Clause 50.—(CONTROL OF AFFORESTATION.) (Hansard, 17 January 1967)

Earl of Dalkeith
I beg to move Amendment No. 129, in page 58, line 44, to leave out from 'time' to 'has' in line 45 and to insert: 'since the first day of September 1939'. This is a rather more substantial Amendment. In this part of the Bill, the Government have a good opportunity to advance the whole concept of integrated land use. I am sorry to see that, in many aspects of this part, there is a slightly anti-forestry flavour which is not conducive to securing the sort of integration we should all like to see.
Throughout the country, there are large areas of the scrubby type of land which was once woodland and was felled during the war. Much of this land has had fences knocked down, has been grazed by marauding cattle and has ceased to be classified as woodland for several years. Nevertheless, these areas are of little use to man or beast and surely it is just this type of land that we should be concentrating upon in our forestry replanting efforts. We should be doing our utmost to encourage individuals who own such land to plant it.
These areas are small, scattered, very often uneconomic units in which the Forestry Commission would not be interested. They are often found on owner-occupied farms and every encouragement should be given to the farmers or landowners to plant them up again. Any kind of restriction which results in their having to make special application for licences will discourage rather than encourage them. There is a strong case for the Amendment, which would allow for all wartime fellings which can be made good to be so.

§ Mr. John Mackie
I am disappointed that the hon. Member thinks that this part of the Bill has an anti-forestry flavour. I assure him that that is not so. He considers that the 10-year period specified is too short and his Amendment would extend exemption to any land which had been under trees at any time since 1st September, 1939. But the force of the argument based on wartime fellings has been steadily declining. Private foresters who wished to do so have had ample time and generous 327 Government assistance to make good wartime fellings, and to write into the Act the date suggested would take us back nearly 30 years.
On my way here there is a repair shop with a notice saying, "War damage a speciality". That is going back far enough. As time has gone by, the case for such a fixed date has become more and more irrelevant. We do not consider it reasonable to lay down a longer period than 10 years, and I ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

Earl of Dalkeith
I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 59, line 1, to leave out "ten" and to insert "fifty".
Perhaps it might be convenient to discuss at the same time the two following Amendments standing in my name: No. 71, in page 59, line 2, leave out "ten" and insert "fifty", and in page 59, line 4, at end insert: provided that if any person so elects and gives notice to the Board accordingly the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall have effect in relation to that person and to the land in his ownership as if for the words 'ten acres' and 'twelve months' respectively there were substituted the words 'one hundred acres' and 'ten years' ".

§ Mr. Speaker
That is agreeable.

Earl of Dalkeith
This provision emphasises what I have said about this part of the Bill having an anti-forestry flavour, because this very restrictive subsection puts a limit on the acreage which can be planted without having to seek a licence from the board. It seems a ridiculously small area when, as the hon. Gentleman knows, hill farms in Scotland commonly extend to 5,000 or 8,000 acres. In such circumstances a 10-acre shelter belt is obviously nonsense. All those who have studied the problem of land use know quite well that many hill sheep farms could carry trees on possibly 10 to 15 per cent. of their surface at no loss and possibly at benefit to agricultural production. My Amendment seeks to remedy this unnecessarily restrictive subsection.
I thought it only fair to give the hon. Gentleman a little choice and Amendment 130 would provide as an alternative that, without applying for a licence, someone could plant 100 acres with trees over ten years and not just 10 in any one 328 year. It would enable him to plant 30 acres one year and 20 acres another year according to the lie of the land and according to how it was most economical to fence the ground or to plough it in preparation for planting and so on. The planting of only 10 acres a year could easily become an uneconomic proposition.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that if someone wants to plant a bigger area there is nothing to stop him from applying for a licence, but is it necessary all the time in whichever direction one turns these days to have to be applying for a licence? Where shall we stop? One day the Minister will be trying to insist on what sort of wallpaper should be used in one's house. There must be some limit to the encroachment by the State on the freedom of the individual.
I should have thought that my suggestion was perfectly fair and reasonable. I know that this provision has been included in the Bill to try to prevent the conversion of good farming land to forestry user to try to exercise some degree of control. There can be no other justification for having such a narrow limit as 10 acres a year.
One matter which requires clarification concerns the phrase "ownership of any one person". If a company owned 10 farms and wanted to plant shelter belts on each farm, would it be limited to planting one acre on each farm? That would be quite crazy, but that is the only way in which I can construe this provision.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will study the Amendment with considerable seriousness, bearing in mind the economic aspects of planting trees.

