had to include in the whole subject they had bought. It would be far better that administration of any agricultural subject in the forestry area should be undertaken by the Board of Agriculture. That is one of the specific things mentioned in one or other of the Amendments, and that is included also in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen) has proposed, and therefore it covers tile ground.

§ Colonel GREIG
I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Murray) is going to do about his Amendment, but the suggestion which has come from the Minister in charge very largely meets the point of view of Scotland which has been expressed as regards the liaison there ought, to be between the Commissioners and the Boards of Agriculture in England and Scotland and I think the proposed new Clause coming on later will meet the view I have. We want them to be as it were a first lien upon any surplus land, and that the Board of Agriculture in Scotland—and it equally applies in England—shall at least have a right to say whether they want to use it for the creation of small holdings. I have confined my suggestion to Scotland because we have a particular tenure for these small holders. We want them to have security of tenure. I should be very much inclined to withdraw my Amendment in view of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen) has said. I do not want to stand in the way of my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut-Colonel Murray), but the Minister has gone a long way to carry out the real idea at the back of my mind.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
I hope the Committee will accept the suggested Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir A. Boscawen). I am very glad to see that both under the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite And the Minister in charge England and 824 Ireland are also recognised in countries which are interested in forestry, and that this will apply to those countries as well as to Scotland. If the Amendment as originally proposed had been adopted it seems to me it would have been disastrous because it would have necessitated not only a consultation but the obtaining of the permission of those other bodies before any of the other measures indicated in(g),(h) and (i) could possibly be carried into effect. This liaison which has been suggested seems to be very desirable, and in regard to any question of purchase or selling of land it is most desirable and important that the Commissioners should consult the Board of Agriculture of the three countries.

§ Major COURTHOPE
I should like to point out to my hon. and gallant Friends that the proposal made by the Government goes much further and is much more comprehensive than either of their Amendments. The hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Colonel Murray) has moved an Amendment which can only apply to Subsection (3, a),while my lion, and gallant Friend (Colonel Greig) has put down an Amendment which would only affect Subsection (3, ft). The proposal of the Government will do what I attempted to do by my Amendment, and that is to have a general safeguard ensuring that in all material points the Agricultural Department concerned shall be consulted, and shall have the right of pre-emption in respect of surplus lands. I think that should come at the end of the Clause as a proviso rather than as one of the lettered Sub-sections.

§ Mr. GARDINER
Those of us who are deeply interested in afforestation and also in agriculture are very desirous that as many trees as possible should be planted, but we also desire that the trees should be planted on the land most suitable for afforestation, and not on land suitable for agricultural purposes. Therefore, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to be sure that any Amendment that he provides will secure that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in this country and the Board of Agriculture in Scotland will have the power to suggest something about the planting of these trees. The other day I was passing through an estate in Scotland where I saw some magnificent small holdings. These small holdings have been in operation for 200 years, and have been cultivated there successfully, and I 825 was shocked to find that the holdings were now being planted with trees, and that the smallholders were being turned adrift. We want to prevent anything of that kind, if possible. Therefore, I respectfully ask the lion. Member in charge of the Bill to see that nothing of that kind is possible.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
This Bill fails to some extent in not providing in Scotland some kind of link by which the Board of Agriculture can be associated with the advisory committee in dealing with this question of administration, but this Amendment goes too far. It puts the Board of Agriculture in a position of superiority, which is not desired. Really, what is wanted is some sort of co-partnership, and I think the Bill fails to the extent that it does not provide that. I understand that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill proposes an Amendment of some kind to deal with that matter. In that case I should be thoroughly satisfied.

