FORESTRY BILL. [H.L.]

HL Deb 14 July 1919 vol 35 cc516-60

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Crawford.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL OF KINTORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Establishment of Forestry Commission.

1.—(1) For the purposes of this Act it shall be lawful for His Majesty by warrant under the sign manual to appoint seven commissioners, to be styled the Forestry Commissioners, of whom one, to be appointed by His Majesty, shall be chairman.

(2) There shall be paid to not more than three of the Forestry Commissioners, in this Act referred to as "the Commissioners," such salaries in each year (not exceeding in the aggregate four thousand five hundred pounds) as the Treasury may direct.

(3) Subject to the provisions of this section the term of office of a paid Commissioner shall be ten years, and the term of office of an unpaid Commissioner shall be five years.

(4) On a casual vacancy occurring owing to the death, resignation, or incapacity of a Commissioner, the person appointed by His Majesty to fill the vacancy shall continue in office until the date on which the Commissioner in whose place he was appointed would have ceased to hold office.

(5) A person who has vacated office as a Commissioner shall be eligible for re-appointment.

LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (2), to delete "three" and to substitute "one." The noble Lord said: If the House were to accept my Amendment the effect would be that instead of having three paid Commissioners there would be only one, and presumably he would be the Chairman of the Commissioners. Provision is taken for a Chairman to be appointed by His Majesty in this first clause, and I do not think during the discussion of the Bill on Second Reading that any statement was made by the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster regarding the reasons why three out of the Commissioners to be appointed should be paid. It might be argued that you should pay three if these three Commissioners were to represent England, Scotland, and. Ireland, but apparently that is not the ease, because provision is taken later in the Bill, on Clause 5, to appoint three sub-Commissioners for England, Scotland, and Ireland with very large powers indeed, and upon whom would devolve the work in the respective countries of supervision. No doubt these gentlemen would be men of standing receiving large salaries. It is rather curious to remark that in Clause 5 it is only said that the salaries of the Sub-Commissioners are to be what the Treasury think fit. Those are not the exact words but I think that is what they come to.

As regards the three Commissioners who are to be paid, they are to receive between them £4,500 a year, or rather not exceeding £4,500. I suppose in practice the first three Commissioners would receive that £4,500. Perhaps the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would indicate how he proposes to allot that sum. I suppose there will be £2,500 for the Chairman, leaving for the other two £1,000 a year each. Of course the Chairman would have most of the work to do, and the other two Commissioners would have less re-responsibility and therefore less pay. But a sum even of £2,500 is not a very large sum to pay in these days, and when you come to only £1,000 a year for the other Commissioners the question arises whether it is really necessary to pay them. That £1,000 is only equivalent to £500 before the war, or even less. Do the Government really think that they will get men well-equipped for this work for a payment of that sort? Therefore it seems to me a question whether it is worth while having these two paid Commissioners.

I venture to suggest that in these days when every one is talking about economy, though one regrets that very few people are practising it, the Government should not suggest, for no useful purpose, that there should be these paid Commissioners in addition to a paid Chairman. There might be some reason for it as I have said if the three gentlemen to be paid were to represent the three parts of the United Kingdom, but for practical purposes it seems to me that they will not do so. Under Clause 5 there will be three gentlemen who will have control of the three parts of the United Kingdom. I notice also that there are going to be set up Consultative Committees. That again will further increase the expenses by a large sum. These committees are to consist of five classes, and I see there is to be a representative of labour upon them and of the county councils. In these days representatives of labour, as the noble Earl knows, always claim that they should be paid for their time as well as their travelling expenses. Naturally we shall also have members of the county councils claiming some kind of remuneration. I notice that members of the county councils through their associations are desiring to have their expenses paid even for journeys in their own county. Where you have three bodies for all the United Kingdom the members would have to travel long distances and a large sum, it seems to me, would have to be distributed in expenses of one kind or another. Therefore I hope the Government may be inclined to cut out these two Commissioners. It does not seem to me that there is any real necessity for making any payment to any of these Commissioners, except perhaps the Chairman.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 9, leave out ("three") and insert ("one").—(Lord Strachie.)

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I shall give my support to any Amendment which I think can effect reasonable economy, and I assure the noble Lord, from my consultation with those concerned in the promotion of this Bill, that their desire is to carry out the duties imposed upon them in the most frugal and thrifty manner. But I do not think that this Amendment is one which I could accept. The Bill proposes three paid Commissioners. The Chairman will have to give the whole of his time to his office. It is proposed also—of course what I say is provisional, but this is the general scheme—that a second Commissioner should be paid who would devote his time to the purely sylvicultural side of the work, and that the third paid Commissioner should be an expert on all questions connected with the utilisation of timber, the commercial questions that arise connected with trans port, with railway rates, with standardisation, and 101 questions of that character.

I would remind your Lordships that these paid Commissioners are appointed for periods not exceeding ten years, and in order to get good and well qualified men I think your Lordships would agree that it is necessary to pay them. I am afraid I cannot answer the noble Lord's question as to the allocation of this sum between the Commissioners. Attention will, of course, have to be given to that point, but I think that unless we pay these three men we cannot be sure of getting men of standing and experience who will devote the whole of their time to the public service. I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (3), to delete "ten" and to substitute "five." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is one to reduce the term of the Commissioners from ten years to five. I move it on the ground that it is the usual thing in such appointments to limit the appointment to five years, for example, appointments in the Army and the Navy. It is a very useful rule that the period should not be longer, because otherwise, supposing a man turns out not to be competent, it would be impossible to replace him by somebody else except after a lapse-of ten years. It seems to me that when you are making an experiment of this kind, especially as regards these paid Commissioners, the term might very well be reduced to what is the usual practice. Of, course, I can quite see the argument that it is desirable in some cases to give permanency of office, and there would be much more to be said for that if you were only going to give a small remuneration and to get the very best men, but the Government do not propose that.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 15, leave out ("ten") and insert ("five").—(Lord Strachie.)

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I think I have already anticipated my answer to this Amendment. It is that we want to get first-class men to occupy these positions, and unless we can give a guarantee of ten years it may be extremely difficult to get men to surrender their present position.

LORD STRACHIE

You do it in the Army and Navy.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Let us see if that is quite true. An Admiral is appointed for five years, let us say to the Mediterranean Command, but he knows that unless there is proved inefficiency at the end of that five years he will get another Command.

LORD STRACHIE

And the Commissioners will be continued if they have proved themselves good.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Yes, but we have to coax these men out of private life, and, in order to do that, I am convinced that five years is insufficient. They will not come for that short period at what, as Lord Strachie has pointed out, is a very moderate salary. I think the first ten years of the history of this Bill are going to be the most critical years in the establishment of the Forestry Department, and it is most desirable that the Chairman and his two principal colleagues during that period should not be subject to more than necessary change.

LORD BUCKMASTER

There is no doubt a great deal of force in what the noble Earl has said, but surely in considering this Amendment there is another matter to be borne in mind. One of the great disadvantages under which every public Department labours is that it is almost impossible to get rid of inefficient men. Though you have used your best endeavour to get the best man you cannot be sure you have got him, and if by chance a mistake is made in appointing these Commissioners they are there for ten years. They may ruin the operation of this Bill. There may be all kinds of complaints made, and there will be the usual official answer given that what they have done is the very best possible thing that in any circumstances could have been done, and you are unable to move them for the whole period of their office. I should have thought the better plan was to appoint a man for five years, with the power of renewal, and let it be understood that the man's chance of renewal depended on the excellence of the work that he has done in the five years.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

The practice of appointment for five years as an experi mental stage is very common and well recognised. It is done constantly in University appointments now, and it is done by the Treasury Committee in connection with University grants, and also by the Department of the noble Earl who leads the House, the Research Department under the Lord President of the Council. They make their appointments very often for five years. The reason is at you never know when you appoint a mall whether be is not going to turn our incompetent. If he is incompetent, you are saddled with him under this clause, as it stands, for ten years. On the other hand, if he is competent, of course, he knows he will be continued for five years afterwards.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Our object is to get the best men, and we think that the ten-year tenure will help us in that direction. Lord Buckmaster wants a five-year tenure in order that we may get rid of an incompetent man. I am very sympathetic with that, but I am more keen to get a good man at the outset than frightened of the difficulty of getting rid of a bad man after an interval. Five years is no doubt quite good for a University; it represents a very tolerable rotation for a University student. In the Forestry Department we want a very much longer period.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

I hope that the Government will accept the five years. There are many of us who regard the starting of a new and very powerful Ministry as one of the most serious matters which the Government could possibly undertake at the present moment. Nothing except an absolutely overwhelming case makes it desirable that this body of Commissioners should be created. It will require a staff probably running us into enormous expenditure, and if we were to do that permanently it would really imperil the whole Bill. If my noble friend will move that the Bill shall be experimental for five years—the noble Earl laughs—but you plant forests, and you have not to spend your whole time over them; they might then go under the Board of Agriculture, who are quite competent to see that the forests are allowed to continue after the stimulus that has been given by the Commissioners. But to contemplate that this Forestry Commission is to be perpetual and that we are to have another Board which is not under the direct control of Parliament, as I understand, is really legislating with a view to a particular crisis which has now arisen in a manner which will not commend itself to those who follow us. I hope therefore that the noble Earl will see that, if he does not accept the limitation to a period of five years for the paid Commissioner, he is imperilling the whole Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

Apart from what has fallen from the noble Viscount who has just sat down, I would venture to join issue with the noble Earl on the very point which he has strongly pressed—namely, that you will not get the best man unless you can offer him a ten-years appointment. I cannot recall any instance of a ten-years appointment in any branch of the Public Service. There may be some, but. I have never heard of one. Apart from that, I do not quite comprehend what class of person the noble Earl is in search of and how he thinks a man will be better secured by a promise of a ten-years appointment than by a five-years appointment with a certainty of renewal—assuming the Commission to continue and not to be dropped as the noble Viscount desires—provided the work has been competently done.

