HL Deb 12 December 1946 vol 144 cc854-80

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 Huntingdon.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Forestry dedication covenants and enforcement thereof.

1.—(1) In this Act the expression "forestry dedication covenant" means a covenant entered into with the Forestry Commissioners (in this Act referred to as "the Commissioners") to the effect that land shall not, except with the previous consent in writing of the Commissioners, be used otherwise than for the growing of timber in accordance with the rules or practice of good forestry or for purposes connected therewith, being a covenant not containing any expression of intention contrary to the application of Section seventy-nine of the Law of Property Act, 1925 (which provides that, unless a contrary intention is expressed, a covenant relating to any land of a covenantor or capable of being bound by him shall be deemed to be made by the covenantor on behalf of himself or his successors in title and the persons deriving title under him or them).

(3) Section eighty-four of the Law of Property Act, 1925 (which confers power to discharge or modify restrictive covenants) shall not apply to a forestry dedication covenant.

(4) This section shall not extend to Scotland.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY OF THE MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON) moved, in subsection (I), after "timber," to insert "(within the meaning of Section three of the Forestry Act, 1919)." The noble Earl said: This Amendment was raised, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Courthope, in order to clarify the definition of the word "timber." We want to insert "within the meaning of Section three of the Forestry Act, 1919." The word "timber" has a narrow meaning in Common Law; that is to say, it refers to oak, ash and elm. We want, in this Bill, to give it the wider meaning, that is the meaning ascribed to it by the 1919 Act. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 11, after ("timber") insert ("(within the meaning of Section three of the Forestry Act, 1919)").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

4.6 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved, at the end of subsection (1), to insert: Provided that a forestry dedication covenant shall, notwithstanding any express condition to the contrary, be deemed to be subject to a proviso that the consent of the Commissioners hereinbefore referred to shall not be withheld where the Authority for the purposes of Section eighty-four of the Law of Property Act, 1925, determines, on an application made by the covenantor in accordance with the rules made under subsection (4) of the said section, that, having regard to the national and local interests and requirements and the private interests affected and any other considerations, the continued use of the land for the growing of timber or for purposes connected therewith would be unreasonable. Where the Authority determines as aforesaid, the determination shall provide for the repayment to the Forestry Commission of such advances by way of grant as have been made by the Commissioners in relation to the land affected by such determination, together with interest on each such advance for the period beginning with the date on which it was made, and ending with the date on which the land ceases to be used for the purposes of the growing of timber or for purposes connected therewith at the rate of three pounds per cent. per annum.

The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to render it possible to terminate a covenant if the circumstances have changed. As I understand the matter, once a covenant is entered into it is as the laws of the Medes and Persians, which altereth not. Of course, I speak subject to correction on that point, because none of us, except the noble Earl, have seen the Covenant, but as it has been presented to woodland owners the importance of continuity in forestry policy has been stressed, and quite rightly so. I would not suggest for a moment that these covenants ought to be lightly disturbed. Once you have embarked on a forestry plan, that plan should be, if possible, pursued for the full eighty years, or whatever it is, until your crop is finally gathered. It is indeed probably longer than that because the crop is a succeeding one.

But circumstances may change. I recently had the privilege of being shown over some of the Alice Holt plantations of the Forestry Commission, and I then learnt that during the comparatively short period during which the Forestry Commission have been responsible for these ancient woods, which is some thirty or forty years, the plan of forestry has been changed no less than three times and each time for very good reasons. I think that if an owner agrees a plan with the Forestry Commission and, on the understanding that that plan is to be pursued, enters into a covenant of dedication, if the plan is to be changed the owner ought to have the right of saying: "Well, this would not suit my estate. It might be the right policy from the forestry point of view looked at from the national angle, but it would not fit in with the economy of this particular estate."

We all know that woodlands cannot be considered in vacuo. They form part of the estate and the by-products if not the chief products of the woodland, such things as hurdle rods, thatching sticks, fencing posts and the like, form a very important part of the estate economy. Therefore, the land-owner has to consider aspects in his local problem which are distinct from the problems of national forestry which the Forestry Commission have in mind. All I am saying is that I think if the forestry plan were changed by the Commission, the land-owner ought to have the opportunity of terminating the covenant, and if there were a difference of opinion between the land-owner and the Commission, then clearly the matter should be subject to arbitration.

But there may be other eventualities. It is quite impossible to forsee what the fixture will be during the next twenty, thirty or more years. New crops may be discovered for which that particular piece of land would be eminently suitable, new crops which might bring in a much greater economic return than forestry. In our own lifetime we have seen a number of new crops of varying kinds introduced into the agriculture of this country—sugar beet, asparagus, sunflowers, and a great many more. Not only that, but a crop well known to the economy of some counties may, at any given time, be discovered to be suitable to a part of the country where it has not previously been grown. I can give your Lordships a good instance of that. I myself have grubbed over fifty acres of woodland in order to plant fruit. Thirty years ago nobody was growing top fruit commercially in East Hampshire, but it is now a progressive industry in that county. If my father had been asked thirty or forty years ago to dedicate land it would never have entered his head that fruit could be successfully grown in that particular area. It has now been proved that fruit can be grown under exceptionally favourable conditions, and it is much more profitable to employ the land in that direction than it is in forestry. It pays to go to the very heavy expense of grubbing land in order to grow fruit because the area on which fruit can be grown is strictly limited on account of frost conditions and the like.