§ Mr. F. C. THOMSON
I desire to support the Amendment proposed by the Government. My hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Murray) will agree that his Amendment does go rather far. The hon. Member's Amendment as regards Clause (3, a) would put the Board of Agriculture in a position of superiority. We want cooperation, as was said by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs. We want the two authorities to work together. This is the crux of the Bill. There has been some feeling in Scotland, and we want to be sure that the Board of Agriculture works along with the Forestry Commissioners. I think the Government proposal is adequate. It is absolutely comprehensive and secures a complete liaison-consultation with the Board of Agriculture for purchases, before selling, and also with regard to surplus land. I think that the liaison is safeguarded throughout. Anything must be avoided which places one Department above the other or leaves them apart, as was the case under the Bill as originally framed. We know the result when we have two Government Departments working on independent lines. I congratulate the Government on the proposed Amendment, which meets the difficulty and provides the necessary liaison, without which we cannot get t-his good work carried on.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY
I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has agreed to the principle of the Amendment. I hope that the Forestry Commission, if 826 and when it is set up, will take note of the expressions of opinion in this House to-day that there should be the very closest co-operation between itself and the Boards of Agriculture in the various parts of the United Kingdom. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sussex (Major Courthope) said that the Amendment by the Minister in charge of the Bill went further than mine. In one respect that it so; in another respect that is not so. There is another Amendment of mine, by which I propose to leave out paragraph (b). The veto of the Board of Agriculture would apply to all cases in which land was acquired or disposed of. I prefer my own Amendment, but, in view of the expressions of opinion by the Committee, and in view, also, of the manner in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has met me in this matter, for which Scotland is grateful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY
I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out paragraph (b).
This Amendment was partly consequential to the last Amendment, but I move it in order to get some explanation from the hon. and gallant Gentleman with regard to this particular paragraph. My reason for moving this Amendment was that without the Amendment, which has just been moved, in the Bill the retention of the paragraph might lead to ill-considered purchases. The Forestry Commission would be rather prone to buy land purely for afforestation purposes, and then, having found that a certain portion was not suitable for afforestation, get rid of it at the best price they could obtain, and I think that this Amendment should be moved, unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman will remove some of the objections which I have to the paragraph.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
I hope the ton. Member will not press this Amendment. There must be some power residing in the Forestry Commissioners to get rid of any land which is proved to be unsuitable. The Commissioner will probably have to deal with large tracts of land, and if some of it is found unsuitable they must have power to dispose of it by sale or exchange. It will be subject, of course, to the proviso winch I propose to move.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

827

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY
I beg to move, in Sub-section (3, a), to leave out the words "grant or by way of" ["Make advances by way of grant or by way of loan"].
I believe the "words I am moving to omit were put in in another place. I think a very good case will have to be made out by the Government if the Committee is to allow the system of grants to remain in the Bill. From my reading of Clause 3, I assume that the State is to take- the substantial risks of the scheme and that the proprietor is secured, and that all ultimate profits beyond the 4 per cent. are to go to the proprietor of the land. The Clause does not appear to me to state how, if at all, the State's proportion is to be secured. I see nothing to show upon what security the State is to make the grant. In a scheme to which allusion, was made earlier to-day it was expressly provided that the security was to be established by a long lease of the land in favour of the Development Commission. To the best of my recollection the Development Act did not allow loans to private owners. It is obvious that the scheme in this Clause will probably be very acceptable to proprietors who wish to plant their land to their own advantage but, so far as I can see, to the risk of the State. Further than that, nothing is said as to the State's supervision of any of these operations which are to be assisted by Grants. The proprietor is to have a free hand in the matter. Those are the reasons why I move that these Grants should be omitted from the Bill. All the ultimate profits go to the proprietor, and besides, he is to have a prior lien for his own contribution.

§ Mr. ACLAND
It is proposed to allow the Forestry Commission to make certain Grants under the condition that the Grants shall be repaid at 4 per cent, compound interest after the return of the expenses of the scheme, which fall on the proprietor, have repaid him a return at 4 per cent. The Treasury intend to make regulations under a proviso already adopted which will confine the operations of the Commissioners by the general scheme which was recommended by the Report of the Reconstruction Sub-committee. There certain definite conditions were laid down as to the terms on which Grants should be made. First of all, there is the question of size of the area. A small scheme which could never have much influence on the timber supply of the country would not be worth spending money upon, but where 828 you get a scheme of a certain size, say, 100 acres, there is something tangible to go upon, and help should be given so as to make it certain that the plan laid down by the Forestry Commission would be carried out and quite definitely for the thirty years necessary. That meant a different system of sylviculture than obtained in the past. There is no chance of making use of the trees for gain during the thirty years since the trees grow so close together. A Grant will give the State the certainty of establishing woods and providing proper timber of value to the country. It is proposed to pay £2 or £3 per acre towards the expenses of planting which cannot be estimated at less than from £10 to £12 per acre.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY
Far hard woods.

§ 5.0 P.M.