The sort of man who is likely to take a place of this kind is' not one who is making a large fortune in business and has to be lured away on pecuniary grounds. He will be a man who is earning a somewhat moderate competency, the kind of salary or remuneration which is obtained by those of the first class engaged either in processes of agriculture or of sylviculture (so far as people are so engaged), or from the scientific or commercial side in a managing capacity in some house of business. I cannot think that it is desirable to tie ourselves for a term of ten years; because, assuming a competent man to be chosen and assuming that he does his work well, he will be practically certain to be re-appointed if the work is to continue. I hope, therefore, that the noble Earl will consider whether he cannot accept my noble friend's Amendment.

LORD CLINTON

I hope that the noble Earl will keep the Bill as it stands. We have had several reasons put forward why the gentleman who will be appointed a paid Commissioner should occupy his position with safety for only a short time. There may possibly be grounds for that. But the Forestry authority has before it, under the Report on which this measure is founded, a period of ten years of the greatest importance in which there is laid down a certain definite sum of money to be spent, and a certain definite amount of work to be done. It will be the first duty of that Forestry authority to get the very best man with the highest scientific attainments in sylviculture to carry on the work. It is doubtful whether you could get such a man unless you gave him a fair tenure of office; and it seems to me of such great importance that the best man should be obtained that I hope we shall make no alteration in the measure.

LORD STUART OF WORTLEY

I am inclinded to support the Bill as it stands; because, whatever may be the practice with regard to military and naval appointments or with scientific and University appointments, I think you will not find many instances in a Statute of limiting an appointment to ten years or to five years. Most of these executive commissions are appointed on what might be called the usual Civil Service terms when it is a case of putting their appointments into Acts of Parliament. What I am afraid of is that, when you go and seek your distinguished man and try to lure him out of his private practice, he will look at the Act of Parliament and say that five years is not good enough. I think that those who proposed this limitation of five years ought to have accompanied their Amendment (which they have not) by words which hold forth a prospect that, though the appointment is going to give power to the Government not to renew it at the end of five years, still it should be without prejudice to some hind of consideration at the end of the five years. I confess I do not know how that could be expressed in an Act of Parliament, but I think it is incumbent on those who propose the reduction from ten years to five years to bring forward some mitigating Amendment of that kind.

LORD BUCKMASTER

I assume there would be such consideration; but to make that plain such an Amendment could easily be framed between now and Report.

LORD STRACHIE

It is already provided for in the Bill. Subsection (5) of Clause 1 says, "A person who has vacated office as a Commissioner shall be eligible for re-appointment."

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I should be very sorry to see a sharp difference of opinion over a very trifling matter. I do not think the distinction between a ten years appointment and a five years appointment renewable is as great as His Majesty's Government are inclined to think. My impression is that if you appointed a man of distinction for five years, and you pointed out to him that he was eligible for re-election, the probability is that he will assume, and rightly assume, that if he did his work properly he would be re-appointed. Therefore all the Amendment comes to is that you should retain power in the Bill—which is necessarily experimental—to change your appointment if in the course of the first five years it appeared that the gentlemen you selected, however distinguished he was, was not quite the man for the post. I do not want to press these things unduly, but may I say very respectfully to the Government that this Bill is necessarily very experimental. It is a very drastic Bill, and rightly so. It wants, therefore, very careful watching. It might easily be that the gentleman you appoint as Chief Commissioner may turn out to be not quite first-rate at his work. Remember, you are going to choose a scientific man. I speak with the greatest respect of scientific; men; I sit at their feet in all that applies to science; but they are sometimes not very good men of business; and it might easily happen that the man you appointed—although of high scientific attainments—when he came to work a great Department which required a novel organisation (which he himself has to I create) he might turn out not to be first-rate, and then it would be a pity not to be able to make a change for ten years without a personal attack on this gentleman. It seems to me that it is the safer plan to have the appointment for five years renewable, and I would suggest to the Government that they would be wise to accept it.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Powers and duties of Commissioners.

3.—(1) The Commissioners shall be charged with the general duty of promoting the interests of forestry, the development of afforestation, and the production and supply of timber, in the United Kingdom, and shall exercise and perform any powers and duties which are or may be conferred or imposed on, or transferred to, them under the provisions of this Act.

(2) There shall be transferred to the Commissioners the powers and duties of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, and the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland in relation to forestry, and also the powers of those Departments under the Destructive Insects and Pests Acts, 1877 and 1907, so far as those powers relate to insects or pests destructive to forest trees and timber:

Provided that the Departments from whom the powers and duties aforesaid are transferred to the Commissioners shall, if arrangements are made for the purpose, continue to exercise and perform on behalf of the Commissioners such of the transferred powers and duties as may, from time to time, be agreed between the Commissioners and the Department concerned.

(3) The Commissioners shall have power to do any of the following things—

1. (a) Purchase or take on lease and hold any land suitable for afforestation or required for purposes in connection with afforestation or with the management of any woods or forests, and manage, plant, and otherwise utilize any land acquired, and erect such buildings or execute such other works thereon as they think necessary;
2. (b) Sell or let any land which in their opinion is not needed or has proved unsuitable for the purpose for which it was acquired, or exchange any such land for other land more suitable for that purpose, and pay or receive money for equality of exchange:
3. (c) Purchase or otherwise acquire standing timber, and sell or otherwise dispose of any timber belonging to them, and generally promote the supply, sale, utilisation, and conversion of timber:
4. (d) Make advances by way of grant or by way of loan, or partly in one way and partly in the other, and upon such terms and subject to such conditions as they think fit, to persons (including local authorities) in respect of the afforestation (including the re-planting) of land belonging to those persons:
5. (e) Undertake the management or supervision, upon such terms and subject to such conditions as may be agreed upon, of any woods or forests belonging to any persons, including woods and forests under the management of the Commissioners of Woods or under the control of any Government Department, or belonging to any local authority:
6. (f)Establish and carry on or aid in the establishment and carrying on of woodland industries:
7. (g) Undertake the collection and preparation of statistics relating to forestry, and promote and develop instruction and training in forestry by establishing or aiding schools or other educational institutions or in such other manner as they think fit:
526
8. (h) Make or aid in making such inquiries, experiments, and research, and collect or aid in collecting such information, as they may think important for the purpose of promoting forestry and the teaching of forestry:
9. (i) Make or aid in making such inquiries as they think necessary for the purpose of securing an adequate supply of timber in the United Kingdom and promoting the production of timber in His Majesty's dominions:

Provided that any advance by way of a grant under this section shall be subject to the condition that so much of any profit which may be attributable to the grant shall be paid to the Commissioners and restored to the Forestry Fund.

(4) An advance shall not after the commencement of this Act be made under subsection (1) of section one of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act., 1909, for the purposes of forestry, unless before that date the Development Commissioners have made and the Treasury have approved a recommendation for the advance.

(5) It shall be lawful for any of the persons under a disability referred to in section seven of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) Act, 1845, or of the Lands Clauses (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act, 1845, to enter into agreements with the Commissioners for the purposes of this section in like manner in all respects as they are entitled to enter into agreements for the purposes of those sections.

(6) In this section the expression "timber" includes all forest products.

THE EARL OF POWIS moved to delete the whole of the proviso at the end of subsection (3). The noble Earl said: I do not move this Amendment in any hostile spirit to the Bill. On the contrary, I warmly welcome the Bill. I think it has been long overdue and if it is passed this session we shall be removing a great slur on. Great Britain. When I have said that, I must own that I think this part: of the clause will have a very deterimental effect on the rest of the Bill. It is proposed by this clause that the "profit which may be attributable to the grant" shall be taken away from a private person who has undertaken planting in the interests of the State. I say "the interests of the State" because it is quite clear that to induce private owners—and by private owners I do not mean only landowners but the corporations of ourlarge towns—to do the work is more to the interests of the State than for the State to undertake the expensive work of planting itself. It is much cheaper to get somebody else to "run the racket," as I may say, than for the State to put down a large capital sum and have to do all the maintenance and planting for the whole period of the growth of the plantation.

What I want to know is how you propose to define profit. It seems to me that the only way to define profit is to calculate after you have taken 5 per cent. compound interest as an amount which is not profit. I mean to say that you cannot call any sum profit until the plantation has shown a return of 5 per cent. compound interest on all the money laid out on the plantation. I think I can put it very briefly in this way. If you put your money into Victory Bonds, without spending any trouble or time in the planting of a single tree you will get 5 per cent. compound interest. I see the noble Lord opposite smiles.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I quite approve.