I merely give that as an instance of my point that it is impossible to foresee thirty or forty or more years in advance what would be the right policy for a particular bit of land. The landowner is bound to consider not merely the national problem of forestry, but the part that that piece of land should play in the economy of the estate and the surrounding farms. Therefore, I think that if the circumstances change, from whatever cause, there ought to be some machinery by which the deed of covenant could be reconsidered.

I would point this out. We are all anxious that as many land-owners as possible should enter into these deeds of covenant. If it is possible for the Commissioners or His Majesty's Government to tell landowners that they are not tying their hands and the hands of their successors irrevocably, but if conditions and circumstances do charge there will be an opportunity of reconsidering the matter, then surely you are likely to get far more landowners to enter into covenants than you would do otherwise. I think it would be a very imprudent action for any landowner to enter into a covenant that did not have some machinery for reconsideration if the circumstances warranted it. Of course, if the noble Earl can tell us that the Government are going to provide for that in the covenant then my point falls to the ground. But I think this point should be raised at this stage of the Bill in order that the House could have it in mind. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 20, at end insert the said proviso—(The Earl of Selborne.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I should like to stress that the motive behind the Bill before the House is one to conserve the supplies of timber. We want to get people to plant their woods, and once those woods have been dedicated and planted, we want that timber to stand until it is ready to be felled. In other words, the motive is to ensure a national supply of timber. Therefore, I think your Lordships will agree that it is only in very exceptional circumstances that we should ever want to do away with or rescind these covenants. Circumstances may arise, however, and I would point out to your Lordships that the Forestry Commissioners have, under the Bill itself, the right to terminate agreements with the consent of the covenantor. In other words, if the covenantor who has dedicated his trees gives a good reason why his scheme should be altered, there is nothing to stop the Commissioners from altering that scheme.

LORD O'HAGAN

The noble Lord has said the power is in The Bill to effect something on the lines of my noble friend's Amendment, but I do not see it in the Bill.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

If the noble Lord will turn to page 1, Clause 1, line 9, he will see the words: to the effect that land shall not, except with the previous consent in writing of the Commissioners, be used otherwise than for the growing of timber. So that, if you get the consent of the Commissioners in writing, the covenant could be altered or abrogated. In effect, if the landowner puts up a case for altering the scheme, there is nothing to stop the Commissioners altering that scheme and agreeing to his case. On the other hand, you might argue that the Forestry Commissioners may not agree, and might be unreasonable in not agreeing. I think that is really the noble Earl's point. The question at issue is whether, in the event of disagreement, it should be decided by an outside arbiter or, as at present, by the Forestry Commission, subject to the criticism of Parliament. Obviously, if the Commission were unreasonable in withholding their consent or insisting upon an agreement where it was in the public interest or obviously to general local interest that the covenant should be altered, then it would be the duty of someone like the noble Earl, Lord Selborne—and I am sure he would fulfil it—to criticize the Commission in Parliament and demand that this wrong should be righted. I do submit, with regard to this Amendment, that it is better to leave the final decision in the hands of Parliament rather than to an outside arbiter. I beg the noble Earl to withdraw his Motion.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

This is a legal point of some difficulty, and I am not competent to say that there is not great weight on both sides, but I think I am in a position to say that Clause 1 of the Bill is not quite as satisfactory as the noble Earl who represents the Government seems to imagine. All that the Commissioners can do under Clause 1 of the Bill is to consent to the land being used otherwise than for the growing of timber. What they can do under Section 84 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, on which my noble friend Lord Selborne is making his Motion, is, by order, wholly or partially to discharge or modify any such restrictions, subject or not to the payment of compensation, and so on, on being satisfied of certain things. As I understand it, if the Amendment were accepted the result would be that the dedication covenant could be completely annulled, leaving the land-owner to apply his land as he thought fit, but all that can be done, if he manages to satisfy the Commissioners, under the Bill as it stands, is that he can get their consent in writing to use the land otherwise than for the growing of timber.

That is a very unsatisfactory position in which to be left because it might be temporary and then it would be from time to time necessary for the owner to go back to the Commissioners. He never could use his land for his own benefit or the benefit of the locality in such a way as entirely to put an end to the covenant with which we are now dealing—the forestry dedication covenant. Accordingly, I suggest to the noble Earl that there should be some modification of the existing clause. I would like to add that I think there may be cases in which the Commissioners ought not to be the final parties to determine whether or not the conditions have so altered that the covenant should be brought to an end. A land-owner has the interests of himself and his locality very much more at heart than the Commissioners, who are really going to lose very little if they stick firmly to the covenant. Therefore I would urge the noble Earl to consider whether some reasonable compromise should not be entered into with my noble friend Lord Selborne in this matter.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I cannot say that I am satisfied by the reply of the noble Earl. Apart from the reasons which have been given by my noble and learned friend who has just spoken, it does not seem to be right or satisfactory that the decision in this matter should rest with the Forestry Commissioners. The noble Earl says that if the Forestry Commissioners agree then there are means of terminating the covenant, and I admit that. But it is of the cases in which there is disagreement that I am thinking. Even Forestry Commissioners are human and all human beings are subject to liability to error of judgment. It I may venture to say so, I think that errors of judgment are particularly liable to occur where there is enthusiasm. If any on is an enthusiast on any subject he may attach a value to his particular enthusiasm which is really exaggerated.

