§ 2.41 p.m.
§ Order of the Day for the House to be again in Committee read.
§ Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.
§ House in Committee accordingly:
§ [The Earl of DROGHEDA in the Chair]
§ Clause 4:
§ Review of refusal or conditions of licence
§ 4.—(1) Where the Commissioners refuse to grant a licence authorising the felling of trees on any land, or grant such a licence subject to conditions, then, subject to the provisions of this section, any person aggrieved by the refusal or conditions may by notice served within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner request the appropriate Minister to refer the matter to a person appointed by the said Minister under this section; and the appropriate Minister shall, unless he is of opinion that the grounds for the request are frivolous, refer the matter accordingly.
§ (2) The person to whom any matter is referred under this section shall be selected by the appropriate Minister from a panel of persons nominated by the said Minister after consultation with persons appearing to him to represent the interests of owners of wood-lands and with the Commissioners.
§ (3) The person appointed as aforesaid shall, after affording to the person at whose request the reference was made an opportunity of appearing before him and of making representations to him on the matter in question and. if he thinks fit or is required by the person who made the request so to do. after inspecting the trees to which the reference relates, make a report on the reference to the appropriate Minister.
§ (4) The appropriate Minister shall, after considering the report, confirm the decision of the Commissioners in respect of the application, or reverse or modify that decision and direct the Commissioners to give effect to the reversal or modification.
§ (5) No request may be made under this section in respect of a refusal to grant a licence under this Act authorising the felling of any trees unless a previous application for such a licence has been refused and the application to which the request relates is made after the following date, that is to say—
- (a) where a reference under this section has been made in respect of any previous application relating to the trees, the fifth anniversary of the last such application in respect of which such a reference has been made;
- (b) in any other case, the third anniversary of the first previous application relating to the trees.
§
EARL DE LA WARR moved, in sub-section (1) after "land" to insert:
solely or partly on the grounds that the trees are not ripe for felling.
The noble Earl said: I feel in a little difficulty in moving the Amendments to this particular clause because I have so many, and they all, in fact, lead up to the same point. Perhaps, therefore, it will be convenient if I assume straight away that we are discussing the main issue between us. The Amendment with which we are dealing at the moment concerns a very limited aspect of the question, and it is put down on the assumption that other Amendments standing in my name will be approved by the Committee. I assume that His Majesty's Government will be prepared to accept my Amendment to this extent: that the appeal machinery, which we contend is, at the present moment, no appeal machinery at all, will be given powers of final decision. We recognise that if the appeal committee or, as we call it in the Amendment, the investigating committee, has powers of final decision at its disposal, it would not be reasonable to ask His Majesty's Government to agree that that Committee should have the power to do anything that would in any way cut at the roots of the quota system. Therefore, I have put down this Amendment to make it clear that anything that is said later applies only to trees that are, in fact, mature. If your Lordships will refer to the list of Amendments you will see that later on we shall be proposing a subsection to define what is mature timber.
§ Perhaps I may be allowed to do what I said I would do—namely, deal with the whole question of appeal machinery. As the Bill stands at present, there is no provision in it for any appeal at all. There is a reference to a person appointed by the Minister, who will report back to the Minister privately and give the Minister his advice. His Majesty's Government have attempted to go some way to meet us by putting down an Amendment to the effect that instead of only one person being nominated there shall be two, and they are to be nominated after consultation with certain appropriate interests. It would be wrong and unfair to say that the Government Amendment does not represent an attempt to meet us to some extent, but it still leaves unanswered the point that is of particular concern. The Government 66 Amendment still leaves us without appeal to a judicial body, and the purpose of my series of Amendments is to say that there shall be an investigating committee of three, that they shall have power to report to the Forestry Commission, and that their decision shall be final on all points that do not affect the quota. I think your Lordships will agree that this Bill provides for considerable powers over the woodland owner, and it is vitally necessary, if we are to secure his co-operation, that he should feel he has a right of appeal to a judicial body. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 30, after ("land") insert ("solely or partly on the grounds that the trees are not ripe for felling ").—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VIS-COUNT JOWITT)It may not be quite plain to your Lordships, notwithstanding the clarity with which the noble Earl has moved this Amendment, what it is all about. This is really an anticipatory Amendment, and we are in the slight difficulty that we cannot very well discuss this Amendment without discussing two other points. Those two other points are, first, what is to be the nature of the appeal machinery, and, second, what, if any, is to be the measure of compensation which in certain events, it is claimed, should be paid to the owner of trees who is prevented from cutting them down. I will endeavour, without trespassing unduly on the rules of order of this Committee, to deal briefly with this matter in a sort of anticipatory way.
I was in the countryside during this Easter holiday, and I was looking particularly at forests and trees down in the West Country. I confess that I am beginning to get quite appalled—as I have no doubt many of your Lordships are also— concerning the extent to which our trees are being cut down. After all, trees— and in this connection, I mean roadside trees and hedgerow trees—largely constitute the beauty of our countryside, and it is lamentable to see the extent to which, owing to the need for timber and so on at the present time, they are being sacrificed. I do not believe that there is the slightest difference between noble Lords in any quarter of the Committee about that matter. I do not believe there is any difference whatever in the feeling that we have to keep what we can of our trees, partly on the aesthetic ground which 67 I have mentioned and partly because, if by any evil chance we did once more find ourselves engaged in a war, we should have nothing like the reserves of timber which we had in the 1914–18 war or in the 1939–45 war to fall back upon.
For myself, I confess that I am deeply concerned as to whether we are not taking too big a risk in this Bill, as drafted, by assuming that we may cut now our annual increment, because that is the basis on which we are proceeding. Frankly, I wonder very much whether we ought not to make a more drastic arrangement. But it is on that basis that the Bill is drafted. If by the whirligig of time, it should happen—as of course it may happen—that your Lordships who are now in Opposition find yourselves sitting on this side of the Chamber, you will then be in exactly the same position as I am in to-day. When you have to consider what is to be done about financial arrangements with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the obligation to pay sums of money, you may well find that the Chancellor of the Exchequer of those days will be just as rigorous and stern as the Chancellor of the Exchequer of these days. I can only say that in our own interest as taxpayers I hope he is.
Let me say a word about the appeal committee, and make it plain that I am anxious not to discuss this Bill as a Party Bill. I believe it is a Bill which we all have to get through on the best lines, regardless of Party. As to the appeal committee, I am willing to do anything I can to meet your Lordships, subject to this one qualification: the obligation cast by this Bill—the duty of "promoting the establishment and maintenance in Great Britain of adequate reserves of growing trees"—is an obligation cast on the Forestry Com-missioners, but in the last resort that means the appropriate Ministers, because under the new auspices the Forestry Commissioners are now entirely under the control of two Ministers: the Minister of Agriculture on the one hand and the Secretary of State for Scotland on the other. As I have said, that means at least that the Forestry Commissioners must be able to ensure that we are cutting every year nothing more than a fair estimate of the annual increment. It is their obligation.
If we split the country into eleven areas, as is proposed, every area with its own 68 committee and every committee being a judicial body able to pronounce decisions about which trees may be cut and which not, I do not believe there will be the slightest chance of maintaining the necessary limit in the country as a whole. Therefore I consider that the appeal committee must be in the nature of an advisory committee which will report to the Minister, with the final obligation on the Minister. On that point I am afraid I cannot give way. Frankly, I do not believe it is possible to have one common measure applied to the whole country if we let eleven independent sets of people cut at it, as it were, by their decisions. Therefore the appeal committee must be an advisory committee for preserving the appropriate amount of timber: they must report to the Minister, and the ultimate authority must be, as the Bill makes plain, on the Minister or on his Forestry Commission. Having said that, I am most anxious to constitute this appeal committee in a way which commends itself to your Lordships and which is demonstrably fair. If the Amendment which I have put down, and which, as the noble Earl acknowledges, is a real effort to meet your Lordships, needs amendment in this, that or the other respect, I am very ready to amend it. I want to have a body which the woodland owners of this country will feel is a fair and satisfactory body.
May I give you a word of personal warning on this matter? In my young days, when I was in busy practice in the commercial courts, after finishing the day's work in court, we used to go up to the City and. either at the Baltic Exchange or the Corn Exchange, at half past four we used to have an arbitration. I remember particularly the arbitrations we used to have in the early days in the Corn Exchange, on whether grain delivered was in accordance with the sample under the contract. We had a formal, legal inquiry, with experts on one side and experts on the other contradicting each other, and then the unfortunate tribunal had to do the best they could to determine whether the grain delivered was or was not in accordance with the sample. That type of arbitration soon gave way to another. We appointed arbitrators who went and took a sample of the grain delivered and compared it with the sample under the contract. They looked at it in their hands and played about with it for a few minutes of time and then gave a 69 decision. I do not know whether your Lordships know this, but so satisfactory did that system become that in all grain contracts, not only contracts for grain coming to this country, but also contracts for grain going from America, Argentina or Canada to Denmark, there is a clause that arbitration should be in London. That arbitration simply consists of two experts looking at the grain in their hands and in a few minutes coining to a decision, which everybody accepts as a fair and proper decision.
The relevance of that to what I have been saying is this: in setting up an appeal committee, do not let us make it too formal, too legal; do not let us have too many people on it. We should probably do much better with one man who knows his business going to look at a tree than with a body of people who are going to have evidence about it. Subject to that, I am anxious to meet your Lordships in any way I can in order that you may have the sort of tribunal your Lordships think the woodland owners want, and for that reason I have put down an Amendment along those lines.
When we come, at a later stage, to the question of compensation I shall have something to say. Suffice it to say now that I believe it is impossible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer of any Party to take on himself the obligation to pay for the value of a tree whenever a licence is refused. That would put him under obligation to pay for trees all over the country, whatever may be the facilities for cutting them down Possibly with regard to certain categories of trees or trees required for certain purposes, something may be done; but that we shall discuss in due course. I hope I have shown your Lordships the attitude I want to adopt about this Bill. As the noble Earl himself anticipated, I cannot accept this Amendment, but when we came to the later Amendment about the constitution of the committee I shall show your Lordships that I am most anxious to do anything I can to give you the sort of committee you think appropriate, always provided that it is an advisory committee and not a committee which can make final decisions despite the Minister, upon whom, after all, we cast the duty of preserving the supplies of timber. With that explanation, I hope the noble Lord will 70 agree to withdraw this Amendment in order that we may come to grips with this matter on a later Amendment. The Bill has already been much altered by the deliberations we have had, and will be altered further. I realise that when we reach Report stage, when we have the benefit of seeing the Bill in its new form, we shall be able to reconsider any of these points and see whether there is anything further we can do to get near to each other in this matter.
§ 3.0 p.m.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI thank the noble and learned Viscount very much for his reply. I think it would be appropriate if I withdrew this Amendment, without prejudice, but I should like to say one word about it, because though small, the Amendment is extremely important to the point that we on this side want to have established. The noble and learned Viscount made clear, as I had done, that the essential power required by the Government in this Bill to preserve stocks of timber was that the Minister must have the final word. Speaking for myself, I would say straight away that I do not feel able to question that principle. But this Bill goes a good deal further than that. It gives the Government power to insist on application being made for licences before timber can be felled, but it also deals with other matters, such as, for instance, the laying down of conditions for the granting of those licences. The question of felling licences, I agree, is a vital defence power that must be in the hands of the Minister, but it cannot be said that it is necessary for defence that certain conditions should be laid down before that licence is granted. I admit that in many cases it is desirable —for restocking, replanting and so on— that conditions should be laid down, but that is a forestry matter and not a matter of defence. I cannot see any reason why the imposition of conditions should not be made subject to final decision by the appeal tribunal. Again, coming to Clause 7, there is the power of the Forestry Commission to issue felling orders. None of us can say that it is necessary for the conservation of timber stocks that felling orders should be issued, although it may be necessary for other purposes. But there is no reason why that power should not be made subject to final decision by the appeal tribunal.
71 The only relevance of this argument to the withdrawal of this particular Amendment is that these proposed words were meant to make clear that we did not want this power of final decision by the appeal or investigating committee to cover the question of felling licences. Having made that point clear, I feel, from what the noble and learned Viscount has said, that perhaps he is prepared to see the point that I put, and therefore, without committing myself, I gladly withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ EARL DE LA WARR had given notice to move, in subsection (1) to leave out "a person appointed by the said Minister," and to insert: "an investigating committee appointed." The noble Earl said: I am not sure at what point the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor would like to discuss finally the issue I have just raised, as to the powers of the committee. If the noble and learned Viscount will give me guidance, it may not be necessary for me to move this Amendment.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI feel it best that it should not be moved.
§ EARL DE LA WARRThen I will not move this Amendment.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThis is a preparatory Amendment to justify us hereafter in appointing the appeal committee which we have had discussed briefly. Accordingly, I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 35, leave out from ("a") to ("under") in line 36 and insert ("committee appointed ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThis is a formal Amendment of the same nature as the previous one. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, leave out ("person") and insert (" committee ")—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
THE LORD CHANCELLOR moved, in subsection (2), to leave out all words after "shall," and to insert:
consist of—
Provided that no Commissioner or person employed by the Commissioners shall be a member of any such Committee.
§ The noble and learned Viscount said: We put down this Amendment in the hope that it will satisfy your Lordships that this is the right sort of tribunal to have. What we want is an appeal tribunal which satisfies people that they are having a fair deal, and if we can also get a tribunal which works it will be a great advantage. Your Lordships will see how I have constituted this tribunal. If any of your Lordships has suggestions as to its constitution in a different way, I shall be glad to consider them. What I have tried to do is to set out an Amendment which manifestly gives the woodland owner a fair deal. If I can do that, and obtain his satisfaction, then I shall feel that I have done what I set out to do. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 40, leave out from ("shall") to the end of line 43, and insert the said new words.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRI should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for this Amendment. So far as the appeal committee as a body is concerned, the Amendment goes most of the way to meet us. But what I am concerned about is the point that I made on my first Amendment— namely, that this is a body for reporting to the Minister. I think I am right in saying that even under this Amendment it reports privately to the Minister; that the land owner making the appeal does not even see the report, and does not know whether or not the Minister is adopting the recommendations. Even if he did see the report, it is still not an appeal. This is merely an advisory body to the Minister. I repeat that, as regards the constitution of the body, the noble and learned Viscount has met us, but with regard to its power, it remains an advisory body. Before we can express full satisfaction we must ask the noble and learned Viscount whether he can satisfy us on the point of giving it powers as an appeal body.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORQuite frankly, I cannot do that. I cannot contemplate a number of executive bodies giving decisions if at the same time the obligation of preserving a supply of timber is to be cast on the Forestry Commission. If that obligation is to be cast on the Forestry Commission, which in effect means the Minister, then in the last resort the Minister must have the power. It is an utterly inconsistent conception to have eleven independent tribunals each making their own decisions, and at the same time casting the obligation upon the Minister. I will gladly consider the point about the woodland owner not seeing the report, but on this particular point—namely, that this body must, in the nature of things, be advisory, because the ultimate responsibility rests with the Minister, I have, and shall have, nothing to give. Therefore, I had better "come clean" and tell your Lordships that straight away.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONIf it is to be advisory to the Minister, then the Minister must have the decision. But the real point is that unless the Minister is able to keep the number of licences within control, it may be that too much timber will be cut in any one year. I am much more prepared to accept that the responsibility should be the Minister's, rather than that of the Forestry Commission, because after all the Forestry Commission, like everybody else, are to be responsible to the Minister. I am not raising a tiresome point, or a Party point, but, as the Lord Chancellor has truly said, we want to give the land owner confidence that he is getting a square deal. We have had many cases where the real difficulty is not that the Minister does not take an honest decision—I am sure Ministers do take, or try to take, honest and fair decisions—but that the decision is taken and the litigant, if I may so call him, who is in the Minister's hands, knows nothing about it. I believe that a great deal of the difficulty would be met if the Government would agree, first of all, that where a report is made—it need not be published in the sense that everybody should be able to read it—the party concerned should know what is in the report. If the party concerned knows what is in the report, and the Minister's decision is adverse to him, then he will know whether or not it is in accordance with the report. I was going to add that the 74 Minister should state whether he is following the advice of the committee or whether he is turning it down. But at least if the land owner knows what is in the report of this independent advisory committee, he will know whether he has had a square deal.
It would work in this way. Supposing the Minister turned down a very large number of cases, it would then suggest that there was something wrong with the administration. On the other hand, if he allows a considerable number, and turns down only a few, then if the report is shown to the parties that would probably meet the difficulty.