THE EARL OF POWIS

Possibly he thinks we should spend our interest. After all, I do not see any other way in which you can fairly calculate profits, except by allowing compound interest. Then I should like to know how you propose to define what is attributable to the grant. I should say profit would be attributable to the care of the person who planted, to the choice of the site, to the choice of the soil in which you planted a particular kind of tree, and to the general way in which the plantations were tended during the period of their growth. You may say profit is attributable to these things, but I cannot see that any profit of, the plantation is due to the grant of a few pounds per acre. It would be quite different, if you were acting in a joint co-operative scheme and agreed that the State should give so much (as you do in one of the subsections) towards the planting, and the owner would give the land and the work. You could then agree in what proportion you would divide your profits, if there are any, at the end. The clause says "profit which may be attributable to the grant." If the State is going to take some of the profits I say it is not a grant at all; it is merely a loan. I looked in "Johnson's Dictionary" to see what "grant" meant, and it said "bestow," or giving a concession. If you are simply going to lend money and then take back what you consider is the profit on it, I do not see that it can be called a grant at all, and I think the words of the clause ought to be altered.

There are many people in the country who are always terrified at anything which they consider in the nature of a dole for landlords, but this is not a dole to land owners. It is very doubtful, in fact, whether a landowner will be able to make any profit after you have given him this grant. It is merely a cheap method of insurance for the State because the State is obliged, in consequence of the devastated nature of our forests and the lack of growing timber, to grow some timber in the public interests. By inducing private owners to plant you take the cheapest way in which you can get the timber grown. Therefore, I say that the grant is in no way a dole to the landowner. It is an effort to persuade the landowner and the corporations of our great towns to undertake a very precarious investment in the interests of the State.

With regard to the question of profit I should like to add that I think it is extremely doubtful whether anybody who plants at the present time can anticipate any profits at all, because planting now will certainly cost double, if not more than double, what it cost before the war. Labour is very much more expensive. In addition to that, most of the private planting will have to be done on areas which have been recentlyfelled, and I think the noble Lord will agree with me that most of these areas are in a most hopeless condition. They present largely the appearance of a jungle in which you might expect to find any wild animal, let alone the little squirrel which I see is referred to later on. The clearing will cost, at least in many cases, about £5 an acre, and if you double the cost of planting before the war, it will mean about £12 an acre, to which you will have to add another £5 an acre for clearing. In some cases you will have to clear not once but two or three times, due entirely to the lack of labour during the war. The Government are some of the worst offenders. Though I have not seen some of the Government forests myself, I am told there are acres and acres of pinewood with all the loppings lying about breeding every pest that is destructive of timber. I am told that in some cases on some of the Crown lands you can see the pine weevil already devastating the growing timber.

I have said this in order to show the precarious nature of the work which you are asking private individuals to undertake, and the doubt as to whether there would be any, profit at all. If the State determines to take the profit you will at once choke off all private enterprise. It becomes simply the game which many of us have heard of, but which none of us have found anyone willing to play with us, "Heads I win; tails you lose. In any case it is "Heads I win" for the State, because the State will get what it wants done in the cheapest possible manner. I ask the Government to withdraw this proviso because it will not in any way help the Bill and will rather tend to stop private enterprise. If the proviso means anything, it will undoubtedly choke oft private enterprise; and if it does not mean that the State will take all the profit, I do not see that it is worth anything at all.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 18, leave out from ("Dominions") to the end of subsection (2).—(The Earl of Powis.)

LORD CLINTON

I think that this proviso will be extremely difficult to carry out in practice. The noble Earl has laid down, generally, what we understand by profits. The trouble I have in my own mind is how any private owner is going, year by year, to set out the actual cost of the work upon these few acres on which he may receive a grant. He will have to allocate to them such portion of his rates, taxes, tithe, and expenses of management, which will be exceedingly difficult to separate from the remainder of the estate. The trouble in calculating will really be so great that, while it may be an interesting operation for a firm of chartered accountants who have not too much to do, it will put such a serious task upon the private owner that the result must be that he would have to refuse the grant. That really would be a misfortune. It is to the interest of the State that a man should take the grant. It is through him that the State will be relieved of a considerable capital outlay, and therefore for the comparatively small grant which is given on reasonable terms the State may expect to have timber grown at a less cost than it could do it itself. It is to the advantage of the State that the owner should take the grant, and certainly a disadvantage that the owner should refuse it.

I think it is possible that the method of calculation may be eased to some extent if a way could be found of laying down some general basis upon which the cost could be calculated so as to avoid the complications year after year to which I have referred. I am sure something could be done, but whether it could be made satisfactory to owners is doubtful, because you would require a varying basis to suit different localities. If some form of that kind could be put forward it would take away some of my objections to this proviso. The noble Earl argued whether the proviso was worth while; profits are not likely to be great if you are going to take 5 per cent. cumulative interest. The proportion which the State would advance (suggested at £2 an acre) would be almost infinitesimal to the proportion which the owner would have to spend as his first cost of planting and annual cost of maintenance. The State would get so little out of the division at the end that it really seems hardly worth while to go in for this cumbrous form. I hope the Government will consider whether this proviso should not be at all events simplified.

LORD BUCKMASTER

I think, having listened carefully to the speeches of the two noble Lords, that there is some misunderstanding as to the meaning of the proviso. I quite agree that it is extremely clumsily worded, and that in any circumstances its intention would be difficult to carry out. Both noble Lords have, I think, taken the view that whatever grant is made it is made upon certain conditions as to repayment, but it does not seem to me that, under the Bill, that is necessary at all.

The Bill provides for two things—grant and loan. A loan, of course, involves an obligation to repay, but I do not see that the grant provides any obligation to repay at all, and if you struck out this proviso it appears to me that the effect of the Bill would be this. You would leave in the hands of the Commissioner power to make advances, which so far as I can see are not limited in extent, to such person as he chose to select, and that even although those grants were the cause of much private profit being made there would be no obligation upon him to repay the very money that had produced the profit. That is, as I understand, the Bill. This proviso is introduced merely for the purpose that in cases where money has been advanced, not by way of loan but by way of grant, if a profit is produced by the use of that money the profit should, in the first instance, be applied for the purpose of repaying the money granted out of the public purse. If I am right in that interpretation, I cannot help thinking that both noble Lords would agree that it is impossible to have a scheme provided by this Bill which would enable public money to be advanced at the instance of the Commissioner to private subjects, to be used for the purpose of earning profit, and then when that profit is earned the public money shall not be repaid.

LORD SHEFFIELD

I cannot help agreeing with the noble Earl who has moved the Amendment, and the noble Lord opposite. It seems to me that this is a provision which will bring in nothing to the Government and may deter people who are willing to plant from planting at all. When do you expect profit will begin to be obtained from planting timber? You will not get any profit before the timber has been planted something like eighty years, and you may by that time have a new owner. Suppose a public-spirited landowner determines to plant 1,000 acres; he would not plant it all at once, but would plant in sections, so as to get continuous profits as from crops, but probably the profit at the earliest would not begin until the end of seventy or eighty years, while the bulk of the acreage would still be coming on. In the meantime the land may have been sold two or three times. It is extremely unlikely that there would be any profit at all, and yet for the sake of the hypothetical profit at the end of eighty years you are going to put in a clause which will make every landowner say that he will not be bothered about planting a single acre.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I fully recognise the doubt and difficulty which have been referred to. You may have variations of tithes, rates, and taxes, and of the yield of timber, and above all there can be and probably will be variations in the rate of interest, which may upset all kinds of calculations, and finally the profit is doubtful or more than doubtful. I acknowledge the whole of that. At the same time I will point out to your Lordships that I do not think it is of any use our putting into this Bill a clause which is going to put a definite money grant into the pocket of an individual owner. That is what it amounts to. The omission of this subsection as proposed is in effect a charge upon the taxpayer, on the assumption that any planting takes place, because it prevents the taxpayer from being recouped money which ex hypothesi the State is going I to advance to him. Therefore I think on general grounds this proviso should remain in the Bill, even if the difficulties are unanswerable.

I do not think the difficulties are unanswerable. There is no obligation under the clause on the private owner to accept a grant from the State, and therefore when the private landowner proposes to plant, and approaches the Forest Authority for a grant, he is granted say £2, £3, or£4 per acre whatever it may be, and there and then these parties, I take it, have got to come to an agreement as to repayment. The land may change hands two or three times in a hundred years. Contingencies take place in a forest which are not contemplated in anything else in our body politic. Nevertheless it ought to be possible to draw up a working scheme. I must demur to what was said by Lord Powis and Lord Sheffield as to the obligation to repay money to the State in respect of profit earned stopping private enterprise. I cannot see that in the least. Certainly if no agreement should be reached by a private owner and the Forest Authority no grant of public money subject to repayment will be made, but that is not going to prevent private individuals from planting their own land.

I will engage to say that the vast bulk of the land planted in this country during the last fifty, eighty, or 100 years was not planted from the point of view of profit. It was planted for other reasons—for shelter, for amenity, or a variety of other reasons, and not on the strict ground of profit. The proof of that is very clearly shown by the fact that in nine cases out of ten those of us who own woods can show no accounts to prove what we spend upon them. I therefore acknowledge the difficulties of assessing profit sixty or eighty years hence, but I nevertheless press upon your Lordships how much better it is to leave that element of doubt in the Bill than to state that private or public landowners are anxious to get money grants and that they do not mean to make any repayment in respect of profit accruing therefrom.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I confess I am left in a considerable quandary as to the exact meaning of the proviso, because the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, who is very competent to take charge of it, speaks continually of a grant subject to repayment.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

If I did that, I was wrong. I meant profit attributable to a grant subject to repayment. I did not mean the whole thing.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I confess it looks to me more like a loan than a grant as described 'by the noble Earl. But what I should like to call attention to is this, that my noble friend says he recognises all the immense difficulties that this clause will produce. Is that a good way of legislating?