§ Mr. ACLAND
On the timber which can be regarded as a possible commercial proposition—namely, coniferous timber—the Grants would be less than that, and this is how it works out. I am thinking now of the chance of a man making a profit. If you take Scots pine, you have an eighty years' rotation and accumulate over that period £10 per acre as cost of planting and as. per acre per annum, which may easily be the annual value of the land and cost of maintaining the crop during the course of the rotation, you get, with an average crop of Scots pine, at the end of the eighty years, to the point that the Scots pine will have to sell at more than 2s. lid. per foot cube before you get the 4 per cent, return. There is not a very bright prospect that you will get that sort of money for a not very high-class timber, but that is the sort of prospect which forestry must bear to the would-be planter if he really tries to work it out on a business basis. Do not let us have an idea that, even if these small Grants are given, it is going to make anybody's fortune. It is not. Timber-growing as a business speculation is not going to be at all bright.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
Has the right hon. Gentleman calculated the value of the small timber that will be thinned out?

§ Mr. ACLAND
I had left that out. I have made calculations, and I could give them if necessary, which bring in the thinnings, but they do not come very early in the scheme, of course. They come at the later period, and even if you accumulate the value of the thinnings from about 829 the fortieth or the fiftieth year and upwards, they do not make a very great difference to the calculation. Of course, there are better propositions than Scots pine. If you have got land that will carry Douglas, and if you calculate that over sixty years instead of eighty years, and take a larger yield per acre than you do in the case of Scots pine, you will get in that crop, and I think in that crop only, just a chance of making a 4 per cent, return. That is about the only proposition which really, at that rate of interest, will give you the 4 per cent, return on your money. Therefore, as I say, this is not likely to be a profitable affair, but it seems to me still to be a thing worth offering for this reason, if for no other, that, to the extent to which private proprietors can be induced to plant by these small Grants who would otherwise not plant, the State will be getting the advantage of timber at a very much cheaper rate than under any other possible alternative scheme of this Bill. Proceed- sharing, of course, must mean a much larger outlay by the State. Leasing or purchasing of the land always means that the whole outlay falls on the State. These very small Grants that are proposed, to the extent to which they really do induce planting to take place which would otherwise not take place, would be the cheapest form in which the timber-growing of the country can be expanded.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY
The right, hon. Gentleman keeps saying "these small Grants," but the Report of this Committee says: In order to avoid the trouble of having to deal with small areas, a minimum area shall be planted…and the grant shall only be given for at least 100 acres. The assumption, surely is that the Grant will be in many cases for schemes of 500 and of 1,000 acres of woodland.

§ Mr. ACLAND
When I talked about Grants being small, I meant small in proportion to the expenditure on planting that would fall oil the owners. I meant email per acre. It may be that considerable amounts in totals will be given by these Grants, but if that is so, you will get the total production of timber, the extra 2,000,000 acres of timber that the country, in my opinion, so very much needs, at a very much cheaper rate than in any other way. But my point in talking about the small Grants was that they were small compared with the total expenditure of getting forestry schemes going. It is proposed 830 that the repayment should be at the rate of 4 per cent., which will give the State back, at the end of sixty years, £10 for every £1 advanced, and at the end of eighty years about £24 for every £1 advanced. It is proposed that that should be secured quite definitely on the land itself and on the timber, and what is the possible profit you are offering a man? What you are saying to him is, "Will you do something which, under no conceivable circumstances, can pay you, but may ultimately pay your successor?" You are saying to him, "We will have you go in for this scheme of ours, giving your successor a return of 1 per cent, less than if he had gone in for War Loan." Under the proviso attached to these Grants, it cannot be represented that there is going to be profiteering for landowners, but, on the other hand, it can be said—and I think justly—that it is very important in this new departure with regard to forestry that the forestry of the private owner and of the State shall, so to speak, be under one hand; that the owner shall feel that, although the Grant offered is small compared with the cost falling upon him, and even although the forestry is very poor from a commercial point of view, yet the owner shall feel that the State is behind him, and looks favourably on it, and shall not say, "Oh, yes—forestry; that is a thing we are going to do, but we do not care whether you do it or not." The fact that these Grants are offered is, at any rate, an outward and visible sign that the State is interested in the development of forestry by private owners, and the Grants must not be regarded as undue assistance of what must, in any case, be an extremely problematical and doubtful proposition.

§ Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY
I beg to move, in Sub-section (3, d), to leave out the word "they" ["such, conditions as they think fit"], and to insert instead thereof the words "axe approved by the Treasury."