§ Mr. Hawkins
I support this proposal. It is a practicable proposition. It is quite ridiciulous to have to go back year after year for permission to plant 10 acres of land. If the Government will not accept the amendment, will they accept that the owner of property who wants to do a programme of planting can ask the development board for the whole programme to be approved, so that a programme of, say 100 acres over 10 years could be approved in the first instance? That would enable him to 329 take on staff for the planting, to buy wire netting in quantity, and would enable the cutting back of paper work and pre vent clogging up the board's administration.
The limit of 10 acres is far too small. I do not know the hill land, but at present on very poor breckland, I am planning many shelter belts and they need planting to follow one another with the estate staff. It would be far better if the whole programme could be approved at the beginning, even if the raising of the acreage limit is not accepted. Even on the small estates we have in Norfolk, 10 acres is very little and in Norfolk we are planting 25 acres of shelter belt on 1,000 acres and we hope to do 12 or 15 in the first year.
I hope that the Minister can provide practical help. There is already enough form-filling by officials, whose only aim seems to be to say, "No" three times before they say, "Yes". Some of this sort of thinking seems to have crept into the Minister's thinking last evening and today.

§ Mr. Stodart
I support these Amendments, and particularly No. 130. This is rather a test case so far as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is concerned. He has said that there is no element of anti-forestry and he is anxious to put this formally on the record. There is no question but that the production of timber in Britain is one of the most vital contributions to the balance of payments. We have to have more woodland. This restriction to 10 acres will not apply to the Forestry Commission, but only to the private forester in the development area. We are not likely to be affected by rural development boards because we have been told that the Secretary of State does not propose to set them up in Scotland, but to have a rigid figure year by year does not fit in with the way one may want to do one's work.
My noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) has referred to various factors which govern planting. I often found myself planting three acres one year and seven or eight the next, and possibly one or two the year after. Alai of this depends upon so many woodland estates and how one's farming activities are arranged. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we 330 have to work for an integration of farming and forestry. This is essential, and I can well envisage, particularly on smaller estates, the farm workers playing a big part in the planting of trees. If one has a very late spring on the farm it may be that one will not be able to plant one's ten acres in one year and one would do seven or eight and 12 or 13 acres the following year.
In this particular sphere we must have flexibility, if I may remind the hon. Gentleman of the word which was rammed down our throats by his right hon. Friend—I will not say ad nauseam because he did it very nicely. From the first day of Committee the point was made several times—sometimes defensively, sometimes aggressively, but at every sitting of the Committee—that there was a need for flexibility. I throw the word back to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will be as realistic on this Amendment as he failed to be on the one relating to the farm improvement scheme. If he is we might forgive him for his former lapse.

§ Mr. John Mackie
Hon. Gentlemen opposite gave me the impression that this applies to all forestry. But it is applicable to development areas, and I do not think that Norfolk, for instance, is likely to be made such an area. This comment applies also to the noble Lord. This relates to a development area and the amount of trees which can be planted without a licence.
There is no reason why planning ahead should not be done in co-operation with the Board. The noble Lord referred to the fact that a 10-acre shelter belt was a nonsense. I do not think so. It is 700 yards by 70 and that is a rather big shelter belt. I doubt whether he will find many better.

Earl of Dalkeith
I said that a 10-acre shelter belt would be a nonsense if there is a company owning 10 farms and it is only allowed, in one ownership, to plant 10 acres a year.

