HC Deb 26 March 1947 vol 435 cc1344-55
The Chairman

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if the two Amendments to this Clause are discussed together.

Mr. Vane

I beg to move, in page 4, line 8, at the end, to insert: or of land as to which no such covenant or agreement is in force but which is being used and managed in accordance with the rules or practice of good forestry. Clause 5 has one great merit in that it allows for arbitration by an independent arbitrator and in view of this I feel a little diffident about proposing any Amendment. There is, however, one small way in which we think it can be greatly improved and we hope the Minister will accept our view. The Clause is described as restricting the compulsory acquisition of certain land. The words which we suggest should be added amount to a very slight tightening of that restriction but at the same time they would lead to a very wide extension of common justice. As the Committee will remember, the Government's forestry policy originally allowed two courses. One entered compulsorily into a dedication covenant or else exposed oneself to the risk of having one's woods acquired by the State. The word voluntary was used but in rather an unusual sense. Later on we were given a third alternative between these two courses, and the Minister made it quite clear in the Second Reading Debate when he said: I think it was explained very clearly by my noble Friend, the Lord Chancellor, in another place, that there are the three alternatives. One may dedicate, one may decide to carry on afforestation without dedication, or, under the 1945 Act, it is clearly possible to purchase compulsorily."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1947; Vol. 433, C. 1220.] Under this Clause those who dedicate and abide by the clauses of the covenant are protected from compulsory acquisition of certain land under the terms of Section 4 of the Forestry Act of 1945, but those who manage their woods up to the same standard and did not in fact enter into a dedication covenant are not, as yet, allowed the same protection. I submit that if the object of the Government's forestry policy is to secure good woods those who practise good forestry should be given the same protection, even if they do not enter into a forestry dedication covenant.

We have seen that the financial aid which is offered to private woodland owners under certain conditions may really be of no benefit at all, and it can work out in practice that more people may find no advantage in accepting this than was at first supposed, and, in consequence, no advantage in entering into a covenant, which, as we have heard, may be very difficult to contract out of. I suggest that there is very much to be said for extending the protection. The Lord Chancellor said, in another place, that he wished good luck to those who managed their woods up to a good standard even if they did not dedicate, and I think this House might add to that message of good luck and offer real and effective protection.

Earl Winterton (Horsham)

I do not think any party question can possibly arise over this matter. I want to support everything which has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), and to make a strong appeal to the Minister to accept this Amendment. Within my personal knowledge, in the South of England, where there is a great deal of forestry, there are several forestry estates, small and large, which are being managed on a high level of efficiency. In some cases, if I may mention a personal instance of an estate owned by myself, they are subject to supervision by voluntary arrangement entered into with the Forestry Commission. That is to say, planting and filling and so on are done on the advice of the forestry supervisor. I cannot see anything logical in insisting that an estate in that position shall be dedicated or taken over by the Forestry Commission.

There may be reasons, as my hon. Friend very rightly said, why the owner does not wish to dedicate. He may have conscientious objections to receiving the grant to which he is entitled under dedication. Surely, the object of this Bill is to see that all land purporting to be woodlands shall be properly managed. Woodlands can be managed in three ways, by the Forestry Commission, by dedication, or under a system of private ownership, which, as far as the Commission is concerned, is subject, in the words of the Amendment, to "the rules or practice a good forestry." The words of the Amendment are sufficiently strong to ensure that the land is properly used. Surely, on pratical grounds, there is a case to be made out for land which is properly managed remaining in the private ownership of the person who manages it. I cannot see any argument whatever against this Amendment on logical grounds, on grounds of public policy, or on grounds of public expenditure.

Major Mott-Radclyffe (Windsor)

I should like to reinforce the plea which has been made. Since the object of the Bill is to ensure good afforestation and management of woodlands whether dedicated or not, I cannot see why the woodland owner who does not wish to dedicate should not receive exactly the same protection as the owner who wishes to dedicate his woodlands provided he manages his woodlands according to the rules and practice of good forestry. Whether he decides to dedicate or not is surely his responsibility. If may be to his advantage to dedicate in certain cases and to his disadvantage in other cases, but there is no possible ground for discriminating between two woodland properties, both equally well managed, one of which is dedicated, and the other not dedicated, but subject to compulsory acquisition. I beg the Minister to treat the Amendment with the consideration it deserves.