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
This is really all covered by the words put in at the instance of my hon. and gallant Friend behind. Everything in this Clause is subject to Regulations by the Treasury.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY
In moving the Amendment I want to make perfectly certain that that is so. When moving the last Amendment there was, so far as I could see, nothing to show how the State's portion was to be secured.

831

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
I am sorry to interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend, but, assuming these words were put in, they would be subject to the words that have, been inserted at the beginning of the Sub-section by my hon. and gallant Friend behind me: "Subject to any Regulations that may be issued by the Treasury."

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY
I am sorry; I have forgotten that. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Sir P. MAGNUS
I beg to move, in Subsection (.3, g), after the word 'preparation," to insert the words "publication and distribution."
This will enlarge somewhat the power? of the Commissioners. This paragraph will then, read very much on the lines of paragraph (h). The mere collection and preparation of statistics, unless they are, published and distributed, will not be of much service. Those statistics, however, will be of very great value if they are published and distributed to schools and educational institutions m which young people will be trained in the theory and practice of forestry.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
I propose to accept this Amendment, except that it is necessary to revise ft to make it read somewhat differently.

§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

§ Amendment made: In paragraph (g), leave out the words "and preparation,'' and insert instead thereof the words "preparation, publication, and distribution." — [Sir p. Magnus.]

§ Major COURTHOPE
I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words, Provided that any advance by way of a grant under this Section shall be subject to the condition that any profits resulting from the operations in respect of which (he grant was made shall, after allowing for a return to the owner of four per cent, compound interest on the cost- incurred by him (exclusive of the amount of the grant), be charged with the repayment to the forestry fund of the amount of the giant together with compound interest at four per cent. Any question arising between the Commissioners and the owner with respect to the amount of any repayment under this proviso shall, in default of agreement, be decided by a person nominated by the President of the Surveyors Institution, and for the purposes of this proviso the expression "owner" means the person for the time being entitled to the profits on the operations in respect of which the grant was made. 832 My Amendment is to cut out the proviso at the end of Sub-section (3), to which reference Has already been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caniborne. The Committee has just decided that Grants shall be included. My principal objection, to this—and I hope to satisfy the Committee and my right hon. and gallant Friend the represensentative of the Government—is that it is inconceivable this proviso can operate. The only effect, if this proviso remains in the Bill, will be that the condition of the receipt and payment of a Grant will be an obligation placed not only on the recipient but on his successors in title for eighty or 120 years, as the case may be. That obligation may last for three or four generations, I am not for a moment suggesting that the owner of woodlands should not keep accurate accounts. I think he should. But this would not affect the whole of a man's woodlands. He will have to keep separate accounts for the particular portion of his woodlands involved. My belief is that the result of this provision, if left in, will be to make owners exceedingly shy of accepting Grants at all. I believe, in effect, it will destroy the incitement by which the forestry authorities hope to get a large amount of afforestation done at a minimum cost to the State My case depends upon my being able to satisfy the Committee and the Government on this point, because it is always inconceivable that anything should be paid according to this provision. The right hon. Gentleman said In; did not believe that it could be doing under £10 or £12 an acre, and that figure is only possible where the forestry organisation is of the very largest size, as in State or Crown forests. I do not think that any private owner can plant at anything like so low a figure, and the amount contemplated would not probably do more than cover the difference in cost of planting between the private estate and Crown land. I have taken everything against my argument. I have taken skilled labour at 40s., and I have taken the case of ordinary pit planting. In my district I find that, without making any allowance for clearing the ground, draining, or fencing, that the cost works out at £1d 6s. 8d. per acre, which is the cost of planting with a 40s. wage.
Let us assume that the grant is £3, and that reduces the amount of outlay by the landowner to £12 6s. 8d On the 4 per cent, tables for eighty years that equals 833 £284, which is the very minimum on which any man, whether an estate or a private owner, can hope to manage and look after his woodlands, and this includes 10s. an acre for rent, although I believe the actual figure will be much nearer 12s. 6d. or 13s. per acre. An expenditure of 10s. an acre per annum for eighty years on the 4 per cent, table works out at £275 12s. That, added to the aggregation of capital, means a total of £559 12s., and no one can look forward to the time when the value of a crop of conifers or larch will reach anything like that sum. It will probably be said that I have made no reference to thinnings, and I have not. On the other side, I have made no reference to cleaning and for the first two or three years after planting you have to clean your plantation.
If you take the figure of 40s. for the labour and the cost of cleaning and gapping on the 4 per cent, tables, you will find that it far exceeds the value that anyone can obtain for a crop of conifers. I have left it out for the sake of the simplicity of my argument. I do not want the argument to be any stronger than it is. It is strong enough. I have, therefore, left out these other points just the same as I have left out the question of fencing, draining, and so on. Taking every single thing against my case, you have to get £559 12s for your final crop before the proviso becomes effective. Under these circumstances, is it worth while imposing an extremely vexatious condition when your proviso can never, so far as human foresight can see, take effect? I do ask my hon. Friend to accept this Amendment and to leave out this proviso, so that the inducement offered by the Grant may be free from troublesome restrictions, and so that the planting authority may be able to get the maximum of planting done not only at their own expense, but also at the expense of private owners.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
I am very sorry, but I cannot meat the views of my hon. and gallant Friend, although I can understand the practical objection, that he has to this particular proviso which was agreed upon in another place as a fair proviso in cases where Grants were made. There is always objection among some people to the making of Grants at all. At the same time we hold that Grants may be necessary if we are to get the maximum amount of planting done, and that the Grant should be ultimately repaid to the 834 Forestry Fund with interest at 4 percent., and that after that the owner should have 4 per cent, compound interest upon the money which he has actually spent.