§ Mr. Mackie
I am sorry if I misunderstood. The point was made that as a farmer I would probably be thinking of protecting farm land, but what I want to protect are the development board's plans for an area, and to ensure that tree planting does not conflict with the general development programme for the area. There must be a fairly low limit 331 imposed on an individual's unlicensed planting. If the limit were put at 50 acres the amount of unlicensed planting would soon build up over the years and compromise the board's plans.
We have given careful consideration to the matter but we still feel that, although we would not wish a board to be concerned with very small plantings, it is necessary that the board should have the opportunity of examining proposals involving the planting of more than 10 acres. It can be argued that 10 acres per year over 10 years is 100 acres, and this is arithmetically correct.
We have fixed a limit of 10 acres a year so as to ensure that unlicensed planting is not on such a scale that it might interfere with a board's general development programme. This is the main argument on unlicensed planting. An arrangement can be made with the board about future planting. To allow an area of 100 acres to be planted in one go, without giving the board the opportunity to examine the project, might compromise plans seriously.
The purpose of this is to safeguard the board's plans. It deals with unlicensed planting, and there is no reason why permission should not be given for bigger plantings so long as they do not conflict with the board's plans for a particular area. I think that hon. Members will see why I must ask the House to reject this Amendment.

Earl of Dalkeith
Could the hon. Gentleman give any example to show how the planting of 11 acres in the middle of a hill farm is likely to conflict with the hoard's plans? That is where the hon. Gentleman seems to be getting away from reality. If we were given a reasonable explanation, we might be able to understand his obstinacy in refusing to accept a perfectly reasonable Amendment.

§ Mr. Mackie
The hon. Gentleman has taken one acre above what is considered to be the reasonable figure. The figure could be 20 or 30 acres. We did not want the board to bother itself with very small plantings, and we fixed on 10 acres as a reasonable figure. Anything above that could destroy any plans which the board might have in certain areas.

§ Mr. John Mackie
I beg to move Amendment No. 72, in page 59, line 15, at the end to insert: (h) if the order establishing the Board so provides, to planting carried out during such period not exceeding three months from the date on which it is established as may be specified in the order. The purpose of the Amendment is to allow the Ministers, when setting up a board, to delay by a period of up to three months the operation of the control provisions relating to the planting of trees. This is similar to that proposed by my hon. Friend on Clause 48 which we have already discussed. It may be desirable to allow an interval between the establishment of a board and the coming into effect of its licensing powers, to give it time to work out its policy and procedures before the powers have to be exercised. This is a reasonable Amendment and I hope that the House will accept it.

Earl of Dalkeith
I beg to move Amendment No. 139, in page 59, line 17, to leave out from "direct" to end of line 21 and insert: (4)(a) The Board shall exercise their powers under this section as a means of meeting the problems and needs described in section 43 of this Act in relation to their area and in accordance with such exercise may, on any application for a licence under this section refuse it or grant it either with or without conditions. (b) In any case in which the Board refuse an application for a licence or grant it subject to conditions they shall pay to the person making the application compensation equal to the loss shown by the applicant to have been incurred by him in consequence of such refusal or the additional expenditure incurred by him in complying with such conditions, as the case may be: Provided that any claim for compensation under this subsection shall be made to the Board within three years of the date of the refusal of the application or of the grant of the application subject to conditions, as the case may be. (c) Any question arising between the Board and any person as to the amount of compensation payable under this subsection shall be determined by the Lands Tribunal.

§ Mr. Speaker
We shall discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 131, in page 59, line 18, after "conditions", insert: provided that neither the refusal nor the conditions are expected to involve the applicant in financial loss or in greater financial expenditure than would have been the case if the original application accorded with the rules of sound woodland management as recognised in dedicated or approved Woodland schemes".