Colonel Ropner

I hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment, and at the same time that he will be able to give me an answer to this specific question. If, unhappily, he does not accept the Amendment, will an owner situated as I am about to describe receive a grant, or not? I want the Minister to imagine a landowner who desires to dedicate a wood growing good timber but judged by the Forestry Commission, for one reason or another, to be unsuitable for acceptance in a dedication scheme. I want the Minister to note particularly that I am saying that this piece of land grows good trees and is being properly managed. If this particular wood is not accepted by the Forestry Commission for dedication, will it receive a grant of any sort whatsoever?

9.30 p.m.

Mr. T. Williams

In the case of the land referred to by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), if it is to be planted from now on, certain grants will be available to the owner, even though the land may not be dedicated. The Amendment that has been moved is an extension of Clause 5, which was put into the Bill in another place to safeguard those who have dedicated their woodlands from being purchased compulsorily under the 1945 Act, if they are conforming to the rules of good forestry. I readily concede that Clause 5 is an improvement in the Bill, and if all the conditions are being fulfilled, there is no logical reason why the dedication scheme should be disturbed; but this Amendment goes much further, and would include land which is not dedicated, but which is in forestry, and, presumably, is being fairly well managed. The Amendment, taken with the next Amendment, would mean that the owner would have a right to go to arbitration to decide whether or not the land was being afforested properly.

It seems to me there is no reason for this Amendment. If land is to be acquired compulsorily, as the noble Lord will know—and as he is a good old Parliamentary hand, I am sure he will approve of what I am about to say—under Section 4, (3), of the 1945 Act, coupled with Part II of the First Schedule, should the Commission decide compulsorily to purchase an area of woodland, or any land, in fact, notice of the proposal would have to be given to the public, and an order would not have effect unless it had first been confirmed by Parliament. I suggest to the noble Lord, who is the oldest of old Parliamentary hands, that the safeguard of Parliament is far greater than the safeguard of an arbitrator. That is exactly the position today without either of the two Amendments on the Order Paper.

The Amendment seeks to preserve from compulsory acquisition land which has not been dedicated, while the whole purpose of this small Bill is to encourage dedication schemes. There seems to be lurking in the minds of some hon. Members a fear that the Forestry Commission are in existence exclusively to dodge around the country and buy out all kinds of land, but particularly land that has been planted and well cared for. As a matter of fact, the Forestry Commission have not bought a square yard of land compulsorily yet. I cannot understand why there are these fears and apprehensions. I should have thought that, instead of pressing these two Amendments upon the Government, hon. Members opposite would do far better to rely upon the last word in Parliament rather than the mere word of an outside arbitrator. For those reasons, and not because of stupidity or of unwillingness to be reasonable to hon. Members opposite, but because I think that Parliament is the best safeguard for the landowner, I prefer not to accept the Amendment.

Earl Winterton

The right hon. Gentleman has referred to me, so may I ask him a direct question because I am still in doubt as to the policy behind this Clause? Is it the view of the Minister, and the view of the Commission for which he speaks in this Committee, that land which is in a perfectly proper position from the forestry point of view, and has been so for 40 years, should be retained by the owner, or is it to be dedicated or taken over by the Forestry Commission?

Mr. Williams

I should have thought that land which is properly afforested, and has been for 40 years, in all probability will be allowed to remain where it is as long as the woodlands are reasonably well cared for.

Mr. Philips Price

I cannot see the season for the fears of hon. Members opposite as to what might happen if they do not dedicate, provided that the land has been properly kept up, and I do not see why they should receive any privileges. Surely the privileges should go to those who dedicate.

