§ Mr. T. JOHNSTONI am delighted to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture here, because this is the first opportunity we have had of really getting to know what it is that he intends to do about afforestation. The Tory party is conspicuous by its absence from the Benches opposite, but we are just in time to do something for afforestation next winter. The Forestry Commissioners, who were appointed, as I understand, by Sign Manual in 1909, are not represented on the Government Front Bench. We cannot raise the question of their salaries or move a reduction in their salaries, and this is about the only opportunity we are likely to have of getting at the Ministry of Agriculture and asking what it really is that they intend to do. We had a Royal Commission in 1909 on this subject, and That Royal Commission scheduled 9,000,000 acres in this country as suitable for afforestation, of which 5,000,000 acres were scheduled in Scotland. We were told that 1,000,000 men and women were employed in the German State forests before the War—employed in an occupation which is at once healthy and economic; and this par- 550 ticular Royal Commission, which was not composed of wild men from the Clyde, but was composed of Conservatives, with a Liberal or two just for spice, reported that, if we afforested only 150,000 acres per annum, we should, at the end of the 81st year, have State property to the value—that was in pre-War times—of £562,000,000, and a net profit, allowing compound interest, of £106,000,000. I suggest that schemes are in existence now, pigeon-holed at the Ministry of Agriculture, whereby we could employ 50,000 men in healthy occupations which would ultimately bring a profit to the State. I asked a question to-day about the results of a private Capitalist experiment at Holy Loch on the West Coast of Scotland. The firm of Bryant and May, the largest match manufacturers in the country, went up there. They are so hard up for soft woods. They discovered that Scotland can grow finer soft woods than they can import from abroad. They bought three sheep farms, and the number of men now employed full time is four times the number when the farms were under sheep.
9.0 P.M.
I should like to tell the Parliamentary Secretary what Sir John Stirling Maxwell, the greatest authority on afforestation, said in a pamphlet describing a German forest. It extends to 10,000 acres, in addition to 3,000 acres of agricultural land. In the Highlands of Scotland this would mean one small deer forest, or at the most a couple of sheep farms, which would support two tenants and 13 shepherds, or 15 families in all. In Germany the population is as follows. A head forester and clerk, six forest guards, 10 unskilled workmen, and 25 other men finding employment all the year round with contractors. There is thus permanent employment for 43 men. In addition, 80 woodcutters are employed for about six months and 70 women are employed for about two months on nursery planting and other light work: There are also 260 men employed in various subsidiary industries. The forest is giving constant employment to 303 men, besides the 80 men employed for six months and the 70 women occasionally employed. The total population in the area affected by the forest is 2,500. It is calculated that 1,500 of them are directly dependable on the forest. The remaining inhabitants are 551 small tradesmen, saddlers, smiths, etc., people employed in small agricultural industries, and many of them are indirectly employed in the forest and the work it brings to the district. If it is even half true or a quarter true it is time the 9,000,000 acres officially scheduled as suitable for agriculture in this country are immediately examined by the Board of Agriculture. 50,000 men could be employed profitably in clearing the ground, fencing and drainage and 50,000 could be indirectly employed in building huts, light railways and so on—not in digging holes and filling them up again, but employed in an industry which is officially certified to be an economic one, a proposition which will yield profit to the State, take 100,000 men away from the congested areas and put them back into health-giving rural conditions so that we can begin once more to have a rural peasantry. There is work at hand for a Labour Government.
The Conservative party professes to be in favour of afforestation. The Liberal party also professes to be in favour of it, and the Labour party has officially de-dared itself in favour of it. How much longer will the Conservatives and the Liberals and our back benches agree to a system where afforestation, the biggest thing we can tackle, is represented in this House not by a member of the Government at all, but by a Liberal, over whom the Government have no control whatsoever, and who represents the Forestry Commissioners, all of whom are opposed politically to the Government of the day, all of whom are busy obstructing the afforestation proposals of the Liberal and Labour parties. I cannot speak for the Conservative party, about whose views we can get no information whatever. We know further that thousands of pounds of public money which have been spent in assisting afforestation have been wasted because deer and vermin, rabbits, and so on, have been allowed to come in and destroy the young trees. I will give the Parliamentary Secretary the full detailed proposals by the greatest expert in the country. If he will make this his hobby he can this winter employ 50,000 men. There is something for unemployment. There is something for public health. There is something for ultimate State profit. When these people 552 get wages they do not throw them in the sea. They buy boots, clothes, furniture and all the rest of it. You will begin to have a rural peasantry again. We are sending the best of our peasantry beyond the seas to plant timber and to plough virgin soil in Canada, when we have in our own country 9,000,000 acres which can grow timber, which 31 present we import from abroad, certified by Bryant and May to be better timber than the Norwegians can supply us with. Why should that be? I appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary not to let the time slip along, but to make this question a real live issue in the country. If he does that he will deserve well of his class, and he will bring encomiums o the present Labour Ministry. I appeal to him to take up the question and not allow it to drift.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. R. Smith)I am sure the House has listened, as it always does, with great interest to the hon. Gentleman who has just spoken when he speaks upon this question of afforestation. This is not the first time we have heard him plead for something to be done in this directions, and the interest is always added to by the fact that he speaks with a great deal of knowledge on the matter. He will readily understand the difficulty of my position to-night, in view of the fact that I only quite recently heard that this question was to be raised, and it makes it extremely difficult for me to make anything like an authoritative statement.