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I did not say that.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

He did recognise, in the most candid way, and I thought was much to be praised for it—

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I do not wish to be misunderstood. I said I recognised the difficulties, not that the Act is going to produce, but the difficulties of drawing up an agreement.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Where is the agreement?

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

There is no compulsion for anybody to take a grant, or for the authority to make one; therefore it must be under an agreement if a grant is made.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I agree that it will be extremely difficult eighty years from now to have the least idea of what profit is attributable to the grant. I do not understand how the word "attributable" is to be interpreted. Supposing it was alleged that unless the landowner had received the grant he would never have gone in for the enterprise. It might have made all the difference to him, whether to enter upon the process of planting a large plantation, whether he got a grant at all. I suppose you might in that case argue that the whole profit was attributable to the grant. The word "attributable" is as vague a word as you could use, and if the noble Earl and those in charge of the Bill mean the profit to be divided in proportion to the capital invested, it should be made clear.

I do not know who is going to be called upon to interpret this proviso. Is it a Court of Law or the Commissioners? or, rather, their successors, because the present Commissioners will long have been underground at that time. I cannot think the Government are well advised to put in an Act of Parliament this proviso which they themselves in their more candid moments admit it is almost impossible accurately to interpret. That only means hereafter either that it would be treated as meaning nothing in particular, or else it would produce losses. It is all right for the legal gentlemen, but for nobody else.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I am quite prepared to take note of what Lord Buck-master and Lord Salisbury have pointed out, that there may be some ambiguity in the use of the word "attributable," and I will make it my business to see that the expert draftsmen examine the problem, which will be recorded in Hansard. I would repeat to your Lordships that if you cut out this portion of the clause it may be necessary to cut out the earlier subsection.

Several NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

I am very glad that the noble Earl has made that statement. I agree that the wording as it stands is difficulty to work out, though I have no doubt an arbitrator would work it out. The noble Earl has put his finger on the real point. This is not a Bill merely to dispose of £3,500,000 of public money. We know from the Report that within forty years it will be £15,000,000, and in the end, as I calculate, about £40,000,000, having regard to the fact that all the calculations here were made on pre-war prices. The main purpose of the Bill is to enable a body of Commissioners to make grants to persons engaged in forestry. They can make loans, but that is another thing. They can also make grants. I do not like this Bill for other reasons. I think it is quite inadequate, but the noble Earl is at least trying to save us from the reproach of having it go forth to the world that an enormous sum out of the already depleted Exchequer of this country is to be given in grants to landlords who are profiting by having their forests developed by the State.

THE MARQUESS OF CREWE

It seems to me that this question is one involving very great difficulty. We have heard the arguments advanced from this Bench, and those presented by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill. I confess that I entirely agree that it would be impossible to strike out this proviso and put nothing in its place, because it would be altogether improper to allow grants of almost unlimited amount to be made without any kind of check upon the volition of the Commissioners, and with no sort of provision as to the amount of the grants or what is to happen if profits are earned.

I fancy that the real difficulty in this matter arises from the condition of England in the matter of forestry as compared with Scotland, Ireland, and Wales. What is called afforesting on anything like a considerable scale can hardly be carried out in any part of England, except in one or two areas quite well known, mostly on Court property where planting can be carried out on a large scale. What I take it is expected and required in England is that there should be not only to a certain extent an increase of the planted areas, but also very much more, an improvement in planting on something like a commercial scale the woods and coverts which are already in existence. Therefore you can hardly hope in England to have anything like a large forest policy. That, I take it, is the meaning of this system of loans, and even more of grants. A great many of them very likely will be concerned with quite small areas in order that there may be, even in those parts of England which cannot be called woodland, a substantial supply of timber on which the country can fall back in case of need. That being so, it may be that a system of grants is necessary.

It would have been far preferable, I think, if grants could have been avoided altogether, or if they had to be made that the whole expense should have been undertaken by the State, and all the profits, if any were earned, should also accrue to the State. This is a sort of semi-nationalisation of timber, and in practice I have no doubt that it will be extremely difficult to carry out. On the whole, after having heard the debate, I am inclined to think that, although the effect of this rather mysterious formula in the proviso will be to a certain extent discouraging, your Lordships will be wise not to try to turn it out of the Bill unless a substitute can be provided, which so far has not been suggested. On the whole, therefore, I am inclined against the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Powis.

LORD PHILLIMORE

I cannot think the legal advisers of the Government can have thought over this somewhat sketchy proviso. The noble Earl in charge of the Bill talks of negotiations between the Commissions and the individual. The negotiations must take one form. As I understand the proviso, the Commissioners must insist on the condition. What is the condition? It is a personal condition. The man who takes a grant must bind himself—that is the effect of the legal language—and his heirs to pay that sum back by way of profit which some sixty, seventy, or eighty years hence is ascertained. Is there anybody in his senses who would burden his heirs with such an arrangement as that? Alternatively, the noble Lord seems to think this might be a charge upon the land. The words of the section do not so provide, but if they did so provide I, as an old lawyer, and an old real property lawyer, should deprecate them vastly. The burdens upon land, the burdens that run with the land, the encumbrances upon the land which make the land uncommercial and not negotiable, are far too many already. Add another one to them and you will find the greatest difficulty in disposing of your forest. I cannot help thinking that this proviso has not been thought out, but is merely an idea thrown forward as a sketch.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

There is one thing which has become apparent, and it is this. Although it may be possible for some one to understand this proviso, there are few of your Lordships who have succeeded in putting the same interpretation upon it. I hope that my noble friend will meet the draftsmen, and that when it conies up on Report we shall have a clause which any ordinary person who will have to plant trees in the future may have some chance of understanding.

As far as I understand, it really comes to this, that it is intended to have two forms of loan, one a form of loan which there may be a possibility of repaying, the other a loan which it is thought there will be no possibility of repaying and which for some reason or other is called a grant. And a proviso is put in, apparently to satisfy the conscience of the taxpayer, which no one can possibly understand. Surely it would be much better, if it has to be repaid, to call it by its proper name. A grant is a grant, and is something which has not to be repaid. It is a very great mistake to have the proviso in this Bill, and unless it is made intelligible it would be much better to take the whole matter out of the Bill.

THE EARL OF POWIS

May I ask the noble Earl to answer my question with regard to what the Bill means by profit?

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

That, after what has been said by noble Lords opposite, I refuse to embark upon. I have a perfectly clear idea in my own mind of what profit is. I know, in the case of my own woods, after a term of years whether there has been a profit. Accordingly, if there had been a grant or loan at the plantation of these woods thirty or forty years ago, I should know how much of the money should be attributable to my own capital, to my own land, to my own services rendered, and proportionately how much would be attributable to the State. But I think I have made the noble Lord a reasonable proposal. It is that I should consider very carefully what has been said in view of the multifarious difficulties which have been mentioned, and if, humanly speaking, it can be made clear it shall be made clear. From the point of view of procedure it would probably he desirable for the noble Earl to withdraw his Amendment, and not for the House to exclude these words.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Prevention of damage by rabbits and vermin.

4.—(1) Where the Commissioners are satisfied that trees or plants are being or are likely to be damaged by rabbits or vermin owing to the failure of an occupier of land to destroy sufficiently the rabbits or vermin on the land in his occupation or otherwise taking steps for the prevention of such damage, the Commissioners may, after giving to the occupier and owner such opportunity of destroying the rabbits or vermin or taking such stops as aforesaid as in the opinion of the Commissioners is reasonable, authorise in writing any person to enter on the land and kill and take the rabbits or vermin thereon, and the Commissioners may recover from the occupier summarily, as a civil debt, the net cost incurred by them in connection with the action so taken.

(2) Any person acting under an authority given by the Commissioners under this section shall, if so required, produce his authority, and if any person obstructs any person so authorised in the exercise of his powers or duties under this section, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty pounds.

(3) The person entitled to kill rabbits or vermin on any common lands shall for the purpose of this section be deemed to be the occupier of the land.

(4) For the purpose of this section the expression "vermin" includes squirrels.

LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), after the first "any," to insert "officer of the Commissioners." The noble Lord said: This is really an Amendment of Lord Bledisloe's, although my noble friend, who is not present, proposed to insert the word "competent." I intended to suggest to my noble friend that it was not going far enough to give the power to "any competent person," and that it would be better to entrust the power to any officer of the Commissioners. I think what my noble friend had in view is that you should not have some men turned loose into a wood who had no idea of catching vermin or rabbits without at the same time doing harm to winged game. But "competent" would admit the village poacher, I think. He would certainly be the most competent man to turn into your coverts to destroy rabbits, and I think we ought to see that the person empowered should be an officer of the Commissioner:, and not anyone taken haphazard by them simply because they thought he was the most effective man for catching rabbits and destroying vermin. It is right that only responsible people should be allowed free access to coverts, otherwise a great deal of damage would be done to pheasants which, of course, do no harm whatever to the woods.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 3, after ("any") insert ("officer of the Commissioners").—(Lord Strachie.)