Earl Winterton

Nobody is asking for privileges. The hon. Gentleman should not make accusations of that kind. All we ask is to be left alone; that those who may not wish to dedicate, for conscientious or other reasons, should keep the ground. Is it a privilege to retain forestry land which is properly looked after?

Mr. Price

No, but I consider that such land should not be in a more favourable position. I consider that where any advantages arise out of this Measure, they should go first of all to those who dedicate.

Major Mott-Radclyffe

I do not think the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Price) has understood this Amendment. Nobody who supports this Amendment asks for any privileges; all they ask is that a woodland area not dedicated, but managed properly, should receive the same degree of protection against compulsory acquisition as the woodland area properly managed subject to dedication. There is no question of privilege at all. The Minister's reply was a little revealing, because until now I was under the impression—and I certainly gave him credit for it—that he was primarily concerned with securing good afforestation. From the way he has rejected this Amendment, however, it seems that he is primarily concerned with effecting control over all woodland areas by the Forestry Commission, which is quite a different line and, in my view, a most disappointing one.

Mr. York

May I recall to the Minister a statement he made in the Second Reading Debate in answer to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner)? In that statement he said quite clearly that he accepted in principle our Amendment. He said: Quite obviously, if the area of land was suitable and the private woodland owner agreed to grow the right kind of timber, then it would be entirely in his hands to determine whether or not he would enter into a dedication scheme. If, however, he was not disposed to enter into a dedication scheme but allowed the area of land to grow nothing, and to run riot, then, and only then, would compulsory purchase be contemplated. "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1947; Vol. 433, c. 1209.] Here we have a definite assurance given by the Minister that only in cases where the land is not properly managed will it be acquired compulsorily. He said that in the interjection I have quoted, which obviously was a responsible statement. Yet now he refuses to accept that principle when we put it forward as an Amendment. Really, it does seem to me a little unreasonable when the Minister accepts a principle at one stage of a Bill only to refuse to accept it at a later stage.

Captain Crookshank

I hope the Minister will comment on that very relevant statement by my hon. Friend the Member for Ripon (Mr. York).

Mr. T. Williams

I will.

Captain Crookshank

Well, the right hon. Gentleman did not rise to do so. At any rate, I have that assurance from him. But this is the same trouble that we have had all the time with the Minister of Agriculture, whose words we entirely respect, but who has got into the terribly bad habit of trying to legislate by assurances. We have had it on the Committee stage of another Bill, day after day, and now we have it here. If he does not intend to stick to what he said—and the words just quoted made clear what his intentions were, and are almost word for word what we have put into our Amendment—and if he is not prepared to accept these words, I am afraid we must consider that what he said on that occasion is absolutely valueless, or, what is very unlikely in the case of the right hon. Gentleman, that he was talking with his tongue in his cheek.

Mr. Williams

Talking with my tongue in my cheek is one of those Parliamentary preoccupations, indulged in by some people, but in which I rarely indulge myself. I can repeat, word for word, to the hon. Member for Ripon (Mr. York) the same assurance that I gave during the Second Reading Debate.

Mr. York

Then why not accept the Amendment?

Mr. Williams

It appears to be of no value to give an assurance at all. What hon. Members are seeking tonight is amendment of the 1945 Act, by means of these two very simple Amendments. Now, the 1945 Act was passed by the Coalition Government, not by the Labour Government. It gave the Forestry Commission powers of compulsory acquisition. I wonder it the hon. Member for Ripon, or the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane), or the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner), or the right hon. and gallant Member for Gainsborough (Captain Crookshank), opposed that power at that time? I am sure they did not. Yet what they are asking for in these two Amendments is, in effect, amendment of the 1945 Act, which they all supported. I repeat to hon. Members opposite, that there can be no compulsory acquisition by the Forestry Commission of land, either planted or not planted, without, first, having given the ordinary public notice, and, finally, Parliament having the last word as to whether that acquisition can take place or not. Surely, Parliament is the right place in which to have the last word? I have heard the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) argue in favour of that scores of times within the past 24 years, saying that Parliament itself is supreme. Now, for once in a while, curiously enough the noble Lord falls from the very high pedestal, on which I had always placed him Parliamentarily, to the lowest level, when he puts an arbitrator in front of Parliament itself.

