FORESTRY COMMISSION.

HC Deb 03 March 1930 vol 236 cc128-69

Motion made, and Question proposed, That a Suplementary sum, not exceeding £100,000, be granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1930, for a Grant-in-Aid of the Forestry Fund.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

Hon. Members will find this Supplementary Estimate dealt with in pages 18 and 19 of the larger of the two White Papers on Supplementary Estimates. This Supplementary Estimate, which is one of £100,000, is due to the extension and speeding-up by the present Government of the Forestry programme. Forestry, unlike the subject which formed the discussion which has just been completed, has never been a controversial subject. All parties in the House have approved of expenditure on forestry, and it has only been a question of the amount and of the extension of the work which is taking place. The forestry work started some years ago, and an arrangement was made for a number of years. In July, 1928, the late Government sketched out a programme for the following decade from 1929 to 1938, and they proposed to spend over that period of 10 years a sum of £5,500,000, and they expected to be able to afforest 225,000 acres, replant 12,000 acres of woodland, and provide holdings amounting altogether to 1,500. In September of last year, after the present Government came into office, it was decided to extend and to speed up this programme, and to spend, instead of £5,500,000 over 10 years, £9,000,000 over 10 years, and they think that they will be able, on that programme, to plant 330,000 acres as against 225,000, to replant 23,000 acres of woodland as against 12,000 acres, and to provide 3,000 holdings in place of 1,500.

This programme was estimated to involve an additional expenditure of £126,000 in the course of the current financial year. The reason why only £100,000 is being asked for in this Supplementary Estimate is, that of the £126,000, £26,000 is available from the following source. When the Estimates for the current year were drawn up, it was anticipated that there would be a certain sum over—in this particular fund—which has not to be surrendered to the Treasury. The balance actually in hand on the 31st March last was £26,000 more than was anticipated. Therefore, we have not had to come to this Committee to ask for a vote of £126,000, but only for £100,000. I would only say this for the further information of the Committee. Of the additional sum required, £22,000, in round figures, will be spent in wages, and £48,000 in providing holdings. It is anticipated that we shall provide 225 holdings in the current year in place of 137 as was estimated. No doubt there will be a few other points upon which hon. Members will require information, and as far as it is in my power, I shall be glad to answer them.

Major SALMON

Will the hon. Gentleman inform the Committee how many extra persons will be employed?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

The extra amount in wages is £22,000.

Earl WINTERTON

The hon. Gentleman has given the extra amount in wages. Can he tell the Committee what is the extra number of persons now employed?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

The original Estimate was for £222,000 and the new Estimate is for £245,000. It is a gradual increase. We hope gradually to increase the number of employés from 3,500 in the winter and 2,700 in the summer to 6,700 in the winter and 5,200 in the summer, and in addition to settle some 2,500 additional families in holdings.

Earl WINTERTON

Will the hon. Gentleman give the difference in the numbers employed, because I do not think that his explanation is very clear? I wish to know before I speak on the subject exactly how the matter stands. What is the difference to-day between the numbers employed by the Forestry Commission and those employed at this time last year or when the Government came into office or whatever date is convenient?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I will look into that matter and see what is the actual figure. I understand that what the Noble Lord wants is the number employed at the present moment as against the number employed when the Government came into office. I will endeavour to obtain that information.

Earl WINTERTON

The hon. Member spoke of increased operations, and we would like to know the actual increase in employment which these operations involve.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I understand that the answer is 450 in the course of the last 12 months.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY

I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's remarks in presenting this Supplementary Estimate will satisfy this Committee that he has given a sufficiently clear explanation as to why the money is required. As a member of the old Estimates Committee of which the hon. Gentleman was at one time a very distinguished member, I do not think that he can possibly have read the report furnished to the Committee on the Forestry Commission which was published last Session. The question of the Forestry Commission was gone into in April last and a great many points with which the hon. Gentleman dealt came out in evidence there. Anyone who has any knowledge of the subject realises that it is highly desirable, in view of the vacant spaces of this country and the bad system of woodland cultivation, that there should be some improvement, but at the same time I cannot help thinking that forestry improvement is very often, what I might call, a rich man's luxury. This consideration applies equally to a country. When a country has plenty of money, it may be desirable to expend it in this direction, but when times are hard the results, both with regard to the reduction of unemployment and the economic returns, are such that it makes one wonder whether it is desirable to extend the operations dealt with by this Vote.

The hon. Gentleman gave several figures, and I am afraid that I shall have to bother the Committee with a few more, in order to prove the case which I hope to make. Information was put before the Estimates Committee last year that the Government had purchased an area of 558,000 acres, of which 342,000 acres were plantable, leaving a balance of 216,000 acres which were not plantable. Since 1920 down to the beginning of the present forestry year, I understand that 125,000 acres had been planted, and the Commission therefore had in hand no fewer than 217,000 plantable acres. I want to ask the hon. Gentleman why, if he has 217,000 plantable acres, in times of financial stringency, he wants to buy a further £45,000 worth. I want to know how many more deer forests have been bought. One of the favourite hobbies of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in the past had been to suggest a great many people could be placed on to the deer forests of Scotland, and also that they could be made to produce timber. We went into that matter very carefully in the Committee, and we had the position clearly stated in evidence. I will read it: The Commission spent a substantial amount of money in acquiring deer forests in Scotland for afforestation. Your Committee were informed that the experiment has so far proved unsuccessful and unremunerative. Speaking generally, less than 15 per cent. of the land can be classed as plantable and even this entails a disproportionate cost in fencing, and the results are doubtful. That brings me to the point of asking the hon. Gentleman if he will give us some details of how much of this extra sum of £45,400 represents the purchase of deer forests, and also why it is necessary to spend any money at all when they have over 200,000 acres in hand available for planting. I think that, in dealing with an extra sum of £100,000, we ought to give some consideration to the return the country may get from its investment. This is not a charitable business at all, but is intended to be run as a commercial proposition. When one goes into the details of the case, the commercial aspect seems to be lamentably absent. The Forestry Commission are mixing up a business deal with such things as research and education, and they estimate the return on the capital expended only on the money actually employed in the planting of trees. They wash out the whole of the other expenditure altogether, and in their estimate they calculate that at the end of the operation the country will get a return of 3.7 per cent. on the money which has been expended. That return is only on 60 per cent. of the gross expenditure. On 40 per cent. of the total cost there will be no return, or practically no return, on the amount of money that the State has paid in order to encourage the planting of trees. The Financial Secretary alluded to the question of employment, and wanted us to be attracted by the prospect of a large increase in the number of people to be employed on these forestry undertakings. One thing that came out very clearly was that, so far as employment is concerned, curious as it may seem, forestry operations are extremely disappointing. I understand that the average number employed on Government forestry operations has been about 3,000, and that number has been employed only in the first two years of planting operations. After two years the number of men who are or will be employed amounts to only 1 per cent. per 100 acres. Without touching on policy, it does seem to me rather unwise to be spending an extra £100,000 this year when you are not really benefiting the situation of the country with regard to employment.

I pass to Sub-head L. The revised Estimate for cottages and out-buildings &c. for forest workers' holdings amounts to £130,000, an increase of £48,000 over the original Estimate. I understand that in April last some 537 holdings had been completed, and 266 were in progress. I should like the Financial Secretary to give us some idea of the number of holdings which are completed now, how many are contemplated and what is the cost of these holdings, on the average. It is all very well to give us an Estimate of this kind, but it practically means asking for a signature to a blank cheque, when we are not told the full facts as to numbers and cost. Before we agree to this Vote, a more detailed statement ought to be made by someone representing the Government. In nearly all Estimates there is an Appropriation-in-Aid. Not one word is mentioned in this Supplementary Estimate about an Appropriation-in-Aid.

The CHAIRMAN

There is none.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY

There must be.

The CHAIRMAN

There is none on the Paper.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY

I am asking why there is no mention of an Appropriation-in-Aid.

The CHAIRMAN

The hon. and gallant Member may ask a question, but he cannot debate it.

Earl WINTERTON

On a point of Order. It has been held that when there is no Appropriation-in-Aid in a Vote an hon. Member is entitled to ask the reason. That was all that my hon. and gallant Friend was doing. Am I to understand that he is out of order in referring to the fact that there is no Appropriation-in-Aid on this Supplementary Estimate?