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Surely it would be a mistake to say that none except those who are officially employed by the Forestry Commission shall be entitled to destroy vermin. The Forestry Commission will not have trappers and gamekeepers all over the country. There will be occasions when there is a spinney or a copse with too many rabbits in it, and they will choose the nearest man that they could find who is competent to destroy the rabbits. To say that they must employ one of the permanent staff of the Commission is needlessly to obstruct the machinery of the clause. I think we must assume that they are not going to employ a man who is poaching for pheasants or injuring the timber. They have to employ him in writing, and under the Statute the owner of the land is entitled to make that man produce his authority for going on the ground. That should be sufficient safeguard. I think, therefore, that the Amendment ought not to be pressed.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BUCKMASTER moved to leave out subsection (4). The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is intended to secure some small measure of protection for an animal which, I cannot help thinking, must many times have endeared himself to your Lordships' affections. As the Bill stands any person who has squirrels upon his land may, at any time, no matter what the character of his land may be, have some other person put upon his land to destroy these squirrels, and, when they have been destroyed, have the pleasure of paying for the cost of killing them. It is perfectly reasonable that, if the Commissioners are going to plant forests, they should have all necessary powers for the purpose of securing those forests against the unnecessary ravages of noxious animals. That I understand, and it may be that a forest of the Commissioners will be one of the most dreadful things on the face of the earth. It will have no form of life in it, and it will be girdled round with barbed wire, perhaps six feet high, in order to keep out the deer. I think I saw a picture of such a forest once; it was in an illustration of Dante's "Inferno."

That may be appropriate for a Government forest, but when you come to private land it surely is rather serious that a man should be at liberty to have animals to which he may be much attached upon his property destroyed because somebody has decided that trees or plants are liable to be damaged by rabbits or vermin. I beg your Lordships to notice the extraordinary area that the clause covers—"trees or plants": any tree, any plant liable to be damaged by rabbit or by vermin owing to the failure of the occupier to destroy; and then, vermin being deemed to include squirrels, you may send in somebody to kill squirrels. Surely that cannot be what the Government intend if it really be designed to protect forests, I would ask them why they do not send in people to kill the roe-deer and black game which are just as dangerous to forests as squirrels.

Lord Bledisloe assures me (and I accept his assurance) that the squirrel is a much maligned animal, and does not do half the mischief he is said to do. I do not know anything about that, but I know that he is a most delightful animal to watch; and I cannot look forward with satisfaction to an England which is completely destroyed of everything which makes like pleasant. I think that is coming; but for the moment I should like to curb the activities of the Government Departments with regard to the destruction of squirrels, and I beg your Lordships to help me in my small Amendment that is designed to preserve an animal which I believe all will say incorporates more than any other animal the very spirit of English woodland life.

Amendment moved— Page 5, lines 17 and 18, leave out subsection (4).—(Lord Buckmaster.)

LORD PHILLIMORE

I also have put down an Amendment to leave out this subsection. On a small estate my father was a great planter of trees, and a great planter of choice conifers. He, and I since, have always encouraged squirrels. I have never found any serious mischief done by them. I doubt very much, unless it be very small trees, that they can possibly damage the leader of a conifer; because I cannot see how they could stand on a piece sufficiently stiff without at the same time finding there too stiff a place to bite. What I have known them do freely is to bite off the ends of branches, little things about 6 or 9 inches long—a matter which does not harm at all. It is possible that they have barked lime trees, but not so as to do any serious mischief. I have known them eat cherries, but they were cherries from which they drove the birds and which the birds would have eaten if the squirrels had not done so. It may be that they have some power (unknown to me) of destroying young larch forests. If it be so, it is easy for the owner of the larch forest to prevent that; he has only to put a comparatively small area of bare land between his neighbour's squirrels and his forest in order to keep it safe from the squirrels. Squirrels are not like rabbits which run long distances for that sort of purpose. A squirrel is one of the most beautiful objects in English natural life, and I cannot help thinking, if we were to look into the matter, that we should find on balance that he performs some good purpose which we shall lose if we destroy him. I hope very much that your Lordships will omit this subsection.

VISCOUNT BRYCE

I should like to tender myself as a witness to character on behalf of the squirrel. I have had the same experience as the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down. During a number of years I watched very carefully, having often heard that the squirrel bites off the leaders of the coniferous trees, and the young branches. I have constantly gone backwards and forwards to see whether the squirrels—which I am happy to say are abundant where I live—have done that, and I do not remember one case during recent years in which I have ever found any harm done by the squirrel. Squirrels are, as noble Lords have said, one of the most agreeable denizens of the woods, and a constant amusement when we see them. I can say the same thing with regard to lime trees. I have never known squirrels do any harm to lime trees. I therefore hope that your Lordships will deal in an indulgent manner with these charming creatures.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I regret to appear as an enemy of natural life, particularly of so beautiful and pathetic a specimen as the squirrel. But the squirrel is a nuisance and a danger. So far as my experience goes, the squirrel is a forest pest which ought to be removed. What is more, I defy Lord Phillimore to find any authority on forest protection which has a good word to say for the squirrel. Lord Bryce paid a great tribute to the æsthetic value of the squirrel, but he did not say what good the squirrel would do. He will destroy a number of coleoptera and he is a voracious eater of certain larvae. That is all to the good. But the good he does is not compensated for by other forms of forest nuisances which he commits. When it is said that he does not move about—

LORD PHILLIMORE

He does not move so far as the rabbit.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

On the contrary, I think the squirrel is a quicker migrator than the rabbit; certainly I do not think that rabbits could have spread over the Midlands of Great Britain quicker than the squirrel has done. The squirrel cuts the leaders of all forms of conifers; he smashes up the seed pod in a reckless manner; he kills young fledglings; he will dig up acorns that have been planted to seed a young oak wood; and I hope your Lordships will not be misled by the appeals to sentiment and mercy which have emanated from Lord Buckmaster and others. I would add in general defence of this clause, to which Lord Buckmaster took rather wide objection, that the words are taken verbatim from the Corn Production Act; they confer no new power; all the powers in this clause exist to-day. The only reason that it is put into this Bill is that the powers now belonging to the Board of Agriculture with respect to killing vermin shall be transferred to the new forest authority. The only difference is that in this case the word "squirrel" is introduced, which was not the case in the Corn Production Act.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I have always been led to believe that the squirrel is an obnoxious animal; but I view with a certain amount of regret the idea that we are going to have squirrels exterminated.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

You cannot exterminate them; it is impossible to do it.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The noble Earl has not yet tried. The real difficulty of the clause is its great width; because it is the early words of the clause, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Buckmaster, has called attention, which make it so drastic. The words are "Where the Commissioners are satisfied that trees or plants. …" That is any trees. The noble Earl might have a large wood in which he liked to have squirrels and rabbits and as they belong to him altogether with the trees one might imagine that they would be left alone. But under the powers of this clause it will be possible—although the landowner does not mind a few trees being injured by the rabbits or squirrels—to send in officers of the Commissioners to shoot every rabbit and squirrel in the wood. Surely that cannot be intended. I can understand the Government desiring to protect the Government trees or trees for the growth of which they had advanced a loan, but not trees belonging to a landowner which he likes to have destroyed. Surely he may be allowed to do it if he likes.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Under the Corn Production Act he is not allowed to have his own corn and roots destroyed. This clause applies that provision to trees. It is an existing law.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think that very drastic indeed; it seems to justify what I said just now that you run the risk of exterminating these animals altogether. The officials of the Forestry Department might come into anyone's garden, or wood, or anywhere else, and kill every animal which came within the mischief of this clause. It is too late, of course, to amend the early part of the clause, but I certainly should have thought that if a landowner likes to have his trees injured he should not be interfered with unless a great public evil will result. I have never heard that suggested, and I should not think it was likely; it cannot be put on the same footing as the production of food which certainly in war time was a very serious matter. But I think a man who is interested in natural history and natural life—like Lord Phillimore or Lord Bryce—might be allowed to keep his squirrels even if they did damage his trees a little.

THE EARL OF MEATH

I would like to ask the noble Earl whether these Commissioners will have power to enter Crown lands, forests, parks, and open spaces, because, if so, as one who has done a little in connection with open spaces, I should certainly enter my protest. In America they encourage every kind of life is public parks. There is a park near Washington where they encourage beavers and every animal that is not noxious. The Government can hardly have considered how they are going to turn the whole of the British Isles apparently into a sort of dreary waste in which we shall see no wild animals of any kind or description. I can hardly imagine that they seriously intend that we should have no squirrels. Life would become almost unbearable if we could not see the squirrels and rabbits. Recently I visited a friend's house and there were twelve rabbits on the garden lawn, with any number of flowers growing. I said, "How can you allow rabbits here? "My friend replied, "I would leave this place to-morrow if there were no rabbits. My gardener is often saying, Why do you have the rabbits?' and I say that I would rather have the rabbits than the flowers."