§ EARL DE LA WARRThe noble and learned Viscount's undertaking to have the report published—
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORNot quite that. I cannot do that, because I had not considered this point until the noble Earl mentioned it. I will consider it, but I do not want to leave the noble Earl under the impression that I have undertaken anything.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI did not mean that. There is so much possibility of agreement between us that I hesitate to say that we disagree. But where the Lord Chancellor seems to be unable to appreciate the point I am making is that he continues to make the case (which we all admit) for the Minister's having final power with regard to the restriction of felling. No one can suggest anything else in days like this. But what the noble and learned Viscount fails to see is that this Bill deals with a great deal more than a restriction of felling. I cannot see why it is necessary for the Minister, in the interests of defence, to be in a position to have the final say as to the conditions—that is, forestry conditions— on which felling licences shall be granted. What are those conditions likely to be? They are likely to be: "If you want to fell that thirty acres of woodland, we will give you the licence, if you replant and if you undertake to manage that plantation in such-and-such a way." That might be a perfectly reasonable request, and in many cases it probably will be. But in some cases the owner may feel it to be utterly unreasonable, and may have a perfectly good reason for saying so. Why must the Minister have the final say on that? Why cannot the owner have the satisfaction of feeling that he can go to 75 a fair-minded investigating body who have the final say? That in no way affects what I may call the defence needs of the country. Again, nobody can contend that an order under Clause 7 to a woodland owner to thin his plantations is in any way connected with the needs of the defence of this country. It is a purely technical order connected with proper and competent forestry. Why cannot that matter go to the investigating committee for their final decision? Why should it go to the Minister? Before we make up our minds what to do about this Amendment, I should like to hear whether the noble Viscount. Lord Swinton— a square to add on those two particular points.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI am afraid that I have not. I have gone as far as I can. I have said that I will gladly consider the possibility of making the report available to the woodland owner, so that he may see how he is being treated. I believe that it is absolutely essential that the last word should lie with the Minister; otherwise I do not see how the scheme will work. I will do everything I can to see that the wood-land owner is conscious of the fact that he is having—to use the words of the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton—a square deal.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONSurely the two cases are different. So far as I am concerned, the Lord Chancellor has completely convinced me that the Minister must have the last word as to whether or not timber should be cut. If everybody were given a licence, then more timber might be cut in the year than was safe in the interests of national defence. That is why I think the Minister must have the final right. But when it comes to imposing conditions— to say that an owner must replant, or that he must manage some other woodland in a different way— it seems to me that the argument does not apply there at all, because it will not mean that any more or any less timber will be cut. It is a question merely of whether extra conditions are reasonably imposed. I should have thought that the Lord Chancellor could well agree that these tribunals should decide whether the conditions are reasonable, while leaving the Minister the absolute right to refuse permission to cut on the ground that too 76 much timber would be cut in any one year.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWe will look at the point, because that is the way in which I am trying to conduct this Bill. But Clause 4, if I read it aright, deals with the case
Where the Commissioners refuse to grant a licence authorising the felling of trees on any land, or grant such a licence subject to conditions. …"I should have thought that this was the point. The fact that the Minister has the right to impose conditions rather extends the area and ambit in which an owner would have the right to fell. If conditions cannot be imposed the Minister or the tribunal may well say: "No, you must not fell." It is just because the Minister has that opportunity of saying: "Well, I am a little doubtful; on the whole, I think you may fell, but if you do fell this thirty-acre wood you must undertake to plant another thirty acres," that permission may be granted. It seems to me that if he can refuse altogether, it follows that he ought to be able to refuse sub modo. It is to the benefit of the woodland owner that he should do that, because it increases the number of cases in which the Minister would grant permission. But I will certainly have this matter looked into further to see whether we can do anything to meet your Lordships.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYWhat I suggest in this difficulty is this. We have no objection to the composition of this appeal committee, and I should have thought that at this stage we might accept and agree upon that. When it comes to the powers of the committee, on which we have serious difficulty, that is a matter which the Lord Chancellor has been good enough to say he will consider before the next stage. As I think the noble Earl. Lord De La Warr, and the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, have said, we are prepared to go a good way to meet the Government as regards the quota; that is obviously a national affair. But as regards the appeal committees we feel strongly that they should be impartial. The Minister will in fact be advised by the Forestry Commission, and therefore I should have thought that it would be fair, and in the interests of good forestry, that this body set up by the Minister should have the final decision in these 77 cases. That is a matter which I hope the noble and learned Viscount will consider before the next stage.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 3.21 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThis Amendment is consequential on the Amendment just agreed to. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 4, line 1, leave out from ("The") to the end of line 1 and insert ("committee shall—
(a) afford ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRThere are several Amendments to page 4 standing in my name. All these Amendments are on the same point, and I suggest that we accept the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment—at the same time retaining complete freedom to look at the matter on Report stage.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThe next Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 3, leave out ("him") and insert ("them").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThis Amendment covers the same point.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 4, leave out ("him") and insert ("them").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThis again is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 4, line 4, leave out from ("question") to (" required ") in line 5 and insert—
(" (b) if they think fit or if they are so ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThis is another consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 5, leave out from ("request") to the first ("the") in line 6 and insert ("inspect ").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
78§ The LORD CHANCELLORThis Amendment also is consequential. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 6, after ("trees") insert ("or land").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI beg to move the next Amendment.
§ Amendment moved —
§
Page 4, line 6, after (" relates ") insert—
(" and
(c) take into consideration any information furnished to them by the Commissioners as to the performance within the conservancy in which the trees are growing of their duty under section one of this Act, and shall thereupon").—(The Lord Chancellor.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 3.24 p.m.
§
LORD KINNAIRD moved to leave out subsection (5) and to insert:
(5) Where a reference has been made under this section in respect of a refusal to grant a licence under this Act authorising the felling of any trees a subsequent request shall not be made under this section before the third anniversary of the last application in respect of which such a reference has been made.
§ The noble Lord said: I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Airlie is unable to be here and it falls to me to move this Amendment. In case it is not quite clear from the wording, I should like to make plain what this Amendment sets out to do. What we are concerned about is the delay of three years which must occur before an appeal can be made after the refusal of an application. After the first application for a licence there is no appeal. Then, after the expiry of three years from the date of the first application, there is a right of appeal, with a further right of appeal after five years. It is obvious that applications for a licence can be made as often as a person may wish, but the rights of appeal are limited as above. The effect of the Amendment which I am moving is to give an automatic right of appeal on the first refusal, and thereafter an appeal every three years. The important part of this Amendment is the provision for an appeal immediately on the first refusal. The fact that the existing administrative procedure may be incapable of dealing with appeals against the first refusal does not justify legisla- 79 tion which impinges on the proprietary rights of the subject without the provision of an adequate independent review of administrative decisions which from their nature must be arbitrary. It is this delay of three years with which we are concerned. The difficulty will be caused in part by money considerations. We all work to a long-term plan, and we are carrying out our planting programme and our forestry work on the estate. But the question is, where is the money to come from? Those of us who have not large independent means look to the felling of timber to provide the money necessary for carrying on our forestry operations. The wages of foresters are at present fairly high, and are fixed by the Government: they fall in line with the statutory agricultural wage. It will be a serious problem for estates if the owners are refused a licence and cannot appeal for three years.
§ I was talking yesterday in Edinburgh to one of our leading men in forestry and estate affairs. He raised the point of the dedication schemes. I should like to ask the Lord Chancellor whether the Government have considered how those schemes will fare, under the existing subsection, in estates where they are looking forward to the cutting of, perhaps, 50,000 cubic feet of timber a year, and planting, out of the money, a large acreage of timber. It seems to some of us that the dedication schemes will be considerably upset, and I wonder whether the noble and learned Viscount can make it clear whether the dedication schemes are controlled by this clause. If so, I hope the Government will be able to give some consideration to the matter of how their operations will be effected. There is a further point in connection with this three years' delay. I have spoken to several factors in Scotland as to how this clause, as it stands, would affect the advice they give to their owners; and it seems to me that the result will be the opposite of that which the Government want to achieve. I think that this three years' delay will lead to a far larger number of applications, and a flood of appeals. If we have to wait three years before we are allowed to make an appeal, after having made an application for a licence, I feel certain that in Scotland our fac- 80 tors will advise us to put in an application at once, even though the timber may not be ready to cut.
§ The man to whom I was speaking in Edinburgh said: "Anyhow, you have got one, two or three years to wait. If you appeal at once you get rid of that three years' delay." I think that is a real difficulty, and will cause the very thing the Government are hoping to avoid— a flood of applications on appeal. If the Government could do away with that delay of three years, I think it would be a considerable help in avoiding a great number of appeals. That is my considered opinion from what I can discover in Scotland. I hope the Government will be able to consider this matter, and will allow us to make an appeal as soon as a refusal is given. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 12, leave out subsection (5) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Kinnaird.)
THE EARL OF HADDINGTONMay I briefly give my warm support to this Amendment which has been so ably moved by my noble friend? I think he made it quite clear what the result of this Amendment would be. Personally, I cannot see that it is right, that it is even fair, that you can apply for a licence for a proposed felling as often as you please, and yet your rights of appeal are so limited. If I interpreted the noble and learned Viscount rightly, in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, it seemed to me that what was giving him so much concern was this: that he was afraid that, if an appeal was allowed at once after first refusal, the Forestry Commission would be so cluttered up with appeals that they would not be able to deal with them. But may I ask the noble and learned Viscount to answer this question? Why do the Government envisage whole-sale appeals in this case? Surely, appeals cost money, and an owner is not going to appeal unless he has a good case on which to appeal. If it is a good case to appeal on, surely it should be sym-pathetically listened to. I believe that it is the exception to appeal in the case of income tax assessments and rating assessments. Are there wholesale appeals throughout the country on income tax assessments and rating assessments? I have not heard of them, and I cannot see 81 why the Government envisage such whole-sale appeals against refusals to fell timber. I hope that the noble and learned Viscount will listen most sympathetically to this Amendment.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThere is nothing, of course, which is absolutely binding in the three years, as opposed to some other period, but I think there must be some substantial period of delay. The scheme as we have it in the Bill at the present time is this. Although an owner can apply to the Forestry Commission as often as he likes, yet he cannot appeal until after three years. If he has already gone to appeal, and his appeal has been turned down, then the time limit is five years. That is the period of time as at present before he can appeal again. I think, obviously, there must be some limit. We can certainly discuss, if your Lordships so desire, whether three and five years are the right periods of time. I am satisfied, however, that there must be some limits of time. With regard to the number of appeals in the matter of in-come tax assessments, they are probably far larger than the noble Earl realises, though I am bound to tell him that there is a reason why there are so many appeals — they bring about a certain delay which is sometimes rather agreeable to the tax-payer. Their number is legion, but whether they are wholesale or retail appeals, I should not like to say. Certainly, in this case, without some time limit I think it would mean a very large number of appeals, with the result that the machine would be cluttered up; moreover, it would be possible to have an appeal every year about the same trees. Unless there is some limit of time of this sort it will make the whole scheme absolutely unworkable.
With regard to the question which I was asked about the dedication scheme, it is difficult to follow this point at the present time because we have not before us the result of the Amendments to Clause 3 which were accepted on the last occasion. Your Lordships may remember that we accepted in principle an Amendment which was moved by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr. We accepted that, so we may as well look at it again and note its language. It was to this effect:
Where the felling of any trees to which an; application relates is in conformity with the provisions or conditions of a plan of opera- 82 tions or other working plan approved by the Commissioners "—that, of course, would embrace a dedication scheme and, perhaps, some other schemes too—the Commissioners shall grant a licence unless the appropriate Minister certifies thatthere has been a supervening emergency (I am paraphrasing the words) which makes it undesirable to grant that licence. That provision is already in the Bill, and when we have finished our Committee stage your Lordships will see what the consequence of that may be. I am afraid there must be a limit of time. I may not have the right limit of time in three or five years, but I feel that the initial limit is important. I am quite willing to discuss whether three or five years are right or wrong, so long as there is some substantial limit in the first respect. Otherwise, quite frankly, I am afraid that this scheme may be rendered entirely unworkable.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount for saying that he will consider a modification of the five years period. I should like him to bear this point in mind. He rightly pointed out that, under the Amendment already accepted by the Government, schemes of dedication or similar schemes will not require application for licences. The people about whom a good many noble Lords are worried, I think, are the small men. There are a number of these small men who are to a certain extent dependent upon forestry operations for their livelihood. Some of these men may be almost too small to have a dedication scheme, and perhaps even too small to have an agreed scheme. As this Bill is developing in this House, it seems that those people are a little likely to be thrown to the wolves. It may be said that from the national point of view the larger owner is most important, but we have an obligation to these small people as well. If a period of five years is to supervene before these people can make a further request, that is an additional hardship upon them. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the Government may feel, after consideration, that they can reduce that period to three years. I fully realise the importance of not having an immense multiplication of such requests, but none the less the interests of 83 these small people have to be taken into account. I hope the Government will take that point into consideration.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORWe will. What I am trying to do is to get this Bill through as an agreed Bill, and I would give a great deal to achieve that. I certainly will consider sympathetically what the noble Marquess has said, though I am convinced that there must be some fairly substantial time, in the first instance.
LORD KINNAIRDI beg to thank the noble and learned Viscount for saying that he will give this matter further consideration. I would point out that he referred to the position if annual powers of appeal were given. My Amendment, of course, would permit an appeal after the first refusal and thereafter an appeal every three years. That is not an annual opportunity. On the understanding that this matter may be considered further, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment,
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ On Question, Whether Clause 4, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
§ 3.40 p.m.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYPerhaps I ought to say that we have got ourselves into a rather unusual position with this clause. We have accepted the composition of a committee, but we have not reached agreement over its powers. In the Government's view, as I understand it, all final decisions rest with the Minister, and the committee should be there merely in an advisory capacity. We on this side of the House are in full agreement that questions of the quota must rest finally with the Minister— national interest demands that. But there are other points upon which an impartial committee might in fact be the better final decider.
The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor was good enough to say that before the Report stage the Government would consider the representations we have made. As a result, we have postponed or withdrawn temporarily a large number of Amendments. I want to make it clear that those Amendments are not dead; they are dependent upon the final decision over the main Amendment concerning the powers of the committee; and that is a matter which will have to come before your Lordships again. I 84 suggest that, instead of merely raising these matters on the Report stage in the ordinary way, which would mean an immense multiplication of Amendments, it would probably be preferable if the whole of this clause were recommitted. In effect, it would be another Committee stage, and the result would be entirely dependent upon the decision reached on the main Amendment concerning the powers of the Commission. I think it would be in accordance with the general practice of this House that that should be done.
There is another suggestion I should like to make. We should be glad if the Government could make known to us through the usual channels, so far as it is practicable for them to do so before the date when the matter is discussed again, what decision they have reached about the powers of the committee, because it will be necessary for us, if unhappily there is still a divergence of opinion between the two sides of the House, to put down Amendments on this question defining what we believe should be the powers of the committee. Therefore I think noble Lords opposite should, if they are agreeable, have talks with us and, after consultation with the Ministers concerned, tell us what their view is. Then we should be in a position to take a recommittal of this clause more effectively on the next occasion.
§ THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT ADDISON)We will certainly give friendly consideration to what the noble Marquess has said. Of course, it was evident that my noble friend could not pledge himself in advance with regard to the powers of decision of this body. Some of the Amendments have been withdrawn because of the general agreement that the kind of body that has been set up takes the place of the investigating committee that was formerly proposed. It may be that there are questions relating essentially to technical forestry operations which it would be inappropriate for such a body to decide, and there may be other decisions of a different character. But we will give the matter friendly consideration, and I will undertake between now and the Report stage to consult the noble Marquess and his friends about it in the usual manner, and I hope that we shall arrive at some satisfactory arrangement. I should not like here and now to say anything about 85 the recommittal of the clause. I think we had better let that depend upon how we progress in our consideration.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYThe noble Viscount will realise that practically every Amendment on this particular clause, and on Clause 3 also, has been postponed.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI know. I fully recognise the facts. But, of course, a great many of those Amendments were consequential upon the main Amendment. However, we will look at the question on the lines that I have indicated.
§ Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
§ Clause 5:
§ Compensation for loss through refusal of licence
§ 5.—(1) Where an application for a licence under this Act authorising the felling of any trees is refused, any person who sustains loss in consequence of any depreciation in the value of the trees attributable to deterioration in the quality of the timber in the trees in consequence of the refusal shall, on a claim made in the prescribed manner, be entitled to recover from the Commissioners compensation in respect of that loss
§ (2) Claims for compensation under this section in respect of any trees may be made from time to time in respect of deterioration which has taken place since the refusal of the licence or since the last previous claim, as the case may be; but no such claim shall be made after the expiration of one year after the felling of the trees, or in respect of deterioration which took place more than ten years before the date of the claim.
§ (3) In calculating the amount of any compensation payable under this section in respect of any trees—
- (a) no account shall be taken of any deterioration in the quality of the timber in the trees which is attributable to neglect of the trees after the date of the refusal of the licence; and
- (b) the value of the trees at any time shall be ascertained on the basis of prices current at the date of the claim.
§ (4) At any time after a licence under this Act authorising the felling of any trees has been refused, the Commissioners may, if they think fit, give notice to the owner of the trees that they are prepared to grant such a licence either unconditionally or subject to conditions described in the notice; and in any such case—
- (a) the Commissioners shall, if an application is duly made in that behalf, grant the licence in accordance with the notice; and
- (b) in calculating any compensation payable under this section in consequence of the previous refusal of a licence, no account
86 shall be taken of any deterioration occurring after the giving of the notice.
§ (5) Any question of disputed compensation under this section shall be determined by the Lands Tribunal.
§ 3.46 p.m.
§
EARL DE LA WARR moved, in sub-section (1) after "refused" to insert:
and (a) three years has elapsed since the first refusal of an application, and (b) the trees to which the application related are ripe for felling.
The noble Earl said: I approach this clause with the feeling that it is going to be extremely difficult not to get into the same trouble as we did on the last clause, because although there are a number of Amendments in my name and in the names of other noble Lords, they really all add up to the same point. There-fore I would again ask the Committee if I may be allowed on this Amendment to deal with the whole clause, in an attempt to see whether we cannot reach agreement with His Majesty's Government on the main principles involved. As it stands, this clause deals with compensation for loss through refusal of licences. We believe it is impossible to arrive at any fair system of compensation in this matter. My personal feeling is that either the system of compensation will be (as it is in the present clause) completely inadequate for dealing with the real causes of loss to the woodland owner, or that if we try to draft a form of compensation which meets all the possible losses of the woodland owner we may find ourselves putting forward a clause which is unfair to the taxpayers. We believe that the system as it is proposed is wrong in principle. The principle at slake here is whether the private woodland owner should be selected from amongst all other producers of or traders in raw materials, and informed that he alone shall carry the whole cost of national stockpiling.
§ Let me give the Committee an instance in order to show what I mean. An owner may have a wood that is mature for felling, and that wood may have a value of £ 10,000. It is admitted on both sides that the timber is ripe for felling, but the owner is told that in the national interest he may not fell. He has to leave that timber standing on the ground: he is unable to realise the money; and he is unable to bring his land back into production. I contend that there is no precedent for dealing with national stockpiling on 87 those lines. To suggest that a loss of that character can be dealt with by compensation for deterioration of timber is completely to miss the point. What are the losses to which the land owner is likely to be subjected? First of all, there is the danger of fluctuation in the market. I recognise that it is hard to visualise such a happening during the next short period of time, but it is possible that the market value of timber will fall. It may well be that the owner has urgent need of money—perhaps he has to spend a large sum on improving or developing his estate, or he has a heavy call for taxation purposes, or possibly death duties.
§ We all know that it has frequently been the custom on estates for the owner to plant in order to provide a reserve to help his son meet death duties. Now he is to be denied the use of that money, and, apart from compensation for deterioration, he is offered, in Clause 6, a loan. I regard that as almost the greatest impertinence in the Bill. Here is a man with £ 10,000 (we have been taking the figure of £10,000 all along, so we may as well stick to it); it is his own money, ready and available for him to use, but he is told by the State that in the national interest he shall not use it. Then the State turn round and say, "But we will lend you the £10,000 and charge you interest." As I say, I regard that as the grossest impertinence.
§ But this is not only a question of money; it is also a question of use of land. While timber is on land, that land is sterilised, and we know well that when timber reaches maturity the increment virtually ceases. Time after time in years past we have been asked in forestry dedication schemes, and now we are being asked again in this Bill, to improve our methods of forestry and increase the increment from land devoted to forestry. Yet we are denied the possibility of doing so. The fact is that there is only one solution to this problem, namely, that if the nation holds that it is necessary— as I believe it is— that we should stockpile our timber supplies, it should do what it does with regard to all other materials, and that is purchase them. We do not wish to be unreasonable. We are pre-pared—and this is outlined in the series of Amendments which I have ventured to put down—to accept the position that after a licence has been refused, the 88 owner must wait three years. That means that he will be stockpiling for three years at his own cost. I say that that is a minor sacrifice— something which we should be prepared to make in the national interest. I think that most woodland owners would accept that burden. After that, we consider that the nation should purchase the timber and, as soon as possible, sell it, in order that the land shall be brought back into production.
§ What are the arguments against this? One argument that has been put to me is that if owners knew that the Forestry Commission were going to purchase all mature timber within three years of a licence being refused, they would at once rush to sell. No evidence has been produced to show that this would be so. As a matter of fact, it is most unlikely, and I will tell your Lordships why. If the purchase were to be made by the Forestry Commission, the price would presumably be based on an official valuation. As we all know, when a question of price goes to arbitration the valuer is naturally anxious to be fair, and he puts a moderate and conservative price on the timber. On the other hand, if the timber is put out to tender there is always a considerable chance that some timber merchant will be in a position which will cause him to want it very much. It may be that he needs a special amount of timber for a certain purpose, that he has labour at the time in the particular area, or that some other influence affects the position. A fairly good tender is almost always put in— one which often is slightly above what one would expect to be awarded by an official valuer. There is no inducement, therefore, for owners to rush to force timber into the hands of the Forestry Commission.
§ Again, it has been said that there is no storage space available. We all know of the shortage of timber stocks in this country to-day. Stocks are far lower than they have ever been before, and there must be storage space in almost every timber yard in the country. To suggest that the principle of keeping bonded stores on private premises and in the hands of private firms is not well known and well established is quite untrue. My view is that the sum involved is likely to be extremely small, but the principle which arises is a very important one. The reason why I think the sum of money 89 will be small is connected with the Question which I put to the noble Earl opposite to-day. To that Question I received what I am sure we shall acknowledge to be a very useful answer when we come to read it, but I must admit that when it was delivered to-day it was as incomprehensible to me as I expect it was to most of your Lordships. As things are, by the end of three years the bulk of the licences that have been refused are cleaned up. And the logic of that is that the amount of timber left to be dealt with under this proposal of mine will be exceedingly small, because there is this three years' gap before anything can be done.
§ There is one other point which I should like to make. I suppose that the biggest shortage in the timber world at the moment is the shortage of seasoned timber. Surely this proposal gives the country the opportunity to acquire stocks of what it most needs— namely, seasoned timber. I therefore urge the noble Earl who is responsible for this Bill that he should give this proposal his most earnest consideration. I think I am right in saying that the point which is involved is one about which many noble Lords on this side of the Chamber and wood-land owners generally feel most strongly. We believe that in common justice, and also for many practical reasons— it would be of advantage to the Government in building up stocks— the Government should accept the proposals which I have put before the Committee. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 24, after ("refused") insert ("and (a) three years has elapsed since the first refusal of an application, and (b) the trees to which the application related are ripe for felling").—(Earl De La Warr.)
LORD MERTHYRI should like to say a few words in support of this Amendment which I think is eminently fair and just. I feel that His Majesty's Government will have to produce some extremely forceful arguments before the Committee are persuaded that this Amendment is not right. I want only to underline one or two sentences which were uttered by the noble Earl. In particular, I think he made a very good point when he asked why woodland owners are to be expected to stockpile for the nation, without compensation, when in respect of all other commodities, 90 so far as I know, the person who does it is compensated. Secondly, I think the point about the waste of land is extremely important. Is not the Government policy in agriculture and in many other realms to-day directed, and rightly directed, to avoiding waste of land? Are we not being continually urged to employ usefully every acre we own in the interest of the nation—and properly so? But here we are contemplating a complete waste of woodland areas, because, in the case of timber which is over-ripe, it is to be left for three years past the time of maturity; therefore it must be employing land in a wasteful way. If it is said there is no space to store this timber, I would reply that the most wasteful way of all to store it is to leave it standing on the land. If it were cut down and stored on the same land, it would be more economical. To leave it vertical on the land is surely the most wasteful way of storing it. For these reasons, and for the others which the noble Earl has given, I hope that we shall have either an acceptance of this Amendment or the strongest possible arguments showing us why it cannot be included in the Bill.
§ EARL CAWDORI should like to support my noble friends Lord De La Warr and Lord Merthyr. They have covered most of the points I could make, but I should like to stress two. First, we feel that the compensation in the Bill for the deterioration in quality is worthless, because it would be impossible to assess it. It involves an impossibility, in that an owner would have to fell at least twice—and I never heard of anybody doing that. He would have to fell at the time the licence was refused, and fell again in, say, ten years' time, when a licence was granted. I can visualise a case in which a woodland owner applied to the Forestry Commissioners for a licence and was refused, perhaps rightly, because the quota was already full. In due course, when there was room for that volume of timber in the quota, the trees would be felled, and might be found to have buttrot. Naturally the owner would say that the trouble had developed in the last ten years. The Forestry Commissioners would say that the buttrot was there when the licence was refused. Who is to decide? It was a late member of your Lordships' House who once described three classes of liars—the liar, the damned liar and the expert witness. 91 I think this would be a case for the expert witness.
The other point is in regard to stock-piling, to which my noble friends referred. I hope the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will be able to throw some light on this question; it is not a new one. It was put forward to the Commissioners by some of us who are interested in forestry long before this Bill saw the light. It has always been turned down. We have been told that it was impossible, but we have never been told why. It would interest me, and a number of my noble friends, if we could be told the reason. I do not believe that what we are asking is impossible, and my noble friend Lord De La Warr does not believe it to be impossible he stood up and said so, as did my noble friend Lord Merthyr. It is vital that something should be done or that we should be given very good reasons why it is not possible to give this compensation. I hope we shall hear something from the noble Earl in charge of the Bill.
VISCOUNT PORTMANI should like to take up the point of stockpiling, not from the national point of view but from the point of view of private owners. We have heard a lot this afternoon about storage space, and about the stockpiling of timber for the use of private owners in the reconstruction of buildings and farm equipment. I can assure the Government that the refusal of licences for felling and the holding of timber in a vertical state is a crime. This matter is crying for attention. The number of buildings that I have seen reconstructed with timber that is unfit for use in work of that nature is abominable. When a private owner applies for a felling licence, there is no reason at all why the regional conservator of private woodlands should not inspect the trees to see whether the owner is making use of properly matured timber. In that way, we could double the national output of really useful timber, and a large number of farm buildings and cottages could be repaired with timber suitable for the job. I can assure your Lordships that there is an increasing demand for timber of this nature. We should save many hundreds of thousands of dollars, and a great deal of shipping, if we used in the way we urge the natural resources that we possessed. I would ask the noble Earl in charge of the Bill to consider this point very carefully.
LORD HYLTONI should like to sup-port my noble friend Lord De la Warr. It seems to me that the arguments used by the noble Lords, Lord Merthyr and Earl Cawdor, cannot be controverted. They are both experts in forestry, and I hope the Government will give the fullest consideration to their expert knowledge on the difficulties raised by the Government proposals in the Bill. Many noble Lords on this side regard the proposals as unfair, and I hope that the Govern-ment will be able to accept the arguments which have been put before them.
EARL BATHURSTI beg to support this Amendment, and all that the noble Lords on this side have said in its favour. It seems that the only reason the Government have for rejecting this Amendment is the need for stockpiling. How long are the Government going to stockpile? If a shortage of a certain type of timber is expected in three years' time, presumably there will be an order now to stop felling; and when that shortage arises, there will be an order to compel owners to fell. As has already been pointed out, stockpiling in a wood is a most unsafe method of storing any type of timber. The only place where timber can be safely stored is in a kiln, after it has been properly seasoned. But if timber has been seasoned, and is in stock, surely there cannot be a shortage. If the Government are contemplating a shortage in fifty years' time, it means that old timber will have to be cut down, in order that new timber can be grown. Yet that is impossible if a woodland owner is unable to fell old trees, whether in short supply now or not. Many land owners have had their woodlands cut as a result of two wars, and their efforts are directed towards restocking, as well as towards preserving timber. If a land owner is unable to secure money to carry out this replanting, there will be a further shortage in fifty years' time, whether the Government stockpile or not. Stockpiling cannot be a reason for not accepting this Amendment put forward by my noble friend.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI am sure that we are all grateful to the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, for putting in the first Amendment all his arguments against the clause. He saved a great deal of time. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor, speaking on the previous 93 clause, stated quite briefly our broad position about compensation as proposed by the noble Earl opposite. All I want to do is, as it were, to fill in the gap by giving a simple reason for our objections to these proposals. It is one simple reason; and I will state it, and leave your Lordships to judge whether in the national interest the objections to these proposals are weightier than the proposals themselves. But first perhaps I may deal with an argument used by the noble Earl, and by several other noble Lords who followed him. They said, if I understood them aright, that this was a case of stockpiling in a particular commodity at the expense of the owner. Their view seemed to be that, owing to present circumstances, the Government have to buy tin, rubber, copper and essential foodstuffs, in order to stockpile in these commodities, and also have to acquire timber. What is being proposed in the Bill, according to those noble Lords, is that in the case of timber the Government are not prepared to pay for it, but are allowing the stockpiling to be done at the expense of the woodland owner.
Is the comparison between the stock-piling of timber and of other commodities that are being and have been stockpiled a fair one? If a licence to fell timber is refused, the woodland owner still has his standing timber. It is mature—and one of the conditions on which the noble Earl insists is that compensation be paid for mature timber—and no doubt after the licence has been refused for the first time another application will be made by the owner later, in order to get per-mission to fell and sell his timber. That application is not going to be refused for a long period of time by the Forestry Commissioners. It is not in their interest that that timber should rot, but it is clearly in their interest that the trees should be felled only when they are mature. So long as they are growing they are increasing in volume, size and value. So what is really happening is that the woodland owner is being asked in the national interest to postpone the felling and selling of his timber. That. I feel, is putting the case quite fairly; and if I put it like that, I think it is obvious what a big difference there is between stockpiling in timber and stockpiling in other commodities. It is really not accurate to say 94 that this business is being done at the owner's expense. All that is being asked of the owner is that in the national interest he should postpone the sale of his Limber until such time as it can be felled in relation to the timber requirements of the country.
I have merely been answering an argument used by noble Lords on the other side, and I will now, quite simply, state our case. Our case is that if we were to offer to pay compensation every time a licence was refused in the three-year period mentioned by the noble Earl, we might be incurring very heavy expenditure.