Earl of Dalkeith
This is by far the most important Amendment of the group which I have tabled. Its purpose is to rectify a very important omission from the Bill which I feel must have occurred by accident. I hope, therefore, that it will be acceptable to the Government, not only because it is to rectify an omission but because it is eminently sensible and fair and it will give the Government an opportunity to expunge superfluous words, a matter to which the Minister referred a short time ago. By the time that the Amendment has been made, most of subsection (4) will then become superfluous. Not only do we think these words superfluous, but this is one of the worst drafted pieces of legislation that I have ever seen.
When the Minister tries to maintain that this is not anti-forestry, I can only say that it is certainly not pro-forestry. It is quite clear that it could not have been written by anybody who had any knowledge of forestry. It refers to "kinds of trees", whereas one always speaks of species of trees. There are all kinds of points in the Clause which are complete nonsense. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that some form of compensation is paid to a potential planter of trees should the board either give a point-blank refusal to grant a licence or impose conditions, either of which could result in the applicant sustaining a financial loss.
7.15 a.m.
Here are two examples. A man buy a hill farm with a view to planting trees on it. Fie pays a higher price for the farm for the planting of trees than he would pay if he were intending to farm it with sheep. He then applies to the rural development board for a licence to plant trees, but he is refused. He is left with the farm and is unable to sell it except for its sheep rearing value, which may be considerably lower than its forestry value. No provision is made for compensating that man for the consequences of an arbitrary decision of the board.
An applicant may be compelled to obey certain conditions laid down arbitrarily by the board. He is forced to plant the wrong type of trees for the site. Perhaps he is made to plant oak 334 trees on a hill site because they would look more beautiful. Not only are these trees more expensive to start with, but they require more weeding and so on, and the chances are that they may get frost-bitten and die in the first year, in the second year, or perhaps in the third year.
This is why I have written into the Amendment that there should be a three-year period within which an applicant can put in his claim for compensation. The trees might survive the first two years, but die in the third. There is no provision for any kind of compensation for loss sustained, and it is only fair that there should be.
I put down Amendment No. 131 because I was not sure whether the Money Resolution would allow for compensation to be paid in cases of this kind. It seemed to me that the only reasonable alternative was that the board should be limited in the conditions which it could impose in such a way that it did not inflict lose upon an applicant.
This is a most important Amendment for the sake of fairness, and I feel sure that the omission of proper provision from the Bill was the result of accident in the drafting. I hope that the Minister will now put the matter right.

§ Mr. Godber
I support the Amendment. If the Government are not happy with the wording, they can accept the principle and put in their own form of words to meet the point. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) has made out a powerful case. As a matter of equity, anyone who is called upon to plant a particular type of tree which then fails should not be called upon to bear the loss himself. That would be quite unjust. The gap in the Bill to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention must be filled, and I hope that the Government will accept his proposal.

§ Mr. John Mackie
The noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) has returned to his anti-forestry point on the basis that if we are not in favour of it, we must be against it. He also suggested that because some of the words are not quite what he is accustomed to in Scotland, those who drafted them probably did not 335 know much about forestry. Might it not be that some expressions in Scotland are different from those used in England? I would not know for sure, but it may be so.
The noble Lord pointed out that if someone bought a farm in a development area with a view to planting it and thereby increasing its value, that person would suffer financial loss if he did not get permission to plant. But under the provisions of Clause 47, nobody can buy land in a development area without the board's permission. Before being given permission, a person would presumably find out whether the land could be planted or not. There is, therefore, no danger of anybody buying land and not knowing the board's plans for the land.
The purpose of giving a board licensing control over private afforestation is to give the board the chance of steering private decisions on the use of land in its area so as to accord with the board's development programme, and of preventing irreversible changes in parts of the area from taking place without its agreement. Boards will be concerned with the co-ordinated development of forestry and agriculture in their areas, while making the most of natural amenities and assisting public services.
When granting a licence to plant trees, a board may impose conditions, of which particular examples are specified in subsection (4). These would ensure that amenity interests can be considered, that land planted with a short-term crop is restored to agricultural use within a reasonable time, that planting is carried out within a specified period and that access to other land is not blocked by the new planting.
Although the Government consider that there is no need to control afforestation generally by legislation, in a board's area forestry will almost certainly be a major rural land use which cannot be ignored if the boards are to carry out their tasks effectively.
Amendment No. 131 seeks to prevent a board from refusing a licence or from attaching conditions to a licence if such action would result in an expected financial loss to the applicant or greater financial outlay than otherwise. Boards must, however, be guided by the needs 336 of their areas and applications must be considered in the light of their general development programmes.
If a planting proposal fits in with the general scheme, a licence will, of course, be granted. If, however, a proposal would conflict with its programme, the board must be free to refuse a licence or, if appropriate, issue a licence attaching one or more of the conditions specified in the Bill. This will ensure that the proposed planting is in line with its general aims. To make licensing subject to the considerations that the Amendment suggests would nullify the whole procedure and frustrate the board's overall development programme.
In many cases, no doubt, licences will be issued free from conditions apart from the five-year time limit. The boards are, after all, to be charged primarily with development functions. They will have to bear commercial considerations in mind when considering whether to attach conditions to a planting licence in the interests of amenity or access. But, as with planning controls, if they do impose such a condition for the good of the area as a whole, they should not have to pay for it. They will have to keep within their functions and the conditions will have to be reasonable. If any applicant thinks that a condition is unreasonable, his recourse will be to appeal to the Minister.
Turning now to compensation for refusal of a licence, I have just made a comparison with the planning legislation, in which also the use of land is controlled in the interests of the community. Under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, compensation is paid only in cases of refusal of permission for new development when a claim was registered in 1948. It is true that if permission is refused to develop land which has no other beneficial use, the local authority can be required to buy the land; but in the Bill we have exempted from the licensing control any land which is not capable of another beneficial use. Paragraph (f) of subsection (2) gives this exemption. There therefore seems to be no reason why we should arrange for the board to pay compensation under the Clause.
In view of all these points, I must ask the House to reject the two Amendments.