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I must emphatically protest. The whole experience of any one connected with forestry is to the effect that by increasing the area of afforestation we enlarge our fauna. I would guarantee that if we planted 100,000 acres in Somerset we should have fifteen or twenty new birds in that part of the country. Several of your Lordships, I think, are really exaggerating a little when you assume that, because powers are taken to deal with real pests, elaborate steps are proposed to invade private gardens to kill an odd squirrel or two. This is not the idea. I must assure your Lordships that, from my conversations with the people who are promoting this Bill, I am convinced that they are as anxious as your Lordships to preserve and increase the beauties and amenities of the country-side. They do not look upon this purely as a matter of giving them an excuse to go in and destroy some rabbits which are eating carnations, or squirrels which are in Lord Phillimore's trees; but only where there is a nuisance and where the proper growth of any timber is being interfered with. There is no ground for saying that we are going to make a dreary waste of the country, where there will be no live animals. On the contrary I think the country will be improved as to flora and fauna.

THE EARL OF MEATH

The noble Earl has not answered my question about Crown lands.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Not Crown lands, public lands. Under the Bill Crown lands have no privilege not accorded to the lands of private individuals and if an excessive number of rabbits are bred on Crown lands they will have to be destroyed.

THE EARL OF MEATH

And parks?

A NOBLE LORD

Regent's Park?

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

The noble Earl is specially interested, we will say, in the great open spaces in Surrey. The fact that a rabbit is bred on common land ought not to secure for it privileges which are not accorded to a rabbit bred on private lands. He is mischievous whether bred on public or private land, and this clause provides, as in the Corn Production Act, the proper way of determining who is to be responsible for killing pests on any land.

LORD BUCKMASTER

I greatly regret that, having regard to the attitude of the Government, I shall be compelled to put your Lordships to the trouble and inconvenience of a Division. I have only to ask in conclusion, when the noble Earl asks us to regard a Government Department in controlling these matter as anxious to preserve and encourage the beauties of our country-side—What has happened during the last two years on the countryside? We have had bird's nests torn out of the hedges by country boys who thought they were, destroying sparrows. They did not know a sparrow from a chaffinch. When I am told that a Government Department is going to encourage wild life I can only say that past experience does not justify the observation.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

It certainly was not the Forests Department.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

VISCOUNT HALDANE moved, at the end of subsection (4), to leave out "squirrels" and insert "such animals or birds as the Commissioners may from time to time determine." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment, which is down in the name of Lord Bledisloe, seems to be a very good proposal. It places it in the power of the Commissioners to determine the animals or birds that from time to time should be included. I think it is an important provision, and if the noble Earl is inclined to accept it I will move it.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 18, leave out ("squirrels") and insert ("such animals or birds as the Commissioners may from time to time determine").—(Viscount Haldane.)

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I accept the Amendment, but I thought we had

LORD BUCKMASTER

It was a Government Department.

LORD SALTOUN

I hope the Government will stick to the text of the Bill. In Scotland a hundred years ago there was no squirrel in the country; now they are all over the country, and are the greatest vermin in fir woods.

On Question, whether the subsection proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 36; Not-Contents, 20.

CONTENTS.
Birkenhead, L. (L. Chancellor.)	Stanhope, E.	Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
	Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Lawrence, L.
Sutherland, D.	Yarborough, E.	Newton, L.
		Nunburnholme, L.
Bath, M.	Sandhurst, V. (L. Chamberlain.)	Oranmore and Browne, L.
Camden, M.	Cross, V.	Ritchie of Dundee, L.
Salisbury, M.	Haldane, V.	Saltoun, L.
	Annesley, L.	Sempill, L.
Bradford, E.	Charnwood, L.	Shandon, L.
Chesterfield, E.	Clinton, L.	Somerleyton, L. [Teller.]
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensbury.)	Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)	Stanmore, L. [Teller.]
		Treowen, L.
Jersey, E.	Ernle, L.	Wigan, L. (E. Crawford.)
Lytton, E.	Hylton, L.	Willoughby de Broke, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Lindsey, E.	Esher, V.	Hatherton, L.
Morton, E.		Muir Mackenzie, L.
Onslow, E.	Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)	Phillimore, L. [Teller.]
Powis, E.	Buckmaster, L. [Teller.]	Rotherham, L.
Strafford, E.	Chaworth, L. (E. Meath.)	Stanley of Alderley, L. (L. Sheffield.)
	Denman, L.
Allendale, V.	Dynevor, L.	Strachie, L.
Bryce, V.	Erskine, L.

just kept "squirrels" in. It must be an addition.

LORD BUCKMASTER

This is a dreadful proposal because it places in the hands of the Commissioners power to determine what animals or birds may be destroyed. Those of us who are fond of English country-life have suffered acutely during the war, and perhaps necessarily, in seeing what has been done to our birds during the last two or three years. They have been decimated past repair. And now the Commissioners will be able to continue this work and decide on any bird they like. I hope the Government will not accept it.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I do not know whether Lord Buckmaster has familiarised himself with the point. Nine out of ten birds are helpful to sylviculture, but there are certain birds which are a positive and acknowledged pest. Any man who is fond of woods and forests wishes to encourage birds, and if the forest authority had 100,000 acres its desire, and its first proposal would be to order 10,000 nesting boxes of different types in order to encourage a great variety of bird life which is essential to keep down forest pests. I really do not think we need assume that the forest authorities are going to destroy birds.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I supported the Government on the last Amendment, I am "anti-squirrel." I hope the Government will not put these words in the clause because they are very wide indeed. It says that any animal or bird which the Commissioners choose to say are pests are to be destroyed. The noble Earl says that people engaged in forestry may be relied upon to desire the maintenance of these animals and birds. Can they be relied upon? You have had scientific men saying that some particular thing ought to be done, they go mad upon it, and in another few years it is discovered they were all wrong. Surely we ought not to run these sort of risks and to give an absolute blank cheque to the Commissioners to put any animal or bird they please upon the list is going too far. I hope the Government will not accept it.

VISCOUNT HALDANE

I will withdraw the Amendment. I do not want to provoke a discussion at this hour. Perhaps on Report stage the Government will consider it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD BUCKMASTER had on the Paper an Amendment in subsection (4), before "squirrels," to insert "grey." The noble and learned Lord said: It is not right to trouble your Lordships with this Amendment after the last Division. I had hoped, if the House had been more evenly divided, to persuade your Lordships that no mercy need be given to an alien squirrel and that we might have some protection for our native squirrels. But the expression of your Lordships' opinion is so marked against our native creatures that I do not desire to move any protection for the alien.

Clause 4 agreed to.

Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.

Clause 7:

Compulsory acquisition of land.

7.—(1) If the Commissioners are unable to acquire by agreement and on reasonable terms any land which they consider it necessary to acquire for the purpose of this Act, they may apply to the Development Commissioners for an order empowering them to acquire the land compulsorily in accordance with the provisions of the schedule to this Act, and the Development Commissioners shall have power to make such order.

(2) No land shall be authorised by an order under this section to be acquired compulsorily which, at the date of the order, forms part of any park, garden, or pleasure ground, or forms part of the home farm attached to and usually occupied with a mansion house, or is otherwise required for the amenity or convenience of any dwelling house, or which at that date is the property of any local authority, or has been acquired by any corporation or company for the purposes of a railway, dock, canal, water, or other public undertaking, or is the site of an ancient monument or other object of archaeological interest.

(3) Where an order made by the Development Commissioners under this Act authorises the acquisition of any land forming part of any common, open space, or allotment, the order, so far as it relates to the acquisition of such land, shall be provisional only, and shall not have effect unless and until it is confirmed by Parliament, except where the order provides for giving in exchange for such land other land, not being less in area, certified by the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries to be equally advantageous to the persons, if any, entitled to commonable or other rights, and to the public.

Provided that the foregoing provision shall not apply if the order provides for the granting to the public of reasonable access to the land for air, exercise or recreation, unless the land to be acquired has been dedicated to the public use and enjoyment, or is a metropolitan common within the terms of the Metropolitan Commons Act, 1866, or is a suburban common as defined by the Commons Act, 1876, or is subject to a scheme of regulation made in pursuance of the Metropolitan Commons Acts, 1.866 to 1898, or the Inclosure Acts, 1845 to 1882, or the Commons Act, 1899, or to a private or local Act of Parliament.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert "unless the owner of the land objects to the making of the Order, in which case the question of the compulsory acquisition of the land shall be referred for decision as provided in the Schedule to this Act."

The noble Lord said: The operative words of this Amendment are contained in the Schedule to the Bill, hut it occurred to me that I might be told when we reached that point that the matter had already been decided in the Bill itself, and I thought it better to raise this question on Clause 7. The object of the Amendment is to protect owners against Government autocrats. In our zeal to make the world safe for democracy it appears to me we are creating new despots. Personally I do not dislike autocracy and I think a benevolent despot is the best ruler that could be found. But I must say that in the number of new despots we are creating daily in Government departments I am afraid we shall find there are some malevolent as well as benevolent ones.

May I point out that where land is to be compulsorily acquired by the Commissioners no appeal is allowed from their decision on the subject. Their decision is final, and as far as I can make out it may be made without even hearing what the owner has to say about the acquisition of his hind. We all agree that if land is required for the State private rights must give way, but I submit that the person to decide this summarily should not be a Government official, and that the owner should have the right of appeal to an independent tribunal.