§ EARL DE LA WARRWe are saying that we do not want the compensation, but that the Government should purchase.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThe noble Earl said that there was a risk, although he did not think it was a large one, that we might be incurring very heavy expenditure. Is that a risk that any Government, whether a Labour or Conservative Government, would be prepared to take at the present time? Is it a risk that would be fair in relation to other more essential financial commitments, such as our commitments under the re-armament programme? That is a question which I should like your Lordships to ask yourselves. Although the noble Earl opposite thinks the risk is slight, I do not think it is unreasonable to take the opposite view. Let me say why. I am not looking at it from the point of view of the ultra conscientious man, but from that of the woodland owner who wants to make money out of his trees. His decision will depend largely on the timber market. Looking ahead, he may say to himself: "The price of timber is high at the present moment, but it will fall later on. Obviously it is in my interest to go to the Forestry Commissioners and ask for a licence, and, when they refuse, ask them to pay me for my timber now. In that way I shall get a better price." If that was the long-term prospect, then I feel that everyone would agree that it would be more than likely that the number of applications for licences would increase considerably. I do not think it is right—I say this with the utmost respect to the noble Earl, because he has such authority on these matters—to compare the number of licences that have been refused and issued in the last three years 95 with the number for which application might be made, and which might have to be refused, if woodland owners were able to receive compensation from the Government for every licence that was refused. That is not the case at the moment, and it might altogether alter the number of licences for which applications were made—and, correspondingly, since the Forestry Commissioners have the duty to maintain a limited amount of felling, the number which they had to refuse. I hope that this vital consideration of how large a financial commitment the Government ought to undertake at this moment will be weighed against the arguments which were put—very fairly, on the whole, if I may say so—by the noble Earl opposite in support of his Amendment.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI do not know whether I am more amazed at the morality or the economics of the speech to which we have just listened. I should like to deal first with the economics. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that of course it was right that the Government desired to stockpile tin, copper and sulphur (they have been singularly unsuccessful hitherto in getting their supplies), and that obviously they had to pay for those things. He then went on to say: "But supposing, instead of buying sulphur, we told people to keep it in the ground, is it really said that we should pay compensation?" The noble Earl would certainly have to pay compensation, because the difference, in the case of tin, sulphur and copper, is that it lies outside his control. Whether he wants to buy it, or whether he wants to keep it in the ground, he will have to pay for it, because somebody else will buy it if he does not. But the timber owner in this country is to be treated differently, because he can be controlled. Are the economics altogether different? The man who owns a tin mine, a rubber plantation, or a sulphur deposit, extracts and sells; and by the proceeds of what he sells he continues his operation. Indeed, it is entirely on the proceeds of sale of his extracted or fabricated product that he depends for his future operations and his ability to sell. Is that very different from the case of the woodland owner in this country? He is urged to go on and replant, and he is urged, at increasing wages—I do not complain of that, be- 96 cause I do not think the wages are too high, but it is a costly operation to-day —not only to replant but to retain his woodlands in good condition in the national interest. But where is he to get the money for doing it? He gets the money for doing that exactly as the tin miner or the sulphur owner, by cut-ting his timber and selling it year by year. It is the only way in which he can get it, and it is no answer to put in Clause 7 of the Bill that he is to be stopped selling now, but that he can come to the Government and borrow at 3 or 4 per cent. That really is a case of "robbing Peter to pay Paul."
So much for the economics of the matter; and with the economics I think I have also dealt with the morals of the question. If it is reasonable to pay the producers of other materials outside your control to stockpile, when you require them to do so, or to leave the commodity in the ground, then surely there is an equally moral case for the woodland owner.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONIf the noble Viscount will forgive my saying so, has he not omitted one very marked difference in the analogy he drew? It is not necessary each fifty years to produce another crop of sulphur.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONIt takes a million years, because Almighty God has unfortunately given us a very limited amount of sulphur in the world.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONBut nature provides the replenishment.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONWhat has?
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONIt is there already.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI really do not follow the late Minister of Supply.
§ LORD WILMOT OF SELMESTONThen perhaps the noble Viscount will look at a sulphur mine.
§ VISCOUNT SWINTONI only wish the noble Lord and his successor had made a rather better guess and had bought some sulphur for this country when sulphur could be bought at half the price it is to-day. I do not think that I should take the Ministry of Supply, in past or present hands, as a very good adviser on 97 either the economics or the morals of the issue we are discussing to-day.
I must say that I think the moral case is on all fours with the economic case. The noble Earl has said that this Amendment would involve tremendous cost to the State. I was waiting all the time for some figures. We are not told that it is impossible to do a thing which is economically sound and morally just, but that it cannot be done because the cost is too great. Well, in very difficult times we may have to accept that. But I have not heard a single figure or estimate given by the Minister. Would the Minister or the Leader of the House tell us how much they anticipate it is going to cost the Government to adopt the principle of this Amendment? I cannot refer to the calculations he has given us, because he has not taken us into them, but this vague remark about enormous cost is very wide of the mark. When the Bill was last in Committee, the Government accepted the Amendment on Clause 3 that there should be a right to a licence (except in a national emergency, with which we are not dealing now) wherever there was a dedication scheme or a scheme of management. There is not going to be any question of compensation payable there. The only case where it can arise, therefore, is where there is no dedication scheme or no planned management and development scheme in force, and that must be, I should think, in a minority of cases. Therefore, the amount which the Government are likely to be asked to pay is much smaller than anything we have been led to suppose.
May I add this? In these difficult times, when, if trouble comes, it will come upon us very quickly, would it be a bad plan for the Government to have a very considerable stockpile of seasoned timber dispersed throughout the country? I should have thought it was just as wise a thing to do as to have a stockpile of those other commodities which we are regretting we did not buy last year, and which we are now having to buy at very high prices. I should have thought it was a thoroughly sound thing. All the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, and the noble Earl, Lord Cawdor, are valid. But if you are going to have a stockpile it is folly to keep it standing where it deteriorates, instead of cutting it at the right moment 98 and having it seasoned on the ground. It would also be dispersed throughout the country where it is needed, and when trouble came we should have everything to hand and a regular stock of the commodity in the right place. If trouble comes the labour will not be there to cut the timber, and the transport will not be there for the transportation. Adequate supplies of seasoned timber dispersed throughout the country would be a great asset. I am surprised that there is not a clause in the Bill giving the Government power to stockpile an adequate amount. I do not know how long this period of tension is going to last—it may last for years. Having made the initial expenditure, the Government could go on. They could turn it over and buy some more— a perfectly simple operation.
We have been treated only to generalities in answer to the practical arguments which have been advanced from all quarters of the Committee. I beg the Government to look at this matter again, in the interests of national defence and as an economic and moral proposition. I am sure that on reconsideration they will see that 90 per cent. of the merits of the case are on the side of the movers of this proposal, and that only a very small pro-portion is on the side of those who would seek to reject it.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONPerhaps I may be allowed to intervene and ask the members of the Committee to apply their minds to what we are trying to do. The main purpose of the Bill is, of course, to conserve our existing stocks of seasoned timber, and, whilst doing so, to be as fair as possible to everybody who is the owner of that timber. We are not in a position of having huge reserves of timber which we can stockpile, as we might find convenient or useful. In the first place, we are seeking to safeguard our supplies of seasoned and good growing timber.
§ EARL DE LA WARRMature timber.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONWell, timber becomes mature in the course of time. With great respect to the noble Viscount who has just spoken, there is nothing new about this idea. We are not doing anything which is newly immoral any worse than we usually do. We are not doing anything worse than Mr. Winston Churchill's Government were doing for some time past. This sort of plan has 99 been in operation since 1939. The Bill is trying to put into statutory form something which has been operating for some ten years. That is all it does. What has been happening during these past years is that the Forestry Commission have had applications from people to fell timber; and, as a rule, as we know, sooner or later the application is granted—or is not granted for various technical reasons. But in a considerable number of cases, either for one year, or for two years or longer, the Forestry Commission have not granted the licence to fell. That has been happening—it is happening now. But all this time they have not been asked to pay for the timber, and there is no particular grievance that I know of. Let it not be suggested, therefore, that what is being proposed is something new and extortionate. This is something which has been happening quite peaceably for years, and people who have had their licences refused hope that they will get them before long. If it is good timber no doubt they will; but they have not pressed for immediate payment.
Let us get our minds clear about this point: we are not feeling guilty about it. We are only trying to put into practical form what is now being done, and has been done for some years, without any trouble. We quite expect that in the case of dedicated woodlands, or where there is another scheme of some sort, special considerations will apply. We accept that, and have already embodied something about it in the Bill. We are fully prepared to give friendly considerations to practical suggestions. But it is a fact, so I am informed, that a number of enterprising people—and I do not blame them, in view of the price of timber—are going up and down the country getting sanction or making pro-visional arrangements with owners to fell timber. We have got to safeguard that position in some practical way.
It is not, I think, that the demands on the Exchequer would come in very large numbers from the people who are doing scientific forestry, or who are operating dedicated schemes and so on. But though the demands will not come from those people, they will nevertheless come in multitudes, provided the authorities say in effect, "If we refuse the licence we have got to pay for the trees at once." 100 —or, as the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr suggests, in three years, a useful suggestion, the spirit of which I fully accept. But if we were to say that when the Commissioners do not grant a licence they are committed to pay outright for the timber, we should be saddling the Treasury with an immense sum which I am certain no Conservative Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to paying, let alone a Labour one, because it relates not to the dedicated woodlands and the scientifically managed plantations but to thousands of pieces of woodland, great and small, all over the country. We really cannot ask the Treasury to be committed to pay outright, or even after a three years' interval, for that timber if they do not want it to be felled. The only reason for refusing a licence for matured timber is that we want to safeguard our national supplies. There is no other reason. We are most anxious to consider any practical suggestions, but I am sure that the suggestion now before us is not quite fair. We should be letting the country in for the payment of immense sums of money, for relatively small parcels of timber all over the country— a commitment which it has not been asked to undertake for the last ten years. We have managed peaceably and sensibly without this direct charge, and I think we can be sure that the Forestry Com-mission will continue to uphold sensibly the principle involved in this matter. I ask noble Lords not to press this Amendment. We are perfectly willing to consider anything practical and fair, but we cannot commit the Treasury to a scheme like this. As to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Portman, concerning timber for estate purposes, that is already fully covered in the Bill.
§ 4.37 p.m.
THE DUKE OF NORTHUMBER-LANDHaving heard the arguments of noble Lords on both sides of the Committee, I think there can be no question whatever of the common justice of this Amendment. I am in entire support of all the arguments adduced by noble Lords in favour of it. Nevertheless, I feel that it would be unfortunate if, at this stage, the Amendment, in regard to which I feel that the disagreement is one not so much of principle as of application, should lead to the loss of the whole Bill. The noble Viscount the Leader of the 101 House said that Mr. Churchill did the same thing. I cannot feel that that is really a strict analogy, or a reason for putting this matter on a permanent footing in Statute form. I suggest, with great respect, that this is a case in which the old adage: "Two wrongs do not make a right" should apply.
I feel that it would be unfortunate if the Bill were lost at this stage through the forcing of this Amendment. It is a Bill which, suitably amended, can, I believe, be of considerable benefit to timber producers in the country and also to the general level of forestry efficiency. What the timber producer really wants is, first, to know that he is going to get a settled forest policy, one which is not subject to continual change; secondly, that his plan of operations, whatever it may be, shall not be arbitrarily upset by the Forestry Commissioners; and, thirdly, that if there is such an emergency in the country that very strict and heavy refusals of licences become necessary, he will not be expected to shoulder the whole financial burden himself and have his woodland plans upset for maybe a generation. I think it is the desire of noble Lords on both sides to create that measure of confidence amongst timber producers. After all, we are expecting them to provide 2,000,000 acres of woodland, and we shall not get it unless we have that measure of confidence.
I suggest that further consideration be given to this Amendment on the lines which have already been applied to the Amendment to Clause 3, which has been accepted; and that this Amendment should apply only to woodlands which are subject to a plan of operations or other approved plan. I feel that along those lines it might be possible for noble Lords to facilitate the passage of the Bill through this House and to help in the solution of a problem which should not prove insoluble.
§ 4.39 p.m.
VISCOUNT GAGEI support the suggestions made by the noble Duke. As explained by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, there is considerable doubt in the Government's mind as to the liabilities they assume if they take over the buying of timber in the way the owners claim. The noble Duke's suggestion, as I see it, would apply only in those cases in which a certificate of emergency had been given. 102 I may have misunderstood the noble Duke, but that is how I interpret it. I hope that we shall be able to come to some compromise on this point, because it seems to me—and again I agree with the noble Duke—that there will be consider-able advantage in having an agreed Bill. It would be a pity to break down at this point.
LORD SALTOUNI want to put only one question to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House. I find it difficult to believe that there are such enormous stocks of matured timber in private hands and which are not dedicated woodland that it would lead to vast expenditure by the Treasury. I hope I have not put the point in a discourteous way. It surprised me when the noble Viscount said that, and I should like information upon it.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI should like to appeal to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House to give further sympathetic consideration to the suggestion which has been put forward by the noble Duke, the Duke of Northumberland. There is no doubt that hardship will be created by the proposals of the Bill as they at present stand. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said a great deal about compensation, which I think is not strictly relevant to the Amendment. As the noble Earl, Lord Cawdor, said, it is impossible to compensate. That solution is ruled out. You do not know what the market will be at the delayed date. You do not know what the extent of deterioration will be. There are masses of imponderables which are impossible to calculate. Therefore, for that very reason, we have been driven back on this suggestion of purchase by the State of matured timber where a licence to fell has been refused.
The noble Viscount the Leader of the House said that there was nothing new about the present situation, but I am sure he would be the first to admit that the present situation is really a hangover from the war. These regulations were introduced during the war for the very special circumstances of the national emergency. We have had too many of these hangovers. All the Supplies and Services Acts which have been introduced and passed are a continuation into peace time of conditions of war. Of course, we admit that in conditions of war and great national emergency unusual and abnormal things 103 have to be done, but they should not be continued permanently in more normal times. I am sure the Leader of the House would not seriously argue about that. What I think he was really worried about was the expenditure in which the Government might be involved. No doubt he has the Treasury prodding him. I think that argument can be overdone. First of all, there is the Amendment to Clause 3, to which the noble Duke referred, under which in any case owners of dedicated woodlands and woodlands which are subject to an agreed plan get a licence to fell. They will not be the subject of this compulsory buying except in circumstances of a new emergency, because in fact they can sell anywhere. The others, the people who have not entered into a scheme, would, in any case, be rather few. But if the Government are worried about them and really feel that there will be a flood of these small owners pressing to sell, they can avoid that possibility by limiting those proposals of the noble Earl as the noble Duke suggests. They will then be applicable, as I understand it, only to such cases as are covered by the Amendment to Clause 3. I believe that that is a possible way out.
The noble Duke himself quoted one old adage. I will quote another: "Half a loaf is better than no bread." This is half a loaf, both for the Government and for us. I suggest that it forms a favourable basis for a compromise. I do not know whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House can give us a definite answer to-day. I do not think we can fairly press him to do so—he may have to consult his colleagues, and so on—but I hope at least for a sympathetic answer. We are ready to try to meet the Government over this matter. We have done our utmost and gone further than many of us like. I hope for a similar measure of cooperation from the other side.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI thank the noble Marquess sincerely for his intervention. May I reply to the noble Lord below the gangway, and say that my statement was abundantly correct? The amount of timber that might be involved outside a dedicated or arranged scheme is enormous. It would involve the tax-payer in great obligations. I was impressed by the suggestion of the noble Duke, who, as we all know, is very 104 familiar with this business. It is true that the present plan of operations is, as the noble Marquess described it, a hangover from the war. But it is a hangover that has been working feasibly for five years, so that it cannot be a very unjust one. That is my reflection on that point, though I agree with him that it is correct so to describe it.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYHangovers may be bearable, but they are never right.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI accept all that, but even then it may depend on the form of the hangover. So far as I understand the suggestion made, it would mean that any payment would be limited first to a period when there was an emergency. What "emergency" means precisely, not being a lawyer I am not prepared to say without notice, although we have a general understanding of the kind of thing an emergency is. Without being committed to any particular explanation of that term, I think the suggestion made is a valuable and gratifyingly limiting one, because the proposal would be limited also, I understand, to cases where the woodlands were dedicated or subject to some scientific or agreed scheme of afforestation.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYI should like in this connection to make one point which I did not mention earlier, and which I should like the Government to consider. There may be a limited number of people, the small men to whom I have already referred, who have applied to the Forestry Commission for dedication or for inclusion in some scheme and who have been refused be-cause they are not large enough. I feel that they ought to be given sympathetic consideration.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI accept that. It would be quite fair and right to consider bona fide applications for dedication which are not yet determined. That is perfectly fair. But the vast number of miscellaneous burdens which would be cast upon the Treasury as matters stand at present have to be considered. I understand that the matters it is suggested we should consider are the limitation of any purchase, first, to cases of emergency, and, second, to agreed schemes, dedicated schemes and suchlike. That is a very important advance and a 105 different prospect from the one which I felt confronted me when the noble Earl first spoke. I should want to know what is meant by an "emergency." I should like a little more information about the other point, but I am willing to give that suggestion friendly consideration. Of course, we cannot do what is proposed on the Committee stage; it would have to be on the Report stage, and I will take the noble Lords into consultation. I am not making any pledge except to say that it limits enormously the demand and I will give it friendly consideration without, in saying that, being committed to any definite promise to do anything. All I can do is to consider it in a friendly spirit. I understand there are those two governing and important limitations. I am sure it would be advantageous. I do not in the least wish to impose upon the noble Earl, but on this general understanding, in which the entire bona fides will be observed, perhaps he will be willing not to press his Amendment.
§ EARL DE LA WARRAgain, this really means withdrawing all my Amendments, except possibly one. I think the noble Viscount might again say that he will consider recommitting the clause.
§ VISCOUNT ADDISONI rather hesitate about a recommittal.