The CHAIRMAN

He can ask a question, but he cannot discuss the matter by anticipation. If there is no Appropriation-in-Aid, there can be no discussion on it.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY

May I ask if there is any Appropriation-in-Aid? Surely, in connection with the deer forests rents are being received for fishing &c. It is obvious that, unless the Government in their great generosity are handing out thousands of acres to people for stalking and other purposes, there must be Appropriations-in-Aid, and very considerable ones. I want to know what rents have been received for grouse shooting, stalking and fishing?

The CHAIRMAN

In the main Estimate there are no Appropriations-in-Aid, but there are receipts.

Earl WINTERTON

They are the same thing.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY

They are exactly the same thing as Appropriations-in-Aid. Receipts are Appropriations-in-Aid.

The CHAIRMAN

I do not think there can be Appropriations-in-Aid.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY

At any rate, there are receipts, and I think the receipts will be large, and I should like to know how much they amount to annually, and what receipts are expected to be got from this increased expenditure. The Government ought to take some notice of the work which unfortunate Members do on the Estimates Committee. Having regard to the time that Members and permanent officials devote to the work of the Estimates Committee, it seems to me that if Ministers are not going to take the trouble to read the Report of the Committee when it is presented, we on the Estimates Committee are wasting our time just as the Government are wasting money at the present time. For these reasons, I move to reduce the Vote by £100.

Earl WINTERTON

The fact that the discussion of Supplementary Estimates does not create much interest outside the House ought not to obscure the fact that we are in this Vote discussing, and it is one of the few opportunities that we have of discussing, what ought to be a very important principle of national activity. I regret very much that it is not possible to get a rather more clear cut issue on this Supplementary Estimate. We know the views of the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland about the Government having complete charge of forestry operations. I do not say that I share his views, but it is obvious that the Government, in view of the sum of money that we are asked to vote on this Supplementary Estimate and the amount involved in the Forestry Estimates generally, must assume full responsibility for answering questions in this House. The position, as I understand it, is that they delegate powers to the Forestry Commission—anything that I say must not be taken as reflecting in the slightest degree upon the conduct of affairs by the Forestry Commission—but it is obvious that when we have to vote these sums of money, the Government must come prepared to answer every question that is put to them on the subject.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

Yes, as far as possible.

Earl WINTERTON

In other words, we on this Committee, within the limits imposed by the Rules of Order, are entitled on this Vote to put a catechism in respect of the Vote as if we were doing it on a Vote for which the Government have full responsibility, without having delegated their authority.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

Hear, hear!

Earl WINTERTON

I am glad to have that assurance. I want to put a few questions, not necessarily of a hostile character. I am glad that my hon. and gallant Friend has moved the reduction of the Vote, in order to call attention to the fact that, apparently, many things to which attention has been called by the Estimates Committee have been ignored by the Government. Under the first Subhead of the Vote there is a provision for the acquisitions of land, buildings and standing timber by purchase, amounting to £45,000. I want to say a few words about the acquisition of standing timber. I want to ask the representatives of the Government whether steps are taken to market this timber in the proper way, and whether there is any liaison between the officers of the Forestry Commission when they have timber to market and private individuals who are equally concerned in the marketing of timber. The reason why I ask this question is, as everyone familiar with this subject is aware, that one of the great difficulties in connection with the British grown timber industry is to get a proper market for home grown timber. Owing to certain matters which I cannot go into now, foreign grown timber is much more easily marketed than home grown timber.

8.0 p.m.

The Forestry Commission must have today, or will have in future, a far larger amount of timber to market than any private individual, and here is a great opportunity for steps to be taken to bring about proper marketing methods. Assuming that the land to be purchased under this Sub-head contains timber which is ripe for marketing and which they desire to cut, in order that they may start planting operations, will any steps be taken by them to notify other owners of timber in the neighbourhood, will any attempt be made to sell the timber as a whole in that area and what will be the method by which the timber will be disposed of? If, through the agency of the Forestry Commission, a better system for marketing timber can be brought about and a better price for home grown timber can be secured, a great benefit will be conferred upon forestry in this country. In many parts of the country, including that with which I am familiar in Sussex, Surrey and the southern counties generally, there are lands which have been acquired by the Forestry Commission, to which this Vote refers, on which there are coppices. In connection with these coppice lands there have been for generations a number of subsidiary industries, many of which are suffering from depression for various reasons, foreign competition and so on. There is hoop making, there is the making of what is known as chestnut paling, splitting up chestnut wood and making it into fencing, which is one of the few of these subsidiary woodland industries which is not depressed to-day; there is the provision of wood for walking sticks, faggots for brick making, and the provision of a large and growing quatity of wood for gardens in the suburbs for the purposes of trellis work, bean sticks, etc. These subsidiary trades of the woodland industry in the old days were valuable, but to-day they are less valuable. Are steps being taken by the Forestry Commission, prior to the coppice land being planted, to carry on these trades to which I have referred? That question is pertinent, because, as has been pointed out by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay), the Forestry Commission have purchased a very large area of land which they have not yet planted, and in many parts of the counties to which I have referred these trades have been carried on for a long time past, and there is no reason why they should not be carried on to-day if they can be made profitable. One of the difficulties is to get labour. Another is the difficulty of getting a market, and here comes in the proposal, which I have already made, that the Government should pay attention to the question of marketing these forest products.

As those hon. Members of the Committee who have studied the subject are aware, a great deal of the success or failure of afforestation in this country in the future depends upon whether or not it is possible to keep the trees free from disease. There is a disease which has the unpleasant name of the larch canker disease, which has been responsible for destroying hundreds of thousands, and even millions, of trees in other countries, and in the comparatively limited forest area of this country also it has done a great deal of mischief. I suppose the Forestry Commission's officers are working in full co-operation with the authorities at Kew, and that valuable information is being gained each year. There are other diseases to which I might refer, such as the disease which affects the oak. A great deal of damage is done by the caterpillar moth, and I should like to know whether the research part of the work is being increased and is allowed for under this Vote.

There is a very important matter here, which was hardly referred to by the Financial Secretary, and that is the question of forestry workers' holdings. We have been told there is going to be a great extension of the provision of holdings for forestry workers and that it is being allowed for under one of these subheads. I should like to know how that is progressing. As I understand the situation, the idea is to provide a house and a holding of something like five acres, which is not intended to support the forestry worker, but is meant to assist him during the period of the year when he will not be fully employed by the Forestry Commission, and that even when he is employed by the Commission he will have a holding on which he can keep a cow or a goat, have a large garden, and so on. I think everyone is in favour of that principle, but we are entitled to know whether it is being carried out on reasonably economic lines; that is to say, what is the cost of acquiring and equipping these holdings, and what is the rent received for them when they have been so provided and equipped.

I should like to know whether the people employed on these holdings are mainly from agricultural districts or whether they are unemployed people from the towns. In the part of England with which I am familiar, on the borders of Sussex and Surrey, there has been a considerable acquisition of land by the Forestry Commission in the last few years, and I think that each year, at any rate till this year, they have been adding to those areas, but, so far as I know, no forestry workers' holdings have yet been created on them, and I should like to ask a specific question on that point. Is it intended to bring unemployed men from the towns or from the Government's training camps, or are these holdings intended for local people? My own view is, again to speak of the area held by the Commission which has come under my personal observation, that it would be possible to employ considerably more than are employed now, and so to accelerate the process of afforestation. I make myself responsible for that opinion because I know of one case in particular where the Forestry Commission have had some land in their occupation for a considerable period, and nothing has been done there. It is impossible, or rather difficult, to get more local labour—most of the local labour is fully employed—and would it not be possible to have half a dozen or a dozen holdings and bring men there who have been trained in these training camps to do this sort of work? Though it is only a small matter, I think that is a suggestion worth consideration.

Further, I should like to ask what wages are being paid, and I think that is rather important. I think it was suggested at question time that these men should be paid higher wages than the prevailing agricultural rates of wages. Is it suggested that the Government could pay uneconomic wages? [An HON. MEMBER: "A living wage."] Is it suggested that they should pay a living wage, quite apart from whether it is an economic wage? We all know that the question of what constitutes a living wage is one that is very difficult to decide, but I think hon. Members opposite would be rather loath to suggest that a living wage should be less than 50s. or 60s. a week, whereas the Forestry Commission are paying between 30s. and 40s. I think, therefore, that the views of the Government on this question would be of some interest. My own view is that the Government should not pay less than private individuals are paying, and perhaps that they should give slightly better wages, and if you are going to pay forestry workers a much larger sum of money than the prevailing rates for agricultural work, or for forestry work by private individuals, I think we are entitled to ask about the £ s. d. of the transaction and to know how far those figures will affect the very moderate return which it has been estimated the Forestry Vote will bring back to the taxpayer eventually.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Johnston)

That is only a partial estimate. The Noble Lord knows very well that it takes no account of the saving to the nation in unemployment benefit, Poor Law benefit, and so on.