As far as I can make out, there are only two objections. One is" that Government Departments like untramelled power, and the second is that it will be said there will be some slight delay in the acquisition of land if this right of appeal is given to an owner. In the case of a crop which takes eighty years to mature it cannot be a serious matter if two or three months' delay occurs on a matter as to whether the land should be compulsorily taken or not. This is an important matter where this power is going to be given to a Government Department to take land compulsorily, and I hope the Government will see their way to give this appeal to any owner who objects to his land being taken.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 13, at end insert ("unless the owner of the land objects to the making of the Order, in which case the question of the compulsory acquisition of the land shall be referred for decision as provided in the Schedule to this Act").—Lord Oranmore and Browne.

VISCOUNT MIDLETON

If the Government are going to accept the Amendment I will not say anything, but this Bill applies not only to this country but to Ireland, and it would be impossible in Ireland to leave it to Commissioners to decide whether they should take some of the very little land which still remains to the landlords in that country, and which may not be of great value for afforestation, without any sort of appeal or any power in the landlords to state their case. We have had some experience of Commissioners in this respect in this country in the last few years. In the last few years it has been in the power of certain authorities to order land to be put under tillage, which land the landlord knew to be unsuitable for such purpose, and in some cases that has been pressed with an absolute disregard of possible profit. Much of the land is now not earning any profit at all, and in this question of afforestation to leave it to what is practically a decision of one man in many cases, whether or not a particular portion of a landlord's property should be taken for a purpose which the landlord knows to be entirely unsuitable—that is a question on which the landlord ought to be heard. Therefore I hope the noble Earl will make it clear that there is some sort of appeal, without which great injustice may be done.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

In the first place, Clause 7 is already a Statute of the Realm. It is quite clear, I hope, that there is nothing new in this clause. It is ten years old, and it transfers to the Forest Commission those duties in respect of acquiring land for afforestation. It comes out of the Development Act. Therefore I am rather reluctant to change this clause which has worked for ten years or more very well, and with which people are generally familiar. Therefore I am reluctant to add to or diminish from the actual text of the section.

What is in effect proposed by Lord Oranmore and Browne is that a Judge of the High Court shall be substituted for the authority—the Development Commissioners—mentioned in Section 7. On the whole I am of opinion that I would rather my case were decided by the Development Commissioners than by a Judge of the High Court. I do not think it is very suitable to force these things upon the High Court of Justice more than one can avoid, and my impression is that the existing authority knows very well what is the general policy and how it should be carried out, and can be trusted to deal with afforestation land as it has dealt in the past with other land. The clause cannot be read except in conjunction with the schedule, and if your Lordships will refer to subsection (3) of the Schedule I think it will be seen clearly that the order to be published by the Commissioners is to be presented to the owners, lessees and occupiers of the land which it is proposed to schedule. I think that shows there can be no question that the owner will be able to state his case.

LORD SHEFFIELD

Can he appeal beyond the Commissioners?

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

No, I do not think he goes beyond the Commissioners, but it gives him a right to appear before the Commissioners.

LORD SHEFFIELD

No power to challenge the decision?

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

Surely, if he has notice he can state his case before the Commissioners. I will put it in on Report if that is not so, but I am pretty sure it must be so.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I should not like your Lordships to come to a decision without being clear upon the point. The noble Earl has said that Lord Oranmore and Browne's Amendment must be taken as a whole, and that you must include in what he proposes to do the proposal in his Amendment to the Schedule, to substitute for the single Arbitrator a Judge of the High Court.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

I carefully refrained from mentioning that, on my Amendment, because I thought it might be left to be dealt with when we deal with the Schedule.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I agree that it is inconvenient to deal with it now, and I should not have thought it was wise to change the single arbitrator, but that does not detract from the Amendment before your Lordships, that land should not be taken without giving the landowner an opportunity of pleading his case before an impartial tribunal. That seems to me to be a reasonable thing, and as the Schedule stands without amendment the single arbitrator would not be a long process and he would be an impartial person. I should have thought, therefore, that no harm could be done by allowing the landowner to raise the issue before a single arbitrator whether the land should be taken or not. That is the reason why I think the Amendment is a good one and should not be complicated by discussing the question whether the single arbitrator should be turned into a Judge of the High Court. May I say that the Commissioners, even if, as the noble Earl thinks, they are obliged to give a hearing to the landowner, are hardly impartial in a matter of this kind because they are the people who want to take the land.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

It is the Development Commissioners and not the Forest Commissioners.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Then I was wrong about that. At any rate, it seems to me there should be a hearing before an impartial authority.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

There is one point which I ought to make clear. I deprecated changing this because it is the existing code of law. There is, however, one point which I have not put before your Lordships but which I think would influence you. I think within a day or two the House of Commons is going to send up a Bill dealing with the general principle of land acquisition. If your Lordships want to change the principle, had we not better do it on a Bill which deals with the whole question? Because if we do it on this Bill we shall leave it unchanged where the Land Commissioners take land, for instance, for reclamation purposes. Of course the Land Acquisition Bill will probably modify the terms of the old Development Act, which we are now discussing.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (2), after "part" where that word first occurs, to insert "of a small holding under 50 acres." The noble Lord said:—I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will feel more friendly towards this Amendment than he has shown himself towards my previous Amendments. The object is to protect the small holder. I think we ought to be just as anxious and careful in these matters to look after the small man as to look after the man who is living in a big house with a big home park or demesne. Otherwise it might be said that while we were looking after our own interests we were neglecting the interest of the small man. It will be no answer to tell us that the Development Commissioners will do that. It may be said that they will look after the park, garden, pleasure-ground, or any other land which is a part of the amenities of the place. I would rather hope that the noble Earl would not proceed as he indicated, but would accept my Amendment. The noble Earl does not think the small man ought to be protected in this matter in the same way as the big man has the home farm protected. Perhaps the noble Lord will tell us why that is to be so. Justice ought to be done to the small holder in the same way as justice is to be done to the large land owner.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 16, after ("part") insert ("of a small holding under 50 acres").—(Load Strachie.)

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

There is HO question of justice or injustice. It is entirely a question of convenience. These are the terms under which land is now compulsorily acquired, and I do not propose to vary them. If Lord Strachie's Amendment were put in, it would very likely prevent the acquisition of a great tract of land just because there were one or two holdings upon it. It might effectively cut the connection between two blocks of forest. The forest authority does not want to buy small-holdings compulsorily. The basis of their scheme is to acquire land which is not suited for agriculture. It is, however, possible that in certain cases, as I described, small-holdings might promote the afforestation of a large area, and having a small holding or two might also make it more easy to secure the permanent staff which one requires for afforestation. I can assure the noble Lord that there is no desire on the part of the forest authority to acquire these small holdings. At the same, time, I think that it would be unwise to preclude them from doing so.

LORD STRACHIE

At this time of the evening I will not trouble the House to go to a Division, and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE

In the absence of my noble friend Lord Arran I beg to move, in subsection (2), after "park" to insert "demesne." In Ireland the word "park" has a totally different meaning from its meaning in England. A gentleman's place there is nearly always described as a demesne. For the purpose of protection, I think it is necessary that tins word should be inserted.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 16, after ("park") insert ("demesne").—.(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I do not wish to accept the Amendment, but I must say that I am sympathetic towards it, and I suggest that it should be put down to be moved when the new Acquisition of Land Bill reaches this House. It would apply not only to forestry but to all acquisition of land.

LORD ORANAMORE AND BROWNE

I withdraw it at present, but I reserve the right to bring it up again on Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 7 agreed to.

Clause 8:

Establishment of Forestry Fund.

8.—(1) The salaries of the Commissioners, and the salaries or remuneration of their officers and servants and all expenses incurred by the Commissioners in the exercise of their powers and the performance of duties under this Act, shall be defrayed out of a fund to be called the Forestry Fund.

(2) There shall be paid into the Forestry Fund—

1. (a) the sums issued out of the Consolidated Fund under this section; and
2. (b) all sums received by the Commissioners in respect of the sale of any land or timber or otherwise received by the Commissioners in respect of any transactions carried out by them in the exercise of their powers and duties under this Act.

(3) There shall be charged on and paid oat of the Consolidated Fund or the growing produce thereof, the stun of awe million five hundred thousand pounds, and the said sum shall be issued and paid by the Treasury into the Forestry Fund at such times before the first day of April nineteen hundred and twenty-nine, as they direct:

Provided that the amount to be so issued and paid in each year shall be such as Parliament may determine.

(4) The Commissioners may accept any gift made to them for all or any of the purposes of this Act, and, subject to the terms thereof, may apply it for those purposes in accordance with regulations made by them.

(5) The Commissioners shall cause an account to be prepared and transmitted to the Comptroller and Auditor General for examination, on or before the thirtieth day of September in every year, showing the sums paid into and the sums issued out of the Forestry Fund in the financial year ending on the thirty-first day of March preceding, and the Comptroller and Auditor General shall certify and report on the same, and such account and report shall be laid before Parliament by the Commissioners on or before the thirty-first day of January in the following year if Parliament be then sitting, and if Parliament be then not sitting within one week after Parliament is next assembled.

The Commissioners shall also cause to be laid before both Houses of Parliament an annual report of their proceedings.

(6) Payments out of and into the Forestry Fund, and all other matters relating to the fund and money standing to the credit of the fund, shall be made and regulated in such manner as the Treasury may, by minute to be laid before Parliament, direct.