§ Major COURTHOPE
And which he can never get.

Sir A. BOSCAYVEN
I listened to my hon. and gallant Friend's figures with great interest and attention, and I am bound to say that he did prove, as things are to-day, that they would never get it, but we are dealing with eighty years, and, with regard to hard wood, we are dealing with 140 or 160 years. Who can tell what the rate of interest and what profits or losses may be eighty or 140 years hence? Therefore, although I think my hon. and gallant Friend absolutely proved his case as regards present-day conditions, I do not think it necessarily follows that the same conditions will prevail at the end of this long period. I think, therefore, that this is a fair proposition which will enable a good many people, who would otherwise have a great many objections to it, to swallow the system of Grants. If, in practice, it is found that the trouble and expense of keeping separate accounts prevents planting being done under thin system and if the Forestry Commission find that the whole thing is blocked owing to this provision, I feel perfectly certain that they will be the first to ask that the provision should be withdrawn. For the time being I feel bound to adhere to the compromise which was arrived at in another place, and which I believe to be a fair compromise.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY
I merely want to say that it may come as a surprise-to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Major Courthope) that although my name is down to this Amendment as supporting it, I am now absolutely opposed to it. That is not the result of his speech, but is a result of the rejection of the Amendment I had put down to omit the system of Grants. Now that the Committee has agreed to the system of Grants I think it eminently essential that this proviso should be retained in the Bill, and I hope, therefore) the Government will retain it.

§ Major COURTHOPE
I think it would be a very good thing if the Committee would like to be guided by the opinion of the Chairman of the —

§ The CHAIRMAN
Order, order!

§ Amendment negatived.

835

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert the words Provided also that before acquiring any land under this Act and before selling or otherwise disposing of any land so acquired, but not required by them for the purposes of this Act, the Commissioners "shall consult the appropriate Agricultural Department, and in the case of land proposed to be sold or disposed of shall give that Department the opportunity of acquiring the same. The appropriate Agricultural Department shall be in England and Wales the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in Scotland the Board of Agriculture, and in Ireland the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland. I now move the Amendment that I suggested a little while ago to bring about that contact and liaison between the various Boards of Agriculture and Forestry Departments which will prevent overlapping and friction, and will enable us to work afforestation in with agriculture, small holdings, reclamation, and so on. I understand it is generally accepted everywhere.

§ Sir G. YOUNGER
It appears to me that this Amendment refers only to the acquiring of land and the disposal of it when not required, but does not really link up the two bodies.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
May I tell my hon. Friend that there is a later Amendment which requires a representative of each of these Agricultural Departments to be on this Commission?

§ Amendment agreed to.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN
I beg to move, after Sub-section (3), to insert (4) An advance shall not, after the commencement of this Act, be made under Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, for the purposes of forestry unless before that date the Development Commissioners have made and the Treasury have approved a recommendation for the advance.

§ Amendment agreed to.

§ Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.