Earl WINTERTON

This is a very interesting point. What are the numbers employed? I wanted to know what the actual reduction in unemployment was that this Vote brought about, and the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was unable to tell me. He was unable to tell me the numbers employed and how they compared with the figures of a year ago.

Mr. PETHICK LAWRENCE

I gave the Noble Lord that information. I told him that the increase now, as compared with a year ago, was 450.

Earl WINTERTON

If it is only 450 extra men employed, I am afraid the Government are not making a very great inroad on an unemployment aggregate of something over 1,500,000.

Mr. JOHNSTON

It affects the financial results at the end of the season.

Earl WINTERTON

You have to consider the effect on the finances of the country and the effect on the unemployment position, and I say that the effect on the unemployment position is negligible. According to the hon. Gentleman, there are 450 extra men employed, and if that is all the Labour party can do, their schemes in this regard are as poor as in every other regard.

Mr. FRANK OWEN

If the effect on unemployment is negligible, so is the effect of the increased Estimate.

Earl WINTERTON

It is a matter of proportion.

Mr. OWEN

The proportion remains the same whether it is 450 or 4,500.

Earl WINTERTON

From the point of view of unemployment, 450 more men are employed. Assuming that the Commission's operations are greatly extended and, instead of 450, some 4,000 or 400,000 extra are employed, the economic effect of the wages becomes of the highest importance. I am not arguing against the wages, but asking for information, and I want to know whether there is any means of finding out the cost per man year, to use the fashionable phrase, of this labour, which is not employed throughout the year.

Mr. MacLAREN

They have not got half as long a holiday as the Duke of Westminster.

Earl WINTERTON

It is no good the hon. Member being sarcastic or showing indignation. Before hon. Members opposite can convince the country of the value of schemes which are being carried out by the Government, they have got to prove whether or not they are economic, and no one knows that better than the Financial Secretary to the Treasury. I want to know what are the wages paid. [Interruption.] It is no good being impatient. I do not mean that the Government are impatient, but their followers behind them, who are so anxious to be on the Front Bench and to take their place and answer for them.

Mr. MacLAREN

God help them if I was on the Front Bench!

Earl WINTERTON

I rather agree, and I may go further, and say, "God help the House." But I am sure the Under-Secretary will give me an answer as to the prevailing wages and as to the actual increase in employment that is likely to result from this work. Then I want to ask what is the exact acreage in the hands of the Forestry Commission to-day which has not yet been planted, and how much of it is likely to be planted under this Vote. Further, will he answer the point, put by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Ton-bridge, as to why in this Vote there are not shown any receipts or Appopriations-in-Aid? I have referred to the subsidiary industries which are being carried on in the Forestry Commission's areas, and I should like to know where they are accounted for and whether they will be accounted for in the main Estimate. I assume that the roads referred to in the Estimate are mainly those being made in Scotland and Wales, because in the South and West and Midlands of England no roads are required for afforestation operations. I also assume that repairs and renewals to buildings refer to the buildings of forestry holders, or do they refer to the buildings which the Commission use for its own purposes?

Mr. LAWTHER

I desire to put a point in connection with this Vote that perhaps has not been raised in this House before except in a question, but before dealing with it may I refer to the remarks of the Noble Earl who has just spoken. Those engaged by the Forestry Commission, when they read his speech, will wonder whether he has any knowledge of the work which is being done by the Commission under The present Government. The question as to whether the wages paid are economic or uneconomic has been raised before, but the people in my Division who are working close to my own residence consider that it certainly is not a living wage. On this point I desire to ask whether the Forestry Commission are prepared to adopt the policy of other Departments, that is, of allowing a week's holiday to their employés with pay. As the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) has said, they do not get half as long holidays as the Duke of Westminster, and without a honeymoon thrown in. The Forestry Commission has a very large estate in the North of England called the Chopwell Woods. For years people living in the district have been allowed to make use of certain bridle paths, but during the last two years the Commissioners have thought fit to prevent them traversing these paths, although they have allowed representatives of the class of hon. Members opposite to make use of them when they are enjoying themselves fox hunting. The Forestry Commission should at least deal fairly with both sides. Either the people of the district who have used these bridle paths from time immemorial should be allowed to traverse them or fox hunting should cease.

Some two years ago a question was asked in this House on this matter, and the reply of the hon. Member who then represented the Forestry Commission was that fox hunters could at least find their way through the woods while the people were not able to keep to the paths. In regard to lands under their jurisdiction the Commissioners should see that fair treatment is meted out all round. If the people of the district are not allowed to travel these paths then fox hunting should cease. It is certainly not an economic industry. No wages are paid. I would also suggest to the Forestry Commission that they ought to provide better dwellings and better facilities for their employés who are transferred into other areas; that they should erect up-to-date dwellings for them. There is no doubt that the work of the Forestry Commission should be developed to a larger extent, though the Noble Lord is apparently unaware that under the short regime of the present Government the workers under the Forestry Commission are much more satisfied by the way their claims have been met than they were under the last administration.

Mr. OWEN

This Estimate is very welcome to some of us on these benches. That is not only because forestry is an interesting trade, and a fascinating trade, or because it has a special interest by reason of the fact that we are trying slowly and painfully to build up a new and vital industry. Hon. Members like myself who sit for agricultural constituencies have not yet been able to say one word in debate about the things which most concern us, and we welcome this opportunity on this Vote of getting as near as we can to the great industry of agriculture. Forestry is an allied trade to farming, and in any true policy for getting the best out of the land we should see a great deal more afforestation going on than is the case at the present moment. In the opinion of hon. Members on the Liberal benches there is not sufficient afforestation going on in the country. Before the late administration died of sleepy sickness they made a death bed repentance of a kind and said that the tenants who should follow them should at least plant a few more acres than they themselves had planted. The tenants who succeeded them have incurred a heavier liability, and it is that liability, or a portion of it, which we are now discussing in this Estimate.

It would not be fitting for an hon. Member in his first speech, or even just for any hon. Member in any speech, to blame the Forestry Commission for the shortcoming. The Forestry Commission can only do as much as is possible with the limited money put at their disposal, and I very much doubt whether any body of men could get better value than the Forestry Commission. During the last Parliament hon. Members opposite used to denounce the constitution of the Commission. They said it was typical of the wicked Coalition Government which set it up and took the control of our timber reserves out of the hands of Parliament. In those days I was younger than I am now and, if possible, more innocent, but I should have thought hon. Members opposite would not have complained very much that they were taken out of the control of the last Parliament. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Forestry Commission was set up, and in the past 10 or 11 years it has done very valuable work in starting a new industry and putting it on its feet. In fact, it did so well that even the last administration which was disposed to economy in this direction, persuaded the House to grant them another £2,000,000, and now the present Government have persuaded this House to grant them another £4,500,000. But in the opinion of those who sit on these benches even that extended programme is not enough.

The last census of woodland, taken in 1924, showed that although we have 3,000,000 acres of woods in this country less than half were now being used to increase the timber wealth of this country. That was due to the fact that they were owned, nine-tenths, privately. Landlords who own estates containing timber have had to cut and sell it in order to meet heavy taxation and Death Duties. To-day they have not sufficient money to afford the outlay upon replanting— [HON. MEMBERS: "The War!"] The War, of course. Even the very generous grant which has been offered by the Forestry Commission has not persuaded sufficient private landlords to sink their money in an investment which can give a return only after a very long period. I dare say hon. Members know that some landlords still continue to-day to plant trees because, as they say, "they want to do their duty by the estate." They go on planting as their fathers planted before them, although many of them realise that hon. Gentlemen now on the Government side will never allow their sons to profit by it. The truth is that the private landowner cannot any longer undertake this national service, and that unless the State steps in and steps in vigorously forestry in this country is likely to perish.