I am far from minimizing, in any way, the vital importance of the development of forestry in this country. Two wars have taught us—where one ought to have been sufficient—that it is of the utmost importance that our forests should be developed and extended enormously. But acquisition of land on which to grow forests is not the problem. The Forestry Commission have been able to obtain, at very cheap prices, thousands of acres of land which they have never been able to plant. Therefore, that is not really the problem. I agree that it is most desirable to get land-owners to dedicate wherever you can. My point is that I think a land-owner would be very ill-advised to the himself and his successors in perpetuity, in view of what I dealt with just now—the possibility that circumstances may radically alter. And I do not think it is satisfactory to leave the decision as to whether or not it is the right policy to continue a given piece of land in forestry to the Forestry Commission.

I do not think that it is fair to expect the Forestry Commission to look at the problem from a dispassionate angle. Their object their business, their enthusiasm is to increase the amount of forest in this country. That is their job, that is what they are there for. The landowner has to look at it from a different aspect. He has also to consider the economy of the farm and the welfare of the locality, and as I have said such questions as new crops, new discoveries, changed economic circumstances may make what was the right policy one year the wrong policy forty or fifty years later.

If may refer once again to the case of my own farm where I have utilized a certain limited acreage for growing fruit trees instead of woodlands: I ventured to consult a high forestry expert about my woodlands. I asked him to go over them and make a report. Later I happened to see a letter which he wrote to a third party. The letter started: "Forestry seems to be sacrificed on this estate to fruit growing." The writer obviously thoroughly disapproved of what I am doing—and I am not surprised. He knew nothing whatever about fruit, he did not appreciate that fruit was more profitable on that particular soil than forestry. Forestry not fruit growing is his interest. This gentleman is not a Forestry Commissioner though he is very well qualified to be one, for he is one of the highest experts in the country. If he had had to make the decision on the matter he would with perfect sincerity have said: "It is quite wrong to change over from forestry to fruit here, and we will not agree to it." Therefore, I do not think it is satisfactory to leave the decision in the hands of the Forestry Commission.

We have in the past always been very jealous of decisions of that sort by bureaucrats. I do not wish to be rude, but the Forestry Commission do come in the category of bureaucrats. They may be most excellent, necessary and desirable bureaucrats, but if I may say so with all respect to my noble friend it is really no answer to say that I, or other members of your Lordships' House, can raise this matter in Parliament. That is no answer. Not all the woodlands of this country are owned by members of the two Houses of Parliament. I am thinking of people who have no access to your Lordships' House or to another place except through their Parliamentary representative. It is not right to impose an obligation of that sort on the ordinary citizen. If there is a simple question of this nature which is of really great importance to the economy of the farm or village, while it is a comparatively small matter in the great forestry problem with which the Forestry Commission have to deal, if there is really a difference of opinion between the landowner and the Forestry Commission it ought to be decided, I suggest, by some independent and competent arbitrator.

VISCOUTNT SWINTON

I would appeal to the Government to meet us on this. I believe it would be genuinely in their own interests to do so. I can understand the Forestry Commission saying that so long as land is going to be continued to be devoted to forestry they ought to be the judges as to whether the work of forestry is being well carried out on the land or not. They are the supervisors and it is their task to see that forestry is well conducted in this country. That is their jurisdiction and within that it is not reasonable that there should be an appeal from them. That is not the issue here. Here the issue is whether land should no longer be devoted to forestry. The noble Earl himself has said that the Forestry Commission are to absorb as much land as possible permanently as forest. That being the trust which they have to discharge, how can the Commission be the right judges of whether the land should continue as forestry, or whether it should be susceptible to a change? The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, has said to us, happily, that he is extremely anxious that the subject should have the same rights against the Crown as he holds against private bodies. This is a case where an equitable decision is needed as to what is the right thing. Landlords everywhere have this right. The national interest also comes into the question. Surely, it is reasonable that both landlords and the Forestry Commission should submit themselves to an independent judge. I sincerely believe that if the noble Earl will give way upon that he is much more likely to achieve a satisfactory solution of the problem.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (LORD JOWITT)

Perhaps your Lordships would allow me to say something on this matter because forestry has been an interest of mine for many years. I think my noble friend would be well advised to consent to look into this matter. At the same time, may I say this? In these discussions your Lordships appear rather to have overlooked the fact that the Forestry Commissioners have now been placed under the Agricultural Ministers. That was done in the time of the last Government. I confess that I was always very doubtful about it, and was frightened that forestry might be given second place. But, for better or for worse, that has been decided. Now I think we see the wisdom of that decision because, after all, although the Forestry Commission may be described as bureaucrats—I do not quite know about that—at least they are very enthusiastic about growing timber, and I think that we ought all to become more forestry-minded.

