Lords Sitting of 20 February 1951

Preamble
The House met at half past two of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  2.36 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, for the information of the House, may I mention briefly that during the debate on the Forestry Bill, at approximately four o'clock to-day, my noble friend Lord Alexander will intervene to make a statement on Korea?

  COLONIAL OFFICE NEW BUILDING
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether they have yet come to a decision regarding the proposed new buildings for the Colonial Office.]
  THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRE-TARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS (LORD MORRISON): My Lords, in view of the public interest in this Question, and the views expressed in this House and in another place, the Government have reconsidered the plans for a building on the Stationery Office and Westminster Hospital sites. The plans will be revised so as to set back the pavilions on each side of the building facing the Abbey a further 30 ft. This means that the main face of the building will be 72 ft. back from the line of the old hospital frontage, and the pavilions will be 48 ft. back from that line. No change will be made in the height of the building, which is within the limits laid down in the Public Offices (Site) Act, 1947.
  About one-third of the hospital site was to be surrendered for amenity purposes. Under the new scheme, over half will be surrendered, so that the prospect of the Abbey and other surrounding buildings will be greatly improved, and it. will be easier to meet
  386
  possible future traffic requirements. Any further setting back would mean adding to the height of the building, which we are anxious to avoid. I am satisfied that the building to be erected on this site in accordance with the revised plans will result in a real improvement in the planning of this important area, and the building itself will provide for the Colonial Empire a headquarters of which we may all be proud. May I add that my right honourable friend the Minister of Works is making a similar statement to-day in another place?
  LORD MANCROFT: My Lords, whilst thanking His Majesty's Government warmly for this real attempt to meet the numerous objections which have been raised in your Lordships' House in the last four months, may I ask these two short supplementary questions? First, may we see a rough drawing of the proposed new building as soon as possible, and, secondly, can the noble Lord say what will be the ultimate reduction in the cubic capacity of the building, and in the number of civil servants to be employed there?
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, in reply to the last supplementary question, the staff to be accommodated in the new building will now be 1,164 as against 1,320—a reduction of 156. With regard to the first supplementary of the noble Lord, it may be that his desire to look at the plans can be arranged, although, speaking personally, I hope that this will not provide another opportunity for our many voluntary advisers—whose valuable advice is sometimes contradictory— to think out new suggestions and so cause further delay.
  VISCOUNT SIMON: My Lords, while joining in the thanks expressed to the noble Lord and the Government for this change, may I be permitted to ask whether they agree with what I think would be the general sentiment of the House, that we owe this valuable concession to the persistence and energy of my noble friend Lord Mancroft, supplemented as it was the other day by the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone?
  LORD MORRISON: Certainly. I think that this House has played an important part in gaining an improvement.
  LORD REA: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one supplementary question arising from his very valuable answer, which has pleased every quarter of the House? In view of the fact that Westminster Abbey is the heritage of the Commonwealth and not only of this country, have the peoples or the Governments of the Commonwealth countries been consulted about erecting this building so near Westminster Abbey itself?
  LORD MORRISON: My Lords, I cannot answer that question without notice.

  WORKING PARTY ON GRAIN STORAGE
  2.42 p.m.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, I beg to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
  [The Question was as follows:
  To ask His Majesty's Government whether land-owning interests are represented on the Working Party inquiring into Grain Storage and Drying, and, if not, what is the reason for their omission.]
  THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL): My Lords, the interests represented on the Working Party on Grain Storage and Drying referred to by the noble Lord opposite are those immediately concerned with the processes of harvesting, drying and storage of grain—the farmers, merchants and ultimate purchasers of grain. The main task of the Working Party is to decide to what extent, and where, the present drying and storage facilities need to be supplemented. A large number of bodies and organisations, including, of course, the land owners, are concerned with the secondary question of how to provide the necessary additional facilities, and it would make the Working Party unduly large to include persons qualified to speak for them. The Chairman of the Working Party has undertaken that representatives of the land owners, and of any other important interests not represented on the Working Party, will in due course be given an opportunity of submitting a memorandum and discussing it with the Working Party.
  LORD CARRINGTON: My Lords, does the noble Earl not agree that if the Working Party should come to the conclusion that grain should be stored and dried on the farms, then the responsibility for putting up this storage would rest on the land owners, and that the land owners should be represented on the Working Party?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, I agree with the first part of the noble Lord's question, but I fear that I cannot agree with the second part, for the reasons I have already given in reply to the noble Lord's main Question. I hope that on consideration he may agree with me that a committee of fifteen—that is the size of the Working Party now, excluding the chairman—would become unwieldy and unbusinesslike if it were enlarged by representation of a number of other interests.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Earl is aware that his reply is, in fact, no reply at all. The land owners are likely to be the major participants in any effort to supply grain storage, and I should like to ask whether the noble Earl really thinks that this is the way to obtain the co-operation of those who can most contribute to the solution of this problem. I hope the noble Lord will not leave this most important matter at this stage unless the noble Earl is able to give a more sympathetic reply. May I ask whether the noble Viscount the Leader of the House could be prevailed upon to give his mind to this problem? I think it would be greatly appreciated if he would.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, of course we greatly value the cooperation of the land owners in this matter—
  EARL DE LA WARR: How do you think you are going to get it by this method?
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords —if the noble Earl will permit me to continue—I will certainly bring the views of the noble Earl and of the noble Lord about the feelings of the land owners in this matter to the attention of my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture.
  VISCOUNT SWINTON: My Lords, it is not a question of the feelings of the land owners; it is a question of having

  389
  the most practical body to deal with the matter. I should have thought that if you are going to have fifteen people (I believe that is the number, though I am afraid I have not familiarised myself with the terms) and there is need for a vital working partnership—and this is a Working Party—with every essential working partner included, it would be necessary to have the land owners represented. After all, they are not as verbose as some other people.
  LORD SALTOUN: Will the noble Earl accept this point? In this industry the proprietors providing, as they do, the fixed capital of the industry, are really preference shareholders in that industry; and in commerce you would never make arrangements about the affairs of a company without consultation with the preference shareholders. I am sure that the land owners similarly ought to be consulted in this instance.

  TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (AMENDMENT) BILL
  Brought from the Commons; read la; and to be printed.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) ORDER, 1951
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRI-BUTION OF SEATS) (No. 2) ORDER, 1951
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (No. 3) ORDER, 1951
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (No.4) ORDER, 1951
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (No. 5) ORDER, 1951
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (No. 6) ORDER, 1951
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (No. 7) ORDER, 1951
  HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS) (No. 8) ORDER, 1951
  2.46 p.m.
  LORD SHEPHERD: My Lords, although these Orders are believed to be non-contentious, it might be desirable, in
  390
  view of the titles which have been given to them, for me to give a little information concerning their as they stand. Your Lordships will be aware that until quite recently redistribution of seats in the House of Commons took place only at odd dates and after prolonged intervals. At the conclusion of these undertakings, I think the nation has had a feeling that it has undergone something in the nature of a major operation. Under the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949, however, Commissions of a permanent character were appointed for each of four constituent parts of the United Kingdom; and as a result, we shall receive Orders of this description following upon their recommendations for changes, as the need arises. Only a few sentences will be required from me to explain these particular Orders.
  The first deals with the City of Leeds. It is concerned with the Parliamentary boundaries in that city, following upon changes in municipal ward boundaries by Order in Council. The Order proposes to bring the constituency boundaries into line with the boundaries of groups of wards as they now exist. Consequently, so far as the Parliamentary change is concerned, it is merely straightening out what otherwise would have been an embarrassment. Orders Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 deal with the extended municipal boundaries of Bootle. Carlisle, Doncaster, Gloucester, Norwich North and South Shields respectively, and bring the new Parliamentary constituency boundaries into line with the municipal boundaries. The last-mentioned order, No. 9, deals with Torrington, and includes therein the Island of Lundy which, through some error, did not come into that constituency at the last general redistribution of seats. It is. proposed that these Orders shall come into operation on April 1 this year, but they will not affect any Parliamentary Election until the next General Election. There are two other points I would mention. First, in not a single locality affected by these Orders has there been any objection raised to the Orders. Secondly, when the Orders went through another place they met with a most friendly reception. In view of that I therefore hope that it will be to the convenience of your Lordships' House if I now move them en bloc. I beg to move.
  Moved. That the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Orders, 1951, reported from the Special Orders Committee on Wednesday, the 7th instant, be approved.—(Lord Shepherd)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  FORESTRY BILL [H.L.]
  2.50 p.m.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: My Lords, this is a Bill which everyone, I think I can safely say, will welcome in principle, for I am sure that your Lordships will regard it as being necessary and desirable. As your Lordships are already aware, its purpose is to protect and to build up our reserves of timber, one of our most essential materials in war and peace time alike. In war, timber would be one of our scarcest raw materials, and I am sure that it will be generally agreed that we must go on stockpiling in growing trees, as in other essential materials. This is one of the many defence measures which, whether we like them or not, everyone agrees are now necessary and inevitable. In normal times we have been far too dependent for supplies of timber, for building and other important home industries, on imports of timber grown in other countries, supplies which are often hard to get. We must do what we can to reduce this dependence on producers overseas. This means that we must continue to develop our native forest industry and prevent any further waste of the scanty reserves of standing timber which are left us after two major wars and the indiscriminate exploitation which went on between the wars.
  Accordingly, this Bill proposes to make the Forestry Commission's duty of providing for an adequate reserve of growing timber a statutory responsibility. As your Lordships will notice, that is provided for in Clause 1 of the Bill. To carry out this duty the Commission will need the powers and the administrative machinery set out in the Bill. But I should like to point out at this stage that one of the most important powers proposed to be given in the Bill, the power to control by licence the felling of trees, is not by any means new. It is a power that has been exercised since 1939 under
  392
  Defence Regulation 68. I am sure your Lordships will agree that this power, which is as essential now as it was during the war, should be expressly authorised by Statute, instead of being applied as it is now, under a war emergency regulation.
  Before I deal with the contents of the Bill, I should like, quite briefly, to remind your Lordships of the sad story of the decline of our timber reserves since the First World War, since that was the beginning of the events which have led up to the introduction of the present Bill. I think it will convince your Lordships that the amount of mature timber available from our home woodlands has fallen to an alarming level, and is still falling, despite the efforts of the Forestry Commission and woodland owners, backed up by successive Governments. In the First World War, submarine warfare made it necessary to increase home production to the utmost. The result was that production rose from 900,000 tons in 1913 to 4,250,000 tons in 1918, while some 450,000 acres of home woodlands were felled during the period of the war and the immediate post-war years. Between the wars, strenuous efforts were made, both by woodland owners and by the Forestry Commission, to repair the damage which had been done. There was some planting by private owners, inevitably on a modest scale, and the Forestry Commissioners planted about 370,000 acres. But, by the time the Second World War broke out, the reserves of mature timber still fell short of what they had been in 1914, although some of the plantings carried out immediately after the end of the First World War were beginning to yield some useful produce, mainly in the form of pitprops and poles.
  The story of the devastation of our home woodlands during the Second World War does not need retelling. It is too fresh in the memory of all of us. We can, however, as a result of the 1947 Census of Woodlands, assess with reasonable accuracy the extent of the loss caused by the late war, and of the great areas of unstocked woodland carrying stumps dating in many cases back to the First World War. Out of the total of about 3,500,000 acres of woodlands existing at the time of the census (that is, in 1947), whether privately owned or owned by the State, about 660,000 acres had been