I do not believe that the 23,000 acres which the Forestry Commissioners are now to plant yearly, rising after a time to even 44,000 acres yearly, is going to meet the need. We shall be told, and indeed have been told in this House, that there is more planting going on in this country now than in any other country in the world. Well there may be, for we have a greater leeway to make up. Against our 3,000,000 acres of timber here, one half of which is not economic, Germany has 36,000,000 acres, France 26,000,000 acres, and I believe that Sweden has something like 55,000,000 acres. In those countries there are many thousands of men employed on the forest holdings and in the allied industries. In this country at the moment we have only something like 3,000 men employed by the Commission that is directed by the State, although we are told that in time 7,000 will be employed. Yet this is a time when it is estimated that for every 100 acres that is planted seven men are given employment for a whole year, and that in the cost of planting one acre £7 goes directly in wages. If we had a real programme of afforestation such as we need, thousands of men would be receiving wages, thousands of new acres would be planted and thousands of families would have their purchasing power raised. That is a policy of many thinking Members on the Labour benches, and I can assure the Committee that it is the policy of many Members on the Liberal benches too.

When I looked up the report of the Debate held in this House in March, 1927, I was very interested to read what the hon. Member for West Stirling (Mr. Johnston) said. I hope that he still means it. He was supported in his speech by the present First Commissioner of Works and the Minister of Agriculture. I hope that they are making the same admirable speeches in the Cabinet as they made in this House at that time. The hon. Member for West Stirling made a very interesting calculation, that at the end of 60 years you could recover £45 upon every acre planted, that you could employ a great number of men at 40s. a week and save the State £l a week in respect of each one, and that at the end of the period you would be able to clear a huge profit. That seems to be a very reasonable calculation and a very sound argument; at least on that occasion no one contradicted the hon. Member. But if the argument was sound on that occasion, how much more sound is it today when the Government, with the collaboration of the Liberals, have raised the unemployment benefit even higher than it was at that time?

It is not only a matter of sound business; it is a matter of national necessity because, as those who are interested in forestry know, a world timber famine is already in view. Of course this country is in exactly the same position as it always has been in with relation to what is grown on the land: we are utterly dependent on the foreigner. We import 90 per cent. of the timber that we use, and we pay an annual bill to the foreigner of something over £50,000,000. In Wales alone we import the yield of 20,000 acres for our pit props. They come from Gascony and the Baltic, and we could grow the lot upon our own hillsides. In 30 years time we shall be faced with a real shortage. It is only if we start now to grow that timber that we shall be in a position to meet the demand. If we do not do it now it will be too late, and we shall be faced in this country with steadily rising prices in the timber market. I can only hope that, for the sake of our enlightenment, Lord Beaver-brook has made ample provision for his wood pulp. We should very much resent having the price of the true gospel raised every morning.

In my opinion the Forestry Commission is not the most suitable body for dealing with a problem of this magnitude. It is certain that continuity is very necessary in a business of this kind, where you are dealing with slow growth and a very slow turnover of capital. But it is possible to have too much of continuity. It is often said that it is not right that a great and vital industry should be left to the mercy of whatever Government happens to be in power at the moment. But if you push continuity to its conclusion you are going to arrive at a very much worse position. You are merely going to say that the end of every 10 years' programame is the only time when the Government is to interfere in the activities of the Commission; you are going to say that only at the end of the tenth year is this House to be able to expedite the growing of timber in this country. That would be a very good idea if every 10 years you could guarantee that there would be a Liberal Government or a Labour Government in power. But what if you have not that guarantee? What if you have a Conservative Government in power at the end of the next period? That is a misfortune which may fall upon this country, and it would mean the putting of afforestation into a strait-jacket for another ten years.

It seems to me very unsatisfactory that the Forestry Commission should be in charge of a great national programme of this kind. It is unsatisfactory for many reasons. It is unsatisfactory because we in this House have no responsible Minister at whom we can get when we want redress, and that is very necessary in the internal conditions of the industry. Take wages, a matter which has been raised to-day. What do you find? Here you have an industry, a great State industry, with all the defects of nationalisation and none of its advantages, and you have the State paying its skilled workers the same miserable pittance as is paid to the privately-employed labourer on the farm. Surely the State should lead the way and not drag behind in the wake of the farmer. The wage that the farm labourer gets is a national disgrace. The farmer will tell you so himself, and will say that if he could only raise the wage he would, but that it is the duty of the State to help him to raise it. That is a principle to which many Members of this House would subscribe. But what about the State which is hiding behind the distresses of the farmer. I should say that it is a piece of despicable meanness for the State to pay the same miserable pittance to its workers as the lowest-paid worker on the land is receiving to-day.

You have foremen in the woods in charge of thousands and thousands of pounds' worth of national wealth earning 50s. a week. I know that piece-workers sometimes earn £3, and I have known men earn less than 30s. when private owners were paying a flat rate of 50s. to their timber fellers for the same work. Then there is the question of tools. I know that it has been denied by the forest authorities that these men still have to provide their own tools. The cost of these tools is considerable. They have to provide an axe, very often two kinds of saw, a cross-cut and a fiddle, a hacker, a billhook, spades, and, if there is any fencing to be done, a brace and bit; and the cost of these tools runs up to something like 50s. or £3. I know from my own experience that men in the woods who are employed by the Commission are to-day still required to provide their own tools. It seems to me that that is a wrong principle. An agricultural labourer is not required to provide his own tools, and a forest worker ought not to be required to do so. These forest workers suffer from another disability, and that is in respect of their insurance. Because the State will not pay its quota of the insurance, the workmen do not pay their quota, and, when these men leave their jobs, they cannot claim any kind of unemployment benefit. I know that unem- ployment in the woods is rare, but I have known cases of men being "stood off" for considerable periods during slack times, and forest workers are only guaranteed 150 days' work in the year.

Then there is the question of time lost in the woods. I believe that men no longer lose wages in respect of time wasted through wet weather, but in some parts of the Crown woods men are required to stay out in the woods on wet days until 3 o'clock in the afternoon in order to get their wages. There are some shelters in the nurseries, but very few in the woods, and the men stand about smoking and talking and keeping as dry as they can. They generally go home wet through, and have to dry their clothes at what is probably the only fire in the cottage, and then they must be out again in the woods at 6 o'clock in the morning. That is a condition of things which might be altered. In regard to forest holdings, it has been said that they are very dear, but I believe it will be shown that they are very cheap. They are let to the people who settle in those holdings at about 7s. a week, which seems to be a very fair return on an outlay of about £400. I should like to know if any calculation has been made of the cost of building timber houses on a standardised plan, if extensive building of that kind were carried out. I have seen some timber-built houses in Herefordshire which were warm and comfortable. They were built of three-inch elm upon a concrete bed, and were built much more cheaply than they could have been built of stone or brick. It seems to me that if this question were investigated it might be found possible to bring the rents of forest holdings even lower than they are.

Let me return to my main point. The Government need not be bound by the very modest programme which the Forestry Commission has laid down, or indeed which they laid down for themselves at the beginning of the year. I am convinced that there is a great majority in the House of Commons who believe that it is time that the people of England took in hand the woods and forests of England. It is time that we looked to our own woods—not only to the trees which we need for timber, not only to the soft woods which are used in industry, but also to the hard-wood trees like the elms and the great oaks, which are growing old to-day while there are no saplings round about them to take their place as the giants of the forest. Those, above all, are the trees which the State should plant and tend and care for, because they will only come to maturity and beauty long after we in this House of Commons and our Forestry Commissions and our Governments have been forgotten. We are only tenants in this great estate of England, and we ought to preserve and increase the heritage of our woods for those who come after us.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. W. R. Smith)

It is with pleasure that I rise to reply to some of the points raised in this discussion because it gives me the opportunity of congratulating the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Owen) upon a very excellent maiden effort in this Assembly. We have been accustomed, more or less frequently, to listen to the Father of the House on these occasions; but, if the hon. Member for Hereford will permit me to use the term, we have been exceedingly pleased and interested this evening to listen to one who is, I believe, the baby of the House. I think I am expressing the views of all hon. Members present when I say that if the speech which we have just heard represents his first effort as a young Member, there will be a desire on all sides of the Committee to hear him again on other subjects. May I answer some of the questions which he raised in that very interesting speech? In the first place, his claim for an increased programme is one which we welcome on this side and is in happy contrast to the speech of the hon. and gallant Member who initiated this Debate. Then the matter about timber houses has not been overlooked. There has been a certain amount of experiment in this direction, but we have not been able to come to the conclusion that it is possible to build timber houses any more economically than to build the houses which are already being provided.