§ EARL DE LA WARRSubject to the noble Viscount's hesitation, and also to his undertaking to consider the matter, I think I should withdraw my Amendment, and I will not move the next one.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 4.51 p.m.
§ LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (1), to omit "deterioration in the quality of the timber in the trees in consequence of." The noble Lord said: There are still a certain number of woodlands to which this clause applies, and therefore I will move my Amendment. Before doing so, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for the assurance he gave me. I feel rewarded for having challenged him in the great comfort he has afforded to me, because there must be more mature timber than I had any idea of. The object of my Amendment is to ask the Government why, if they are prepared to compensate people for the depreciation in the value of trees owing to a refusal to permit felling, they are not prepared 106 to compensate them for all forms of loss consequent upon a refusal. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 26, leave out from (" to ") to the second ("the") in line 27.—(Lord Saltoun.)
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThe diffi-culty I find about the noble Lord's Amendment is exactly the same as that relating to the Amendment which has just been withdrawn by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr If the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted, it might involve the Government in very heavy expenditure. For instance, a woodland owner would be able to claim compensation if the value of his timber at the time the licence was granted was different from its value at the time when the trees were felled. He would be able to look ahead at the prospective value of timber on the market, and if he thought that the value was falling he would be able to insure himself against that by applying immediately for a licence to fell. We should be up against exactly the same financial difficulty as was urged when we asked Lord De La Warr to withdraw his Amendment.
LORD SALTOUNI am obliged to the noble Earl for his explanation. I should like to point out that his argument cuts both ways, and I do not think that owners would put their timber on the market at an improper time, in order to secure them-selves in that way. Before withdrawing my Amendment I would point out that this is not really full compensation; it is only partial compensation. And I think the Government must make up their minds to acknowledge that. I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (2), to omit "but no such claim shall be made after the expiration of one year after the felling of the trees." The noble Lord said: This Amendment has some substance, and I should like to move it. A wood of trees is not always felled in one year; it is sometimes felled over several seasons. Does that mean that we shall have partial claims continually made, or will measures be taken to enable the owner of timber who is felling his trees to make one claim in respect of the whole operation when he has felled the timber. I beg to move.
107
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33, leave out from ("be") to (" or") in line 35.—(Lord Saltoun.)
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELAs the noble Lord has rightly said, the effect of this Amendment would be to allow claims for compensation to be made more than twelve months after felling has taken place. It is difficult to see how this Amendment can serve any useful purpose from the point of view of the woodland owner, because it is obvious, I think, that he ought to be able to decide within twelve months whether or not to make a claim. Indeed, the chance of his making a successful claim would be less if the timber had actually been removed—if the tree had been cut, and the trunk taken away. It would be much more difficult to get the evidence which is required. So I do not think this Amendment is in the interests of the woodland owner.
LORD SALTOUNI do not intend to press it. I merely point out the difficulty to the Government. It seems to me that there ought to be a provision whereby somebody can say: "There will be a claim in respect of this, but we had better wait until we have cut down all the trees, which will take perhaps two years to do, before making the claim." With those remarks, I will withdraw this Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ LORD SALTOUN moved, in subsection (2) to leave out all words from and including "or in respect of the deterioration" down to the end of the subsection. The noble Lord said: I think that this Amendment has more substance. It seeks to delete from the Bill the provision that no claim for compensation shall be made for deterioration of timber which takes place more than ten years before the date of the claim. It might well happen that a man's application for permission to cut his timber was refused, and that he did not get permission to cut his timber for more than ten years. In the meantime the damage had been continuing. I recollect a wood of very fine larch which was beginning to be badly pumped—I do not know whether it has been cut now. It ought to have been cut a year before the end of the war. At that time the rot in the centre of the tree had gone only a short way up from the roots, but had it been left, and had the proprietor failed 108 for ten years to get a licence to cut that timber, the whole of the wood would have been rotten. At the same time I would like to point out to the noble Earl who is to reply that the trees would probably have looked extremely well, because if all the essential parts of the tree had not got a blow, they would have been very good looking. I think that in such a case a claim of over ten years ought to be entertained. I do not see the justice of the limitation. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 35, leave out from ("trees") to the end of line 36.—(Lord Saltoun.)
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI do not see that there is any injustice to the woodland owner here. Supposing that his licence is refused for a period of thirty years, it is true that he cannot claim in the twenty-fifth year for deterioration which began, say, in the fifth or the sixth year—more than ten years' back. What he can do is to claim compensation at ten-yearly intervals for deterioration throughout the whole period. I understand that there is a practical difficulty on the part of the Forestry Commission in assessing deterioration that has been going on for more than ten years, and I feel that the position of the forestry owner is safeguarded.
LORD SALTOUNI understand that there would be no difficulty in cutting sample trees. Can the noble Earl tell me whether that is so?
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI am not sure what the noble Lord means.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI imagine that that would take place if it were a question of assessing deterioration in a tree. Provided that deterioration had not started more than ten years before, the owner would be entitled to compensation.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 5.3 p.m.
§
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL had given notice of two Amendments to paragraph (a) of subsection (4), the first being to
109
leave out all words from "shall" to "licence," and to insert:
subject to the provisions of subsection (3) of section three and of subsection (3) of section twelve of this Act, grant a
The noble Earl said: May I speak on these next two Amendments together? Their object is twofold. As the Bill is drafted, it is obligatory on the Forestry Commissioners to grant a licence on application, which would mean that it would be open to the Commissioners to give notice and so in effect permit the felling if the owner desired it, without consulting the planning authority. We are anxious that in ever}' case where a tree is protected by a tree preservation order, the planning authority shall be consulted by the Forestry Commissioners. We do not want to allow in the Bill anything which would enable a tree which was protected by an order of this kind to be felled without consultation with the local planning authority. The Bill as it stands would have another undesirable effect. If the Forestry Commissioners were to consult the planning authority, and the planning authority refused to agree to the felling, the Commissioners would either have to go ahead and ignore the authority's wishes, or refrain from giving notice about the felling. This would mean that the Commissioners would continue to be liable for any compensation, whereas the reason the tree was not felled was one of amenity, so any compensation that had to be borne ought to be borne by the planning authority. These two Amendments will put right these two undesirable consequences of the Bill as at present drafted. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 5, leave out from ("shall") to ("licence") in line 6 and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI beg to move the second of these Amendments.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 7, after ("notice") insert ("if an application is duly made in that behalf.")— (The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
110§ Clause 6:
§ Power to make loans on refusal of licence
§ 6. Where a licence under this Act authorising the felling of trees on any land is refused, then if the land—
- (a) is subject to a forestry dedication covenant under the Forestry Act, 1947; or
- (b) is or in the opinion of the Commissioners will be managed in a manner approved by the Commissioners.
§
LORD KINNAIRD moved to add to the clause:
Provided that in the case of land which is subject to a forestry dedication covenant as aforesaid and in respect of which there is in existence a plan of operations approved by the Commissioners advances made by the Commissioners under this section shall be applicable to the whole of the land in respect of which such plan of operations was approved.
§ The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to make it clear that loans should be available under this clause for use in respect of all land covered by a dedication agreement or an approved plan of operations and not only in respect of the particular area of land for which a licence has been refused. I feel that the Government will probably agree that this is a wise Amendment, be-cause it may be that a particular piece of land—I say nothing about trees—may be of little or no value, but a loan is of intense importance, and so it should be allowed to be used on the land dedicated. That seems to me to be a wise provision. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 23, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Kinnaird.)
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELOf course, we entirely agree with what Lord Kinnaird has said. It is eminently desirable that, if a woodland owner wishes, he should be able to use any money he may raise by way of a loan from the Commissioners on the rest of his estate. It should not be confined to the particular area in respect of which a licence for felling has been refused. May I point out that there is nothing in the Bill as it stands to prevent the use of a loan in this way? I think the noble Lord can rest assured that the object which he has in mind will be achieved under the terms of the Bill as it is now drafted. 111 Unless he disagrees about the drafting— and I have had very careful consultations on this matter—I hope that he will consider that what I have said is satisfactory.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI think what the noble Earl has just said is highly satisfactory. I should just like to ask whether a man can use money lent to him for any function on the estate, including agriculture.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThere is no restriction on the purposes for which a loan can be used.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 6 agreed to.
§ 5.7 p.m.
§ Clause 7:
§ Felling directions
§ 7.—(1) If it appears to the Commissioners that it is expedient in the interests of good forestry or for purposes connected with their duty under section one of this Act that any growing trees should be felled, they may give directions to the owner of the trees requiring him to fell them within such period after the directions have become operative as may be specified in the directions.
§ (2) No directions shall be given under this section requiring the felling of any such trees as are mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section two of this Act.
§ (3) Any person aggrieved by directions given to him by the Commissioners under this section may by notice given within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner request the appropriate Minister to refer the matter to a person appointed by the said Minister under section four of this Act, and the provisions of that section (except subsection (5)) shall apply with the necessary modifications.
§
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (1) after "felled" to insert:
(a) in order to prevent deterioration or further deterioration" in the quality of the timber comprised therein; or
(b) in order to improve the growth of other trees.
§ The noble Earl said: I think—in fact, I know—that this Amendment will meet the point raised by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and several other noble Lords who have shown a keen interest in the matter in question. As the clause now stands, the Forestry Commissioners may make any felling directions if it appears expedient in the interest of good forestry or for purposes connected with 112 the maintenance of an adequate reserve of timber that they should do so. We all agree with the noble Earl and other noble Lords opposite that this power is perhaps a bit too wide and ought to be limited. We are therefore proposing in the Amendment that compulsory felling will be used for two purposes, and two purposes only—first, to prevent mature trees from rotting and, second, to enforce thinning of any plantations in order to make sure that trees are able to grow properly. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 27, after ("felled") insert the said new paragraphs.—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ EARL DE LA WARRI must say that this amply meets our point of view, and I thank the noble Earl.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ LORD HYLTON moved, in subsection (1), after "period "to insert, "being not less than two years." The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is simple: it is to ensure that anyone who is given a direction to fell shall have ample time to dispose of the crop that he is ordered to fell. That seems to be only common justice. I am not an expert in timber selling, but I understand that it is reasonable to allow an owner this period during which he can seek a reasonably good market for the product that he has to sell. In the case of the sale of thinnings, very considerable difficulties may arise, because the private woodland owner's thinnings will be in competition with the immense quantity produced by the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commissioners are beginning to have large acreages of conifer plantations ready for felling, and the private owner, being a small man compared to the Forestry Commissioners, will be in competition with this near-monopoly, and may be unable to find an economic market for his timber unless he lives in or near a coal-mining district where there is a continuous demand for pit-props. I hope the Government will agree to look into this matter, to see whether they can accept an Amendment on these lines.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 28, after (" period") insert ("being not less than two years").—(Lord Hylton.)
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI agree with the noble Lord that an owner should 113 be given reasonable time to carry out a felling direction, and I am prepared to accept the Amendment as it stands. I am much obliged to him.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§
LORD HYLTON moved to add to sub-section (1):
Provided that, in considering whether to give any directions under this subsection, the Commissioners shall take into account the interests of agriculture and the amenity or convenience of any farm or dwelling-house and any representations made by the regional advisory committee for the conservancy in which the trees are growing.
The noble Lord said: The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, described to-day how felling directions are to be circumscribed. Previously we had considerable doubts whether the interests of agriculture, in the way of agricultural shelter belts, had been properly considered, and whether the amenity and convenience of farmhouses and dwelling houses had been protected. Noble Lords who live in the North and are familiar with the rigorous climatic conditions there realise that shelter belts are essential as protection for both livestock and homesteads. If timber is removed by a felling direction, grave danger will be occasioned to the occupiers of holdings in the neighbourhood. I hope the noble Earl will be able to give some assurance that this point will not be neglected. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 30, at end insert the said proviso."—(Lord Hylton.)
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI am much obliged to the noble Lord for this Amendment. On the first day of the Committee stage of the Bill my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said he would like to look at this clause to see what could be done to protect parks and private grounds. I think this Amendment would do something to give the necessary protection. We should also like to see the interests of agriculture carefully considered before any felling directions were issued. I would make this suggestion to the noble Lord: we would accept this Amendment as it stands if the noble Lord would be prepared to leave out the last three lines from the word "and," for this reason: that we do not consider it in the 114 least necessary that a reference to representations of the regional advisory committee should be included. Of course, the views of the regional advisory committee will be taken into account, and we do not feel it is necessary to include that point in the Amendment.
LORD HYLTONI am grateful to the noble Earl for his assistance in this matter. Noble Lords will realise that these felling directions are a new conception, and it is important that all interests shall be properly protected. The protection of the amenities of houses and agricultural buildings is vital to the countryside. As regards the final three lines about the regional advisory committee, may I say that I am not wedded to this proposal? I thought that point could come in here because felling directions are the kind of thing that would probably be put before the regional advisory committee by the people affected, and we thought that any representations made by those committees should be given due weight. Perhaps the noble Earl would be willing to look at this matter before the Report stage to sec that they are not excluded.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI am willing to do that, but I am sure the noble Lord realises that what the Amendment says is that the Commissioners shall take into account any representations made by the regional advisory committee, and does not say that the Commissioners shall consult the committee. If that is what the noble Lord wants, he has not covered the point in these words. If the advisory committee are consulted, certainly their views would be taken into account, and that is all the noble Lord is saying in this form of words.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI take it that the noble Earl would accept this Amendment if it were worded that "the Forestry Commissioners shall consult the regional advisory committee." I think there is something in this part of the Amendment, because it is important that the regional advisory committees should be a reality and given something to do. There are excellent voluntary bodies all over the country which are tending to fall out of use because they have nothing to do. In this case we feel that when instructions are given to a private woodland owner, it would be much better, not only for the protection of the woodland 115 owner but for strengthening the hands of the Forestry Commissioners, if those directions were given after consultation with a body of this kind. That would put the committees in much the same position as the agricultural executive committees when a farmer is given a direction. Once a direction has been before the regional advisory committee, I cannot believe that a woodland owner would not then be willing to carry it out. If he did not, he would not receive much sympathy from his neighbours. I suggest to the noble Earl that even if he feels that he cannot accept these words now, he should undertake to consider them between now and the Report stage. Or possibly it would be easier if we put in the Amendment now, on the understanding that the Government desire to retain to themselves the liberty to reconsider the matter.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYI feel that there is a difference in the proposal contained in the actual wording of the Amendment and the suggestion referred to, that the Commissioners should always consult the advisory committee. That is not what is suggested by the Amendment. What is suggested is a sort of safeguard to the owner who feels that he may have been aggrieved. As the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has said, if the owner knows that the Forestry Commission have heard his objections through the regional advisory committee, and he still gets a direction to fell, he would probably have no reason to feel aggrieved at all. I hope the noble Earl will consider accepting this Amendment.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI should like to add a few words, because the noble Viscount has reminded me of the reason why we put the Amendment in this form. It was because we felt that probably the bulk of the directions that were given by the Forestry Commission would, in fact, be agreed to by woodland owners, and we did not want to bother anybody to go any further. We felt that it was only where there was disagreement that the woodland owner should put his case to the committee. It would be carrying matters rather far to say that on all occasions, in regard to any direction, even though the woodland owner agreed to it, the committee must be consulted.
LORD HYLTONThe noble Earl opposite will see the way in which our minds are working. We are anxious that these felling directions should in as many cases as possible be agreed with the owners, without appeals, and we thought that consultation with and the representations of the regional advisory committees would be valuable for this purpose. The noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, has pointed out that when a direction to crop is issued there are consultations with the agricultural executive committees. We hope that these forestry felling directions may be dealt with in much the same way. I do not know whether the noble Earl can meet us any further on the point.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELWe agree entirely with what most noble Lords have said about the importance of consulting the regional advisory committees in suitable cases. Some cases, where agreement between the owner and the Commissioners about the felling is patent, would not be suitable, as the noble Earl has just said, but no doubt others would be. But I think the noble Lord will agree that his Amendment does not refer to consultations with the regional advisory committees, but merely says that their views should be taken into account when expressed. We do not think that that is necessary. However, if the noble Lord feels that, from the point of view of drafting, it is necessary, I will gladly accept it, and perhaps look at it again with him between now and the Report stage.