Mr. Vane

Since I had not a chance of opposing the 1945 Act here, perhaps I may be allowed to add a few words. The Minister knows that I am no opponent of dedication, and that there is nothing behind this Amendment which is intended to encourage people not to dedicate. But the longer and the more closely one looks at this scheme, the fewer benefits seem likely to accrue to a large number of woodland owners. We have to remember, too, that these grants, on which a certain amount of emphasis has been laid, are likely to be reviewed after five years, and, perhaps very soon, will probably disappear altogether. In consequence, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman must agree that it may probably be to the great advantage of some owners not to dedicate. In those cases I fail to see why he should not offer protection in this Bill—which is the Forestry Bill, 1947, and not the Forestry Act, 1945—instead of leaving us to rely on his assurances. Finally, I say that we are not seeking to substitute an arbitrator for Parliament. That is not the intention at all. The intention is that an arbitrator should first decide that the rules of good forestry are not being observed before the powers of acquisition under the 1945 Act should begin to be put into operation. If those powers are put into operation, then Parliament, in due course, has the opportunity of having the last word. I think our Amendment is a very innocent one, and I hope that, even at the last minute, the Minister will change his mind.

9.45 p.m.

Earl Winterton

The right hon. Gentleman devoted most of his speech to my most admirable qualities as a Parliamentarian. I should not he in Order if I followed him in those remarks. But I cannot resist putting on record my astonishment at the statement made by the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean (Mr. Philips Price). In the opinion of the hon. Member for the Forest of Dean an owner of woodlands who seeks no advantages from the State, neither the money he can receive by compulsory purchase or compulsory letting, nor the money he would receive under dedication, but merely carries on his estate as, hitherto, he has carried it on, is seeking privileges for himself. That is the most astonishing statement I have heard from one who purports to have a knowledge of the countryside.

Mr. Philips Price

What the noble Lord is seeking to do is to protect those owners who are too much prejudiced—there are very few of them—and who do not like to have Forestry Commission officials going about on their property. I say that an Amendment of this kind will indulge those people, and that legislation should not do so.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 91; Noes, 228.