As regards the point about 150 days work in the year, that is more a matter of theory than of practice. A guarantee is given that not less than 150 days will be provided, but, in fact, those who are definitely engaged in the Commission's service are almost entirely engaged full time. Of course in the planting season a number of extra men are engaged because more labour is required then. Criticism regarding unemployment insurance cannot be levelled against the Forestry Commission because, as I said in reply to a question the other day, that matter has been determined by Parliament. If the forest workers came within the Insurance Acts they would have to be insured whether the Government had any views on the matter or not; but they are classified in that respect the same as agricultural labourers, and are therefore excluded from the Insurance Acts. As regards the cost of the provision of tools the regulation of the Commission is and has been for some time, that all tools are provided with the exception of axes. The reason why axes are not provided is because the men who use them are very largely engaged on piece-work and each man likes to use his own axe because the swinging of the axe enters very largely into the efficiency of his work. But as regards other tools, if they are not being supplied in particular cases it must be due to some oversight, because they are bought in bulk and can be drawn by the workers as required.

On the question of acreage I would like to explain that the acreage in the next year or two will be somewhat below the figure which will ultimately be planted within the present 10 year period. It is not possible suddenly to jump ahead with your programme as it were. The plants have to be prepared generally three years in advance, and for the first part of the 10 year period the acreage is lower than that which will be planted at the end of the period. It is necessary to wait until the requisite plants can be provided in the nurseries for the larger acreage. In that respect I may mention that the amount provided for the first 10 years was £3,500,000. The late Government made arrangements for £5,500,000 for the second 10 years, but the present Government, on coming into office, reviewed the situation and increased that amount to £9,000,000; and I think it will be agreed that £9,000,000 for the second 10 years, compared with £3,500,000 for the first 10 years, represents a considerable advance even though it may fall short of what the hon. Member for Hereford would desire. As time goes on and as land becomes available it may be possible to increase the programme which has already been provided in that respect.

I will deal with one or two questions which have been raised by other speakers. There is the question as to the amount of land that we hold. The total amount of plantable land that has been acquired is 375,000 acres; out of that 150,000 has been planted, leaving 225,000 in hand. The question was raised as to why, with all that land in hand, it is necessary to go on acquiring land. If all the land were in one patch, and if we were dealing with it as a unit, the situation might be different, although I am certain that even then we could not refrain from having to acquire other land in order to carry out our programme. This land, however, is scattered all over the country, and the Forestry Commission, in making their arrangements, have to plant gradually so that the programme extends over a period of years. It is necessary to have supplies coming in year by year, and it is undesirable to develop a policy in regard to forestry which would lead to casual labour. Therefore, the programme is planned on the basis that will give permanent employment as far as possible to the men whom we have in our service. The planting period is roughly 15 years, when the thinning would begin, so that the labour would pass automatically from planting to thinning. That means that, as far as is humanly possible, regular employment is provided for those whom we have engaged in our service.

The question was asked, how many forest holdings have been completed? The number is 670, and 222 are in progress. The average cost is under £600. Another question was, what were the receipts?

Earl WINTERTON

I should be glad, before the hon. Gentleman leaves the question of forest holdings, if he will say how many of these holdings are held by people living in the locality, and how many by trainees from depressed areas.

Mr. SMITH

I will come to that point. On the question of receipts, it is not possible to put them in this Estimate because the question does not arise, but the total of receipts from sales of timber is £55,000 per annum. The Noble Lord referred to the marketing of the timber. Most of the marketing is from the old Crown woods. In the plantations which the Commission has been responsible for creating, obviously the timber is not sufficiently advanced—

Earl WINTERTON

I understand that the Commission purchased some land in places where the timber is ripe for cut ting, with a view to planting.

Mr. SMITH

The policy of the Commission is not to purchase standing timber if it can be avoided, but sometimes in an estate which is acquired, there is a small part with some timber upon it, and, rather than lose the acquisition of the whole of the estate, we take over the standing timber. That has to be done by the consent of the Treasury, because we are not really supposed to do it. We are supposed to plant timber, and not to acquire it in that way. The means adopted towards marketing the timber depends on the district in which it exists and for what purpose it can be used. The wood suitable for pea sticks and bean sticks, and the chestnut for palings is marketed in the best way possible. The timber is marketed in a way that would bring the best results to the Commission. Sometimes, I believe that it is sold standing, but the policy which we usually adopt is to sell it in the rough.

Earl WINTERTON

Is it sold to a Government Department?

Mr. SMITH

I do not recall anything of that description coming before the Commission, and the quantity is too small to enable that sort of thing to be done. It is the intention of the Commission, and it will be their duty as time goes on, to consider the whole question of marketing from the financial and business point of view, but we have not yet reached the stage when the quantity of timber available for sale is of the nature that requires that specific organisation being established. I may say, on behalf of the Commission—and I am speaking as a Commissioner—that they consider it their duty to give serious attention to this matter in order to secure the best results possible for the State on whose behalf they are functioning. A definite work is going on with regard to research. We have a research department in which the diseases that affect trees are investigated, and we are in close consultation and collaboration with the universities which have departments for this work, and whose services we utilise. The question was raised as to who the forest workers' holdings are held by. Up to 12 months ago, they were all held by people in the employ of the Commission. Generally speaking, the policy is to select suitable men who may be available as permanent workers in the service of the Commission, but, following the consideration of the question of transferred labour 12 months ago, a number of miners were transferred, and have been established in forest workers' holdings. I have not the exact number but naturally out of the number involved, it would not be very large. None of the trainees to whom the Noble Lord referred has been transferred, but miners have.

Viscount WOLMER

About how many?

Mr. SMITH

I would not like to give a figure.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE

The number is 83.

Earl WINTERTON

Are the Government friendly to transferring more of these men if they are willing to go?

Mr. SMITH

The Forestry Commission, as soon as this question was raised, at once applied themselves to it, and in a few weeks some of these miners had been transferred. They looked upon it with sympathy, but there are practical issues which have to be watched. It is not always easy, when the Commission have people of their own who are waiting for holdings, to put somebody else in, but 83 ex-miners have been placed in holdings. With regard to wages, the Treasury regulations, which very largely govern these, have fixed the rate as being that paid to agricultural workers of the district. Therefore the wage which has been paid to the workers in the forests has been that which has been fixed by the wages board of the area in which they are employed. The net result of that is that the average wage in England is between 31s. and 32s. In Scotland, where there are no wages boards, and where the wage is related in a similar way to the agricultural wage, the figure is 39s.

Recently it was decided to give a shilling increase to all the workers in England and Wales, and an examination by the Commission of the whole question of wages of the workers in their employ is now going on. At the moment, no definite decision has been come to but I think that I am entitled to say that the whole tendency of the examination is from the standpoint of some improvement being made. I think I shall be expressing the general feeling of the Committee when I say that nobody can view with satisfaction the idea of taking the agricultural workers' wages as a standard in this matter. Theirs is a stringency wage which nobody has ever attempted to defend as fair and adequate for the services given, and it is only accepted because the state of agriculture prevents more being paid. I am expressing my own personal opinion here, because I have no right to commit the Commission to anything, especially having regard to the fact that the whole question is now under examination, but I think it is the view of the Committee that, as far as possible, those wages ought to be increased, and the standard ought not to be taken from an industry which is not in a position to give a reasonable return to those whose services it gets. The question of a week's holiday, which was raised by an hon. Member, has not yet been dealt with by the Commission. I suppose that what my hon. Friend has in mind is that if all Government employés are to have a week's holiday, in accordance with the decision recently given, the workers of the Forestry Commission ought to be included. Most probably that will also be considered in the examination which is now taking place.

As far as the Chopwell Woods are concerned, I am afraid I cannot say anything as to the details, but I am certain that it would be the wish of the Forestry Commission to treat all people in the district equally, regardless of class or circumstances. I do not think it would be the policy of the Commission to allow bridle paths to be used by one section of the community and not by another; always, of course, with the proviso that we must take care that no damage is done to young trees which may be planted there. [Interruption.] It may be something more than a bridle path. I think I can say on behalf of the Commission that it is their desire to give as great facilities as possible for access to our woods and forests, possibly equal to the facilities which exist on the Continent. That must, however, be subject to the qualification which I have mentioned, because of the danger of fire, and it may be that certain members of the public will require to be better educated in regard to the danger of throwing down matches, and so on, because great damage may result from any carelessness of that kind. I think I have covered all the points raised, and if there should be any further points possibly the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will be able to deal with them.

Lieut.-Colonel SPENDER-CLAY

I do not think the hon. Member said how much of the extra land purchased was deer forest.