Earl of Dalkeith
Even allowing for the late less of the hour, that was a monstrous reply. It is scandalous that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary should answer the debate in such a manner. After all, he is setting up a board which will have power to march on people's land and dictate what they should or should lot grow. A great deal of additional expense will be involved to landowners, yet the hon. Gentleman made it clear that not a penny compensation will be paid. If he went to an allotment holder and said "You will not grow cabbages next year; you will grow carrots" and the carrots died, the allotment holder would have him by the throat. The trouble is that "landowner" is a dirty word to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will consider the matter again.

§ Mr. Godber
rose—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The right hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak.

§ Mr. Godber
I wished to seek the leave of the House merely to point out that I, too, was distressed at the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's reply. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has been awake for too long and has been unable to give adequate thought to the serious arguments adduced by my hon. and noble Friend. I hope that when the Measure appears before another place—remembering that there, at a more favourable hour, particular note is taken of forestry matters—a more favourable reply will be forthcoming.

§ Mr. John Mackie
I beg to move, Amendment No. 74, in page 59, line 27, to leave out 'at' and to insert 'by'.
This is a drafting Amendment, designed to clarify a point raised in Standing Committee by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson). The Amendment makes it clear that when a board issues a licence for a short-term crop of trees, it may require the planter to both harvest his crop and to have the land cleared and made suitable for agricultural purposes by the end of the period specified in the licence.

Earl of Dalkeith
I beg to move, Amendment No. 132, in page 59, to leave out lines 33 to 35 and to insert: (d) requiring the planting and any new fencing to be carried out in such a manner and with sufficient gates as to allow access to adjacent land by existing customarily used routes'. This is really a drafting Amendment, because it seeks to achieve what I believe the Minister has in mind but what is not being achieved by the Clause as drafted. It is, therefore, a tidying-up operation. The object of this part of the Bill is to prevent an access to adjoining land from becoming blocked. When referring to tree planting, the thing that normally prevents access is the fencing. I have endeavoured to reword the subsection to mean what it says, although it imposes a condition which I would have preferred to have seen applied to the Forestry Commission, since a private forester is seldom guilty of planting trees in such a way that access to adjoining land is blocked.
The Amendment is necessary in view of the additional cost that might be involved if the board stated that gaps should be left at frequent intervals. Such a request could greatly increase the amount of fencing required. My wording makes the position clearer and, I believe, more adequately states what the Minister has in mind.

§ Mr. John Mackie
I appreciate the noble Lord's point. I remember considerable argument in Aberdeenshire and the north-east of Scotland on this subject; and that the Forestry Commission was blamed for complete blocks of forestry being fenced in with no gates that could be left open, and virtually no gaps left to allow sheep or cattle to get to the higher ground that was not planted, or even access to the grazing areas. In such circumstances, gates and other means of access would have been the right thing to provide. I would not argue with the noble Lord one way or the other whether or not private planters have more sense, but I would imagine that forestry planters now have more sense, and one would hope that the development board would see to this aspect.
I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that a big gap is much better than a gate, which cannot be much more than 339 10 feet or 12 feet wide—or a double gate might be 15 feet to 18 feet. A wider gap between planting is much better. I think that as new areas are planted this sort of access will be left, and that gates will not be provided.
Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his Amendment.