Division No. 115.] AYES. [9.44 p.m.
Agnew, Cmdr. P. G. Howard, Hon A. Ramsay, Maj. S.
Baldwin, A. E. Hurd, A. Roberts, H. (Handsworth)
Bennett, Sir P. Hutchison, Ll.-Cm. Clark (E'b'rgh W.) Roberts, Maj. P. G. (Ecclesall)
Birch, Nigel Hutchison, Col J. R. (Glasgow, C.) Robinson, Wing-Comdr. Roland
Boles, Lt.-Col. D. C. (Wells) Jennings, R. Ropner, Col. L.
Bowen, R. Kingsmill, Lt.-Col. W. H. Ross, Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Bower, N. Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H. Scott, Lord W.
Butler, Rt. Hon. R. A. (S'ffr'n W'ld'n) Lindsay, M. (Solihull) Shepherd, W. S. (Bucklow)
Carson, E. Lipson, D. L. Smiles, Lt.-Col. Sir W.
Challen, G. Lloyd, Selwyn (Wirral) Smith, E. P. (Ashford)
Clarke, Col. R. S. McCallum, Maj. D. Spearman, A. C. M.
Clifton-Brown, Lt.-Col. G. Mackeson, Brig. H. R. Stoddart-Scott, Col. M
Cooper-Key, E. M. McKie, J. H. (Galloway) Strauss, H. G. (English Universities)
Corbett, Lieut.-Col. U. (Ludlow) Maitland, Comdr. J. W. Sutcliffe, H.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C. Marlowe, A. A. H. Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Cuthbert, W. N. Marsden, Capt. A. Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Dodds-Parker, A. D. Marshall, D. (Bodmin) Thorp, Lt.-Col. R. A. K.
Dower, Lt.-Col. A. V. G. (Penrith) Maude, J. C. Vane, W. M. F.
Drayson, G. B. Mellor, Sir J. Wadsworth, G.
Drewe, C. Morrison, Maj. J. G. (Salisbury) Walker-Smith, D.
Dugdale, Maj. Sir T. (Richmond) Morrison, Rt. Hon W S. (Cirencester) Ward, Hon. G. R.
Erroll, F. J. Mott-Radclyffe, Maj. C. E. Wheatley, Colonel M. J.
Fyfe, Rt. Hon. Sir D. P. M. Neven-Spence, Sir B. White, Sir D. (Fareham)
Gage, C. Nicholson, G. Williams, C. (Torquay)
Galbraith, Cmdr. T. D. Noble, Comdr. A. H. P Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
George, Maj. Rt. Hn. G. Lloyd (P'ke) Osborne, C. York, C.
Glossop, C. W. H. Peake, Rt. Hon. O. Young, Sir A. S. L. (Partick)
Hannon, Sir P. (Moseley) Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Harvey, Air-Comdre. A. V. Poole, O. B. S. (Oswestry) TELLERS FOR THE AYES
Hogg, Hon Q. Price-White, Lt.-Col. D. Mr. Studholme and
Hollis, M. C. Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. Major Conant.
Hope, Lord J. Raikes, H. V.
NOES.
Adams, Richard (Balham) Daggar, G Hamilton, Lieut -Col. R.
Adams, W. T. (Hammersmith, South) Daines, P. Hannan, W. (Maryhill)
Allen, A. C. (Bosworth) Davies, Edward (Burslem) Hardy, E. A.
Allen, Scholefield (Crewe) Davies, Ernest (Enfield) Hastings, Dr. Somerville
Alpass, J. H. Davies, Harold (Leek) Henderson, A. (Kingswinford)
Anderson, A. (Motherwell) Davies, Hadyn (St. Pancras, S W.) Herbison, Miss M.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Davits, R. J. (Westhoughton) Hobson, C R.
Attewell, H. C. Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) Holman, P.
Awbery, S. S. de Freitas, Geoffrey Holmes, H. E. (Hemsworth)
Bacon, Miss A. Delargy, H. J. Hoy, J.
Baird, J. Diamond, J. Hudson, J. H. (Ealing, W.)
Balfour, A. Dobbie, W. Hughes, H. D. (W'lverh'pton, W.)
Barton, C. Driberg, T. E. N. Hutchinson, H. L. (Rusholme)
Battley, J. R Dugdale, J. (W. Bromwich) Irving, W. J.
Bechervaise, A. E- Dumpleton, C. W. Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Berry, H. Edwards, N. (Caerphilly) Jeger, G. (Winchester)
Beswick, F. Edwards, W. J. (Whltechapel) Jeger, Dr. S. W. (St. Pancras, S.E.)
Bing, G. H. C. Evans, E. (Lowestoft) John, W.
Blyton, W. R. Evans, John (Ogmore) Jones, Rt. Hon. A. S. (Shipley)
Boardman, H. Evans, S. N. (Wednesbury) Jones, D. T. (Hartlepools)