Mr. SMITH

It would be quite impossible for us to say how much deer forest has been acquired, because we do not buy land of any particular character. Some of the land we have bought may have been used as deer forest, but we do not particularly want deer forest land, because deer are not altogether suitable animals to have about where young trees are growing.

9.0 p.m.

Sir G. COURTHOPE

I find myself in rather an invidious position in speaking in this Debate, because I am one of the Forestry Commissioners, and it is not my duty, from this side of the House, to add anything to the answers which my hon. Friend has just given from the Treasury Bench. But I have two motives in wishing to speak. One is to try to correct what I regard as an entirely erroneous picture of the work and future aspirations of the Forestry Commission given by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Tonbridge (Lieut.-Colonel Spender-Clay); and I also want to make a suggestion to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury which I hope that he and his colleagues will turn over in their spare moments, if they ever have any. With regard to the effort which the Forestry Commission are making to build Up reasonably economic forestry in this country, if we could always be sure when we started on one area of, say, 1,000 acres in a particular spot that in each of the next 15 or 20 years we could get another 1,000 acres adjoining, there would be no need, as there is at present, to buy land in advance. If we are to make the Crown forests economic propositions, we must so arrange the work that, having built up an organisation, we can employ it to the best advantage. Take the case of a forest where a working plan has been devised on the basis of a 60-year rotation. The ideal plan is that one-sixtieth part of the forest shall come in for felling every year and one sixtieth part for replanting, so that eventually the whole forest will be in sixty sections, each section one year older than the last one. By that means one gets the maximum amount of employment and a regularity of output. We cannot always do that, but we are able to make plans, by buying ahead, to enable us to give regular employment, or nearly uniform employment, to the workers in preparing land for planting up to the time when the thinning begins and work of another kind is provided.

It is an interesting fact that as a forest becomes more mature so does the ratio of employment increase. In our most highly organised forests we are able—or we were, the last time I looked at the figures—to employ one whole-time man for every 39 acres of the whole forest, whereas in comparatively new forests it may only be one man for every 150 or 200 acres. As forests get to maturity so employment increases and becomes more regular. I think we may claim that forest workers' holdings have been a tremendous success, and if in every smallholdings scheme there were a definite prospect of an earned wage for the man for part of the year they would have a much better chance of success than they have at present. Some people have asked why we do not create more of them, but it would be uneconomic and futile to make them faster than the rate at which we can provide regular employment. The scheme of the Commission is gradually to build up a regular forest population, who may look to the forests around them for their livelihood and their regular employment, without the prospect that in a few years, when the planting of the new ground is finished, they will have to seek work elsewhere.

Perhaps I may now make a suggestion. I am afraid it is a very unorthodox question that I want to put to the Financial Secretary. Many criticisms have been made to the effect that the work of the Forestry Commissioners is uneconomic in several respects. May I point out that to begin with the Forestry Commissioners have to consider not only the ties and regulations which the Treasury has made, such as the limitation in the amount we can pay for an acre of land, but we have to take into consideration many other things. Our job is to try to make trees grow on land which will grow nothing else, and I think we should show a better financial return if we were allowed to pay more for our land instead of buying land incapable of producing foodstuffs. It is not our job to replace food production with trees, and thus the possibilities of achievement in the matter of forestry are limited by the factor of general national interest.

There is a further limitation. The Forestry Commissioners have embarked upon a tremendous undertaking which must take a number of years before it really brings in any revenue. It is only 10 years since we made our first plantations, and it will be another 40 or 50 years before they come to full maturity. During the whole of that time the State, through the Forestry Commissioners, is investing capital which will have to wait a long time before there is any return upon it, and they are doing all this out of revenue. I think it is simply ludicrous that such should be the case. The State does not even extend to itself the opportunities which it provides for private enterprise in this matter. A year or two ago we set up the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation which provides that when a private owner wants to buy land he can borrow money to the extent of two-thirds of the agricultural value and spread repayment over a period of 60 years, and he can get another loan under the Land Improvement Scheme to pay for the initial cost of planting. He can spread his purchase instalments over 60 years and his planting over 40 years and by the end of that time he has his revenue coming in regularly from the forest.

I think the Treasury should consider whether it might not make its investments go a great deal further by some system of credit instead of insisting that the revenue of each year should pay for the whole of the land acquired. I know that what I have suggested is contrary to Treasury practice, but I believe it would be sound, and I am sure a sound scheme would be welcomed by all parties because it would enable the Commissioners, for money expended every year, to provide so much more in the shape of forest area. Taking the long view, I believe that the planting of these large areas of forest is going to be a sound investment, quite apart from being an insurance in times of emergency. I am tremendously impressed and convinced that we shall have to face a really acute shortage of commercial soft wood timbers before many years have passed which will greatly enhance the value of any steps we take to build up new forests at the present time.

There is only one other matter I wish to bring before the attention of the Committee, and it has been referred to by one speaker and that very indirectly. The hon. Member I refer to asked why pedestrians should not be allowed to wander more freely through the woods and along footpaths through the forests. I hope this Committee will help the Forestry Commissioners to make the public realise how difficult it is to protect our forests from the public. I have in my hand the particulars of destruction by forest fires last year. During the year we had 409 forest fires which destroyed over 4,500 acres of forests. May I point out incidentally that 68 per cent. of those fires occurred in the months of March and April, but the important point is that out of 409 forest fires 149 were definitely traced beyond all doubt to the carelessness of members of the general public. The throwing of matches, cigarette ends, and the like destroy hundreds and thousands of acres of valuable property of this kind. Therefore, it is necessary for the protection of this State investment, which the Forestry Commission is asked to make, that they should make such reasonable regulations as will limit the likelihood of the public destroying this valuable investment by carelessness with matches and things of that kind. Anything that the members of this House can do to assist the Commissioners in protecting this investment will be very welcome and valuable during the few weeks which are immediately in front of us.

Captain RONALD HENDERSON

I should like to put a point to the Parliamentary Secretary which I think is one of some importance. I think the point I am going to raise ought to have been covered by the previous speaker. My question is whether sub-head E7 includes the sum for the planting of firebelts. The risks we undergo by forest fires have been clearly put before the Committee by the last speaker, and it is possibly a new thing in Great Britain to treat forestry fires as a serious thing. In view of the possibility of a dry summer, and the fact that 4,500 acres of forests were destroyed last year, this question of providing fire-belts is something to which I wish to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary. The best method is to provide belts of hard wood—Canadian alder as the hon. Gentleman is probably aware is the best. I am not sure whether the soft wood policy which is being carried out by the Commissioners should not be rather mitigated—[Interruption.]—but it is very largely soft wood to-day. I am quite aware that there is mixed coppice and so on, but every nine or 10 years we have these very dry years in the ordinary rotation, and these appalling fires will occur. I sincerely trust that some money will be included under sub-head E7 for this purpose.

Another question to which I should like to refer, and which was mentioned very briefly by the Parliamentary Secretary, is the question of research. I think that perhaps the Committee do not fully realise how important this question of research is. I would venture to remind the Committee of what was said in the House some little time ago, namely, that for every cubic foot of timber that goes into commerce and industry in Canada, four cubic feet are lost by disease and pests. This, therefore, may be quite the most important of the Forestry Commission's activities, looking at the matter from the commercial point of view, in the future. I should like also to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary to another point. If he could be persuaded to allow the Forestry Commission's planting to be done on a credit basis, as has already been suggested, and as private planters are now allowed to do, we should get several great advantages.

In the first place, the Commission would be allowed to purchase better class land than they are allowed to buy today. To-day, £4 an acre is the limit, and that practically debars them from growing ash, which is about the most remunerative timber that can be planted to-day. If the value is more than £4 an acre, special Treasury sanction has to be obtained, and it is only granted in isolated cases, such as where a block of standing timber has to be taken. If permission were given to spread the planting costs on, I can assure the Financial Secretary, a strictly business basis of credits, they would be enabled to buy better class land, and the same amount of money utilised in that way would enable them to show a very much better financial return in the near future. At present they are practically debarred from buying land that is good enough to grow ash, which, I would venture to remind the Committee, is the one and only timber that has held its price steadily, and is still rising in value to-day. If the Financial Secretary can see his way to consider this suggestion in, shall I say, a favourable frame of mind, I can commend it to him as a very sound investment, which would enable the Forestry Commission to make much greater use of the money which they are now allowed to have, and, therefore, would be of immense benefit to forestry.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

I rise to make a very brief reply on one or two of the points that have been raised, because we are getting a little wide of the Supplementary Estimate, and are really discussing a somewhat comprehensive matter of forestry. I have listened with very great interest and attention to the hon. and gallant Member for Henley (Captain It. Henderson), and to the hon. and gallant Member for Eye (Sir G. Courthope), whose great knowledge of this question commands the respect of the Committee. With regard to the Treasury point which they put to me, I can only say that I will give it my very careful attention and consideration. With regard to the question of planting fire belts, I would point out that the planting is not confined to softwoods, but that hardwoods also are planted. With regard to the question of research, the fact that the Commission is in close touch with the Forest Products Research Laboratory will, I think, cover that point, and I would appeal to the Committee now to give us this Estimate. We have had a most interesting and valuable Debate, which has covered a great deal of ground, but, as it is only a Supplementary Estimate, I hope that we may now be allowed to have the Vote.