Earl of Dalkeith
If the Board imposed such a condition and if, as a result of there being a big gap and it was in hill land, the inevitable happened—the wood blew down—would the board accept liability and pay compensation? The Government ask that the board should have power to insist on people doing that. Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that the board, whose members may not be foresters, should have power to insist on people planting trees and do things that the normal forester would not in his own better judgment wish to do?
The board is being given these powers to interfere with the normal conduct of business—and the growing of trees, like farming, is a business. The hon. Gentleman would not like people marching in on him and telling him to grow crops different from those of his own choice on his land. This sort of interference is quite unwarranted, and the Parliamentary Secretary should think about these matters rather more seriously.
I hope that these points will be considered in that light in the further stages of the Bill.

§ Mr. Monro
I support this Amendment because my noble Friend knows more about forestry than anyone else here. It seems singularly inept of the Government to turn down all these constructive Amendments without any great thought. We have a vaguely worded Clause which talks of gaps but with no indication of their width, whereas my noble Friend's Amendment is precise in detail and so much better for the purposes of the Clause. The Minister should offer to take this Amendment back and see that it is accepted in another place, or rewrite the Clause in terms acceptable to the House.

§ Mr. Prior
It looks to me as though the draftsmen must have got about as bored with the Bill by the time they 340 reached this Clause as we are at this moment. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the right way to go about things would be to take this Clause away, get an expert on forestry, such as my noble Friend, to look at it, and then have it rewritten. All the time we are wanting to do more for forestry, but the Government are producing a very stupid subsection altogether.
Surely we ought to have an undertaking from the Parliamentary Secretary that he will look at this again. I do not know much about forestry in Scotland but I know something about the way trees blown down in gales. We had a tremendously serious blow in Scotland a few years ago which did an immense amount of damage. Here we have an instruction to the board which will lead to exactly the same thing again.

§ Mr. John Mackie
I think that subsection (4,d), which reads: requiring the planting to be carried out with such gaps as will prevent the planting from blocking access to some other land", seeks to do what the noble Lord wants to be done, but in a different way. We are not rigid about these things. I am perfectly prepared to see whether this provision can be better worded to ensure that gaps are not too big and might create a blow. As we know, noble Lords in another place who are interested in forestry helped to word the provision. As I say, the provision is in the Bill simply to achieve what the noble Lord desires.

Earl of Dalkeith
With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Earl of Dalkeith
I beg to move Amendment No. 133, in page 59, line 38, at the end to insert: 'except to a person to whom the land to which the licence relates, or in the interests of the licence holder in that land, is conveyed or assigned'. The purpose of this Amendment is partly to seek clarification. I should have thought that the object of this subsection was to exercise some measure of control over the land rather than over the individual, the licensee. I should like to know what happens when 341 the licensee dies. Is it the purpose of this Bill to have control exercised over the land?

§ Mr. John Mackie
The general aim of the Amendment can be summed up in the phrase that "the licence should run with the land", as in the case of tree-felling licences, based on the view that if the board is prepared to give a licence to one individual, it should not retract it if he transfers his interest in the land to another, or, as the noble Lord said, if he dies. We wish to see the board keeping a reasonably flexible programme, and modifying it in the light of changing circumstances. When land for which a planting licence has been issued has not been planted—and we must remember that the licence may have been issued five years previously—it is reasonable for the board to have an opportunity to have another look at the matter in the light of developments since the licence was issued in that particular part of its area. If forestry remains a sound use of the land in question and is still in accordance with the board's general development programme, then, of course, a new planting licence will be issued.
I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's arguments, especially where the licence has only recently been issued, and if he will withdraw the Amendment I will give further consideration to his proposal to see if we can meet him on this point.

Earl of Dalkeith
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Earl of Dalkeith
I beg to move Amendment No. 135, in page 60, line 2, to leave out 'five' and to insert 'ten'.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)
This Amendment can conveniently be discussed with Amendment No. 138, in page 61, line 14, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.

Earl of Dalkeith
I should like to know how the Government arrive at the figure of five rather than 10. I should have thought that there would be some argument in favour of 10 years. The reason I say that is that when a licence is given for planting trees, according to the present wording, it must be completed 342 within five years. For one reason or another there may be a number of very good reasons why it cannot be completed economically within a five year period.
It may be that we have the sort of Government we are enjoying today, when we have a credit squeeze, and when it may not be very easy to raise the necessary capital to carry out the forestry programme for which a person sought his licence. There is a variety of circumstances which could arise which might prevent one from carrying out one's programme, and I would like to know what would happen if the licensee did not comply with this particular rule. Perhaps the Minister could tell us that.

