§ 11.0 p.m
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI make no apology for raising a matter about which I proposed to say a few words. I gave my hon. and gallant Friend the representative of the Forestry Commissioners notice that I was going to raise this question, and I am glad to see that my hon. and gallant Friend is in his place. In 1928 I raised a similar question affecting the same part of my constituency. The Forestry Commissioners have purchased over 100,000 acres in that part of Scotland, and I think I am accurate when I say that since the 803 Forestry Commission have entered that part of the country there has been a great deal, not of land settlement, but of land unsettlement.
Three years ago I had to appeal to this House for justice to be given to 11 of the smallholders in this district of Kintail, and the House, not by its vote but obviously by its opinion, though not directly expressed, made it plain to the Forestry Commissioners that it would not tolerate the injustice that they proposed to perpetrate upon these men. At about that time there was another case, quite near to that locality, of the same kind, and I will read what the then representative of the Forestry Commissioners said when I appealed to him, with some others of my friends on the other side of the House, to have the same justice meted out in that case also. I was then told that that case would receive the favourable consideration of the Forestry Commissioners, but from that day to this the Forestry Commissioners have harassed this holder. The whole community, because of the harshness of the Forestry Commissioners' treatment, are up in arms, and it is but fair to say that it is very difficult for those of us who object to seeing the law outraged to keep them in hand. I appeal once again to the House of Commons to see fair play done to this particular holder, as the House has already done in the case of the other holders that I have mentioned.
I see that, under the proposals of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, there is to be a cut of £500,000 so far as the Forestry Commissioners are concerned. I am not surprised that my right hon. Friend the late Secretary of State for Scotland paid a visit to this part of my constituency over six weeks ago, and he was accompanied by his Parliamentary Private Secretary, the hon. Member for Paisley (Mr. J. Welsh).) At that time a deputation was received by him. Though he was not concerned with the Forestry Commission, he had the courtesy to send his Parliamentary Private Secretary to investigate the condition of affairs for himself in that locality, and, if my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley were here, he would bear me out when I say that the whole district is in an uproar, is angry and resentful, and points with scorn to the attempts which the Forestry 804 Commissioners have made to afforest that part of the country. I believe—and my right hon. Friend will bear me out when I say this—that there are thousands of trees there which are absolutely valueless, but it is proposed, as it was in the case I have mentioned, to capture the outrun of the grazing of this individual holder, who lives, I should say, about four miles from the neighbouring township. [Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams) knows the district well. He has been there for years, and his people before him, and suddenly this Forestry Commission come and take his livelihood from him without rhyme or reason. Trees are being planted there and the sheep are being driven off these pastures to fend for themselves along the highway. The whole situation is perfectly intolerable. If it were a case of justice very little need be said, but not one man I have come across has a good word to say for the attitude of the Forestry Commission.
It is not for me now to deal with the general policy of the commission, but, if I were to deal with it, I should say that the whole idea of taking 100,000 acres in that part of the country is absolutely uneconomic. There are hundreds of acres fit for arable land, and these have been taken. My information is that the whole thing, from an economic point of view, is destined to be a gigantic failure. The late Lord Privy Seal knows the locality well and gave sympathetic attention to it. I Am speaking what, I feel sure, will be voiced by the whole House of Commons when I say that the House will not tolerate an injustice of this kind, particularly when the Forestry Commission carries out its duties in a way which does not command the respect or admiration of the country. This cut of £500,000 is one which will be applauded by the people of this country. When the Forestry Commission started its operations people believed it was going to be a great success, but my information is that it is nothing of the kind and that they have created more commotion, more discontent and more resentment than any other public body that I know of in this country. I cannot stand by and see a gross injustice done to any single member of the community, whether he resides in my consti- 805 tuency or anyone else's, at the hands of a powerful Department of this kind. I, therefore, ask my hon. and gallant Friend to convey to the Forestry Commission what I feel sure is the opinion of the whole House of Commons, that it is not at this hour of the twentieth century for us to tolerate an injustice of that kind where the livelihood of an honest and respectable citizen of the country is concerned.
Colonel Sir GEORGE, COURTHOPE (Forestry Commissioner)I would like to acknowledge the courtesy of my right. hon. Friend in giving me notice last night that he proposed to raise this question, and, secondly, to express my regret that. I have been unable in the 24 hours that have elapsed to obtain any reliable information upon this particular case. I spent a considerable time this morning at our headquarters in London, who had received no information, and no complaints of any kind about this case. Although I have sent to our office in Edinburgh for some information, it has not reached me.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONI hope I made it perfectly plain that I have been in communication with the Commissioners in Scotland.
§ Sir G. COURTHOPEOh, yes, the right hon. Gentleman has so informed me, and I do not question it for a moment. I know he has been in communication with the office of our Assistant Commissioner in Scotland, but we have no particulars at our headquarters in London which enable me to give a detailed answer to his complaint.