Viscount WOLMER

Although this is only a Supplementary Estimate, quite a number of questions arise on it which have not been touched upon. Such questions, as the hon. Gentleman himself has said, are very interesting and important, and I am sure he will agree with me that every moment of the time which has been spent on this Debate so far has been, well occupied. If I may say so, I entirely disagree with the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. F. Owen), who made a very interesting and eloquent speech, in his statement that the Forestry Commission are not properly constituted for their function. I think that their constitution is a very much better one for their purpose than would be the case if they had Ministers responsible for them to Parliament—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The Noble Lord, I know, will excuse me for interrupting him, but the hon. Member for Hereford was making a maiden speech, and I allowed him to say some things which otherwise he would not have been allowed to say.

Viscount WOLMER

I quite understand. I will not follow the hon. Member for Hereford in detail, although, perhaps the Committee will bear with me if I say that he did raise some very big questions. I am sure that in this matter of forestry we all desire to see continuity of policy, and there ought not to be any political issue dividing us. I very much regret that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade spoke so early in the Debate, because I should like to put to him a number of questions, and I think that he is the right person to answer them, and not the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who, if I may say so without any offence, is not an expert on this question, and has not the same technical knowledge as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has.

With regard to the wages paid to forestry workers, I understood from what the hon. Gentleman said that the Forestry Commission were paying the ordinary agricultural wage of 31s. or 32s., and the hon. Gentleman found great difficulty, as a good trade unionist, in justifying a wage like that for a highly skilled artisan, such as the forestry worker is. If, however, you are going to pay agricultural workers employed by the State higher wages than other agricultural labourers can earn, as a result of the condition of their industry, you will be inflicting a very great injustice upon these men—[HON. MEMBERS: "Which men?"]—the ordinary agricultural labourers. You will be taxing the ordinary agricultural labourer in order to pay the more favoured man higher wages for doing precisely the same job, and I can assure hon. Members opposite that that is the way in which agricultural labourers will look at this question. I am always struck by the way in which the conscience of hon. Members opposite appears to be touched when you can point to a direct responsibility in a matter of this sort, and ask how it is possible to justify the Forestry Commission's not paying higher wages than 32s., but their consciences appear to be entirely unaffected by the fact that the state of the agricultural industry is such that other agricultural labourers cannot get better wages. I hope that, when hon. Gentlemen opposite take steps to remedy the wages of the men working under the Forestry Commission, they will also take steps to enable other agricultural employers to pay their agricultural workers better wages. That is a point on which I cannot enlarge now.

I was very much interested by what the hon. Gentleman said with regard to the 600 holdings which have been established and the 225, I think he said, which are in course of establishment. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman some questions on that point. I understand that as a matter of policy these holdings are being grouped together in colonies—that they are not isolated, but are organised; and that that is the reason, or one of the reasons—it is not the only reason, no doubt—why this system of small holdings which has been inaugurated by the Forestry Commissioners has been such a signal and outstanding success. Most hon. Members with a knowledge of the matter will agree with me that it has been far the most successful part of the small holdings' movement in the last 15 years. One of the reasons for that is the fact that these holdings are organised in colonies or groups. I wonder if the hon. Gentleman can tell us how many such groups there are, what is the average number of holdings in a group, and what is the average size of the holdings? I know, of course, that the holdings are not uniform in size, and vary according to the nature of the soil, the capacity of the man who has to work it and the amount of land available, but it would be interesting to have an idea of the principles, at any rate, on which the Forestry Commissioners are conducting their small holdings policy. I believe it is the case that they always arrange that one or two of the holders in every colony shall have a very much bigger holding than the rest, in order that they may be able to employ a horse, or a horse and cart, and let out that horse-labour to their fellow-holders.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I am afraid we have covered a very wide field of discussion, but the Noble Lord must remember this is a Supplementary Estimate, and we cannot have a general Debate as on the original Estimate.

Viscount WOLMER

Surely I may point out the fact that under Sub-head L there is a Vote of £20,000 which is partly going to be spent in the creation of 3,000 holdings? We are surely entitled to ask the Government for information as to the principles on which these holdings are going to be set up, and what policy they are going to follow? I am not in the least atempting to obstruct, but I do think it is very important that we should draw attention to the work of the small holdings' settlement which is going on under the Forestry Commission, because it has been so signally successful. I want very much to elucidate these facts, not only for the information of the Committee—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I must point out to the Noble Lord that this is not a new policy, but an extension of policy.

Viscount WOLMER

Then, perhaps, I may put it in this form. I may ask the hon. Member whether, in spending this additional money, he is going to continue the policy on which the previous money was spent? Would that be in order?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The Noble Lord is entitled to ask why this additional sum is required, hut he is not entitled to have a full-dress debate on a policy which has been sanctioned, and in regard to which this is only a Supplementary Estimate for an extension of the original policy.

Viscount WOLMER

Of course, I shall not attempt to have a full-dress debate, but I was anxious to draw attention to this very important part of the work of the Forestry Commission. We are surely entitled to ask questions about this small holdings' policy, and that, I understand, is within order according to your Ruling?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

My Ruling is, roughly, this. The policy has already been sanctioned, and this Supplementary Estimate is an extension of policy. The Noble Lord is entitled to ask why the additional sum is required, but he is not entitled to discuss the policy which was decided by the original Estimate.

Viscount WOLMER

I think I am entitled to ask details about the policy, and as to how the money is being spent. It was in regard to this policy that I was asking whether we should have information, for which I would be very grateful. There is another point touched upon by the Financial Secretary, but on which he said very little, and that is with regard to the planting of hard woods. I understand it is the case that the Forestry Commission cannot spend this money which we are allotting to them in planting ash, oak and the like trees, because they are limited to buying land which is not worth more than £4 an acre, and, of course, ash and oak cannot easily be grown successfully on such land. I think I am right in saying that the Forestry Commission are administering Crown land as well, and a part of this Vote is required for the expense which they incur in their forestry operations on Crown land. A great deal of this Crown land is of very strong soil. I will give the hon. Gentleman an example with which, I am sure, he is familiar.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

On a point of Order. There is no Crown land in this Vote.

Viscount WOLMER

Would the Financial Secretary explain how that is the case? We are voting this extra money for the Forestry Commission, and they are charged with administering many thousands of acres of Crown lands. Do I understand that comes under an entirely separate account?

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

The Noble Lord forgets that this is a Supplementary Estimate. We are asking for £100,000, but there is no part of that spent on Crown lands.

Viscount WOLMER

If the hon. Gentleman can assure me that is so, then the question of Crown lands does not arise. With regard to the variety of trees to be planted, I should like very humbly to support what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Rye (Sir G. Courthope). I think it would pay us to enable the Forestry Commission to buy a better type of land. That is a matter which this Government could alter without legislation. If they removed this £4 an acre ban, and allowed the Forestry Commissioners to spend more money in buying land on which oak and ash could be grown, I think it would be a wise investment. I also agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for Rye said in regard to borrowing money, though that is, perhaps, a little outside the scope of the Vote. I do hope that the Financial Secretary will not treat this question of the Forestry Commission in a perfunctory manner as being one of the details which he has to get through in his very long and arduous duties. It is a great national experiment. It is not the child of any one particular party, and political parties have co-operated in making it a great success. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be jealous of suggestions that come from this side of the Committee, but will take us into partnership in this matter.