  393
  felled. A further 150,000 acres were devastated—that is to say, that all the worthwhile timber had been cut out, and of the remainder, half a million acres were scrub, and therefore unlikely to produce a timber crop of any value. In all, felled, devastated and scrub woodland amounted to 1,300,000 acres, or nearly one half of the total woodland area in the country. Moreover, of course, a large proportion of our fully stocked woodland is far from maturity. Nearly three-quarters of our softwood plantations are under thirty years of age—that is, thirty to fifty years from the age at which they will be ready for felling. That is the debit side of the account.
  Let us now for a moment look at the credit side. Steady progress is, of course, being made with the replanting and restocking of felled woodlands, and with the afforestation of bare land. By the end of this season's planting, that is, five years after the end of the war, the Forestry Commission will have replanted some 67,000 acres of felled woodland, and will have afforested a further 150,000 acres. We estimate that about 71,000 acres of private woodlands will have been restocked during the same period. But all this, of course, admirable as it is, can be regarded only as an insurance for the future. No worthwhile produce can be expected from these post-war plantations until about 1965, and for many years after that only thinnings will be available, which, though useful for pitprops, raining timber, and fencing stakes, will not provide large quantities of timber for other purposes. Meanwhile, the demand for timber shows no sign of slackening, while at the same time there is increasing difficulty in securing sufficient imports. In these circumstances, I am sure everyone will agree that it would be quite indefensible to allow what little useful timber remains in the country to be felled indiscriminately.
  I should like now to mention an important alterat on proposed in Clause 15 of the Bill for the purpose of modernising one stage of the existing procedure for the compulsory acquisition of land. Acquisition of suitable land since the war has not kept pace with the needs of this large forestry programme to which I have just referred. So far as possible, of course, the Commissioners rely on negotiation and persuasion to acquire the land
  394
  they want, but enough land could not be obtained in this way. Although, under the Forestry Act, 1945, the Ministers already have power to acquire land compulsorily, the procedure laid down unfortunately involves unnecessary delay and expense. It means, for example, that a local inquiry must be held, even when the only matter at stake is the purchase price. It also means that, if an objection to a draft compulsory purchase order is sustained after the order is made, the order must be confirmed by Parliament by means of a Provisional Order Confirmation Bill, which has to go through all its stages in both Houses. We are therefore proposing in this Bill to apply to such purchases the more expeditious procedure of the Statutory Orders (Special Procedure) Act of 1945. This, of course, preserves the right of an objector to have his case examined by Parliament, but means that such cases can be settled much more quickly, with a speedier passage through Parliament. At the same time, this Bill will provide that, where an objection to a compulsory purchase relates solely to the amount of the purchase money, a local inquiry need not be held, and the order can be made without reference to Parliament.
  I think it will be of interest to the House if I describe, quite shortly, the way in which the Commission operate their present control on home-produced timber. The Commissioners fix a quota which represents the volume of timber which they consider is the maximum which can be felled consistently with their duty to establish and maintain a national reserve. They intend in future to fix this quota for a period of five or ten years, though with an annual review, so that land owners and timber merchants can plan ahead and see where they are going. The quota for the country was reduced in 1949 and 1950, and has been further reduced since then. For the first nine months of 1951 it will be 16,800,000 cubic feet of hardwood and 5,300,000 cubit feet of conifers. I am not going to hold out any hopes (I wish I could) that current rates of fellings can be increased in the near future. In fact, they are probably still on the high side.
  It is obvious that some of the applications received for licences to fell will relate to timber which should be felled immediately—for example, because it is overmature—and in such cases licences

  395
  will, of course, be issued. Others will relate to immature trees, which it would be contrary to the principles of good forestry to fell, or to trees which for some other reason—such as the operation of tree preservation orders—ought not to be felled. These applications will be refused. Some of the applications will, however, relate to mature timber, which is nevertheless capable of standing and increasing in volume for some years without deterioration. The licensing of these applications must be spread over a period of years.
  If your Lordships will allow me, I will now briefly explain the main provisions of the Bill in greater detail. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor will wind up, I feel I need not go into as much detail as I should otherwise have to do. He is incomparably better qualified than I am to deal with this matter, and noble Lords who speak in the course of the debate will have a chance of having their questions answered by him. I have already mentioned Clause 1. It is proposed in Clause 2, that no person should be allowed to fell a growing tree of over three inches in diameter, apart from certain obvious exceptions which are set out in the subsections of this clause, without a licence from the Forestry Commissioners. Your Lordships will notice in this clause that quite a large number of types of trees can be felled without licence. For example, in addition to making obvious exclusions, such as fruit trees, trees in private gardens and public parks, it is not proposed to require licences for trees under three inches or, in the case of a coppice, under six inches in diameter. Moreover, an owner will be able without a licence to fell up to 275 cubic feet of his own timber in any calender month. This is a very appreciable amount—in fact, it may be too much. As your Lordships will notice, the Commissioners will be able by regulation to provide for additional exceptions. Although they may restrict or suspend the concession I have just mentioned—namely, as to the amount of timber that a man can cut for himself without having to ask permission—they will be able to do so only by regulations which will be subject to an affirmative Resolution in both Houses of Parliament. There, I think, is a very substantial safeguard for the timber or woodland owner.
  396
  The proposal in Clause 3 is that if a licence is granted the Commissioners may impose conditions in the interests of good forestry and agriculture, and in particular a condition that the land must be restocked and managed for a period of up to ten years. This represents an important change from the procedure under the existing Defence Regulation, which gives the Commissioners no power to impose conditions on the grant of a licence. I am sure your Lordships will agree that it is only right that a man who benefits from the felling of his timber should be obliged, in the national interest, to replant and to protect the growing stock.
  Clause 4 of the Bill also represents an important change in present procedure. When a licence is refused under the Defence Regulations which operate at the moment, the applicant has no statutory right of appeal. In practice, he may ask to have his case reviewed either by the regional advisory committee, which exists in each conservancy, or by the statutory National Committee for the country concerned, or by the Commissioners themselves. This has worked remarkably smoothly, and I am glad to pay tribute to the co-operation and good will that the Commissioners have received from both woodland owners and merchants in working this informal procedure. Nevertheless, it seems highly desirable to give a specific right to any person aggrieved by the refusal of a licence, or by the conditions which have been attached to a licence, to have his case reviewed by the Minister. The procedure laid down is that after it has been first considered by an impartial referee the Minister shall have the power to confirm, reverse or modify in any other way he thinks right and proper, the decision of the Commissioners. Of course, the Commissioners will have to give effect to the Minister's decision.
  Your Lordships will have noticed in this clause that although persons aggrieved by the conditions attached to a licence may have their case reviewed immediately by the Minister, a person refused a licence altogether must wait three years before he can have his case reconsidered. There are, as I hope on consideration your Lordships will agree, sound practical reasons for this deferment. Some idea of the number of refusals likely under the Bill can be gathered from the fact that in 1950, the last year for which figures are available, out of about 11,000 applicants