LORD HYLTONI am grateful to the noble Earl. If any difficulties do arise and the drafting is not considered suitable, perhaps the noble Earl will either improve it himself or let us know, and we will improve it.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThis is an Amendment which I know will be welcomed by noble Lords opposite. Its object is simply to exempt trees in dedicated woodlands from compulsory felling directions. I am sure everyone will agree that such compulsory felling directions are unnecessary in the case of woods which are managed, by agreement with the owners, according to the principles of good forestry. We therefore propose in this respect that dedicated woodlands shall be exempt from that important provision in the Bill. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, at end insert ("or of any trees on land which is subject to a forestry dedication covenant under the Forestry Act 1947").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ 5.25 p.m.
§
EARL DE LA WARR moved to add to subsection (2):
or of any trees standing on land held inalienably by the National Trust for Places of Historic Interest or Natural Beauty.
The noble Earl said: I do not think it is necessary to detain your Lordships long on this Amendment. I speak not just as a member of your Lordships' House but as the Chairman of the Estates Committee of the National Trust. Therefore, although it is not a personal interest, I have an interest that I should perhaps declare. As your Lordships know, these houses and lands are handed over to the Trust with the special idea of preservation. Although we try to administer our woods according to the principle of dedication, I think it would be difficult, as there are special problems attaching to their being handed over, for them to be put under a dedication scheme—certainly that applies to the lands that are held inalienably. I would therefore ask the noble Earl to consider this Amendment with regard to their exemption from this clause. It was suggested that we should ask for exemption under Clause 3 —that is, exemption from the need to apply for a felling licence—but I did not think that would be right. I do not see any reason why we should not be subject, just like anybody else, to the need to procure licences for fellings. But on some of these properties there are wonderful trees which might be regarded by the Forestry Commission as mature for felling but which it would be a national tragedy to fell. Therefore, I ask the noble Earl to meet me on this Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, at end insert the said words.—(Earl De La Warr.)
§ LORD WINSTERI should like in two or three words to support the Amendment which has been moved by the noble Earl. The Amendment refers to lands which have been handed over inalienably to the National Trust as places of historic interest or natural beauty. It is to the words "or natural 118 beauty" that I address myself. I am sure that all noble Lords can think of many landscapes in which the beauty rests wholly upon the trees, whether they grow naturally or whether they have been planted by an owner. That being so, I feel that it would be rather harsh if an outside body could come in and order the felling of trees upon which the natural beauty of the land and the landscape depended. By his acceptance of the previous Amendment the noble Earl showed himself sympathetic to the idea lying behind this present Amendment, and I hope that he may go further and accept this one.
VISCOUNT GAGEI also should like to support this Amendment, which is supported by the County Councils Association. It seems to me that we sometimes come down to this House in a certain frame of mind, and express concern about the actions of certain owners and local authorities, and we then set up bodies which are designed to protect amenities. We then come down in another frame of mind, and undermine what we have done previously. Having encouraged the setting up of this body, I feel that we ought to trust them. I think I am right in saying that there are some emergency powers that could be used by the Forestry Commission if the National Trust did something of a quite extraordinarily foolish nature.
LORD HYLTONI should like to sup-port this Amendment, principally for this reason: that in this Bill as drawn the Forestry Commission are not mentioned as being particularly interested in amenity. In fact I think it has excluded any words about amenity. If that is so—and there may be good reasons for it, about which we shall be told later—then it is important that the Forestry Commission do not impinge upon the National Trust property, which of course has been inalienably made over to the nation for the protection of historic buildings and natural beauty. If the Forestry Commission do not wish to be considered interested in amenity, they cannot wish to be involved in National Trust property. As the noble Lord opposite has said, this Trust exists for the protection of natural beauty; I think that must be quite clear.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI feel that perhaps there is some misunderstanding 119 on this clause. It has been suggested by all noble Lords who have spoken that if the Forestry Commissioners had this power to fell trees on land owned by the National Trust, the power would be used to fell trees which were part of the scenic beauty in particularly lovely beauty spots —trees which have been preserved as part of the National Trust property for that very reason. I can assure noble Lords that the Forestry Commissioners have no intention whatever of felling any trees which are part of the scenic beauty of some area owned by the National Trust. But, of course, as your Lordships know, the National Trust is a very large land owner, and has extensive woodlands. It has been suggested that the National Trust should be exempted under this clause. The noble Earl who moved the Amendment said that they would be subject to licensing for felling; that they ought to be asked to apply for licences in the ordinary way if they want to fell trees. In the same way, presumably, conditions should be attached to their licences about replanting, and nobody objects to that. Is it not a little illocical, therefore, to object to something else which is in the interests of good forestry?
Noble Lords will have observed that the powers of the Commission in relation to felling are limited to thinning plantations and to cutting down trees which are beginning to rot. Surely, plantations on the properties of the National Trust might well be thinned. Let us hope that they will be thinned voluntarily. I have no doubt that that will happen as a general rule, because the National Trust will wish to manage their woods in the interests of good forestry. But if they did not do so, there should be some power to make certain that the young plantations are managed in the interests of good forestry. That is all that this clause sets out to do. I can assure noble Lords that the Forestry Commissioners would not insist on felling any tree which was of value from the scenic point of view, and also that they would consult with the National Trust about any felling proposals which arose in connection with one of their properties.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI realise that there is no disagreement at all between us as to what should be done. But the 120 trouble about being a reasonable Minister is that one thinks that everybody who comes after him is also going to be reasonable. We are delighted to have the noble Earl's assurances, but we know that if they carry his present chiefs they certainly do not carry their successors. I think it was a little unfair of him to use against us the fact that we had not asked to be excepted from other parts of the Bill. There is no reason at all, for the purposes of amenity, why we should be granted exemption from having to apply for felling licences. If we want to fell trees which could be preserved it is right that we should have to apply for licences, and I cannot see any reason why we should be excepted from conditions of replanting and so on, if we did obtain those licences. But when it comes to giving an outside body—and particularly a body not associated with the amenity questions, as the Forestry Commission are not—power to compel the felling of trees in these properties which have been picked out for special reasons from the properties of the United Kingdom, then it becomes a very heavy responsibility. The matters with which we are dealing are very long-term matters, and I ask the Minister to meet us on this point.
§ LORD WINSTERWould it help if words such as "felling in the interests of good forestry" were inserted? I agree that the Amendment as drafted is rather wide.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI hesitate to use the word "inalienably" again because it always beats me, but as your Lordships may know, we have two types of property, one of which is alienable, and which can be sold. That is nearly always the least important property from the point of view of amenity and natural beauty, and therefore we have excepted that land from this Amendment. All we have asked for is the exception from the clause of the inalienable land.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYThe noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to the necessity of thinning on properties owned by the National Trust. He did not refer to the other category of trees which have to be felled in order to prevent deterioration. I am not very familiar with the National Trust properties, but I think it probable that a considerable number of trees which 121 they wish to preserve for beauty purposes are deteriorating. Perhaps he could agree that in respect of that category the National Trust could be exempted, whereas they could still be subjected to the provisions of the clause with regard to thinning their young plantations.
§ THE EARL OF LiSTOWELI am obliged to the noble Lords who have spoken, because this is a matter about which we all wish to keep open minds. Many different and interesting considerations have been urged in favour of the noble Earl's Amendment. I should like him to allow us to look into the matter again, in the light of what has been said, particularly by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. We should like to meet his difficulty and, at the same time, be sure that he shares our desire to safeguard the interests of good forestry.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI think that is reasonable, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 5.39 p.m.
§
THE EARL OF SELBORNEmoved to add to subsection (2):
or of any trees standing or growing on land comprised in a park.
The noble Earl said: This point was alluded to earlier in the Bill, and from something the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said, I had hopes that the Government might be willing to accept this Amendment. I think the Lord Chancellor also gave me hope. The point is that earlier in the Bill I suggested to the Committee that parks should be exempted altogether from this rigid control by the Forestry Commission, because they so greatly affect the amenities of the owner of the whole property and of the mansion house. In reply to that suggestion, the Government pointed out that there were some parks where there was a real danger of fine trees being cut, simply because the owner could not afford to keep them, and that in the interests of timber preservation it was necessary to maintain some measure of control, even in. parks. I submit, however, that that point does not apply to the question of compulsory felling orders. It would surely be a drastic interference with the amenities of any owner living on his property if he were ordered by the Forestry Commission to fell trees in his
122
own park which he wanted to keep for purposes of beauty; and the amount of timber involved here would be very small indeed. I hope the Government will allow owners to keep their parks beautiful, and to preserve them as they have been accustomed to for generations. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, at end insert ("or of any trees standing or growing on land comprised in a park ").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI think we all have the same object in mind. We certainly do not want trees to be felled in private parks attached to houses when they obviously serve a scenic purpose. I had hoped that the Amendment we have just accepted from the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, might satisfy the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, because it means that the Forestry Commissioners will be obliged to give due consideration to the amenity value of trees standing in private grounds before any felling direction can be given. The difficulty—as, I think, was mentioned at an earlier stage—about accepting an Amendment such as that now moved by the noble Earl to exempt parks is that they include a very large quantity of tim-ber—for instance, the national parks set up under the National Parks Act, and the very large parklands in Scotland which, although attached to the estates, do not form part of the grounds of the mansion. If we were to exempt all parks, in the same way as churchyards, orchards and the like, we might lose control of a very large quantity of timber indeed.
§ THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYWe on this side of the House fully realise the difficulty mentioned by the noble Earl. We all know of parks which are surrounded by woods, where it is difficult to tell exactly where the park begins and ends. I do not think the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, or any of us means to include more than what forms part of the amenities of a mansion, or other private or public open space. I feel, however, that there is a danger, in our zeal to promote the interests of forestry and to secure complete uniformity, that we may tend to go too far. Perhaps I may be allowed to give an example. During the War, near where I was living, alongside a Roman road there were two or three acres of land where remains of Celtic fields were clearly visible. They had not 123 changed since ancient times, and they were almost unique in that part of the country. In their patriotic zeal—although it made no difference to the food production of the country—the county agricultural committee had the land ruthlessly ploughed up; and all the signs of Celtic agriculture disappeared. I have no doubt that other noble Lords could multiply such instances.
There are similar instances in the sphere of forestry in which it is the amenities not only of the owner but of the public also, as well as the beauties of our country, which are concerned, and where the same type of thing which I have mentioned could occur. I will give a personal example. In my own park, I have a wood —not a very large one, I suppose: about twenty or thirty acres—of oak trees. All these oak trees are between 400 and 500 Years old. They are past their prime, but they are still very fine trees, and I have no doubt that some would consider they ought to be cut down. Some time ago, in connection with projects of my own, I called in a great forestry expert, and I took him round and showed him these trees. He was torn between the interests of good forestry and of the preservation of this rather unusual wood. Eventually he came down on the side of preservation. He said to me "You will not see another wood round here as ancient as this." That is the sort of thing which, I suggest, ought to be preserved. I do not say that the Forestry Commission would not agree, but there ought to be some protection against the possibility of that type of woodland being entirely sacrificed to the interests of commercial forestry. I would ask the Government, if they cannot accept the noble Earl's Amendment in its present form whether they will not try to think out some form of words which might achieve the object which I am sure we all have in view.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMay I reply at once? I agree very largely with what the noble Marquess says. This point really arose on the last Amendment; it is the same sort of point as that adumbrated by the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley. The difficulty about accepting the word "park" is that one cannot possibly define a park. A park can embrace purely commercial woodland, which ought to be conducted and 124 managed in the ordinary way. We should all desire that the power of the Forestry Commission should apply in such cases, notwithstanding that the woodland is in a park. We should all agree, on both sides of the House, that where we are dealing with the sort of park mentioned by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, which possesses scenic or historic value, or is remarkable for its age or appearance, or is unique in any other way, these powers should not apply. The trouble is to get a definition; we all want the same thing. I will investigate this matter between now and the next stage, to see whether I can get some sort of definition. I cannot accept this Amendment, for the reason I have given: that I am unable to define "park." The term may include purely commercial woodland without any æsthetic or historic value—an ordinary, "common or garden" plantation which needs to be thinned in the ordinary way. If I can devise some method of differentiating between these two things I shall be able to give the noble Earl what he is asking for, without giving away a point which he does not want—applying these restrictions to an ordinary commercial plantation just because it happens to be inside a park.
§ LORD BROUGHSHANEWill the Lord Chancellor consider using some such words as "attached to a house in private ownership" or "attached to a messuage or mansion house "?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI do not think those words will do. You may have a private park with commercial woodland on the periphery. But we will see what we can do. The last thing the Forestry Commission want is to go to a land owner and say of a tree or private wood: "Go and cut that down." They do not want that power, and it would be ridiculous to try to exercise it. The problem now is to find the right words.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI should like to thank the noble and learned Viscount for his conciliatory reply. In view of what he has said, I do not propose to press this Amendment at this stage, but I hope that he and the Government will be able to meet us on this point. I would ask him to bear this in mind. It is not merely a matter of trees of particular beauty or of great historic interest, such as those to which the noble and learned 125 Viscount referred, but of the affection of the owner for them, which may be purely sentimental and of a nature that perhaps may not impress the Forestry Commission. I suggest that we ought to deal tenderly with points like that, because, after all, this is a man's home, and even a land owner has some rights left in this bureaucratic age. In a place where he was born, brought up, lives and, generally speaking, carries out a vast amount of unpaid work, I submit that some respect should be paid to his feelings.
I know the noble and learned Viscount has no desire to violate those feelings at all, but I submit that in drafting an Act of Parliament we ought to protect such a man. Thirty years in another place and ten years here have made me suspicious of the argument which the Lord Chancellor has just used, that this is the last thing the Forestry Commission would ever wish to do, and that they are not the sort of people who would ever want to do such a thing. We can all agree about that. But we are here drafting an Act of Parliament which is going to be on the Statute Book for a large number of years. We do not know by whom this Act of Parliament will be administered ten, fifteen or twenty years hence, or longer. I would remind the House that even to-day there are cases, of which one constantly reads in the newspapers, of powers which were conferred on His Majesty's Government in war-time circumstances which are now, rightly or wrongly—I am not arguing that point— being used for entirely different purposes from what was originally contemplated. So if we want to protect an owner in a matter of this sort, and I think we ought to, I submit we ought to put it in the Bill.
A further point is the extent of these parks. I am not talking about national parks but the parks referred to by my noble friend behind me, the parks which are part of a man's home and which are all marked in the Ordnance Survey as parks. I have never heard before that there was any difficulty in identifying them, but I take it from the Lord Chancellor that that is the case. I suggest that it ought not to be impossible to find a definition which does mean the type of park we have in mind. I hope the Government will labour to achieve that result. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
126
§
LORD KINNAIRDmoved, to add to subsection (2):
or of trees planted or required to be retained for the purposes of amenity or shelter.
§ The noble Lord said: Here is another difficulty of definition. This refers to amenity or shelter. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, partly dealt with this point when he referred to agriculture, but I should like to say one word about the sheep country. There are all sorts of problems up there. The difficulty is to define what is a shelter belt and what is not. Some-times a whole wood instead of a belt will be a shelter, and it will be advisable to cut half a wood at a time. There might be a difference of opinion between the Forestry Commission and the farmer as to whether half a wood should be cut instead of a whole wood. Will the noble Earl consider possibly as a useful thing whether an appeal to an agricultural committee with regard to these farming questions would be a useful thing? I should be glad if he could give it some consideration, because I think the need for shelter is a real one. We do not want to be in the hands of people who look at trees only from the point of view of timber. If we can have some further thought given to my Amendment with regard to shelter for animals, along with the previous Amendment brought up by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, which the noble Earl is considering, I shall be grateful. I think it would be worth while. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, at end insert the said words. —(Lord Kinnaird.)
LORD STRATHEDEN AND CAMP-BELLI should like briefly to support this Amendment, especially with regard to the point of shelter in open hill country, where it frequently is not until the trees have reached timber size that they give effective shelter. If those trees are clear felled, it may be seventy to ninety years before new plantings provide their shelter value and the land can again be fully stocked.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI am sure noble Lords will realise that my other self, which is concerned with agriculture, has listened with great sympathy to what has been said on the subject of the importance of shelter to agricultural land. I think that both noble Lords will agree that the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord 127 Hylton, goes a long way to meet the point. In accordance with the terms of his Amendment, the Forestry Commissioners will have to take into consideration the interests of agriculture before issuing felling directions. The noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, suggested that some outside body concerned with agriculture should be consulted in matters of this kind. We will certainly address our minds to that point, to see whether anything can be devised. I am sure that the noble Lord will be satisfied that his Amendment as it stands at the moment would not be suitable for inclusion.
LORD KINNAIRDI quite agree. Perhaps on Report stage we can consider it. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 5.58 p.m.