§ Mr. John Mackie
The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the period for which a licence to plant trees, issued by a board, may be made valid without explanation. There is nothing in the Bill to stop a board from making the time limit 10 years, or two, in a specific case, so long as the reasons are given. We are dealing here with the normal case, and we consider it reasonable to expect a licensee to carry out planting within a fairly short period of time after the granting of a licence. We assume that he would not have applied for a licence until he was ready to plant, or had at least planned his programme of planting.
Five years seems to be a reasonable period for the normal case, but if the applicant needs longer than five years, he can explain his need to the board and the board may well decide to allow him longer. The board would have no hesitation in allowing a longer period, or renewing a licence where no new factors had arisen during the original period allowed for planting. I think that the noble Earl will agree that the board, having set a time limit need not give reasons for doing so.
I am presuming, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I may refer to Amendment No. 138 and, if so, I would say that the licences dealt with in subsection (12) will be issued in cases where the board has not found it possible to reach a decision within two months of the application, and the landowner invokes the procedure provided for securing a definite ruling within a fortnight.

Earl of Dalkeith
What happens if the licensee does not comply with this particular condition? Will he be imprisoned, or fined, or what will happen?

§ Mr. Mackie
I have said that five years is considered to be a very reasonable period, but if the applicant does need more than five years, then he can explain his needs to the board which may well allow a longer period. If I may say so, the noble Earl seems to have a persecution mania. He should snap out of it and not believe, as one would suspect he believes, that the board will exist just for the purpose of persecuting landlords and the like.

Earl of Dalkeith
Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House the penalty if the licensee does not comply with the board's instructions?

§ Mr. Mackie
There is a Clause on penalties, but this is nothing to do with the Amendment.

Earl of Dalkeith
I beg to move Amendment No. 136, in page 60, line 26, to leave out "two hundred" and insert "fifty".

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker
It might be for the convenience of the House to consider with it Amendment No. 137, in page 60, line 34, to leave out "ten" and insert "two".

Earl of Dalkeith
It seems to me that the Minister has decided on a very stiff penalty, bearing in mind that he is interfering with the normal conduct of people's business. I do not know why the Government should choose to threaten anybody in this way. They might go to the Rootes Group and say, "You must make red cars in future, and if you do not obey our orders we shall fine you."
I believe that this is all part of the general scheme of unwarranted, bureaucratic interference into people's everyday life. To produce fines of any kind is monstrous, but to produce fines as stiff as these is doubly monstrous. This matter should be reviewed if the Government hope to secure co-operation from the average citizen, who is willing to co-operate. Nobody is more willing than I am to co- 344 operate with schemes of every sort, but this sort of thing will antagonise ordinary people. It upsets people and is irritating. I hope that the Minister will look at it again.

§ Mr. John Mackie
Although the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) said that many of his hon. Friends were not in favour of rural development boards, and he gave them only "qualified support" it is a part of the Bill that boards are to be set up. If they are set up and given certain powers to carry out certain things, and some of their conditions are breached, there must be penalties.
The noble Lord again returns to his point that this is something created to encroach on the liberty of the individual. That is not the point. There must be some penalties for breaches.
The Amendments are designed to reduce from £200 to £50 the maximum fine that can be imposed for a contravention of subsection (1) of this Clause or of any condition of a tree-planting licence, and to reduce from £10 to £2 the maximum fine which may be imposed for each day on which non-compliance with a court order continues. The sum of £200 is the maximum fine that can be imposed for the initial contravention of subsection (1). Similarly, £10 is the maximum fine for continued non-compliance. The noble Lord suggests that these penalties look severe, but they are intended as a deterrent, for once land is planted without permission almost as much trouble will accrue for the board in getting the planter to reinstate it as for the planter himself. Once land is planted with trees there could be a lot of trouble in getting it cleared again.
Although the initial penalty for planting without a licence is higher than that for non-compliance with the town and country planning legislation, the continuing penalty is less. Taken together, the penalties are reasonable in comparison with penalties under the planning legislation.
If we are to have a board with powers we must have these penalties, and the penalties here are reasonable to create a proper deterrent. I ask the House to reject the Amendments.