  397
  for licences the number refused was 1,600. The cost of dealing with a large number of appeals which would probably follow such refusals would be out of proportion to the benefits. For example, there would inevitably have to be an increase in the numbers of staff, and people would be taken from productive work where the country needs them at the present time. Looking at it from the point of view of the owner, it can seldom be a real hardship to the owner of the trees if his licence is refused for a period of only three years. As your Lordships well know, a timber crop does not need to be harvested in any particular year. Three years is a very short space in the life of a tree, and the trees will continue to grow during this period and. as a rule, will earn their keep.
  Your Lordships will see that Clause 5 of the Bill proposes to grant a right to compensation for loss through deterioration in the quality of the timber, where this is due to a refusal to grant a licence. Here again, we are offering a right which does not exist at present. We feel that there is no case for compensation for loss of expected profits, or for a fall in the price of timber, after the licence has been refused, for such a refusal only postpones the time when the owner can sell his timber; it does not prevent him from realising this asset later on. It is therefore not unreasonable that, in the national interest, he should run some degree of risk. But we do think it reasonable to provide against loss, when, as a result of a refusal of a licence, the timber deteriorates in quality. We have also felt it desirable, apart from compensating owners for deterioration in the quality of their timber where a licence has been refused, to provide in Clause 6 for immediate assistance by way of loan to those woodland owners who have either dedicated their woodlands in perpetuity, or who are managing them as good foresters should. Such owners, for example, might be prevented from realising capital necessary to finance their other forest operations on account of the refusal of a licence to fell. It is very necessary, I think, that they should be able to look after the rest of their woods, and we therefore propose that the Commissioners shall have the power to grant loans.
  Your Lordships will, I hope, agree that the next two clauses, Clauses 7 and 8, giving power to the Commissioners to
  398
  compel a man to fell trees, are a necessary corollary to control by means of a quota. It would be manifestly wrong that the Commissioners should grant a licence to fell timber which could well remain standing, if at the same time there were stands of timber elsewhere in other parts of the country beginning to deteriorate because the owner had not applied for a licence to fell. Moreover, the Commissioners should have power to compel a man to thin his plantations. As your Lordships are well aware, failure to thin is as effective a way as any other of ruining a wood. Such powers of compulsion are, however, not to be given lightly or without due consideration. We are therefore proposing in this Bill that a man on whom felling directions have been served may, before he has to comply with them have his case reviewed by the Minister. Secondly—and this is another safeguard for the same person—the grower can also represent to the Minister that compliance with the directions which the Minister has issued would involve him in a net loss. If the Minister is satisfied that such compliance would involve a net loss, he may modify the directions so that they do not cause a financial loss; he may revoke them altogether, or he may purchase the land. If he purchases the land, it must be done on terms which, if they are not agreed, are settled by reference to the Lands Tribunal. If the Minister does none of these things within a specified time, although he is satisfied that compliance with his directions would involve the owner in a net financial, loss, then the directions automatically lapse.
  I should like to say something about Clause 12 of the Bill, which relates to tree preservation orders. This is a clause which caused me a serious degree of perplexity when I first studied the measure, and I think it may also have been somewhat baffling to other members of the House. Clause 12 relates to what shall be done when there are tree preservation orders which have been made to protect trees on amenity grounds. As your Lordships know, under the 1947 Town and Country Planning Acts, planning authorities may make these orders for reasons of amenity, for the maintenance of the seemliness of the countryside. Once an order has been made, the consent of the authority must be obtained to the felling of any of the trees concerned. That is the present position, and the effect of it

  399
  is that when a tree preservation order has been made the owner must obtain the consent of the planning authority who made the order, as well as a licence from the Forestry Commission, before he can fell his trees.
  Both the Minister of Local Government and Planning and the Forestry Commission are anxious to relieve woodland owners of unnecessary paper work—I hope that the Government may occasionally be credited with the desire to cut away red tape—and much of Clause 12 represents an agreement between those two authorities that in future application should be made to one authority, instead of to two separate authorities. What will in future happen under the Bill is this. All applications for licences to fell will be made as at present to the Commissioners, but where there is a tree preservation order in force, applying to the trees which an owner wishes to fell, unless the Commissioners decide to refuse the licence—in which case of course they will be in entire agreement with the planning authority— the planning authority must be consulted in every case. The Commissioners may, of course, decide that if it were not for the interests of amenity, they would grant a licence to fell without attaching conditions. They may decide that, from the point of view of the timber, the wood is not worth having, and that they can safely leave it to the planning authority to say whether the trees should stand or not. In such a case, instead of disposing of the application themselves they may pass it over to the planning authority, and of course no licence under the Bill would then be required. Otherwise, where there is a forestry interest, the provisions of the Town and Country Planning Acts and of the order will cease to apply to the trees concerned, and all the provisions of this Bill will take their place, the licence which the Commissioners may issue being equivalent to permission to fell under the Town and Country Planning Act.
  Though this procedure may sound very complicated, it is really only a simplification of the existing machinery which has to be operated by woodland owners who wish to fell trees protected by a tree preservation order. If there is a conflict —as in certain cases there may be— between the respective claims of forestry and amenity, and if these claims cannot
  400
  be agreed between the Forestry Commissioners and the planning authority, they will come up in the usual way for decision between the Departments, if necessary to Ministers. That is a way in which all interdepartmental conflicts should ultimately be resolved. There is one incidental advantage of this Bill which I feel sure will appeal to all noble Lords. This House has always been deeply concerned about the preservation of the countryside. Many noble Lords have rallied to its defence when it has been threatened with disfigurement by reason of the requirements of industrial and urban development and by the Service Departments. This Bill will help to preserve one of the most precious assets of rural England, its woodlands. Some, of course, are new, and some are very old, but all alike, with their abundance of wild life and the beauty of their walks, are a source of pride and pleasure to local people and to visitors from the towns. As one who, like many of your Lordships, has spent much time living in the country, I feel that it is a special privilege to commend to the House a Bill which will do something, at any rate, to save the countryside from further irreparable damage. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a —(The Earl of Listowel.)
  3.18 p.m.
  EARL DE LA WARR: My Lords, I think we have all been greatly interested in the speech of the noble Earl, and I was particularly interested in his last few sentences. They seem to me so completely typical of the whole attitude of the Government towards the owner, who, after all, has something to do with regard to the planting of trees. The noble Earl spent a long time talking about Clause 12, but he never once mentioned the land owner. He spoke of several Government Departments, including the Town and Country Planning Department, and others who, apparently, are warring over the corpse of the land owner. But of the owner who is supposed to have at least some concern in these matters the noble Earl did not once make mention.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: May I point out to the noble Earl that the object of Clause 12 is to help the land owner, the owner of woodlands, to dispose of this matter with more facility

  401
  than he is able to do at the moment? That is the purpose of the clause.
  EARL DE LA WARR: I am sure the corpse is glad of it. However, as I was saying, the noble Earl mentioned the almost universal agreement on the general principles which are laid down in this Bill. He is perfectly right in what he said in that connection. There are certain major principles on which we can all completely agree. To my mind, the main points that stand out are these. First, it is right and proper that the control over the felling of immature timber that is being exercised to-day should continue to be exercised. In addition, the noble Earl stated—and in these days, when there is such vital need of stockpiling of law materials, I do not think any of us would disagree with him—that it may frequently be necessary to prevent the felling of mature timber. On that point, and on the conditions attaching to the refusal to permit felling of mature timber, I will say something later. Personally, I should not disagree with the noble Earl when he claims for the nation the right to say that, where wood has been felled, in certain cases the land should be replanted. I do not think that any of us can have failed to be horrified by some of the devastation which has been caused in some of our great wood-lands by the cutting of trees and by the leaving of the land in a state of complete neglect.
  The third right which the Bill claims is the right to compel the felling of timber. Many of us have frequently seen plantations of immense potential value for the future which are not being properly thinned and require to be so treated. The tragedy is that disagreement should be forced upon us when there is a very large measure of agreement among those who care about forestry on these points. I think I am right in saying that the Government have not even bothered to consult the United Kingdom Forestry Committee over this Bill. I understand that the Bill has been shown confidentially to the Chairman, and possibly to the Vice-Chairman, of the Committee by the noble Lord. Lord Robinson. But nobody would say that that is consultation, especially with a body most vitally interested in forestry and most able and willing to help, as is shown by their past record.
  402
  Apart from consultation, there are several points on which I would say that disagreement has been forced upon us. The Bill talks of the control of felling. Control by whom? In the agricultural legislation under which we live to-day we see in the agricultural executive committees an admirable way, not only of having control of the industry but of helping the industry to control itself. Is there anything in this Bill about asking those who are interested in forestry to come in and assist in these measures of control? There is nothing whatsoever. Control is to be exercised by the Forestry Commission, and if a landlord is aggrieved he may apply to the Minister, who appointed the Commission, and the Minister's only advisers on forestry matters are the Forestry Commission. Anxious as we are to co-operate in these matters. I must say to the Government that co-operation will not be obtained, cannot be obtained, and cannot be hoped for, on terms such as these.
  I should like to ask the noble Earl to consider these points. First, I would suggest to him that the Government should seriously consider setting up an organisation comparable to the agricultural executive committees. We have the whole framework in the existing Home Grown Timber Advisory Council, and the regional advisory committees. I admit instantly that they are not akin to the agricultural executive committees, but we have the personnel there. As at present drafted, the Home Grown Timber Advisory Council do not function under the Bill. All those connected with the Forestry Commission will admit that in their advisory sphere the Council are doing exceedingly useful work. Why cannot they be mentioned in the Bill? I see that the Government are now submitting in another place the Sea Fish Industry Bill, in which provision is made for the statutory existence of a Sea Fish Industry Advisory Council. This is to be only an advisory council. I suggest that these advisory councils should be given executive power, corresponding to that of the agricultural executive committees; but at least it would be something if the Home Grown Timber Advisory Council were given statutory recognition in the Bill.
  As I have said, at the present moment appeal at all points goes back to the