But the Minister of Agriculture is in a very neutral position. He is also interested in the growing of fruit, and let us remember that the Forestry Commission now act under the two Agricultural Ministers, although in the day-to-day working of this business they do nothing; and if they are wise they will certainly leave the Forestry Commission to get on with their work and will carry on with their own. If any question of this sort does arise, and there is a conflict in the hypothetical case put, by reason of developments which we cannot see now, between the new agricultural user and the existing user for forestry, that is typically the sort of matter which I think the Agricultural Ministers might look at. Therefore, although I must not be taken as assenting to the proposition that the case is made out, for the reasons I have given I think His Majesty's Government would be well advised to look into the matter, and see whether there is a case to be made for the noble Earl's proposition. I would, therefore, suggest that he might withdraw his Amendment on the understanding that we will look into it.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I certainly withdraw on that understanding, and I thank the noble and learned Lord for promising to look into the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

4.34 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved to insert the following new clause:

Arbitration.

Any question or difference arising between the Commissioners and the owner of any land in respect of which such owner is required or invited to enter into a forestry dedication covenant in regard to the suitability of such land or of any part thereof for the growing of timber, or for purposes connected therewith shall, in default of agreement, be decided by a person nominated by the President of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.

The noble Earl said: The second Amendment which stands in my name deals with a different point. This is the question whether any given woodland shall be dedicated or not. I would very much welcome an elucidation from my noble friend as to exactly what is going to happen in regard to the so-called small woodlands. To start with, nobody I have yet met has been able to define what is a small woodland, and so far as I am aware it is quite indefinite whether any given wood is regarded as a fit subject for dedication or not. From unofficial inquiries that I have made, I gather—and my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong—that the real criterion is to be whether the Forestry Commission think they can conveniently administer a particular woodland or not. There might be a wood of 20 acres in Surrey which the Forestry Commission would feel they could administer because it happened to be close to their other centres. There might be a wood of a similar size in Cumberland which they would not want to administer because, for administrative reasons, it would be inconvenient for them to do so.

I can quite understand that, and no doubt there is a good deal of force in such an attitude. As I understand the matter, however, if the owner of a large wood (let us say, for the sake of argument) says: "No, I will not dedicate this wood; I am going to manage it myself," then in the last resort the Forestry Commission have power to force him to dedicate, or to acquire the wood themselves. That may be quite reasonable, and it may be the right policy in the case of some important woodland area. The matter has to be treated from the national point of view, and not from the personal or local point of view. There is, however, quite clearly that indeterminate number of woodlands, each of between say 20 and 30 acres, scattered about the country, where it is a moot point whether or not they should be dedicated.

You may have the case where a landowner, for his own reasons, prefers not to dedicate, and the Forestry Commission may say: "You shall dedicate." The object of this Amendment is to submit cases of this sort to arbitration. If the noble Earl can assure me that it is unnecessary, I shall be quite satisfied; but I think it is important to raise the point, because I do not believe that the Forestry Commission ought to be able arbitrarily to select woods and say: "We will manage this wood, but not that"—looking at the question purely or, shall I say, largely from the angle of convenient and efficient administration. The landowner has to consider other aspects of the problem besides forestry. He has to consider the agricultural aspect. Therefore if there is a difference of opinion as to whether the wood should be dedicated or not, then in my view the matter ought to be subject to arbitration and should not be left purely to the decision of the Forestry Commission.

Amendment moved— After Clause 1, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Selborne.)

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I would like to support the noble Earl in this Amendment, because in Scotland we have what are known as shelter belts, which are really vital to agriculture. Take my own case, for example. My own land goes straight up from the sea, 400 feet up and if I did not have these shelter belts I could not properly use that land for purposes of agriculture. These belts help to keep out the north-east wind which occasionally blows in that part of the country. As I see it, without this Amendment, the Forestry Commission could come along and require a shelter belt to be dedicated. I believe that that is so. The wording is that you can be either "required or invited to enter into a forestry dedication." For the sake of agriculture, these belts cannot be cut down.

Take the case of a farmer with 40 or 50 acres which include part of this belt. He cannot cut down that belt and replant it elsewhere. That is the only place where he can have it, to shelter his land. Admittedly the timber may be past its cutting value. The value of that timber, however, is not its cutting value but its shelter value. The Lord Chancellor made reference to the fact that the Forestry Commissioners are under the Minister of Agriculture. In Scotland, of course, both are under the same hat, if I may say so—namely, the Secretary of State for Scotland. There again, if you have access to this House or to another place, as the noble Earl has suggested, you do have a chance of putting your case. But the small man has very little chance of putting his case. He may have a Member of Parliament who is not in the slightest degree interested in agriculture. I say, with due respect, that the farmer's vote is one vote in many thousand of votes in the Member of Parliament's constituency. I am not saying that the Member of Parliament will not put forward the case to the best of his ability; but he is tied, he is very much occupied with other matters in his constituency. As we say in Scotland, he may not be "seized" of what is required, and this land gets passed over, the trees are cut down and the land is ruined. I would strongly urge the Government to accept this Amendment in the name of my noble friend.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, in what he has said with regard to the question of shelter belts. In the south it is not so fully appreciated what an important factor they are in sheep-farming in the north. In fact, we could not do without them. Many of us have large areas of land entirely given over to sheep at present. We have to have these shelter belts in order to keep the sheep there. In fact, we could not keep the sheep unless we had them. We should like to have it made clear how the Forestry Commission will view this question. As the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, has said, it is true that in the case of Scotland the power to decide these matters is with the Secretary of State for Scotland. I think this factor should be taken into consideration and I hope that the noble Earl will do so if he possibly can.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I respect fully suggest to the noble Earl who moved this Amendment that it is really founded on a misconception of the powers and intention of this Bill and of the Forestry Commission. It is true that under the 1945 Act the Forestry Commission have powers to acquire land compulsorily for the growing of trees but the powers taken under that Act have not been used, This Bill is not in any way conceived as a sort of threat to make owners dedicate their woodlands. This scheme is something quite different. It is a voluntary scheme which will allow owners, if they wish, to obtain grants. That is really the object of it. It is not in the nature of a big stick to enable the Forestry Commissioners to say to the owner, "Either you dedicate your woodlands or else we will come in and take them over." The object is simply to allow the private owner to dedicate his woodlands if he wishes and to obtain grants. Therefore, in the case of shelter belts, which have been mentioned—and this is a very pertinent question—there is no reason why an owner should dedicate his woodlands. In fact, I think myself he would be much wiser not to dedicate his shelter belts, and it is quite obvious that the Forestry Commission would not come along and say, "We want the timber from these trees." If, however, your Lordships take the view that there may be that danger, then I suggest that the procedure would be to amend the 1945 Act, not this Bill, which, as I have said, is a purely voluntary Bill allowing for grants to be made.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