§
THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, after subsection (2) to insert:
(3) Any directions given by the Commissioners under this section shall contain a statement of the grounds, upon which they are given.
The noble Earl said: I am sure the Committee will agree that it is important that, when a felling direction is issued, the owner should know the reason for the issue of the direction. He may want to appeal against it if he feels that he has been treated badly by the Forestry Commission, and will want to know why. This Amendment makes it obligatory for the Commissioners to notify the owner of the reasons why they issue a felling direction. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 33, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Listowel)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThis Amendment is consequential on the Government Amendments to Clause 4, so I think I should move it as those Amendments were accepted. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 37, leave out from ("a") to ("under") in line 38 and insert ("committee appointed").—(The Earl of Listowel.)
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
128§ Clause 8:
§ Obligation to purchase land in certain cases
§ 8.—(1) If any person to whom directions are given under this Act claims that compliance with those directions would involve him in a net loss after taking into account any benefit arising therefrom in respect of other trees of which he is the owner, he may by notice given in the prescribed manner and within the prescribed period request the appropriate Minister to acquire his interest in the land affected by the directions.
§ 6.0 p.m.
§
THE EARL OF SELBORNE moved in subsection (1) to omit all words after "period" and to insert:
offer to sell the trees affected by the directions to the Commissioners.
The noble Earl said: This Amendment raises a point of considerable importance. The Bill as drafted says that if any person feels himself financially injured by the directions of the Forestry Commission, he may require the Minister to acquire his land. Surely, that is not the right solution to the problem. In the first place, an estate may be greatly injured by taking out of it small or large woods, so that the property is no longer in a ringed fence. It may also very much interfere with the amenities of an estate if a wood which has previously been grown for its beauty is to be converted into a scientific plantation of conifers. Also, I should have thought that from the point of view of the Minister of Agriculture, this was a most inconvenient way of dealing with the problem. I should have thought the last thing the Government would want was to own a large number of small, isolated plots of land, which are dotted all over the country. Therefore, from the practical point of view, this seems to me to be a very bad way of dealing with the particular problem.
§ But a much greater issue than that is raised here—namely, who is to pay for stockpiling. As I understand the Bill, if an owner is told, in the interests of the State, either to fell or not to fell his trees, and he can prove to the Minister that he is financially injured thereby, surely the right and proper way to deal with the matter is for him to be compensated at such a figure as an impartial tribunal may award. So far as I am aware, in every branch of life, if somebody is injured financially by the State or any other party, 129 for reasons which entail that this injury must take place—for instance, if a road or a railway is being driven through his property—the injured person is compensated financially. My Amendment seeks to enable the injured person who has not been allowed to fell his trees, because the Government wish to stockpile them and keep them for national purposes, to call upon the Government to buy the trees. Surely, there is no difficulty about the Government buying the trees and cutting them down and storing them, in the same way as they are at present, I hope, storing aluminium, copper and all other materials which may be required in a national emergency.
§ In that connection, I should like to mention that the Report of the Public Accounts Committee, just published, on the Forestry Commission states that the National Coal Board are keeping only a two-and-a-half month's supply of pit-props. That seems to be very inadequate stockpiling on the part of the National Coal Board in present circumstances. I hope that the authorities are not going to try to pass the whole cost of stockpiling timber on to the land owners. It is a national obligation, and if people are not to be allowed to run their estates as the financial requirements of the estates dictate, then clearly they ought to be compensated by the Government. This may be a matter of fundamental importance to many estates. It may be that the owner of property is required to find a heavy sum in death duties. That is not his fault. The only way for him to raise this money, and to keep the estate intact, may be to fell some perfectly mature timber. If he is not allowed to sell that timber in the course of ordinary marketing, surely he ought to be allowed to call upon the Government to buy it. If the Government say, "We do not want this timber to pass to the trade. We do not want it to be consumed. It would unduly deplete our national reserves of timber," the man in question should be in a position to fall on the Government themselves to buy and store the trees. Otherwise, what is he to do?
§ I am aware that there is provision in the Bill for loans—I do not think they are free of interest—by the Government to an owner. That may not get over the difficulty, however, because, after all, the 130 loans suggested in the Bill are entirely at the discretion of the Government. It seems to me to be elementary justice to say that if a man is not allowed to manage his property as a business proposition, and to do what the dictates of financial prudence and, ex hypothesi in this case, good forestry require, because of some overriding national reason, then he should be compensated financially by the State. And in the case of refusal of permission to fell, the only way the State can compensate him is by themselves buying the trees and felling them; otherwise the whole of his forestry programme may be upset. The Bill is not only preventing the owner from felling, but is preventing him from replanting in the proper rotation. Therefore, I do hope that the Committee will give very careful consideration to the point embodied in this Amendment. I ought to add that there is a similar Amendment in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, and Lord Kinnaird which, so far as I can make out, covers the same point. If the noble Earl in charge of the Bill says that that Amendment is preferred by the Government to mine, I will not press the point, but I hope that one of the two Amendments will be accepted. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 2, leave out from ("period") to end of line 3 and insert ("offer to sell the trees affected by the directions to the Commissioners").—(The Earl of Selborne.)
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI take some encouragement from what the noble Earl said at the end of his remarks, in connection with the next Amendment. As that Amendment, which stands in the names of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, and the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, deals with the same subject, perhaps I may deal with both at the same time. The object of this clause, as the noble Earl I know will agree, is to safeguard the interests of the woodland owner. That is why it was inserted in the Bill. The purpose is to save the woodland owner from financial loss as a result of a direction to fell his trees. Under the clause as it stands, he can compel the Minister to buy his land if he insists on the felling direction in spite of the calculation that the owner will lose money. I believe the suggestion of the noble Earl is that the owner should be able to compel the Commissioners to buy his trees instead of his land. I think that 131 might suit some owners, but others might prefer selling their land to selling their trees. I suggest that we might be able to agree on an Amendment on the lines of the next one, that standing in the names of Lord Airlie and Lord Kinnaird. What we should like to see—I think this is what both they and the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, would desire—is that the woodland owner should have the option of obliging the Minister, if he persists in his felling directions in the knowledge that they would involve the owner in financial loss, to purchase either the land or the trees. If the proposal is acceptable to other noble Lords, we will try to draft something suitable before the next stage of the Bill.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI am certainly prepared to withdraw my Amendment on that assurance, but I should like to put this to the noble Earl. Surely the Amendment in the names of Lord Airlie and Lord Kinnaird is a very simple one. What is the harm of putting it into the Bill? If it is thought that it could be improved later, that could be done during the Report stage. So far as I can make out, the Committee are postponing a great deal of their work until the Report stage. I have never been present during a Committee stage of a Bill when so much was referred to the Report stage as has been referred in regard to this Bill. The intention of our procedure is, surely, that we should amend a Bill in Committee, and then if, later on, it transpires that the work is capable of improvement, that can be done on the Report stage. To push nearly all our Amendments on to the Report stage will mean in effect that we shall have a second Committee stage and no Report stage.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELWe are all agreed that we want to save the time of your Lordships, and I venture to suggest that my proposal would save more time than the proposal of the noble Earl. I suggest that the wording of this clause will need to be "tinkered with" quite a lot, and that it should be redrafted and submitted to your Lordships at the Report stage.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEThe whole clause?
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI think the redrafting will affect a considerable 132 portion of the clause. If agreement is reached on the new drafting, the clause will, of course, be taken very quickly. On the other hand, if the Amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, and Lord Kinnaird is accepted to-day, we shall have to discuss that before getting on with the redrafting of the clause. I think that my proposal would save the time of the Committee.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
LORD KINNAIRDI find the wording to subsection (1) difficult to understand. It appears to contain a reference to thinning woods. At the present time the owner can readily sell his thinnings. During the war, however, I found that thinning was something which no one could afford to do. It was impossible to sell thinnings, and they involved considerable expense. I believe that the time may occur again when the losses referred to in subsection (1) may become very common. However, as I understand that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, is willing to redraft this clause, if the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, approves, I will not move the Amendment which stands in my name.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ 6.17 p.m.
§ On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI confess that I am rather in the dark as to what are the Government's intentions with regard to redrafting Clause 8. I was hoping that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, would speak earlier on this, otherwise I should not have intervened. I understood him to say just now that the Government would submit Amendments to Clause 8 which would involve a large measure of redrafting of the clause. Is that so?
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELMay I make the position plain? I think it is generally acceptable. I am advised that the whole clause would need considerable redrafting; the wording would have to be "tinkered with" quite a lot in order to carry out the object, if these particular circumstances arose, of making the woodland owner free to offer the Com-missioners either his land or his trees.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI am obliged to the noble Earl. All I wish to say further is this. I should like to express my appreciation of the way the noble Earl is viewing this point, but, surely, in the circumstances the clause would have to be recommitted. We cannot make an Amendment of that size on the Report stage without sacrificing the purpose for which the Report stage was intended. We shall be presented with a long new draft, the meaning of which will possibly not transpire until it has been fully discussed in Committee. Unless it is taken in the Committee stage, we shall not have a chance of having second thoughts about it, which is what the Report stage exists for.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI will certainly see that the noble Earl's view on these points is conveyed to my noble friend the Leader of the House. It will be considered in relation to other matters which have also been suggested as being more proper for recommitment.
VISCOUNT GAGEI should like to take the opportunity of asking the noble Earl whether he intends to cover the case which frequently occurs, in which the ownership of trees and the ownership of land are different. I presume it is the intention to cover such cases.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELYes.
§ Clause 8 agreed to.
§ Clause 9 agreed to.
§ Clause 10:
§ Enforcement of conditions and directions
§ 10.—(1) If any works required to be carried out by conditions of a licence are not carried out in accordance with the conditions, the Commissioners may give notice to the owner of the land requiring such steps as may be specified in the notice to be taken within such time as may be so specified for remedying the default; and if after the expiration of the time so specified any steps required by the notice have not been taken, the Commissioners may enter on the land and take those steps, and may recover from the person to whom the notice was given any expenses reasonably incurred in connection therewith.
§ 6.20 p.m.
§ LORD HYLTON moved in subsection (1), after "may" where that word occurs a fourth time, to insert "after consultation with the regional advisory committee." The noble Lord said: Clause 10 deals with the enforcement of conditions 134 and directions. Among the powers given to the Forestry Commissioners is the power to enter into land when conditions have not been carried out. That is a very wide power and, I think, a novelty. The suggestion in this Amendment is that, as the Government have accepted the conception of regional advisory committees, they should clothe those bodies with some flesh. The Amendment proposes that the Forestry Commissioners should consult the committees before taking the steps outlined in Clause 10. I think that would be an improvement in this Clause, since the powers given are to be somewhat dictatorial, and any action by which the regional advisory committees can oil the machinery might help both the Forestry Commissioners and the owners of land affected. I do not need to say anything more, because the proposition is a simple one. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 35, after ("may") insert ("after consultation with the regional advisory com-mittee ").—(Lord Hylton)
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThis is clearly an important and difficult point. We are all concerned about what should happen if there were a difference of opinion between a woodland owner and the Forestry Commissioners concerning the fulfilment of the conditions attaching to a licence. What has to be decided is whether or not these conditions have been carried out. In his Amendment the noble Lord suggests that the regional advisory committee is the right body to help the Forestry Commissioners to decide this question fairly, and asks that they should be consulted before entry on the land by the Forestry Commissioners to do this work. Whether or not we find a suitable body for this purpose, I think the regional advisory committee are not the right body for the job. In the first place, they were probably consulted by the Commissioners about what conditions should be attached to the licence, and secondly, if the Forestry Commissioners were obliged by Statute to consult the regional advisory committee about every single case that arose, the committees would have so much work of a detailed routine nature to carry out that it would be difficult for them to discharge the more important aspects of their responsibilities. I will certainly give this matter careful consideration between now and Report stage and see what we can do, 135 but I do not feel that the proposition of the noble Lord meets the point we should all like to meet.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEWhat is to happen in a case where an owner has claimed that the direction of the Forestry Commissioners has been carried out? Suppose that the direction is that the plantation should be thinned. The owner might say it had been properly thinned, and the Forestry Commissioners might hold that he had not thinned it enough. Is that not the sort of point on which the view of the regional advisory committee would be valuable? If the Forestry Com-missioners are required by law to enter into a man's property and take the drastic action mentioned in this clause, surely it is going to help their work very much if they can get local backing. I confess that the more I consider this Bill, the less do I see how it is going to be administered. We have created this vast bureaucracy which is to plant 2,000,000 acres of their own and have these powers over all other woodlands in the country, some 3,000,000 acres—a centralised body sitting in London, though of course with their regional officers scattered over the country. I cannot conceive how they can function in matters of this sort unless they take local informed opinion with them, and I hope the regional advisory committees will be brought in wherever there is a real issue. I am sure it would pay the Forestry Commissioners. Even if they had to deal with an unreasonable land owner, it would be much better that a local committee should be consulted and express their opinion. If they sided with the Forestry Commissioners, that would enormously strengthen the hand of the Commissioners. If they sided against the Forestry Commissioners, then there would be prima facie cause for thinking the Forestry Commissioners had possibly made a mistake. Even the Forestry Commissioners are not infallible, and I suggest that wherever there is serious friction it is always better to get a second opinion.
I am sure the noble Earl will agree with me that the local contact work carried out by the agricultural executive committees is a wonderful and notable thing. None of the agricultural programmes of the Governments, during war time and post war, could possibly have been carried out if it had not been for that 136 close local co-operation between the agricultural executive committees and the farmers. The same questions will inevitably arise in forestry. I hope the noble Earl will look more kindly on the regional committees in this matter.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI appreciate that the noble Earl has said that he will consider this matter before the Report stage, and of course we are pleased to hear that, but I cannot help feeling it is a little frightening that it should be necessary for the noble Earl to say he cannot accept this Amendment straight away but must consider it. It seems to me surprising when I think of the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne. I should have thought that when there were difficulties the first thing a wise conservator would want to do would be to call in the regional advisory committee and solve the problem with the help of experienced local opinion. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that if every case were referred to the committees, they would be overloaded with detailed work; but will there really be so many cases of disagreement? I do not think so. On the whole the Forestry Commissioners are reasonable in the requests they make of woodland owners, and I think woodland owners are extremely reasonable in their response. I do not think disagreements are going to be so numerous. There are far more farms than forest estates and it is possible for every agricultural direction given to farmers to go before the agricultural executive committees, so that when the farmer gets his orders, though he may or may not like them, he knows that they have been given by a body of land owners and farmers and other representatives of agricultural interests.
I do not imagine that the noble Lord will want to press the Amendment in the light of the undertaking given by the noble Earl in charge of the Bill, but I trust that this matter will receive serious consideration. I feel that not only the reaction of your Lordships is at stake here, but the reaction of woodland owners in the country. As has so often been said during our discussions, these schemes will not work unless you have the average good woodland owner behind you. You can have him behind you, but you must consult him and his representatives.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI am obliged to the noble Earls, Lord De La 137 Warr and Lord Selborne, for what they have said, and for the tacit support which they have received from other noble Lords. I will certainly consider this point more thoroughly and carefully in the light of the views that have been expressed. What we want is to find a way to bring the parties together by mutual agreement, or by the acceptance of the view of some outside body which they both can regard as being fair and reasonable. I will certainly look at the matter again in that light.
LORD HYLTONI am obliged to the noble Earl for his assurance. He made two points which I should like to mention. First, he said that these matters might be referred to the regional committees. That is only a pious hope at the present moment, and I do not think we can rely upon the fact that that will be done by the Forestry Commission. Secondly, he hoped that the committees would not be given too much work. The experience of all these committees is that they are given too little work to do. If the noble Earl will arrange for them to be given more work, I am sure it would be greatly appreciated. In view of the re-marks of my noble friends, Lord De La Warr and Lord Selborne, and of the assurance given by the noble Earl opposite, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§
LORD KINNAIRD moved, after sub-section (2) to insert:
(3) Any question arising under this section whether there has been a breach of any of the conditions of a licence shall be referred to an arbitrator appointed in accordance with the provisions of section 5 of the Forestry Act, 1947.
§ The noble Lord said: This Amendment proposes that the question of whether works and conditions have been carried out should be referred to arbitration. The Amendment would bring the clause more into line with the existing arbitration provisions in the case of disputes as to dedication agreements. In view of what my noble friend, Lord De La Warr, said just now about agreement and the benefit of consultation, I feel sure that this Amendment would tend to assist in a satisfactory solution of any dispute. Many people think it is wrong that the Commissioners should be in a position to direct that certain works be carried out, or allege that there is a 138 breach of the conditions of the licence, without any provision for an independent review. This point has already been discussed, and I hope that the noble Earl will be able to accept the Amendment. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 42, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Kinnaird.)