  403
  Forestry Commission and to the Minister. At no point can we escape the Minister. I should like to suggest to the noble Earl that he would be wise to consider some appeal body, possibly along the lines of the Agricultural Lands Tribunal, with a chairman with legal experience, a land owner and a land agent or surveyor. If a body of that character were set up for the consideration of appeals, it might be possible to establish greater confidence amongst those whom we are asking to plant trees. Another point on which disagreement had been forced upon us is the refusal of licences for the felling of mature timber. Can the noble Earl tell me of any other commodity which the Government have decided to stockpile where they take power to say that the owner or manufacturer of that commodity must carry the whole of the financial cost? Do the Government say to the manufacturers of aeroplanes that they are going to need a large number in the near future, and that the manufacturers who make them must stock the machines at their own cost?
  Clause 6 of the Bill says, in effect, that where a land owner has been deprived of the money to which he is entitled, the Government are prepared to lend him money, at interest, to make up for the loss of capital. Let me take a concrete example. Suppose that one of us has to meet a large payment for death duties. Perhaps his father, many years before, indulged in a scheme of planting, with the sole object of helping his son to pay death duties. These woods come to a state of maturity, and are ready for cutting; yet the land owner is prohibited from cutting them down. Whatever the sum he needs — £10,000, £50,000 or £100,000—he is not able to gather it in. What compensation is offered? Under Clause 5 of the Bill, the compensation offered is only for depreciation in the value of the trees. That is not necessarily what he wants compensation for; he wants compensation for the fact that he has either to come to the Government, under Clause 6, or else to go into the money market and borrow money at interest, in order to pay the death duties, or whatever debt it is that stands against him. We are being asked to dedicate our land to forestry purposes and to submit our schemes to show that
  404
  we are going to pursue an orderly rotation in our planting operations. It is almost certain that the prohibition to fell mature trees will upset the whole of that rotation, but there is no compensation for that. If His Majesty's Government desire—and many of us think rightly desire—to stockpile timber, or any other commodity, there is one sensible and just way in which they can do it: they ought to purchase it. If that timber has matured, and they purchase it, and within a reasonable time fell and remove it from the ground so that proper forestry work can continue on that land, that timber can be put aside and allowed to season. With the country at present lacking any seasoned timber, this will be all to the good.
  There is one other point I should like to make, which is perhaps not so vital as those to which I have referred already. In Clause 7 of the Bill power is taken to compel the felling of timber. I have said that I do not think any of us can reasonably object to what I believe could well be the main purpose of this clause— namely, to ensure the proper thinning of plantations. But this clause is not limited to that purpose at all: it takes a general right to compel felling. In the case of war none of us would question that right for a moment, but I suggest to the noble Earl that the power to go further than merely to compel thinning belongs to a period of emergency; it should not be in a permanent Act of Parliament, but in a regulation suitable for dealing with an emergency.
  There are many other points on which noble Lords will desire to speak. I have tried simply to deal with two or three of the points that I believe constitute the main difficulties to our agreeing with the Bill as fully as we should like. Let me impress upon the noble Earl that we who have lived on the land for years, and love it, want to co-operate with the Government and the Forestry Commission in making the best of the woodlands of this country. I believe that in the Government's plans for afforesting 5,000,000 acres in this country they are dependent on private land owners for something over 2,000,000 acres. I say that they will not get that 2.000,000 acres, or the co-operation that they need, if they handle private woodland owners in this manner. The Forestry Commission is a great body,

  405
  financed by the State, which has done magnificent work; but one has only to mention names such as Lovat, Clinton and Courthope to realise to whom the Forestry Commission owe a tremendous amount of the success that has been achieved. It is a great State body, with which the land owners of this country have co-operated and to which they have given a great deal.
  Have the private land owners fallen down on their task, or shown an unwillingness to co-operate? If noble Lords look back to a Report issued by the Forestry Commission in 1943 they will find that it says that not only have private land owners done their duty, but in many cases their woods compare more than favourably with those administered by the Crown. In December, 1946, the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, paid a warm tribute to many private owners of woodlands. He said:
  "In the past private owners of woodlands have contributed an enormous amount of timber for this country's needs, and I should like now to acknowledge the very great debt that we owe to them."
  What has happened since then that noble Lords opposite should think it necessary to introduce a Bill of this character, in this spirit, with these dictatorial powers, without even consulting the United Kingdom Forestry Committee? I repeat that we want to co-operate, but we shall find it difficult to do so in these conditions. I end by making an appeal to noble Lords who sit opposite. I would certainly recommend my friends to give the Bill a Second Reading, but I suggest that between now and the Committee stage the Bill should be re-examined by noble Lords opposite and those on this side of the House. Possibly we can meet to discuss the matter and establish that spirit of friendly co-operation in this great undertaking that we all want to see go forward for the good of the country.
  3.38 p.m.
  LORD CHORLEY: My Lords, I should like to intervene in this discussion for a few moments to endeavour to put the view of the amenity societies in respect of this Bill, and more particularly that of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, of which I have the honour to be the honorary secretary. I say at once that the main purposes of the Bill have our wholehearted support. The maintenance of reserves of growing
  406
  trees has always been part of the economy of rural England, though I feel that the noble Earl opposite is perhaps right in saying that for a long time its essential character has been overlooked. Certainly in present circumstances it seems to us vital that the matter should be planned and managed in such a way that control can be established, so as to prevent sporadic and uneconomical felling, and more particularly to ensure that when felling does take place effective steps are taken to see that replanting follows immediately. Obviously that has been a part of this problem on which over the. last years there has been a tendency for us to fall down.
  While I say that, and while, of course, timber is an essential crop, it is almost always more than a crop: it almost always has an amenity value, and in many cases: an amenity value of outstanding importance, because the beauty of the English countryside depends to a very large measure upon trees. I am sure all noble Lords will agree with that. Over the last years that fact has been recognised more and more. It has been accepted that in certain cases of individual trees, and even of clumps of trees and woods, the amenity value sometimes far outweighs the economic value. In order to ensure that individual trees or clumps of trees may be preserved for the appreciation of the people of this country, recent planning Acts have provided measures under which preservation orders may be made. Again, the Forestry Commission has shown itself sensitive to this aspect of the matter and has frequently negotiated with the Council for the Preservation of Rural England— the negotiations have been friendly on the whole—and has established a Committee of which some of your Lordships are members: a joint committee of the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the Forestry Commission to deal with problems of this sort. Yet until the postscript of the noble Earl's speech there was a complete absence of reference to the amenity side of this matter, and it seems to me that, no doubt through inadvertence rather than through any deliberate intention, the framers of this Bill almost completely overlooked the great importance of the amenity side in forestry and in felling. If I have a criticism of the Bill to make it is that that side of the matter has been overlooked, and if I have a suggestion to offer it is that at

  407
  a later stage in the progress of the Bill your Lordships should take steps to see that some general words are inserted to ensure that the Forestry Commission, in carrying out their duties under this Bill, shall have due regard to the amenities.
  When the Bill setting up National Parks was before your Lordships' House, it was pointed out repeatedly from both sides of the House that the National Parks Commissioners, in carrying out their duties under that Act, would be placed under an obligation to have proper regard for the interests of agriculture and forestry. It would have been the obvious thing to do to pay a compliment to the National Park Commissioners and the amenities movement by insisting that in this Bill the Forestry Commissioners, in carrying out their duties under this Bill, should have due regard to the amenities in the same sort of way. It may be said that there is no need for that because in fact the Forestry Commission do so, and, on the whole, as I have already indicated, we have good relations with the Forestry Commission, and in a number of cases they have taken amenity into consideration. But that is not always so, and from time to time there are very distinct differences of opinion. After all, the Forestry Commission have to regard the matter primarily from the point of view of timber being a crop, and if there is a conflict of interest, obviously as long as they are the judges the economic side must, from their point of view, come first and the amenity side must be put into the background: unless of course it is made their statutory obligation to consider amenities under the terms of the Act under which they work.
  We live in a time when the beauties of rural England are more under threat from one side and another than they have ever been before in the whole history of our country. It does not matter whether you look at this Department or that, almost every one of them has some interest in exploiting the countryside, an interest which, sooner or later, almost invariably seems to clash with the interests of amenity and of beauty. Whether it is the Minister of Fuel and Power who wishes to take the top soil off enormous tracts of England in order to extract coal; whether it is the Minister of Health who is concerned with damming up the most
  408
  beautiful valleys in England in order that reservoirs may be established so that people can have water, or whether it is the Central Electricity Board, which is a competitor with the Minister of Health in the damming up of beautiful valleys in order to get reserves of electrical energy, in one way or another all the beauties of England are under attack at the present time. I should say that the Forestry Commission is perhaps less dangerous to us than many of those other Departments, but it has been a danger from time to time, and I should like to see a provision in this Bill that in carrying through its work it should have due regard to the interests of amenity and beauty.
  That is the main substance of what I have to say, but there are a few points of a rather detailed and perhaps Committee-stage character which I should like to make rapidly so that the noble Earl who has charge of the Bill may be able to consider them between now and the next stage. There are, as he has pointed out, certain types of felling which are excluded from the operation of the Bill. I think they are dealt with in Clause 2. I should like to suggest to him that he should add to those the possibility of excluding nature reserves. The nature reserves which are established under Part III of the National Parks Act are very small areas which have been set aside because they have some peculiar interests from the point of view of the students of ecology, botany and biology generally. I suggest that they might equally well be excluded from the provisions of this Bill, which might be of great assistance to those in control of them.
  I have considerable sympathy with the views put forward by the noble Earl who has just resumed his seat in respect of the provisions for appeal, whether under Clause 4 or under Clause 7. It seems to me that these rights of appeal are inadequate, and particularly inadequate in that they give the amenity societies no sort of locus standi to protest or take part in any inquiry which may be held or otherwise to make their voices heard, except possibly through the Press which, of course, we have had to do in respect of many matters over a long period of time. But under the present Government, in a number of measures which have passed