May I ask a question with regard to the shelter belts? Is it not a fact that if you do not dedicate your shelter belts you cannot get the grant?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Yes, that is perfectly true. But I would suggest another alternative. First there is no obligation to dedicate shelter belts. On the other hand, if noble Lords wish to dedicate shelter belts simply to obtain the grant, there is no reason why there should not be drawn up a plan of operations in which it could be said that certain woods will be grown with soft woods, certain woods with hard woods and certain woods which would be shelter belts only. Although I cannot undertake that in this case they would be given the normal grants, I think they probably would. I will look into the question. On the general issue, after what I have said, I hope the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

If I have understood my noble friend rightly, his point is that I ought to have moved this Amendment last year when we were dealing with the 1945 Act. Well, there is a proverb, "Better late than never." I think that perhaps this matter was overlooked in 1945. After all, we had other things to think of in 1945. The 1945 Act passed through Parliament very rapidly with very little discussion. It was at the time of the Armistice, and I think the point was overlooked. It seems to me that, if this Amendment were passed, it would prevent that of which I am afraid, and to that point, if I may say so with great respect, my noble friend has not really addressed himself. He has rather suggested that the Amendment is not appropriate to this Bill, but we have the whole question of dedication and of forestry before us in this Bill. Subject to correction, it seems to me that the point was overlooked in the 1945 Act and we now have an opportunity of correcting it.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

As the person responsible for passing the 1945 Act through this House, I wonder if I might interrupt the noble Earl. As far as my recollection goes as to the wording at the time, I distinctly said that this was an enabling Act which we had to have for various reasons, and I promised, so far as I was able to promise, that it would be followed by another Act which is the present one, and which, naturally, I was not able to produce, but which the present Government have produced. When I promised that there would be another Bill to follow the 1945 Act, it never entered my head that it meant that, because the 1945 Act was passed, that was a method of getting out of anything in this Bill. That was the last thing we intended.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I thank my noble friend for that information. I do suggest that this is a point which has not been dealt with, and with which, with great respect, I think your Lordships ought to deal. There ought to be some machinery to determine these doubtful cases as to whether a wood should be dedicated or not. The number of cases is, necessarily, not very great. There would probably be no dispute at all that, save in exceptional cases, great woodlands should be dedicated. There would probably be no dispute at all that the small and scattered woodlands should not be dedicated. But there will be an indeterminate class with regard to which there may well be a difference of opinion, and it seems to me, when there is a difference of opinion, it is wrong that that difference of opinion should in fact be settled by one of the parties, in this case the Forestry Commission, who are bound only to have the interests of national forestry at heart, whereas, as I have said before, the landowner must bear in mind other interests such as those to which the noble Earl has referred. Therefore, I hope that the Government will be able to meet us in this matter, because I think it is going to smooth the wheels very much if people are going to feel that these questions are to be dealt with in an impartial and fair way, and that they are not going to be ridden over roughshod by this great Commission.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

If your Lordships will allow me to intervene, I think there is a complete misapprehension about this matter. There will, undoubtedly, be some large woods which will be taken over or dedicated by mutual consent. There will be some small ones that quite obviously everybody would agree should be out of it, and there will be an intermediate class. The noble Earl who has just spoken seems to me to be under the impression that the Forestry Commission will have the right to decide with regard to these matters. That is not so at all. It all depends on their being in agreement. If the landlord does not want to dedicate this indeterminate class it will not be dedicated.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

If I may interrupt the noble and learned Lord, am I not right in thinking that in such a case the Forestry Commission have the power to say: "If you will not dedicate, we will acquire your land"?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

They had the power to do that under the 1945 Act for all the land in the country. It is not in the least the intention of the Forestry Commission to blackmail owners by using this possibility of making an agreement and saying: "If you do not make an agreement we shall exercise the powers which we have under the 1945 Act." The whole idea of this Bill is based on agreement. We want to get the voluntary help and co-operation of the landowners. I can imagine nothing more foolish than to start blackmailing landowners in that sort of way. So far as this Bill is concerned, it is simply and solely a Bill based on agreement, and if the landowner does not want to dedicate his land, then the simple course he can adopt is not to dedicate his land. So far as this indeterminate class is concerned, it is not a question of the Forestry Commission having to decide in invitum of the landlord: it is simply a question of whether the landlord will make a covenant. Incidentally, the landlord is also free to read through the covenant and to see what is in it, and he can say that he will not sign it unless this or that Clause is put in.