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELThis Amendment covers a point that has already been raised—namely, the question of how to settle differences of opinion about the carrying out of conditions attached to a licence to fell. I will go into it in the same way. I am informed that there is no exact parallel, as I think the noble Lord suggested, between what he proposes and the provisions in the Forestry Act, 1947 There are considerable differences, and we cannot hope to bring the two things into line. However, I will look at the matter in the hope of being able to find some way of satisfying all noble Lords who are concerned with this point.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI should like to ask the noble Earl whether we can have an assurance that it is the intention of the Government to provide that there shall be some appeal on this specific issue as to whether the directions of the Forestry Commission have, or have not, been carried out. The question of whether a wood, for instance, has been properly thinned, properly drained, or whatever it is, is something on which there can be two opinions. I should like to support what the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, said. It is wrong in itself that what I have described (and I do not withdraw the term) as a bureaucratic body from Whitehall should be able to order people to do this, that and the other, on their own property, while not taking any of the financial risk and with no question of appeal. If the noble Earl can give an assurance that it is the desire of the Government that on an issue of this sort there should be some tribunal which could decide between the owner and the local forestry officer, that would make me much happier about the noble Lord withdrawing his Amendment.
§ EARL DE LA WARRI rather suspect that this point is covered by the discussion on appeals that we had on Clause 4. If the Lord Chancellor would say that that is so, I think it would meet the point.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORThere is misapprehension in the mind of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, about this matter. As this is drafted, if any works required to be carried out are not carried out, then certain results follow. The noble Earl seems to think that all the Forestry Commission need do is to assert that the conditions have not been carried out, and then they can go ahead. His Majesty's courts are always with us. If a tribunal is not provided, you can bring an action before the courts and say: "These people are going on my land on the ground that I have not carried out certain conditions. I assure you that I have carried out those conditions." The real question is not whether this matter is in the hands of the Forestry Commission. It is not. The real question is whether we shall have His Majesty's courts of justice deal with this matter, or some other domestic tribunal, advisory body, regional council, or whatever you like. It is a complete misapprehension, if I may say so, with great respect, to think that the Forestry Commission, merely by asserting a thing, can establish that it has or has not happened. What I understand the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to say is that he will consider this point in conjunction with the other matters, to see whether this arbitration method, the regional advisory council method, or some other method of that sort is the appropriate one to adopt. There obviously must be some method.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI am grateful to the Lord Chancellor for his remarks. May I say to him: Thank God we still have the Law Courts!
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Clause 10 agreed to.
§ Clause 11:
§ Penalties
§ 11.—(1) Any person who fells any tree in contravention of the provisions of section two of this Act shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding fifty pounds or twice the sum which appears to the court to be the value of the tree, whichever is the higher.
§ (2) Without prejudice to the powers of the Commissioners under section ten of this Act, any person who, without reasonable excuse—
- (a) fails to comply with directions given to him under this Act requiring him to fell any tree; or
- (b) fails to take any steps required by a notice given to him under the said section ten, other than steps which he is not entitled by virtue of his estate or interest in the land to take,
§ VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in sub-section (1), after "tree" to insert "or trees." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment is rather a difficult one, and I hope that the noble and learned Viscount, the Lord Chancellor, will not be too severe with me if I am incorrect in my understanding of what it really means. As I see it, the clause as it stands means that if you fell one tree you are liable to a fine of up to £50 or twice its value, and so on, up to the number of trees you fell; that is to say, if you fell 100 to 200 trees you are liable to a maximum penalty of 100 or 200 times £50—the Lord Chancellor will correct me if I am wrong. If it means what I think it means, it seems to me that a perfectly innocent person, or one who intends to be innocent and is carrying out his forestry operations properly, but has made the mistake of not getting his licence in time, may incur a heavy fine. I do not wish to protect the person who deliberately breaks the law, who deliberately fells trees without proper regard for forestry considerations or without regard to stocks of timber and so on; but there are many occasions when people who are conducting their forestry operations as seriously as they can have to get on with their thinning owing to changes in the weather. They cannot finish planting or things of that sort, and there are times when they want to get on with thinning as quickly as possible. It is not always easy to receive a reply to applications for a licence. Indeed, we were told that it was unreasonable to expect an answer to an application for a felling licence within two months. That arose on one of the earlier clauses in Committee. Whether or not two months is reasonable is perhaps neither here nor there, and while I agree that everybody should accept the necessity for applying for a licence for thinnings, as for other fellings, there are possibilities of making a mistake, and the fine here proposed seems very considerable indeed.
§ It is possible, in a normal thinning operation in quite a small area, to fell 200 or 300 trees, and fifty times that would be a very large sum. One would think 141 that in a case such as that twice the value of the trees was perfectly adequate, and enough of a deterrent to stop anybody doing it wilfully. I believe that there may be some difficulty in defining where the felling of one tree begins and the felling of a group of trees ends. You may fell one tree at one side of the park, which is one offence, and next week you may commit a similar offence on the other side of the park. If in fact you are felling a plantation in the middle, is that one offence or a hundred offences? I move this Amendment, hoping to obtain some information and suggesting that, if the clause means what I think it means, the penalty can be much too severe. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 20, after ("tree") insert ("or trees").—(Viscount Ridley.)
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy understanding of this matter—rather newly acquired—is that the penalty is exacted in respect of each tree. That is what I understand the noble Viscount suggested. Consequently, if you cut down 100 trees you could theoretically suffer 100 penalties. But let us see whether this Amendment alleviates the position. It does not overcome the difficulty by putting in the words "or trees." The same situation still arises, and you may still be mulcted 100 times. I think there are two things to be said about these figures. First of all, if we do get people deliberately breaching the law, it must be regarded, in view of the seriousness of the position, as a very serious matter. If we find somebody deliberately breaching this law, it is right and proper that the penalty should be serious, because he is going to make a great deal of profit at present prices, and therefore there ought to be a severe and heavy penalty. The other thing is this. Let it always be remembered that these fines are maximum fines, and are subject to the discretion of a court of law. In customs cases, for instance, a man by breaching the customs law renders himself liable to enormous penalties; but the justices apply the existing law with good sense and in fact the frightful consequences do not follow. I maintain, first, that there ought to be a penalty which can be imposed in appropriate cases and which will be a real sanction and a real preventive against these things being done. The 142 courts will then apply that penalty with reason and discretion, as does a count of justice, and see that the punishment fits the crime. With regard to the particular point which the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, made, the mischief with which he seeks to deal is not in the least alleviated by putting in the words "or trees." For that reason, I should be sorry to accept this Amendment, and equally I should be sorry when we come to the next Amendment if we were to reduce or mitigate the penalty.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI agree with the noble and learned Viscount that the Amendment would not fulfil the purpose intended. I think that there is a very grave danger in the Bill as it stands of a land owner rendering himself liable to an enormous fine by pure inadvertence, either on his part or on the part of his woodman. Just consider this sort of issue which must often arise. A land owner orders that a certain wood should be thinned, in the ordinary and proper course of forestry operations. He takes the view that these trees are probably all less than three or six inches in diameter, whatever the diameter may be. It is possible that with a measurement as fine as that, the woodman may have misunderstood what part of the wood was to be thinned, and might thin trees which were slightly bigger. The land owner might suddenly discover that several hundred trees had been cut which were a fraction over the prescribed diameter, and, therefore, he would be liable to an enormous penalty. I do not think it is enough to say: "Well, the court would never impose such a penalty in a case of that sort." In the first place, the judge may not be learned in forestry. A technical point of that sort may appear altogether different to a layman than it would to anyone experienced in forestry problems. Secondly—and I think one can say this without any disrespect to His Majesty's judges—one frequently hears of hard cases where men have been fined in respect of such matters as building licences or exceeding the speed limit when they have to get to an important public function. That is a very frequent case. A man is trying to get to an important public function, or to carry out some important work, and exceeds 143 the speed limit. He is hauled up before the magistrates and he may suffer quite a severe fine. Everybody says: "Well, that is very bad luck." I am not saying that that sort of thing can be avoided, but I submit that in drafting our Acts of Parliament we ought to try to prevent a case of that sort.
I should like to make this suggestion to the noble and learned Viscount, and perhaps he will consider it before the Report stage. Could we not have a proviso to this clause which says that the felling of more than one tree in the same wood should be the same offence, providing in fact that if more than one tree is felled without permission in the same wood that shall not be a separate offence for every tree? Other-wise, through sheer carelessness or inefficiency on the part of the forester or the woodman, you might get a case where a man was liable to a very heavy fine in respect of hundreds of small trees which were slightly bigger than the prescribed diameter and which had been cut down, perhaps quite honestly, in the course of an ordinary forestry operation. I should like to ask the Government whether they cannot consider treating cases of that sort in units of a wood rather than units of individual trees. I agree that we have also to deal with the case of individual trees. There may be an individual tree which is not in a wood, but when it comes to woods—and the great majority of trees are in woods— then I suggest the wood is the unit and the offence should be limited to that particular wood. I have no objection to making the fine relate to the amount of timber that has been cut down or sold, but the amount of timber that is cut down or sold in achieving an operation such as I have mentioned should be a smaller figure than £50 per tree. I should like the noble and learned Viscount to consider, if he will, whether we could not regard the problem from the point of view of the wood being the unit rather than the tree.
LORD RAGLANI own a few small woods. The more I listen to this debate to-day the more frightened I become. I am fast coming to the conclusion that any person who has the temerity to engage in forestry is a very rash man indeed.
§ 6.52 p.m.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORI do not see how it could be done on the basis of a wood. I do not see how we can define where one wood begins and another ends: there is no clear unit. Suppose an owner has the misfortune to cut down a number of small trees in his wood, to the number of a thousand. What, in that event, does the noble Earl want? Does he desire that the fine should in such a case be based as though the owner had cut down only one tree? Obviously not. Then the fine must be based on the principle of twice the value of the trees. In this case the owner would have to pay twice the value of all the trees he had cut down. The figure would be the same in either case. I do not follow the noble Earl's point but I will read in tomorrow's Hansard what he has said, and if I can understand what at present I do not understand, I will certainly consider the matter. But at present I do not see what difference the Amendment would make.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEMy point is that it may in fact be one offence, but as the Bill is drafted it is treated as a thousand different offences. The one offence may be the result of carelessness, on the part of the land owner in giving directions, and on the part of the forester in carrying them out. It may be one offence, but if it is treated as a number of separate trees it could be a very serious matter indeed.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIt may be one offence, or it may be a thousand offences, but the total penalty for the one offence is the same penalty as the sum total for the thousand offences, because in each case it is double the value of the trees. Whether the owner is ordered to pay £100 or 200 units of ten shillings does not seem to make much difference. However, I will, as I say, look at the point to see whether there is any sub-stance in the noble Earl's point.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYI am grateful to the noble and learned Viscount, both for telling me that my Amendment does not achieve its object and for what he said about it generally. I agree that the bad offender needs to be fined heavily; but a person who carries out what may be a sound and proper operation such as thinning may yet land himself in heavy penal-ties by carelessness on his own part or on 145 the part of his head forester. He may, in fact, incur a fine of £50,000 for a thousand trees, each worth only about fifteen shillings, I am sure that this provision will operate unfairly. However, in view of the noble and learned Viscount's promise to look into the matter, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ VISCOUNT RIDLEY moved, in subsection (1) to leave out "fifty" and insert "twenty-five". The noble Viscount said: This is another Amendment of the same kind. The fact that the last one which I moved did not find favour with the Committee makes me all the more hopeful that this one may be accepted. The extreme risk which a person might run could be mitigated by reducing the £50 fine to £25. In the case of valuable timber which may be felled by a man who is deliberately trying to evade the law, and who is concerned not with timber but with making money, then twice the value of the trees would be a considerable sum. But it is in the case of a man felling timber which is not in itself valuable, and which probably ought to be felled, that I think the reduction from £50 to £25 would provide a penalty which more nearly meets the case. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 23, leave out ("fifty") and insert ("twenty-five").—(Viscount Ridley.)
LORD KINNAIRDI support what the noble Viscount, Lord Ridley, has said. To those of your Lordships of a mathematical turn of mind, it may seem curious, since the object of the Bill is to maintain reserves of growing timber, that for felling a tree a person should be liable to a maximum fine which is half the maximum fine for failing to fell a tree. I should like to ask the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, whether he does not think the fines should be reversed in view of the object of the Bill.
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELI should like to repeat what the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has said about the importance of having a large maximum penalty as an effective deterrent—and this is a maximum. The magistrate or other judge would be able to use his discretion, and of course he would not dream of imposing the maximum if he thought it unfair or unreasonable. But it is important to have a maximum of 146 fifty pounds to deter people from cutting trees without a licence. I hope the Committee will agree with me on that point.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI hope the public will take notice of what has emerged from the Government Bench during the last few minutes. If I may take the example which the Lord Chancellor gave, a man may be liable to a fine of £50,000—£50 per tree for 1,000 trees cut in the process of thinning a wood, each of them slightly above the prescribed diameter. It may be an act of carelessness by the land owner or by his forester, but I submit that it is not within reason that Parliament should render a man liable to a fine of £50,000 for what may be simply a piece of carelessness in estate management.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLOROr £25,000.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEOr £25,000. That is why I think all these points hang together. But just taking a tree and saying "£50" or "£25" is not really the right way to deal with the matter. The Lord Chancellor has kindly said that he will consider whether the whole problem cannot be dealt with in what I call units of woods. He pointed out that there might be a difficulty in defining what a wood is. I have learnt to-day that you cannot define a park and you cannot define a wood. I should not have thought that our draftsmen were so impotent; I should have thought it was perfectly possible to define "woods." They are defined in the Ordnance Survey. They are all shown.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORShown, yes.
§ THE EARL OF SELBORNEI should have thought it would be possible to find words that defined a wood. I suggest that the offences should be dealt with in terms of woods. Once you start taking individual trees you get into those astronomical figures. What the noble Lord behind me said is true: you are not going to encourage people to become foresters in that sort of way.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORIt is nothing to do with defining "woods," but is a question whether, instead of "£50" we should put in "£25." In order that the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, may sleep in his bed. we will consider whether or 147 not we can accept the substitution of those smaller fines. All I want to do is to get some sum which is going to be a serious deterrent to anybody who is setting himself out to breach the law. I hope that the good sense of the justices will not exact exorbitant or astronomical fines. Even if the sum were £25 for an offence, that offence might happen through a perfectly genuine mistake. Knowing what I do of the justices, I feel sure that exorbitant fines will not be imposed.
I have said that I will look into this matter and, if the noble Viscount will trust me, I will certainly see that these figures are considered. All I want to do is to see that a penalty is left which is sufficiently severe to act as a deterrent. If the noble Viscount will only trust me in this matter—it will be a great pity if we have a controversy at this time of night —I do not think he will regret leaving it in that way. I ask him not to press his Amendment now and, without pledging myself definitely, I think I shall be able to give him what he wants on Report stage.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYI want to repeat that I have no intention in this Amendment of reducing the penalty so that it is not sufficiently severe, but it is the incidental person or the inadvertent person that I want to protect. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYThis is an Amendment which really has an opposite sense to those I have just been suggesting to your Lordships. It gives a little longer time in which proceedings can be taken. It seems reasonable, in view of the difficulties in detecting offences of this sort, that there should be a possibility of taking proceedings some time after an offence has taken place. The Amendment is not intended to protect the person who has broken the law; indeed, it should be easier under it to proceed against him. I hope that this Amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 35, leave out ("one hundred") and insert ("fifty").—(Viscount Ridley.)
§ THE EARL OF LISTOWELTO save the time of the Committee, I will say that we are perfectly prepared to accept this Amendment and also the next one standing in the noble Viscount's name on the paper.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYI must apologise to the Committee because, while moving the former of my two Amendments to page 8, line 35, I have spoken on the latter.
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
VISCOUNT RIDLEYI have just spoken on this Amendment. I understand that the noble Earl is willing to accept it. I beg to move.
§ Amendment moved—
§
Page 8, line 35, at end insert—
("() Proceedings in respect of an offence under this section may be instituted within six months of the first discovery of the offence by the person taking the proceedings, pro-vided that no proceedings shall be instituted more than two years after the date of the offence.")
§ On Question, Amendment agreed to.
§ Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
§ House resumed.