  409
  through Parliament in recent years, provision has been made for bodies like the Council for the Preservation of Rural England to have a locus standi in questions where, under the Planning Acts, for example, problems arise as to whether a particular building shall be allowed or particular plans for a building shall be confirmed, or if there is an appeal in a case of that sort. That has been of great advantage to us, and I think my noble friend Lord Silkin who is sitting on my right, and who was for a long time the Minister of Town and Country Planning, will agree with me when I say that those rights have been very sensibly used and have been of great assistance. I should like the noble Earl who has charge of this Bill to consider whether he could not help us in that way in connection with appeals. Clause 7, to which the noble Earl opposite referred a good deal, deals with the very important question of felling directions which may be given by the Forestry Commission. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether he could not see to it that in making orders under which felling is to take place, the Forestry Commission should again be required to have regard to amenity considerations.
  Finally we come to Clause 12 which, as the noble Earl said, is rather obscurely drafted. I confess I find it difficult to accept his explanation of it. As it appears to me, this clause, in effect, gives the Forestry Commission the power to override a local planning authority which may have made a preservation order in respect of a particularly fine tree, or a particularly interesting clump of trees. If your Lordships will glance at the clause you will see that it starts:
  "Notwithstanding anything in a tree preservation order, a licence granted or directions given by the Commissioners under this Act after the date on which the order comes into force shall be sufficient authority for the felling of any trees to which the order relates. …"
  That seems clear enough, but the noble Earl said it was a question of consultation if the Departments disagreed. Yet in subsection (3) it appears that the Commissioners may:
  "… instead of refusing or granting a licence under this Act … refer the application to the authority by whom the tree preservation order was made."
  So it is for them to exercise their discretion whether they will do so or not; and if not, surely the operative words in
  410
  Clause 1 give them in effect a dictatorship. There may be some fine type of tree which is the crowning beauty of the countryside for miles:, and yet they can say it is to be cut down, and, so far as I can see, the local authority has no power to intervene. Therefore, I should like the noble Earl's views on the question clearly expressed. I should like to know that he agrees that the local planning authority should be dominant in this matter. Very often, as I have said, the economic value of trees is not comparable with their aesthetic value; that is why these preservation orders are made. I cannot see why it should be necessary for the Forestry Commission to have these powers at all I am sure the noble Earl will agree that a rather clearer form of wording might be inserted. Finally, I should like to repeat that the Council for the Preservation of Rural England and the amenity societies as a whole are heartily in support of the general objects of this Bill.
  3.57 p.m.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: My Lords, as Scotland plays a large part in the British forestry programme, I am sure that your Lordships will listen to a voice from Scotland. It may be followed by one or two other voices from Scotland— though I hope not so hoarse as my own. As has been ably explained by the noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill, and by subsequent speakers, the object of this Bill is mainly to conserve our timber supplies; and it simply puts on the Statute Book what was previously a war-time emergency regulation. Timber must obviously be controlled. I think that principle meets with the acceptance of all. This is a most important matter, and I congratulate the noble Earl on having moved the Second Reading of this Bill. I must, however, add my voice to the protest made by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, as to the extraordinary secrecy which has surrounded the Bill. Nobody has known anything about it. I do not know of any Scottish Peer who knew that this Bill was to come before us until he saw that it had been read a First time in your Lordships' House— and that was only a fortnight ago. I am told on high authority that even some members of the Scottish National Committee, a Government-appointed body, knew nothing about it. That seems to me a most extraordinary thing. Why all this secrecy? If it had been the latest type

  411
  of atomic weapon there could not have been more secrecy.
  There are many woodland owners who will agree that we need better and stricter forestry laws, but who nevertheless feel that this Bill places in the hands of the Minister far too much power over the private foresters, and that if private forestry is to play its full part alongside State forestry then it should have some responsibility for administration. I have nothing against State forestry. Like the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, I have the greatest admiration for what the Forestry Commission have done. And as chairman of one of the advisory committees set up under the Act, my relations with the Forestry Commission's officers—the people who have to interpret and administer the Act, as it stands at present at any rate—have always been of the very happiest. I have found them sensible, tactful, sympathetic, tolerant and helpful. I do not believe that this is a fortuitous circumstance; I think it is general throughout the country. The Forestry Commission are to be congratulated upon the type of men they recruit into the forestry service.
  But it is not in the best interest of private woods that they should be entirely governed by the State; and the owners ought to have representation on any body which governs them. In no country west of the iron curtain are such dictatorial methods employed as are proposed in this Bill. When I last addressed your Lordships in a forestry debate, which was about eighteen months ago, I made the suggestion that we might follow the example of the Scandinavian countries, where regional boards are appointed to govern forestry matters throughout the country. In this country there is far too much remote control; we need to decentralise more. In these Scandinavian countries the boards operate in close touch with private woodland owners. They are there to advise the Commissioners on how to exercise their powers, and on general administration. I have always felt that it would be greatly to the interest of forestry in this country if similar bodies were set up here. They would be representative, as they are in those countries, of all the various interests. They would be appointed by the Minister, and they would act with execu-
  412
  tive powers, as my noble friend Lord De La Warr has suggested, very much like those possessed by the agricultural executive committees in this country, who have done so much to put farming on its feet.
  I think, also, that these committees would be the most appropriate bodies to deal with the various appeals which arise under the different clauses of this Bill, without any reference whatsoever to a Minister. I should like to ask His Majesty's Government whether they will seriously consider inserting a new clause to give effect to the suggestion which I have made. I understood the noble Earl in his remarks to say that dead or dying stag-headed trees, which are deteriorating in value because of age, are to be exempt from a licence—that is to say, that a licence will not be required for the felling of these trees. I understood him to say that. I hope that is correct.
  THE EARL OF LISTOWEL: I am sorry if I did not make myself absolutely clear. I do not think I made any reference to this type of tree. What I referred to was the girth of the tree, which is what is mentioned in the Bill. It is true that trees of less than three inches in diameter, except in a coppice, when they can be six inches in diameter, are altogether exempt, and do not require a licence if an owner wishes to fell them.
  THE EARL OF HADDINGTON: I feel, and many woodland owners feel with me, that many dead, dying or decaying trees ought to be exempt from the obligation requiring a licence to be obtained. These trees are not specified in Clause 2 of the Bill. We think they ought to be, and I ask again whether the noble Earl will consider that point. It is very important. One other point I should like to mention is that it must be made clear that dedicated woods are exempt from felling directions under Clause 7. I do not think that is clear from the Bill. Felling and operations under the dedication scheme will already have been agreed to, but that is not made clear. It will be most conflicting and disturbing for the owner, if he has made a plan of operation with the consent of the Forestry Commission and has his felling for a certain number all worked out, if this is to be disturbed by this Bill.
  There is one other point that I should like to make. Some of us think that

  413
  amenity timber—that is to say, timber surrounding houses or parks, which in Scotland we call "policy" timber— should be exempt from felling directions. It is exempted in many plans of operations, and we think that that point should be made clear as well. There are many other noble Lords who desire to speak, so I will not take up much more of your Lordships' time. There are many other points no doubt with which they will deal. I should like to congratulate the noble Earl on this Bill. I should like to see it given a qualified Second Reading, on the understanding that many Amendments will be sought, some of them drastic Amendments, on the Committee stage; and further—and perhaps almost of more importance or at least just as important —we should like an assurance that there will be adequate time given before the Committee stage in order that we may be able to prepare those Amendments.

  OPERATIONS IN KOREA
  4.5 p.m.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE DUCHY OF LANCASTER (VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH): My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to make in your Lordships' House a Statement on the fighting in Korea similar to one being made by the Minister of Defence in another place this afternoon. It is as follows:
  "The House will recall that the previous Statement, made in my absence by my noble friend, the First Lord of the Admiralty, covered the course of operations up to December 7 of last year. During the rest of December the 8th Army—which, as the House will remember, includes the British Commonwealth 27th Brigade and the British 29th Brigade Group—was compelled to continue its withdrawal, in the face of numerically superior Chinese forces. The difficulties which frequently attend battles of withdrawal, were increased in this case by the presence of considerable guerrilla forces, and by vast numbers of refugees, fleeing before the advancing Chinese armies. Meanwhile, in the East, the whole of the 10th Corps, including the Royal Marine Commandos, was successfully evacuated by sea from Hungnam, after heavy fighting to prevent encirclement and "destruction.
  414
  "In the last days of December, it became clear that the Chinese were preparing to resume their allout offensive. On New Year's Eve the offensive was launched, the main weight of the attack falling on the 1st Corps in the West. During the first few days of January, this Corps, under extreme pressure, was compelled to fall back towards Seoul and the Han River. The British 29th Brigade—comprising the 8th Hussars, the Royal Northumberland Fusiliers, the Gloucestershire Regiment and the Royal Ulster Rifles—was employed to cover the approaches to Seoul. Our Brigade Group mounted a series of spirited counterattacks, which inflicted heavy losses on the enemy. There is no doubt that the aggressive spirit shown by our troops at this critical moment was a major factor in ensuring the safe withdrawal of the 1st Corps across the Han River. Our troops were the last to cross the river. The Royal Northumberland Fusiliers and the Royal Ulster Rifles were the victims of an ambush by the Chinese; and I regret to inform the House that in fighting their way out they suffered their first heavy casualties of the campaign.
  "In the central sector, the 9th Corps had also withdrawn by this time south of the Han River. The British Commonwealth 27th Brigade —which includes an Australian battalion, in addition to the Middlesex Regiment and the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders—was prominent in the operations covering the withdrawal of the Corps. In the East, the 10th Corps— reformed after its withdrawal from Hungnam—was placed under command of the 8th Army, and was in position to counter any attempted envelopment of the Army's right flank. Contact with the Chinese forces in the West had now been broken, and the next fortnight was spent by the 1st and 9th Corps in patrolling activity. Towards the end of January, a strong armoured reconnaissance force was formed, to operate in front of "he United Nations' position to disrupt the enemy's preparations for a renewed offensive, and to inflict the maximum number of casualties. By the end of the month this force had reached a line running north of Suwon and Inchon, and was progressing steadily towards the Han