When the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery referred to the phrase "required or in vited" to enter into a forestry agreement he was reading not part of the Bill but the Amendment. There is no question of those words being in this Bill at all. This is purely a Bill to enable the landlord, if he is so minded, to dedicate his land, and not to make him enter into an agreement if he is not so minded. If he does enter into an agreement he can get certain benefits from it, but he can make up his own mind whether he does so or not. I can assure your Lordships that he will not be blackmailed. He could not be blackmailed under the powers of this Bill. There is not the slightest intention of using undesirable pressure of that sort to get landowners to enter into agreements. We want this to be an enabling Bill to get the landowners to do it if they want to, and unless we make that plain I am sure we shall not get the co-operation of the land-owners which is what we desire.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I would like to thank the noble and learned Lord for his reply. It would be entirely satisfactory to me if I knew that it was binding on all future Ministers of Agriculture and on all future Forestry Commissioners. If the Acts were administered in the spirit in which the noble and learned Lord has spoken I do not think any trouble would arise. With your Lordships' permission, I would beg leave to withdraw my Amendment at this stage, reserving the right to bring the matter up again on the Report stage, because there is one point on which I am not entirely satisfied. It does still seem to me possible for the Forestry Commission, under their powers in the 1945 Act and using the machinery of both Acts to bring pressure to bear on a landowner in a way which the noble and learned Lord has described as "blackmail." I am not suggesting that any existing Forestry Commissioner would do such thing, but in legislation we have to beware of the strong use of power by enthusiasts. You see it happening time and again, men thinking they are doing perfectly good and right actions when really they are taking most arbitrary steps against the liberty of the individual. I think it is important that no landowner should be put in the position of having this pistol put at his head: "Either you dedicate or we acquire." I do not think that is a point that ought to be decided without independent arbitration. I would ask your Lordships to allow me to withdraw my Amendment at this stage, on the understanding that if my noble friend—perhaps I may have some conversations with my noble friend in the meantime—cannot convince me that it is quite unnecessary (and I am not entirely convinced yet) I shall be at liberty to raise the matter again. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2:

Power of tenants for life, etc., to enter into forestry dedication covenants.

(2) A university or college to which the Universities and Colleges Estates Act, 1925, applies may, with the consent of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, enter into a forestry dedication covenant relating to any land belonging to it either for consideration or gratuitously, and that Act shall apply as if the power conferred by this subsection had been conferred by that Act.

(3) This section shall not extend to Scotland.

4.58 p.m.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "with the consent of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries." The noble Earl said: This Amendment is merely to leave out the words "with the consent of the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries," which, it has been pointed out, are unnecessary. Under the Universities and College Estates Act, 1925, power is given to dedicate without the consent of the Minister. This Amendment will make the clause correspond to the provisions of the Act of 1925, and will not make any difference to the working of this Bill. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree to this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 30, leave out from ("may") to ("enter") in line 31.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD DARYNGTON moved, at the end of Clause 2, to insert: —Where land is glebe land or other land belonging to an ecclesiastical benefice, the incumbent of the benefice, and where land is part of the endowment of any other ecclesiastical corporation the ecclesiastical corporation, may with the consent of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners enter into a forestry dedication covenant relating to the land either for consideration or gratuitously, and the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts shall apply as if the power conferred by this subsection had been conferred by those Acts, except that the consent of the patron of an ecclesiastical benefice shall not be requisite.

The noble Lord said: This is a very simple matter. Unless special powers are granted to them incumbents and other ecclesiastical corporations sole or aggregate will be incapable of entering into a forestry dedication covenant, as the powers of the Ecclesiastical Leasing Acts only extend to leases, sales, exchanges, and other similar transactions. Under the Leasing Acts the Ecclesiastical Commissioners are consenting parties in order that they may see that any transaction proposed is for the benefit of the living or of the ecclesiastical corporation concerned. They have accordingly been introduced in the proposed Amendment as consenting parties. The consent of the patron is also necessary in transactions under the Leasing Acts when they relate to glebe of a benefice. It is not considered that the patron's consent need be required to a dedication covenant as to glebe, and it has accordingly been excluded. I beg to move—

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 36, insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Daryington.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

We are very pleased to accept this Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3 [Forestry dedication agreements and enforcement thereof]:

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

This Amendment is consequential on the one already made in Clause 1.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 1, after ("timber") insert ("(within the meaning of Section three of the Forestry Act, 1919)").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Power of liferenters, etc., to enter into forestry dedication agreements.

4.—(1) Any person being

  1. (a) the liferenter, or
  2. (b) the heir of entail,
in possession of any land shall have power to enter into forestry dedication agreements relating to the land or any part thereof.

(2) The Trusts (Scotland) Act, 1921, shall have effect as if among the powers conferred on trustees by Section four thereof (which relates to the general powers of trustees) there were included a power to enter into forestry dedication agreements relating to the trust estate or any part thereof.

(3) This section shall extend to Scotland only.