I can make two or three general observations, which I hope will reassure him to some extent. The first is that when, sonic three years ago, he raised a somewhat similar complaint with reference to some smallholders in this same district of Kintail, an inquiry was made. It was at the time when I occupied the same position as that which I occupy now and was responsible for answering for the Forestry Commissioners. It was found on that occasion that there never had been any intention and was no intention of dispossessing the smallholders in question. I was able to give an assurance in the House, which I will repeat now if it is of any value, namely, that there is no intention whatever of 806 interfering with the security of tenure of this smallholder or any other smallholders.
I can say that in every single case in which land is acquired for afforestation the Board of Agriculture in Scotland is consulted, and assent obtained before the purchase and an approved scheme is completed. The reason for that is that the Forestry Commission are extremely anxious—as indeed it was the intention of Parliament in setting them up—that there should be no interference with the production of food in turning land to the production of timber. That applies to this as to other cases. I can only assume that this is one of a number of eases which had cropped up in which for a long period stretches of land had been unfenced. There have been no fences between properties and so on. Property has been acquired for afforestation, and for the first time a fence is erected, as is essential, particularly in the part of the country where there are deer. Such a fence, for the first time, stops the free movement of sheep which perhaps the owner has been accustomed to move about in the days when there were no fences, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we shall look sympathetically into this matter. We have not the slightest intention or desire to interfere with arty man's legitimate livelihood, but I shall be able, when I receive it from Scotland, to give such assuring information as will convince the right hon. Gentleman that we are not going to be harsh with any of his constituents, or anyone else, who is earning a livelihood in the neighbourhood of our afforestation schemes.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONWhen I raised this question before the hon. Member for Monmouthshire (Sir L. Forestier-Walker) replied, and he gave a guarantee that this case would be amicably settled. Mr. McRae, who has this holding, expected settlement, but instead he has been badgered and harshly treated all the time, and now the law is to be put into force against him in the course of a few days. I want a guarantee that no such action will be taken in the case until the Department in London has had time to consider the question.
§ Sir G. COURTHOPEObviously, I cannot give any guarantee as to what action will be taken about a case of which 807 I heard the details for the first time tonight. It was not until this evening that I heard the name of the man in question. I merely knew that it was a case in connection with afforestation in Kintail.
§ Mr. MACPHERSONWhen I raised the question before there was, of course, a full report in the OFFICIAL REPORT, containing the reply given by the hon. and gallant Member's predecessor in office. My hon. and gallant Friend would have found, on reading the report, a substantial guarantee which was given to this particular holder that he would receive the same treatment as other holders in neighbouring parishes. That is what I am pressing for to-day. He has been harshly treated and pestered and badgered until his life has became almost intolerable, and he is now threatened with the law. Therefore I am entitled to get a guarantee that no action such as is proposed shall be taken against this man.
§ Mr. SCOTTI should like to reinforce the appeal made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). The House will readily acknowledge the courtesy with which the hon. and gallant Member has replied to the appeal, but obviously he is at a disadvantage because he has not received from the Forestry Commission Office in Edinburgh the full information which would have enabled him, here and now, to give the assurance which is being asked of him. I am surprised that the Forestry Commission Office in Edinburgh has not shown the despatch which the occasion demands. My right hon. Friend, I understand, has had correspondence over a period with the Forestry Commission Office in Edinburgh. They are very fully seized of the facts, and they might easily have informed the hon. and gallant Member, so that he might have given the assurance required. I trust there will be no vindictive action taken by the Forestry Commissioners in Edinburgh and that they will stay any proceedings which they had intended to take. It makes one wonder whether the smallholders of Scotland were not very 808 much better off under a régime of private ownership of land than they are under the régime of public ownership under a public Department. Some of them have had serious experiences in this respect. One thing that the smallholders do value is security of tenure, and I was glad to hear the hon. and gallant Member give an assurance upon that matter and also that in future they would not take land which is obviously unsuitable for afforestation or land which can be put to a better purpose by arable or grazing cultivation. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will at once put himself into communication with the Forestry Commission in Edinburgh and relieve anxiety on this point.
§ Sir G. COURTHOPEI should like to assure my hon. Friends that my only reason for declining to give any guarantee is my ignorance of the details of this particular case. I am familiar with the cases raised three years ago and an assurance was given by the late Member for Monmouth, which was repeated by myself a year later, that there would be no interference with the security of tenure of the 'smallholders concerned, and I have satisfied myself by inquiry this morning that there has been no interference. This is a new complaint, raised I understand by a different man—
§ Mr. MACPHERSONNo, I raised it three years ago.
§ Sir G. COURTHOPEI was informed by the office in London this morning that this is a new complaint, because there has been no complaint from any of the cases raised three years ago that their security of tenure had not been fully maintained. I will repeat my undertaking to expedite my inquiries into this case and to give it sympathetic consideration. I can assure hon. Members that no harsh treatment, or unfair treatment, is contemplated in any of these cases.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-six minutes after Eleven o'Clock.