  415
  River. The 27th and 29th Brigades moved forward in reserve.
  "This brings us to the present position on the front, which I shall now describe. On the left, the 1st Corps has secured the port of Inchon, Kimpo Airfield, and the town of Yongdung on the South bank of the Han River opposite Seoul. Further to the east, elements of the 9th Corps are advancing towards the Han River. The British 29th Brigade, with other units, has already reached the river. In the central sector, a Chinese counterattack in strength developed on February 11, against the advancing South Korean divisions of the 10th Corps. These divisions were forced to withdraw towards Wonju; but the latest information available indicates that the Chinese counteroffensive has now been halted. The British Commonwealth 27th Brigade played a large part in restoring the situation in this area by relieving a mixed French-American Force which had been cut off at Chipyong.
  "Throughout the period His Majesty's ships and aircraft of the Royal Navy, together with ships of the Royal Australian, Canadian and New Zealand navies, have been engaged in maintaining the blockade of the West Coast of Korea. They have also provided gun fire and air support for the United Nations forces ashore. In particular, ships of the British Commonwealth Navies, with air cover from the aircraft of H.M.S. 'Theseus,' supported United Nations troops during the withdrawal from Inchon in early January, and again during its recapture a few days ago. They are now providing fire support for the United Nations forces in the area between the Han river and the West Coast. H.M.S. 'Theseus' and her air group have particularly distinguished themselves by operating at a remarkably high intensity over a prolonged period. The weather has been severe. Our ships and aircraft have had to contend with arctic blizzards, snowstorms and with floating ice; and the buoyant spirit of our men in these difficult circumstances has been beyond praise.
  "The Royal Air Force has also continued to play its part in the operations.
  416
  Sunderland squadrons have carried out widespread maritime patrols and rescue operations in Korean waters; and transport aircraft have maintained a regular flow of reinforcements and casualty evacuation. The total casualties suffered by our forces up to date are 145 killed or died of wounds, 442 wounded, 244 missing, and 61 prisoners of war. I deeply deplore these casualties, and am sure that the House will wish to record its sympathy with the relatives of these men in their loss or anxiety. The House will be proud to know that His Majesty the King has approved the posthumous award of the Victoria Cross to Major Muir, of the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, for leadership and courage of the highest order in the recapture of a position on September 23. In addition, twenty-five officers and men of the British Forces have been awarded decorations for gallantry and outstanding service in the campaign.
  "I am glad to inform the House that the military situation in Korea is now far more favourable than seemed possible at the time when the last Statement was made. The perils confronting the United Nations forces are, of course, still formidable, and occasional difficulties may emerge. But in the last few weeks the forces of the United Nations have demonstrated beyond all doubt that the Chinese and North Korean forces arrayed against them can be checked and mastered. I know that the House would wish me to pay a welldeserved tribute to the troops of our American Allies, who are bearing the main burden of the fighting. Their casualties have been severe and now total 48,035, including 8,154 killed. Most valuable help has also been given by the contingents of other nations—Australia, Belgium, Canada, France, Greece, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Philippines, South Africa, Thailand and Turkey. It is with pride I place on record that the exploits and bearing of our own men have been in all respects worthy of the finest traditions of the British Fighting Services."
  My Lords, I am sure your Lordships will desire to join with me in that appreciation.
  4.13 p.m.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Viscount for the full Statement which he has made to this House on the position in Korea. I am very glad to hear that the outlook is so much brighter than, as he said, seemed possible at the time of the last Statement. I do not this afternoon wish to make any comments on the operations, but on behalf of those noble Lords who sit on these Benches I would associate myself wholeheartedly with the glowing tributes paid by the noble Viscount to the fine bearing of the Forces of the United Nations, particularly of the United States and of course, above all, of our own troops who have been engaged in this fighting. They have added fresh lustre to British arms, and we are all extremely proud of them. I should also like, with him, to tender our deep sympathy with the relatives of those who have lost their lives, both in our own Forces and in those of the United States, who are bearing so heavy a burden.
  VISCOUNT MERSEY: My Lords, on behalf of those who sit on the Liberal Benches I desire to associate myself with all that the noble Marquess has said.

  FORESTRY BILL [H.L.]
  4.15 p.m.
  Debate on Second Reading resumed.
  THE EARL OF BUCKINGHAMSHIRE: My Lords, I owe the noble Earl opposite an apology for not having given him notice of various points I was going to raise. Unfortunately, this was due to circumstances beyond my control. Other noble Lords have already raised some of the points that I had in mind, and no doubt we shall receive an answer to them in due course. The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading of the Bill mentioned, among other things, the quota system which is now applied. Now that the census of woodland figures is available, I understand that the Forestry Commission will in future relate allocations to the felling of standing timber in those regions. I understand that this will do much to meet the criticism of the quota system that has been made in the past, but I should like to get an assurance from His Majesty's Government, if possible, to the effect that that is going to happen.
  418
  It has already been said that the Bill places in the hands of the Minister and therefore, in effect, of the Forestry Commission, complete control over the felling or the restriction of felling of timber. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, rightly said that no other country has this control, and he instanced the Scandinavian countries. I should like to refer to one of those countries which I had the pleasure of visiting in September last year on a Royal English Forestry Society outing. The country I wish to take as an example is Denmark. They have probably some of the finest woods, both beech and softwoods, in the world. There they have regional boards which arc manned by members who are private woodland owners, and I should like to support the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, in pressing for something of the nature of the county agricultural executive committees that we have in farming. Could not some sort of board on these lines be established under this Bill? What principles are the Forestry Commission going to apply when granting licences, to ensure that permanent restrictions do not affect normal forestry development, and that they are not used in an arbitrary manner? Then again, with regard to felling licences for odd lots, I hope that the Forestry Commission will interpret their duties, particularly as regards hardwoods, so as to be helpful both towards the timber shortage and to agriculture. Time and again one comes across the argument between the agriculturist and the forestry owner as to whether or not certain timber should be cut down. Surely the Forestry Commission could help with that.
  Subsection (5) of Clause 4 seems to me to be very complicated. As I understand it, a short summary of it might read something like this: In the first place, an application for a licence is refused and there is no appeal. On the expiry of three years from the date of the refusal of the first application there is a right of appeal in the case of an application made after that date being refused. In the case of an application made after the expiry of five years from the date that the appeal has been refused, a further appeal is competent against any decision refusing a licence. The noble Earl who moved the Second Reading said that the reason for there being no appeal on the first occasion was the cost of conducting so many

  419
  appeals. Surely, there is no justification for legislation impinging on the subject's rights without a proper review of administrative decision. Apparently there is nothing to stop a land owner repeatedly making applications for a licence, but the right of appeal is limited. Cannot this be put right?
  Now, a word about the compensation clause. This clause seems to be unsatisfactory, as there is no adequate provision for measuring the loss in a fair manner if a licence is refused. Surely there should be some form of arriving at that. If a licence is refused, and application is made again, some three years later, surely the timber should be measured and valued at the date of the refusal of the licence, and the same timber should be valued at the subsequent date, when a licence is obtained. That seems to me to be common sense, but there appears to be no provision for that at the moment. Finally, under Clause 10, in the event of a dispute, whether directions are carried out or not, there should be provision for referring to arbitration, or, alternatively, as I have already mentioned, would it not be better to refer the matter to a panel consisting of a member, say, of one of the forestry societies, whether in England or Scotland, one representative of each of the land owners federations, such as the Country Landowners' Association in England and the Scottish Landowners' Federation in Scotland, and the chairman of the regional committee? My Lords, I put forward these suggestions with regard to this Bill.
  4.24 p.m.
  LORD K1NNAIRD: My Lords, may I say how warmly I agree with all that has been said by the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, and by the noble Earl, Lord Haddington? I think it has been made clear that there is a good deal of dissatisfaction over the fact that people who are intimately concerned with forestry have not been consulted upon this matter. The noble Earl, Lord Haddington, gave a list of names of great foresters who in the past have helped the Forestry Commission and the country. I feel that it will be most unfair to the country if in the future the full value of their experience is not made available for the benefit of the nation. The cost to the country of having that benefit will be nothing, but it will be an enormous
  420
  national loss if such people are not allowed to work in close co-operation with the Forestry Commission.
  I should also like to say a word about the shortness of the period allowed us in which to consider this Bill; one feels that one owes an apology to the House for speaking without having been able to make proper preparation. Speaking for Scotland, I may say that it was only as recently as Friday that a small committee meeting was held in Edinburgh to discuss this matter. Clearly, it has been quite impossible for people to inform themselves as fully as they would wish upon the many aspects of the subject. Many people would like to have adequate time to study the subject, and there are a number who would have wished to be present here to-day, but who have been unable to come owing to the shortness of the notice. The result of the notice being so short is that, instead of being properly primed by others with fuller knowledge, one has had to think out for oneself what one would wish to contribute to this debate.
  I should like to say a few words about Clause 5, which deals with the question of compensation for loss caused by the refusal of a licence. It seems to be generally admitted that as loss is due to the decision of the Commission to refuse a licence, the owner concerned should be compensated. Strangely enough, this compensation is limited to compensation for deterioration in quality after the refusal. In my view, however, this is one of the least likely causes of loss. You may have a loss from the fluctuation of market value; you may have losses from windblow and storms; and loss of increment. The rubric of this clause seems to be what one might reasonably expect, Compensation for loss through refusal of licence. If this compensation is limited to quality then I think the word "quality" needs definition. I do not quite agree with what the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, has said in this connection. He said that if there was a loss in value it was something which the owner should be prepared to bear. I do not think that is good either for the owner or for the country.
  May I take three very common trees, and follow up what happens owing to the refusal of a licence? Take first of all a beech tree. If a beech tree at a

  421
  certain time of its life has white timber it can be used for making such things as baskets for strawberries—punnets, they are called. The timber for making such baskets must be white. Beech trees can be sold at from 5s. to 6s. a cubic foot at the present time if those trees are white. If they begin to get dark in colour the value goes down. It is very difficult to determine, but they do pass through a period of change, as I have frequently seen. Their white colour goes; they become dark, and they lose their value. They may then be worth only half what they were when they were white. One cannot say that there is any deterioration in the quality, but there has been a great loss to the owner, owing to the deterioration in value.
  Next, take what we call in Scotland a plane tree—better known as a sycamore. In our part of the country, and indeed elsewhere, there is a great demand for this timber for making rollers for jute mills in Dundee and Calcutta. One can cut trees of about the age of forty-five years which are valuable for this purpose. They have only a 9½ inch to 7½ inch quarter girth, and they can be disposed of at a good price, as there is a big demand for them, and they are sold by the running foot. If a felling licence for those trees is refused when they have reached that size there will be no further demand at a special price for another ninety or hundred years, when the quarter girth is about 23 inches: the trees can then be used in the big cotton mills for printing. From the point of view of value, the passing of ninety or a hundred years is a serious matter. The owner cannot say that the quality of the limber has deteriorated, although its special price has gone. I remember that in the 1914 war there was a great demand for ash trees for building aeroplanes. It was essential to have a quickly grown ash, a young tree with no heart wood. There was a big demand at a good price. If a licence were refused for that, the young ash would never again be of any value for building aeroplanes, because when the heart wood is formed it becomes tough, and loses its resiliency and pliability. The quality of the timber has not deteriorated, but its special value has gone.
  I think it is true that the intention of the Bill is to avoid a loss. Is there any
  422
  way, then, that the Government would consider by which this loss could be met? I suggest that the simple and essential way to meet this difficulty is for the timber to be measured and valued at the date of the refusal of a licence, and for the same timber to be revalued when a licence is subsequently obtained. If the value of the timber at the date of the original refusal of a licence exceeds its value at the date when the licence is subsequently granted, the owner should be paid the difference between these two values as compensation, plus simple interest for the period on the amount of the first valuation. The interest is important, because that would cover the natural increment value of the trees. At present, so far as I can see, there is no allowance made for any increment value. If a system of valuation were admitted, that would meet many of the other difficulties that are bound to arise in discussing the quality of timber.
  Over and above increment, the other main way in which loss may be experienced is through windblow. In Scotland, more than in England, the question of windblow is of real importance. Throughout my lifetime, from the Tay Bridge disaster onwards, every few years we have a really serious storm, and a vast number of trees are blown down. Is it fair that an owner who is prevented from realising the value of the crop of trees should be entirely at a loss if they are destroyed by storm? The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, said that he thought it was not unreasonable for the owner to face that loss. I find it a little difficult to think it is reasonable not to compensate an owner in such a case, which is a very real one in Scotland. Your Lordships will know that trees which have been blown down cannot be sold at the same price as standing timber, owing to the cost of cutting and clearing. But if some principle of valuation could be brought in, that would be of great value.
  There are one or two other points which I should like to mention. The noble Earl. Lord Haddington, brought up the question of policy woods. I think that is an important point, which might be accepted under Clause 2. I know that my noble friend Lord Robinson is very sympathetic to the preservation of woodlands inside policies, and I hope that that matter will receive further consideration. The question of Clause 4 has been dealt