5.3 p.m.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY moved, in subsection (1), to leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and the words "in possession of any land" and insert:

  1. "(a) the proper liferenter
  2. (b) the heir of entail
  3. (c) with the consent of the owner the lessee in right of any lease for a period of thirty-one years or for any greater number of years or
  4. (d) a trustee or body of trustees
being in all cases in possession of the land and also in the case of a trustee or body of trustees infeft or entitled to be infeft in the land".

The noble Earl said: In moving the Amendment that stands in my name, may I say that it is entirely a Scottish Amend-merit? Some of the phraseology may be foreign to the noble Earl who will reply for the Government, but I have no doubt that he has made himself acquainted with what exactly it means. In brief, the objects of this Amendment are to limit "liferenter" to the proper liferenter and to give tenants under a long lease power to enter into dedication agreements. Under Scottish law there are two types of liferenter. There is, first of all, the proper liferenter, who has all the rights of ownership in the land except that he cannot sell otherwise than with the consent of the Court. The other type of liferenter is the beneficiary liferenter, who is the liferenter under trustees. This second class of liferenter is only entitled to the free revenue of the trust estate. The timber on the estate belongs to the trustees with the exception of windfalls and annual cuttings of copse wood.

With regard to the tenant under a long lease, in Scotland it is the practice in some cases for proprietors to let their woodlands under a long lease of probably over thirty-one years in duration. Under the terms of such a lease the tenant would be responsible for growing timber and would be in a position to exercise most of the powers of ownership. It is considered desirable, therefore, that the long leaseholder should be given power to dedicate; otherwise difficulties in practice may arise. In cases where woodlands are let under a long lease the grants for planting, etc., should be payable to the tenant and not to the owner. Under the Bill as drafted it would seem that the grants would require to go to the owner. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 22, leave out from ("being") to ("land") in line 25 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Rosebery.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

This is the same point as was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Glentanar, on the Second Reading of the Bill. The expression "liferenter" is sometimes used in a loose and popular sense to describe a beneficiary who, as the noble Earl said, has a right under a will to ocuppy for the period of his life-time property which is vested in trustees. Such a person has no feudal title himself to the property, which is vested in the trustees. The word "liferenter" is a technical term, and we submit that it must receive in the Bill, as in other Acts on the Statute Book, its technical meaning, which is, the person in whom the feudal title to the property is vested for the period of his life. Such a person is authorized by the clause to enter into a dedication agreement. Where the title to the property is vested in trustees, they alone, and not any person who under the terms of the trust is entitled to occupy the property for his life-time, can enter into such an agreement. It is therefore unnecessary to refer to "proper liferenters."

The right of trustees to enter into forestry dedication agreements is conferred by subsection (2) and it is therefore unnecessary to refer to them in subsection (1).

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I did not hear that.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Subsection (2) gives the power to trustees to enter into any dedication agreement. Therefore it is, I submit, unnecessary to mention them in subsection (1). I hope I have made that clear, and that the noble Earl will be willing to withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I presume that the noble Earl has consulted lawyers on this point. I do not know if he has consulted Scottish lawyers, but I am told that it is necessary to put in "the proper liferenter." I am no more a lawyer than the noble Earl opposite is, but I am told that "the proper liferenter" ought to be put in because there are these two liferenters.

It does seem right that where woodlands are let under a long lease, the grants for planting should be payable to the tenant and not to the owner. I do not think the noble Earl commented on that point. If you have let your woods for thirty, forty or fifty years it does seem equitable that the grants for planting, etc., should be paid direct to the man who is responsible for the planting and for the woods. I may not have made myself very clear. As I say, I am not a lawyer and this is a Scottish legal point which may be of considerable importance, but it does seem to me to be a matter of equity, and a point we can all understand, that the man who has got to do the work should get the money for doing it. That roughly is what I mean by this Amendment.

Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to raise this matter, if necessary, at a later stage, and in the meantime to attempt to come to some understanding with him. I feel that the Bill as it stands does not fulfil the proper requirements of the man who has a long lease of woods.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I should like to point out to the noble Earl on this question of the lessee, that if the lessee and the owner agree—and only in the event of agreement—there is nothing to prevent them entering into a joint agreement with the Forestry Commissioners who can allow grants to be made either to the owner or the lessee, whichever is decided. It is purely voluntary, but if the noble Earl would like to raise the matter again I will see whether a more legal term can be found. I should be grateful if he could see his way to withdraw the Amendment now.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