(7) The Treasury may from time to time invest any moneys standing to the credit of the Forestry Fund in any securities in which trustees are by law authorised to invest trust funds.

VISCOUNT HALDANE had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of subsection (3), to insert "on au estimate to be laid before it by the Treasury." The noble Viscount said: I will not take any time in moving this Amendment. I think possibly that it may be convenient to move it in the words "on an estimate to be presented by the Treasury "instead of" to be laid before it by the Treasury." I think that would be more accurate. It is obvious that this secures the object of having a Minister responsible to Parliament, and also responsible for the estimate. I hope the Government will see their way to accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 21, at end insert ("on an estimate to be presented by the Treasury").—(Viscount Haldane.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

Schedule:

(2) The order shall be in the prescribed form and shall contain such provisions as the Development Commissioners may prescribe for the purpose of carrying the order into effect, and shall incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts and sections seventy-seven to eighty-five of the Railways Clauses Consolidation Act, 1845, or, in Scotland, sections seventy to seventy-eight of the Railways Clauses Consolidation (Scotland) Act, 1845, and those Acts shall apply accordingly, subject to the following modifications:—

1. (a) Any question of disputed compensation shall be determined by a single arbitrator, who shall be appointed, and whose remuneration shall be fixed, as respects England, by the Lord Chief Justice of England, as respects Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session, and as respects Ireland by the Lord Chief Justice of Ireland and the arbitrator so appointed shall be deemed to be an arbitrator within the meaning of those Acts:
556
2. (b) An arbitrator so appointed may, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, determine the amount of costs, and shall have power to disallow, as costs of the arbitration, the costs of any witness whom he considers to have been called unnecessarily, and any other costs which he considers have been caused or incurred unnecessarily:
3. (c) In determining the amount of any disputed compensation under any such order, no additional allowance shall be made on account of the purchase being compulsory, and the arbitrator shall have regard to the extent to which the remaining and contiguous lands and hereditaments belonging to the same proprietor may be benefited by the carrying out of the purpose for which the land is authorised to be acquired by the Commissioners:
4. (d) The provisions of the Lands Clauses Acts as to the sale of superfluous land shall not apply.

(3) The draft order shall be published by the Commissioners in the prescribed manner, and such notice shall be given both in the locality in which the land proposed to be acquired is situate and to the owners, lessees, and occupiers of that land as may be prescribed, and in the case of land forming part of a common, open space, or allotment, also to the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries.

(4) An order authorising the acquisition of any buildings may, if portions only of those buildings are required for the purposes of the Commissioners, notwithstanding anything in the Lands Clauses Acts, require the owners of and other persons interested in those buildings to sell and convey to the Commissioners the portions only of the buildings so required, if the arbitrator is of opinion that such portions can be severed from the remainder of the properties without material detriment thereto, and, in such case, the Commissioners shall not be obliged to purchase the whole or any greater portion thereof, and shall pay for the portions acquired by them and make compensation for any damage ssutained by the owners thereof or other parties interested therein by severance or otherwise.

LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE: moved, in (2) (a), after "Any question," to insert" as to whether such land shall be compulsorily acquired and." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which covers somewhat the same ground as the one already moved, and which I withdrew but I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will understand that on this subject also I reserve my right to move the Amendment on the Report stage.

Amendment moved— Page 10, line 16, after ("question") insert ("as to whether such land shall be compulsorily acquired and").—(Lord Oranmore and Browne.)

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

On the Report stage I shall also point out that a still more convenient stage will occur when the Land Acquisition. Bill is before your Lordships.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH moved to leave out paragraph (b). The noble Duke said: I shall probably be told in regard to this Amendment to wait until the Land Acquisition Bill is before this House, but I would point out that in this particular instance forestry specially affects the question. There is a great possibility of danger to agriculture itself. Obviously there may be injury to game interests if certain land is taken but that is comparatively a small matter. As regards sheep farms, however, it is a serious matter. Apparently there is nothing under this Bill to prevent the Commissioners acquiring any portion of a bill farm, planting the lower ground with trees, and practically making", that hill farm useless except for sporting purposes, because if the lower part is taken away it would be impossible to maintain permanent stock on the farm. It is most undesirable that there should be any conflict between agriculture and forestry, and I hope that my noble friend will accept this Amendment as one which is fair and reasonable. Unless this Amendment is put into the Bill there are great dangers of abuse and of great injury to agriculture, and especially to sheep farming and sheep breeding.

Amendment moved— In the Schedule, page 10, lines 24 to 29, leave out paragraph (b).—(The Duke of Buccleuch.)

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

This raises a very wide and very controversial issue as to worsement and betterment, and I am afraid that I do not see my way to say anything further to the noble Duke than I have already pointed out to one or two of my noble friends, that I am reluctant to change the existing code of law in respect of afforestation alone if we have to change it let us change it in respect of all the different branches and objects for which land is compulsorily acquired. I suggest that this point of worsement should be discussed on the Land Acquisition Bill which the learned Clerk at the Table informs me is already in possession of your Lordships. I think that is a much more fitting and convenient opportunity.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

May I point out that this particular question affects the Forestry Bill, and does not affect any other Bill. There is no possibility of the particular land that I referred to being taken except for afforestation. As I have pointed out if you take the lower ground of a bill farm and plant it the rest of the ground will have to be turned into what is called waste ground which may be some use for grouse shooting but will be of no use for anything else. Therefore this particular matter applies specially to this Bill.

EARL STANHOPE

There is another point of view. If you start planting trees you may seriously deterioriate the value of property by cutting oft the view from a house, and if you I ask advantage of any benefit which may accrue you should also pay for any detriment.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

There is a great deal to be said for what the noble Earl states. I have only argued the question not on merits but on procedure. It would be much more convenient to discuss it on the Land Acquisition Bill.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH

If the noble Earl wishes, I will bring it up again on Report.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I think that will be preferable.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD DYNEVOR moved, after (2) (d), to insert the following new paragraph: (e) The owner, lessee or occupier of any mines or minerals lying under any land purchased or within such a lateral distance therefrom that the liberties hereby granted can be made available for the working thereof shall for the purpose of working the same be entitled to enter on any land so purchased and there to use any existing and to sink, erect, make and use any new shafts, machinery and other works, and for that purpose, if necessary, to remove any timber or other trees or any other things growing or being thereon and to lay and use light rails over the land so purchased and to do all such other things thereon or therein as if such land had not been purchased but so that in exercising such liberties no more damage than is reasonably necessary be done to such land, trees, or things, and that reasonable compensation be made for any damage actually caused, and if any question stall arise in respect thereof the same shall be determined by the arbitrator.

The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order that when land is compulsorily taken for afforestation full power over the surface shall remain for the development of minerals. Unless that is done that, will cease in those areas. Some of the most likely land which the Commissioners will take for afforestation will be hill or mountain and heather lands, such as is met with in the coal areas of South Wales, Staffordshire. &c. The area taken for planting will probably be very large, as no doubt it will thus be more economical to work, and I wish the Commissioners all success in doing it. But, in doing it, we do not want to stop the development of the minerals. It may be necessary to sink a shaft or make a tramline or put up a spoil heap on the land compulsorily taken, and I do not think this reservation which I propose would very much affect the Commissioners in their work, for it would not entail a very large acreage. I know that only a few acres are needed for this purpose.

I have only mentioned coal, but my new clause covers all minerals, such as ironstone, tin, and lead. Some of the areas taken by the Commissioners may be over leased coal or over undeveloped coal, and it is most necessary to reserve full powers for the working and getting away of the minerals. If a shaft is sunk in the future in a wood belonging to the Commissioners either the owner of the minerals or the lessee would have to pay for the destroyed trees and other damage done. Although it is rather hard to put an extra burden upon them, I think it is inevitable, and this is covered by my new clause. I hope the Government will see their way to accept what I think is a very important addition to the Bill.

Amendment moved— In the Schedule, page 10, after line 39, insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Dynevor.)

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

As soon as this appeared on the Paper this afternoon I thought it was an extremely technical matter, and I should very much prefer to have an opportunity of discussing it with those who advise me. I rather think that the case is already met. I cannot conceive that there should be an oversight, that nobody should have drawn attention to such a matter for the last ten years, and that an owner should reserve the mineral rights of land compulsorily taken and yet not have power of access or development for those rights. It would surprise me very much to learn that this was not already provided for somehow. I trust, however, that. Lord Dynevor will consent to repeat his Amendment on the Report stage, and I should then be able to give him a considered reply.

LORD DYNEVOR

Of course, I shall fall in with the wishes of my noble friend. But I may point out that I have taken very eminent counsel's opinion on the point, and he informed me that it was necessary to reserve the rights.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

I have also taken the opinion of a very eminent counsel, and he cannot make out what Lord Dynevor means.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE DUKE OF BUCCLEUCH had an Amendment on the Paper to leave out subsection (4) from "An order" down to "otherwise." The noble Duke said: I do not wish to press this Amendment, although I think the provisions of the subsection are very objectionable and absolutely unnecessary from the forestry point of view. I think, however, that my noble friend might give some explanation of why this subsection has been inserted.

THE EARL OF CRAWFORD

The reason is simply that we are re-producing verbatim from the Statute ten years old. I cannot charge my memory why it was put in in 1909 or 1908, but that is the reason why it is here.

Schedule agreed to.