Bottomley, A. G. Fairhurst, F. Jones, Elwyn (Plaistow)
Bowdan, Flg.-Offr. H. W. Fletcher, E. G. M (Islington, E.) Jones, J. H. (Bolton)
Bowles, F. G. (Nuneaton) Follick, M. Jones, P. Asterley (Hitchin)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M. (L'pl, Exch'ge) Forman, J. C. Keenan, W
Braddock, T. (Mitcham) Foster, W. (Wigan) Kenyon, C.
Bramall, Major E. A. Fraser, T. (Hamilton) King, E. M.
Brook, D. (Halifax) Freeman, Maj. J. (Watford) Kinghorn, Sqn.-Ldr. E.
Brown, T. J. (Ince) Gallacher, W. Kinley, J.
Burke, W. A. Gibbins, J. Kirby, B. V.
Butler, H. W. (Hackney, S.) Gibson, C. W. Lang, G.
Carmichael, James Glanville, J. E. (Consett) Lee, F. (Hulme)
Champion, A. J. Goodrich, H. E. Lewis, T. (Southampton)
Cobb, F. A. Greenwood, A. W. J. (Heywood) Lindgren, G. S.
Cocks, F. S. Grey, C. F. Longden, F.
Coldrick, W. Grierson, E. Lyne, A. W.
Collick, P. Griffiths, D. (Rother Valley) McAdam, W.
Collins, V. J. Griffiths, W. D. (Moss Side) McGovern, J.
Colman, Miss G. M. Guest, Dr. L. Haden Mack, J. D.
Comyns, Dr. L Gunter, R. J. Mackay, R. W. G. (Hull, N.W.)
Cook, T. F. Guy, W. H. McKinlay, A. S.
Corbet, Mrs. F K. (Camb'well, N.W.) Haire, John E. (Wycombe) Maclean, N. (Govan)
Corlett, Dr. J. Hale, Leslie McLeavy, F.
Cove, W. G. Hall, W. G. Macpherson, T. (Romlord)
Manning, C. (Camberwell, N.) Pursey, Cmdr. H Timmons, J.
Mathers, G. Randall, H. E. Titterington, M F.
Medland, H. M. Ranger, J. Tolley, L.
Mellish, R. J. Rankin, J. Tomlinson, Rt Hon. G.
Mikardo, Ian. Rhodes, H. Viant, S. P.
Millington, Wing-Comdr. E. R Richards, R Walker, G. H.
Mitchison, G. R. Robertson, J. J. (Berwick) Wallace, G. D. (Chislehurst)
Moody, A. S. Ross, William (Kilmarnock) Watkins, T. E.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. Royle, C. Weitzman, D.
Morley, R. Scollan, T. Wells, W. T. (Walsall)
Morris, P. (Swansea, W.) Sharp, Granville West, D. G.
Murray, J. D. Shawcoross, C. N. (Widnes) White, H. (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Nally, W. Shawcross, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (St. Helens) Wigg, Col. G. E.
Naylor, T. E. Shurmer, P. Wilkins, W. A.
Neal, H. (Claycross) Silverman, J. (Erdington) Willey, F. T. (Sutherland)
Nichol, Mrs. M. E. (Bradford, N.) Simmons, C. J. Willey, O. G. (Cleveland)
Nicholls, H. R. (Stratford) Smith, C. (Colchester) Williams, D. J. (Neath)
Noel-Baker, Capt. F. E. (Brentford) Smith, Ellis (Stoke) Williams, J. L. (Kelvingrove)
Noel-Buxton, Lady Smith, S. H. (Hull, S.W.) Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Oldfield, W. H. Sorensen, R. W. Williams, W. R. (Heston)
Oliver, G. H. Soskice, Maj. Sir F. Williamson, T.
Paget, R. T. Stamford, W. Willis, E.
Paling, Rt. Hon. Wilfred (Wentworth) Steele, T. Wills, Mrs. E. A.
Palmer, A. M. F. Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.) Wilson, J. H.
Parkin, B. T. Stress, Dr. B. Wise, Major F. J.
Paton, J. (Norwich) Swingler, S. Woodburn, A.
Pearson, A. Sylvester, G. O. Woods, G. S.
Peart, Capt. T. F. Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth) Yates, V. F.
Plans-Mills, J. F. F. Thomas, D. E. (Aberdare) Young, Sir R. (Newton)
Porter, E. (Warrington) Thomas, Ivor (Keighley) Younger, Hon. Kenneth
Porter, G. (Leeds) Thomas, I. O. (Wrekin) Zilliacus, K.
Price, M. Philips Thorneycroft, Harry (Clayton)
Pritt, D. N. Thurtle, E. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Proctor, W. T. Tiffany, S. Mr. Popplewell and Mr. Snow.

Question put, and agreed to

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.