Commander SOUTHBY

I notice an item for cultural operations including nurseries. I do not think anyone who has been in the country can fail to have been struck by the appalling state of the trees after the recent gales. Many of them, of course, are on private land, but is it possible for the Forestry Commission in any way to give a lead to private owners to replant trees which have been lost? Is it possible to provide young trees from the nurseries? I cannot help thinking that some lead from the Government to private owners who may be remiss in what is obviously their duty would be useful. On many of the roads the trees will presumably come under the local authority, and there it seems to me the Commissioners might have an easier task and might be able to approach local authorities directly with a view to suggesting that, if they would undertake the work of planting, the Commission would be able to provide them with trees from the nurseries. There have been trees blown down wholesale in many parts of the South of England. Everyone wishes the Commission well, and I am sure that they would have support from all sections of the House if they would give a lead in doing something to repair the recent damage.

Mr. W. R. SMITH

In regard to the Noble Lord's reference to wages, I ought to have stated before that, although the figures I quoted were the minimum rates paid, under the other arrangements I referred to, regular piece work is done by the forestry workers and, therefore, their average wages for the year would be somewhat higher than the minimum to which I referred.

Viscount WOLMER

How much is if?

Mr. SMITH

I think the average will be about 37s. I do not know that these higher rates earned by piece work have created any difficulty so far as agricultural workers in the immediate neighbourhood are concerned. On the point of holdings, I do not think it is correct to say it is the policy of the Commission to have holdings in colonies. There are one or two where circumstances have made it more desirable and more effective, and more economical, but, generally speaking, the woods are scattered, and sometimes we have to consider placing holdings in localities which are the most suitable for fire control, and the safety and well-being of the forests have to be considered. The question of larger holdings is under consideration.

Viscount WOLMER

What is the average size of the holdings? When the

hon. Gentleman talked about 600 holdings, what does that actually mean?

Mr. SMITH

I think the figure that is most approximate would be 10 acres. That would represent the larger portion of them, and possibly, speaking in general terms, it might be considered as an average. With regard to the ravages of the gales, these are not plantations that have been destroyed but, very largely, only odd trees here and there, and it is very difficult for the Commission to come in with any proposals to meet circumstances of that kind. But part of the functions of the Commission is to assist private owners in the planting of land by grants, so that we facilitate the planting of private lands in that respect. I was interested to hear the hon. and gallant Gentleman suggest that we ought to become a trading concern, and sell trees. I rather anticipated that any proposal of that description coming from the Commission would have met with a great deal of opposition from hon. Members opposite. The Commission does not adopt the policy of trading, but there are times when they have surplus plants which they endeavour to dispose of to the best advantage.

Several HON. MEMBERS rose—

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 219; Noes, 92.

Division No. 198.]	AYES.	[9.40 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Duncan, Charles
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Ede, James Chuter
Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher	Burgess, F. G.	Edmunds, J. E.
Alpass, J. H.	Buxton, C. R. (Yorks, W. R. Elland)	Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Ammon, Charles George	Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel (Norfolk, N.)	Edwards, E. (Morpeth)
Angell, Norman	Caine, Derwent Hall	Egan, W. H.
Arnott, John	Cameron, A. G.	Elmley, Viscount
Aske, Sir Robert	Cape, Thomas	England, Colonel A.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)	Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)
Ayles, Walter	Charleton, H. C.	Foot, Isaac
Batey, Joseph	Chater, Daniel.	Forgan, Dr. Robert
Bellamy, Albert	Church, Major A. G.	Freeman, Peter
Bennett, Captain E. N. (Cardiff, Central)	Cluse, W. S.	Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)
Benson, G.	Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	George, Major G. Lloyd (Pembroke)
Bentham, Dr. Ethel	Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)
Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Compton, Joseph	Gill, T. H.
Birkett, W. Norman	Daggar, George	Gillett, George M.
Bowen, J. W.	Dallas, George	Glassey, A. E.
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Dalton, Hugh	Gossling, A. G.
Broad, Francis Alfred	Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)	Gould, F.
Brockway, A. Fenner	Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)
Brooke, W.	Denman, Hon. R. D.	Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)
Brothers, M.	Dudgeon, Major C. R.	Gray, Milner
Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)	Dukes, C.	Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A. (Colne)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	McElwee, A.	Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)	McEntee, V. L.	Sanders, W. S.
Grundy, Thomas W.	McKinlay, A.	Sandham, E.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	MacLaren, Andrew	Sawyer, G. F.
Hall, G. H Merthyr Tydvil)	March, S.	Sexton, James
Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)	Markham, S. F.	Shakespeare, Geoffrey H.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)	Marley, J.	Sherwood, G. H.
Harbord, A.	Marshall, Fred	Shield, George William
Hardie, George D.	Mathers, George	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Haycock, A. W.	Matters, L. W.	Shillaker, J. F.
Hayday, Arthur	Middleton, G.	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Millar, J. D.	Simmons, C. J.
Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)	Mills, J. E.	Sinkinson, George
Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)	Morgan, Dr. H. B.	Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)
Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)	Morley, Ralph	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Herriotts, J.	Morris, Rhys Hopkins	Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)
Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)	Smith, Rennle (Penistone)
Hoffman, P. C.	Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)	Smith, Tom (Pontstract)
Hunter, Dr. Joseph	Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)	Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.	Mort, D. L.	Snell, Harry
Isaacs, George	Moses, J. J. H.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)	Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)
Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)	Mosley, Sir Oswald (Smethwick)	Sorensen, R.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Muff, G.	Stamford, Thomas W.
Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)	Muggeridge, H. T.	Strachey, E. J. St. Loe
Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.	Naylor, T. E.	Strauss, G. R.
Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.	Noel Baker, P. J.	Sullivan, J.
Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)	Oldfield, J. R.	Sutton, J. E.
Kelly, W. T.	Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)	Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)
Kennedy, Thomas	Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)	Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Owen, H. F. (Hereford)	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plalstow)
Kinley, J.	Palin, John Henry	Tillett, Ben
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Paling, Wilfrid	Tinker, John Joseph
Lathan, G.	Palmer, E. T.	Vaughan, D. J.
Law, A. (Rosendale)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Viant, S. P.
Lawrence, Susan	Perry, S. F.	Walker, J.
Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.	Watkins, F. C.
Leach, W.	Potts, John S.	Wellock, Wilfred
Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)	Ramsay, T. B. Wilson	Welsh, James (Paisley)
Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)	Rathbone, Eleanor	Welsh, James C. (Coatbridge)
Lewis, T. (Southampton)	Raynes, W. R.	West, F. R.
Lloyd, C. Ellis	Richards, R.	White, H. G.
Logan, David Gilbert	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)	Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)
Longbottom, A. W.	Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)	Whiteley, William (Blaydon)
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.	Ritson, J.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Lowth, Thomas	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Lunn, William	Romeril, H. G.	Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)
Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)	Rosbotham, D. S. T.
Mac Donald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Rowson, Guy	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Macdonald, Sir M. (Inverness)	Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)	Mr. A. Barnes and Mr. Hayes.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Ross, Major Ronald D.
Albery, Irving James	Henderson, Capt. R. R.(Oxf'd, Henley)	Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Allen, W. E. D. (Belfast, W.)	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Salmon, Major I.
Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)	Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Beaumont, M. W.	Howard-Bury, Colonel C. K.	Samuel, Samuel (Widsworth, Putney)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)	Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart
Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.	Hurd, Percy A.	Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome
Boyce, H. L.	James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert	Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Brass, Captain Sir William	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)	Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)
Carver, Major W. H.	Kindersley, Major G. M.	Thomson, Sir F.
Castle Stewart, Earl of	King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.	Tinne, J. A.
Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Lamb, Sir J. Q.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Todd, Capt. A. J.
Christie, J. A.	Llewellin, Major J. J.	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Colville, Major D. J.	Lymington, Viscount	Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert
Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.	MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Crookshank, Capt. H. C.	Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Wayland, Sir William A.
Dairymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey	Marjoribanks, E. C.	Wells, Sydney R.
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Meller, R. J.	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Dawson, Sir Philip	Merriman, Sir F. Boyd	Withers, Sir John James
Dugdale, Capt. T. L.	Moore, Sir Newton J. (Richmond)	Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)	Womersley, W. J.
Elliot, Major Walter E.	Muirhead. A. J.	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s. M.)	O'Neill, Sir H.	Wright, Brig.-Gen. W. D. (Tavist'k)
Fielden, E. B.	Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton
Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Penny, Sir George
Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)	Ramsbotham, H.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Remer, John R.	Captain Margesson and Captain Wallace.
Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.	Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)

Question put, and agreed to.

Question, "That a sum, not exceeding £99,900, be granted for the said Service," put accordingly, and negatived.

Original Question put.

The Committee proceeded to a Division.

Lieut.-Colonel ACLAND-TROYTE (seated and covered)

May we know what the Division is about; we could not hear a word?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

If hon. Members would remain calm and listen, I think that they would hear it.