  423
  with fully. There is one point in Clause 11 which I hope will receive further consideration. If it is made an offence to break the rules, I think it is unfortunate to provide for the imposition of large fines, because good will is of great importance. The people who are responsible for the management of estates have shown that they are very willing to co-operate with the Government and the Forestry Commission, and to hold out penalties of this sort seems to me to be unfortunate and unnecessary. I suggest that the fines should be considerably reduced. The amounts of £50 and £100 are excesive. I apologise for the somewhat rambling nature of my remarks, but the short time we have had to study this Bill is partly responsible.
  4.37 p.m.
  LORD HYLTON: My Lords, many of us are bitterly disappointed at some of the provisions in this Bill. Surely the facts ought to speak for themselves. The target for the forests of this country is placed by the Forestry Commission at 5,000,000 acres. Of those, 2,000,000 acres are to be private woodlands and 3,000,000 acres are to be planted and maintained by the Forestry Commission. The proportion is two to three; yet in the provisions of the Bill the private woodland owners and managers are given no say whatever, in either an advisory or an executive capacity. They are completely ignored; and they are ignored by the same Minister who for many years past has been setting up all over the country joint committees, consultative committees, tribunals and commissions for agriculture. What is the difference? If the Minister considers it necessary to have these bodies for agriculture, why does he make a difference as regards forestry? Forestry is just as much a rural occupation as agriculture and just as important to the country.
  When we look at the Bill, we find that the Forestry Commission are placed in a position of overwhelming dictatorship, without there being any appeal except to some imaginary individual appointed by the Minister and who reports to the Minister if anyone feels aggrieved. That cannot be right. Your Lordships know well the uproar that has been caused because there is no proper appeal under the Town and Country Planning Act.
  424
  This Bill will lead to the same uproar. I do not believe that the people of this country wish to be treated in this way by Government Departments, because it is entirely contrary to all that has gone before. It is this Government who have introduced these new undemocratic principles.
  The reason why the Minister of Agriculture has made the provisions in all these agricultural Acts is because he considers that it helps to increase production. That is exactly what this Bill is supposed to do. It is supposed to increase the production of young plantations, while at the same time preventing the felling of immature timber and, in the national interests, in some cases refusing licences when timber is mature. The primary object is not to maintain mature timber, but to increase production and plant the unproductive or felled areas. The Minister cannot have it both ways: he cannot be right in agriculture and wrong in forestry. The proof of the fact that he is right in agriculture is that agriculture has increased its production enormously in the last ten years, and is the only industry which has reached its production targets. If the Minister wishes forestry to reach its targets of replanting, then surely he must take those who plant and manage trees into co-operation and co-partnership with the Forestry Commission. I am sure that no private owners of woodlands wish to be placed in a position above that of the Forestry Commission; we wish to be treated as equal partners. That has already been mentioned, and it is the crux of the objection to this Bill as drafted. I hope that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill will take the Bill back and give it second thoughts.
  There are hundreds of reasons why such co-operation is necessary, but one of the most valid and important is this. More than thirty years ago—that is to say, before the Forestry Commission was born—every tree in a wood in this country, except those growing on Crown lands, had been planted by private wood-land owners. The Government have conveniently ignored the fact that the whole of the ripe timber in this year 1951 was planted by private woodland owners: those owners are entirely placed on one side in favour of that admirable and most efficient body the Forestry Commission. We do not think that is good enough, or

  425
  that it is wise from the point of view of the Government. If they really want to get planting done, they should consult the people who plant. A good deal of play has been made about the felled areas and what the noble Earl who introduced the Bill described as "the indiscriminate exploitation of woods between the two wars." I do not think that phrase will bear looking into; I very much doubt if there was indiscriminate exploitation. If the noble Earl will read the Report of the Forestry Commission of 1943, and their Report for 1944, he will find that they go out of their way to compliment the owners of private woodlands for the efforts they have made to clear and replant. The two statements do not agree. I hope the noble Earl will be able to take back some, at least, of the aspersion;; he has cast on the owners of private woodlands.
  Most of the clauses of the Bill have already been covered by previous speakers, but I should like to refer once more to Clause 12. I was somewhat surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Chorley—who, noble Lords will remember, was in charge of the Town and Country Planning Bill when it went through your Lordships' House—was unable to understand the clause, or the noble Earl's explanation of it—the noble Lord is no longer in the Chamber, or perhaps he could explain it. I followed the noble Earl some distance in his explanation, and I believe it to be this. The planning authority, of course, makes the order. Subsequently the Forestry Commissioners, on an application made to them, can issue a felling licence regarding trees that are under a preservation order, subject to their consulting the planning authority and, of course, having regard to the purposes of the tree preservation order. That may be all right, but I cannot think that it will lead to anything but great confusion of mind and considerable friction between the three parties concerned—namely, the owners of the timber, the planning authority and the Forestry Commissioners.
  But what will really complicate the matter is when action under subsection (3) comes into force; that is to say, that
  "The Commissioners may, instead of refusing or granting a licence … refer the application to the authority …"
  426
  Then the provisions of this Bill, apparently, will not apply. If it is so difficult for members of your Lordships' House, including the noble Lord who was in charge of the Town and Country Planning Act, to understand, how much more so will it be for the ordinary citizen? How is the ordinary man in the street, who is confused beyond measure by the present Town and Country Planning Act, to understand the terribly involved provisions of what is really amending legislation to the tree preservation orders, which is contained in Clause 12? I hope the noble Earl will simplify that matter, because it is capable of simplification if a determined effort is made. The people who have to deal with these subjects, the local government officials, and so on, cannot keep pace with the complexity of legislation that is now coming forward. I meet instances of that every day. I showed this clause yester-day to the senior solicitor of a local planning authority, and his first reaction to it was that it meant that no further tree preservation orders would be made. That may or may not be a good thing, but that was his reaction. I notice that the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, is smiling, but the noble Lord, Lord Chorley would not smile —he would not think that at all a good result of this legislation. I am afraid I have detained your Lordships for rather a long time. In the opinion of many noble Lords on this side of the House, the Bill as it stands is not a good Bill, and I hope that sufficient time will be given between this stage and the Committee stage in order that a determined effort may be made to improve it.
  4.50 p.m.
  THE EARL OF SELBORNE: My Lords, I should like to echo the last words of my noble friend who has just addressed this House. It seems to me most important that adequate time should be given before the Committee stage is taken, in view of the nature of the Bill and in view of the manner in which it has been brought forward. It is not too much to say that this Bill reeks of bureaucracy. It was prepared in secret it has been brought forward at very short notice; none of the recognised mouthpieces of private forestry has been consulted; and it vests dictatorial powers in the Forestry Commission. Perhaps we can be told what is the difference under this Bill