The position is by no means easier because of the fact that the Ministry of Agriculture are not directly in control of this question. For some reason or other, the jurisdiction in regard to afforestation has been placed under another authority and is represented in this House by Commissioners, who alone are the ones who can speak with authority for that particular Department. Figures have been quoted with regard to the extent of the area suitable for the growing of timber, and we realise the fact that the classes of timber there grown is, in regard to certain requirements, superior to that which we import from abroad, and that the industry of afforestation is one of a health-giving character, and will stand very favourable comparison with many of the industries associated with 553 large industrial centres. Therefore, from that standpoint, one can say that this is a question that deserves the very fullest consideration and, if possible, steps should be taken to bring about some development in this direction.
Speaking my own views on the matter, because there has not been opportunity for consultation, I would like to see this question examined from the standpoint of linking it up with the question of afforestation and land settlement. The matter is not entirely at a standstill. I have had some association with it, because for the past four or five years I have been a member of an Advisory Committee of the Forestry Commission, and have obtained some knowledge and information, and I know that steps are being taken and that land has been acquired in the recent past, which was very largely of a derelict character, and is now being utilised for the purpose of growing timber.
I have always been of opinion that if the question of afforestation is to be as successful as we would like it to be, it will have to be considered in connection with some scheme of land settlement. There is a difficulty in maintaining the employment of men on the land all the year round. There are some periods when they can be employed, and other periods when it is difficult to find them employment. If this question can be considered from the standpoint of a scheme of land settlement whereby the men would have some land of their own to cultivate, the results would be more successful. It might be that the land would not be of much value as compared with some land we have, but there are certain forms of agriculture for which it could be used. For instance, there is poultry farming and pig breeding for which the land could be used. Some of it might be used for the purpose of fruit farms. Some of the land obtained for the purpose of afforestation is better suited for some form of food cultivation than for the growing of timber. If the scheme could be viewed from that standpoint and land acquired which will enable us to develop large schemes of afforestation and link them up with schemes of land settlement, perhaps this question will reach a better position than it has reached up to the present time.
The Government are not entirely remiss with regard to this matter. I am entitled 554 to recall the fact that the Prime Minister has committed himself to the desirability of something being done in this direction. The difficulty is that there is no particular Ministry or definite authority which can be approached and the machinery set in operation for the purpose of evolving some scheme.
An HON. MEMBERHaw is it that the Government do not control this particular Department? It seems strange to me that the Government should have to apologise that they do not control the Forestry Commission.
§ Mr. BUCHANANSeeing that these difficulties have arisen and that the Minister of Agriculture and the Parliamentary Secretary are perfectly well aware of the difficulty, and having regard to the great stumbling block of having no forestry representatives under direct Government control in this House, is the Minister of Agriculture considering, or does he intend to consider at an early date, the advisability of trying to bring the Department into line with other Departments? We ought to get some assurance on that point.
§ Mr. SMITHBoth questions put to me are very proper ones bearing upon this question. In regard to the first question, all I can say is that it is the decision of past Parliaments, and we can only take up the position where past Parliaments have left it. We very much wish we could put this matter right at an early date, but my hon. Friends must realise that the accumulation of years of neglect constitute an astonishing problem in more respects than in afforestation. I will take steps to have this question brought to the notice of the Minister and suggest to him the advisability of steps being taken to see whether this question of afforestation could not be brought directly under the jurisdiction of the Ministry, whereby there might be better opportunities of dealing with the question than there appear to be at the moment.
In regard to the general question, I can assure my hon. Friends that the Government are not unaware of its importance. They are fully cognisant of the desirability of something being done. We would like to see it developed in the interests of finding employment for those who are out of work, and as a better means of using the land than some of it is used at the present 555 time, I will take the very earliest opportunity of conveying the matter to my right hon. Friend, and I will convey to him the fact that many hon. Members feel very keenly upon the question. Something has already been done. On the borders of the County of Norfolk, for instance, an area has been acquired and is being worked to develop it for afforestation. Whether or not any part of it can be used for land settlement I do not know, but I will convey to my right hon. Friend what has been stated as to the desirability of extending afforestation, coupled with a scheme of land settlement which would help to put it on a sound basis, and also as to the necessity of finding some means of bringing this particular branch of Government activity under the control of the Minister.