I am much obliged to the noble Earl, but I would like to point out that if a man has leased woods for fifty years, or his father has leased them and he has inherited them, he may not agree with legislation. Not everybody agrees with legislation, and he may be a cantankerous man and say, "I will not dedicate this". I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SALTOUN moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert: "and as if executors dative were included in the class of persons empowered to enter into forestry dedication agreements". The noble Lord said: When I looked into the Trusts (Scotland) Act to see the meaning of subsection (2), I noticed that while executors nominate are included in that Act executors dative are not, and I therefore put down this Amendment. I do not know the answer because I am not a lawyer any more than my noble friend, but I presume it may be because the powers of the executors dative are properly defined by the Courts which appoint them. But it seems to me unnecessary, in a case of this kind which might come up during the ordinary administration, for the executor to go back to the Court. It seems to me worth looking into to see whether executors dative should not be given the same powers. I am quite ready to accept the noble Earl's decision on this matter, but it opens the door to another matter which I should like to know if he has looked into. That refers to the whole question of minors. As most of your Lordships know, in Scotland minors can cut down contracts in respect of inheritable property after they are twenty-five. I do not know what the remedy is, and it may be only damages, but in any case it would be affected by this Bill. A minority may go on for a very long time. A girl minor can have a child and then die before the age of twenty-five, which would prolong that minority. I would like to ask the noble Earl if he has looked into this question and whether he has come to some conclusion upon it.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I think I can inform the noble Lord who has moved this Amendment why the executor dative was not included. In law the executor dative is a person appointed by the Court to administer movable property. He is not appointed to administer land and therefore it is thought inappropriate to give him the right to dedicate or have anything to do with dedication. In regard to his second point, which is not included in the Amendment, I understand the same rules would apply as apply to English minors, excepting the fact of the extension of the years. However, I will look into that point before the Third Reading.

LORD SALTOUN

I am obliged to the noble Earl. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4 agreed to.

5.14 p.m.

THE EARL OF WARWICK moved to insert the following new clause after Clause 4:

"Amendment in regard to compulsory acquisition of certain land.

Subsection (I) of Section five of the Forestry Act, 1945, shall have effect as if the following paragraph were inserted therein:— (d) any land in respect of which a forestry dedication covenant has been entered into, excepting where there has been a substantial breach of such covenant by the covenantor and, where the breach is one which is capable of remedy, the covenantor has failed, within a reasonable time after being required so to do by the Commissioners, to remedy the breach".

The noble Earl said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord. Portsmouth, I beg leave to introduce his Amendment. The purpose of this Amendment is similar to others which have already been discussed this afternoon by the noble Earl, Lord Rosebery, and the noble Lord, Lord Saltoun. It is intended to try to rectify this problem of the big bad wolf. All through the arguments we have heard this afternoon it has been said that the Forestry Commissioners of to-day, and indeed all the members of either House of Parliament who sit now, are the most respectable people. We are all aware of that, and if we were sure that the noble Earl and the Forestry Commissioners would continue in that way, we should not want to raise these points. But it does seem to me that there is not a great deal of protection should there ever be a case of the Forestry Commissioners trying to exercise undue powers, either from enthusiasm or from other motives. Therefore, my noble friend has put down this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 4 insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Warwick.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

This is a big concession which is being asked by the noble Earl, but in principle we are prepared to accept it. There are, however, certain difficulties in regard to the wording but we will look into it between now and the Report stage. For instance, the legal wording of Scotland and England is very different, as we have seen. We do, however, accept his Amendment in principle. I hope, therefore, the noble Earl will be prepared to withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF WARWICK

I know I am speaking for my noble friend in thanking the noble Earl very much for what he has said. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5:

Deduction of grants from compensation.

5. If the power of compulsory purchase conferred by subsection (2) of Section four of the Forestry Act, 1945, falls to be exercised in relation to land in respect of which advances by way of grant have been made by the Commissioners after the passing of this Act or within twelve months before the passing thereof, a deduction shall be made from the compensation for the compulsory purchase, of an amount equal to the aggregate of the advances, together with interest on each advance for the period beginning with the date on which it was made, and ending with the date on which the compensation is paid, at the rate of three pounds per cent. per annum:

Provided that, in the case of compensation for the compulsory purchase of one of several interests in such land, the deduction shall be by reference to a part of the advances proportionate to the value of that interest as compared with the value of the land.

THE EARL OF WARWICK moved to leave out the words "an amount equal to the" and insert "such amount not exceeding the." The noble Earl said: Again in the absence of my noble friend Lord Portsmouth, I beg leave to move his Amendment. The purpose of the Amendment is quite clear. Clause 5 says: …a deduction shall be made from the compensation for the compulsory purchase, of an amount equal to the aggregate of the advances, together with interest on each advance…. What my noble friend intended was that the words should be altered so that the owner should not be penalized in any way. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 42, leave out from ("of") to end of line, and insert ("such amount not exceeding the").—(The Earl of Warwick.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I have been considering this Amendment with my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture, and I intend between now and the Report stage of the Bill to table Amendments which I have every hope will meet the wishes both of the noble Earl and other noble Lords who have put down Amendments on this clause. Actually, I have two points in view. The first is to limit the total period in respect of which claims for a payment of grants and interests shall subsist, and secondly, to introduce words to meet as far as possible this point of Income Tax raised by the noble Earl. In view of this assurance I hope the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

THE EARL OF WARWICK

I thank the noble Earl, and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD SALTOUN

, who had given Notice of an Amendment after "of" ["of three pounds"] to insert "not more than," said: The noble Earl's assurance is quite sufficient for me on this Amendment. The only thing I would like to ask is whether he will remember Surtax and any incidence of Estate or Succession Duties as well as Income Tax.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Certainly.

LORD SALTOUN

I shall not move my Amendment now.

THE EARL OF ROSEBERY

had put down an Amendment, after "annum," immediately preceding the proviso, to insert "less an amount equivalent to the amount of Income Tax on such interest calculated at the standard rate or rates in force during the said period." The noble Earl said: I take it my Amendment is covered by the assurance of the noble Earl, and therefore I shall not move now.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.