  427
  between woodland which has not been dedicated and land which has been dedicated. It seems to me that everybody's woodlands are treated as if they were dedicated land without any of the compensating features of dedication, and without any of the permanent guarantee that an agreed plan affords a land owner. Henceforth, nobody is to be allowed to manage his own woods without the Forestry Commission having the right to come down and prescribe how he is to conduct the management, and doing all this without in any proper sense shouldering the financial responsibility which rests on the owner of the woods.
  The Forestry Commission were never appointed for this sort of purpose. The Commission were appointed many years ago in order to plant and conduct large State forests. They have not planted anything like the land that they have acquired; they have always been behind in their scheduled programme, and although they have done some excellent work in providing the State with forests, I submit that their composition does not warrant their being given powers of this sort. They were never intended to exercise powers of this sort. They were intended for a certain limited purpose— the purpose of acquiring land, planting it and managing it. That they have done with a very considerable measure of success, although, as I said before, they have not planted anything like the land they have acquired, and they have been behind in their programme nearly every year of their existence. Yet this is the body which is given the most dictatorial powers over other people's property.
  I would call the attention of your Lordships to Clause 2(2)(g), which prohibits anybody from cutting in one calendar month more than 275 cubic feet without the permission of the Forestry Commission. That figure is put into the Bill without any reference to the size of the estate in question. If you own twenty acres of woodland you can cut your 275 cubic feet in a month, but if, like some of our leading foresters, you own several thousand acres of woodlands, you are still limited to the same figure. Could anything be more ridiculous than that? If an owner of large forests cuts one more tree after his woodmen have cut the permitted figure in any one month, in the ordinary course of forestry operations or
  428
  in the carrying out of some improvement to the property, he is liable to be fined £100. Perhaps I am wrong in saying that, because if the tree measures 3 inches in diameter, then he is not liable to a fine of £100, but if the tree measures 3½ inches in diameter, then he is liable to a fine of £100, and that with a very inadequate measure of appeal.
  I should also like to draw your Lordships' attention to Clause 8 (4), which says:
  "If any person to whom directions are given under this Act claims that compliance with those directions would involve him in a net loss,"
  then he can call upon the appropriate Minister—whoever that may mean—
  "to acquire his interest in the land affected by the directions."
  But that has nothing to do with the ownership of the land. It is no adequate compensation to an owner of a property, on whom loss is inflicted by Act of Parliament, to say: "Then I will buy your land." It would be possible to wreck the amenities of a property by buying a bit of land in the middle of it. If a loss is inflicted upon any of His Majesty's subjects, I submit that that loss should be fully compensated in cash. I therefore support the plea of my noble friend Lord De La Warr, and other noble Lords, that the sort of powers which are sought by the Government in this Bill should not be exercised by the Forestry Commission, but should be exercised by local committees set up after the manner of the county agricultural committees. Let the Forestry Commission carry on with the job for which they were created, but if the State, maybe for good reasons—for reasons of national safety or for reasons of amenity—says that a land owner must not be allowed to do what he thinks right with his woods, then the question at issue should be decided by local committees, having local knowledge and looking at the question at issue from the widest point of view. The Forestry Commission are experts in forestry—they do not profess to be anything else. God save this country from ever being governed by experts in anything! On questions of what we should do with our woods, it is not merely questions of forestry which arise. As the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, has pointed out, there is the question of amenity. I certainly would not trust

  429
  questions of amenity to the Forestry Commission. It is hardly possible to open the papers any day without seeing some protest at some act of vandalism committed by the Forestry Commission.
  Then there are questions of agriculture. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, who said that he hoped it would be made compulsory for every wood felled to be replanted. I can conceive that generally that may be the proper course to adopt, but I submit that it is not necessarily always the case. The land on which that wood once stood may be much too good for forestry: it may be better employed for growing wheat or some other valuable crop. I myself have cut down and reclaimed over 100 acres of woodland, and have devoted that land to other crops, and I maintain that that was in the interests of the country. It is not to be assumed that every portion of land that is covered by woods should always be covered by woods. Noble Lords are aware that in fruit-growing districts frost can inflict great damage on the fruit trees—especially in May. Frosts are caused by stagnant cold air, and it is possible to eliminate frosts by improving the air drainage so that the cold air drains away into the valleys and the higher ground is left frost-free. That is a very common practice in fruit-growing areas. In order to do that it might be necessary to cut down a wood—and it might be right to do so. In that case it would obviously be foolish to replant the wood; that land ought to remain permanently devoted to agriculture or to some crop that does not interfere with the more valuable crop.
  I suggest that the Forestry Commission would be very bad judges of questions of that sort. The question is a wider one than of that forestry. I am reminded of a report by a forestry enthusiast which I happened to read on operations of my own. The report said:
  "Forestry on this estate seems to have been sacrificed to fruit growing."
  It was written as if he had discovered something very reprehensible. It is simply a question of what is the most suitable crop for the land in question and that, as I have suggested, should be decided by a committee conversant with local factors, who will look at the problem as a whole, and not merely from the point of view of scientific forestry. The wider point of view and, above all, the
  430
  amenities of the countryside, must be kept in sight. I hold that the people who live in the country are the best guardians of the amenities of the country, and they do not want people sitting in London dictating to them what amenities they are to have and of what amenities they are to be deprived.
  5.5 p.m.
  LORD MERTHYR: My Lords, two or three points have been made in this debate which I wish to underline. On the whole. I think the Bill ought to be welcomed by your Lordships, although it needs amendment and I hope it will receive amendment on the Committee stage. There seem to me to be two main faults in this Bill. First, I entirely agree with those who have said that there is too much centralisation in it and that there should be set up, probably in the counties throughout the country. some organisation similar to the county agricultural executive committees. I have urged this before but I would go a little further than any speaker has: gone this afternoon. I have always thought that there should be a closer marriage between forestry and agriculture, and the only way of achieving that is not merely to have a committee similar to the agricultural committee but to put forestry and agriculture under the same committee; and that that joint committee should have representatives of both farming and forestry round its table, sitting together and working together. I think the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, is sufficient proof of the necessity of some such committee. Then, the misunderstandings as to whether land should be used for fruit growing or forestry could be settled by one committee, who would have nobody but themselves with whom to argue. That, to my mind, is the only way in which land throughout the country can be utilised to the best advantage.
  The second criticism I have—and this is only a minor one—is that on the whole this Bill does not sufficiently protect the amenities. A good deal has been said about this matter. I think that what Lord Chorley said deserves the attention of His Majesty's Government, and there should certainly be some Amendments made to this Bill in order to safeguard amenities. I do not suggest for a moment that the Forestry Commission will ignore this matter. I believe that the Forestry

  431
  Commission really has a soul and that these things do not entirely escape this body which is so often criticised as being cold, calculating and bureaucratic. But the fact that its offices are not in White-hall but in Savile Row does not altogether exempt it from the criticisms which used to be applied to the former thoroughfare.
  I wish to say a few words about tree preservation orders. These orders have caused a great deal of trouble and difficulty. I have always said that they were necessary, unpleasant though some people think they are. They were necessary because, whatever may be said about land owners and their organisations and how well they have done—and I agree that they have done very well—let us remember that there are in the countryside some thoroughly bad land owners. They may be only few; but there are people who do not join the land owners' societies, who do not pay subscriptions to the forestry societies, and who do not, in fact, pay anything to anybody. These are the people who have necessitated tree preservation orders. On the other hand, I have equally no doubt that tree preservation orders have been abused. I know instances in which they have been carried to absurd lengths—where, for instance, rows of dead trees have been included in a preservation order. I believe that on the whole this Bill gets somewhere near to the right answer to the problem. No doubt Clause 12 does need looking at very carefully and probably amending; but I am satisfied that, as a whole, the Bill comes somewhere near the right answer as regards tree preservation orders.
  On the subject of amenities, may I refer to what the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said about the vandalism of the Forestry Commission? It is true that there is a great deal of criticism, in the Press and elsewhere of what is called the vandalism of the Forestry Commission. But may I respectfully say that a vast amount of nonsense has been written and talked about this particular subject? Whenever the Forestry Commission at long last find a bit of land which they think is suitable for planting, in almost every case there is widespread opposition. I believe it to be a fact that, if once the trees get planted and survive and grow and are subsequently felled, there will be an almost equal amount of opposition
  432
  when they are felled, and a great deal of the opposition will come from the same people who opposed the planting of them. That sounds a little farfetched, but in certain cases I am satisfied that that is so. It only illustrates the fact that this agitation is really due to pure conservatism, a preference for having everything as it is and an objection to having things altered.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, criticised the noble Earl who introduced this Bill for what he said about the "exploitation between the wars." He did not like the word "exploitation." I am bound to say that there was a certain amount of exploitation. The majority of good land owners, I agree, are not to blame for that, but a small minority most certainly are. What I want to tackle in seeing this Bill passed are the small isolated areas of land which are absolutely wasting. I am allergic to waste of land. If it is said: "Why does not the owner plant it?" and the reply is given, "Well, he cannot afford to plant it," then, in my view, the owner should cease to be the owner of it, and he should let someone else try. I think that is reasonable. In most cases the piece of land which is being wasted is an eyesore. It ought not to be allowed to go on. I do not want to be misunderstood, and I do not want it to be thought that I am making any sort of attack on the great majority of land owners. I am not. I myself am a member of their organisations. I know full well that the bad owner of whom I am speaking is a rarity, but if this Bill succeeds in curing this evil it will have done a great deal of good.
  There is another point to be considered. When the Forestry Commission take land for planting—that is, agricultural land and not former woodland—they are always criticised, in some cases rightly, because they have not taken former woodland. It comes back to the same thing. It is the former woodland, the derelict wood-land, that we want to get at. Somehow or other, we want to see that brought back into productive use, either as forest land or, as the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, said, as agricultural land. There is no reason why it should not go back to agricultural land. But there is some land which can never be used as agricultural land. It may toe too steep or the soil may be utterly unsuitable; but a great deal of it, though not perhaps all, can be used for forest land and for growing trees. That is

  433
  why I plead that we shall under this Bill arrange the machinery and get it working. I need not detain the House any longer. I think this Bill will do good to the country—that is the test of it—but it needs amendment. I echo the hope which has been expressed, that ample time will be given before the Committee stage. I should like to join in complaining about the shortage of time that has been given between the announcement of this Bill and the Second Reading.
  5.16 p.m.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VIS-COUNT JOWITT): My Lords, in my view we are here discussing a very important measure. I believe it is difficult to exaggerate its importance. There has been a good deal of misunderstanding about this: Bill—a good deal of misunderstanding of what its real underlying purpose and motive is. I do not regard this Bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said, as designed to increase the productivity of umber. It may incidentally have that result. All good legislation about forestry probably does have that result, but that is not the object of the Bill. We have to face this fact: that we have now experienced two world wars, and in both of those world wars we have learnt how perilous is the situation of a country which has not available to it reserves of timber. I am old enough to remember very well, as do many of your Lordships, what Mr. Lloyd George said about this matter at the time of the First World War. Many of your Lordships who were associated with the Coalition Government during the last war will remember the extreme anxiety we felt in bringing timber from far distances, as we had to do on that war.
  I am not in the least an alarmist, and I do not want to be, but I am bound to point out to your Lordships what would happen if, by any unhappy chance, this country found itself again at war. We have not the reserves of timber which we had in the First World War. We have not the reserves of timber which we had in the Second World War. We should be in a very difficult position indeed, bound to carry on so far as we could be utilisation of whatever timber we had available in this country, little though it is. so that this country would become bare. That is the prospect. Therefore, the primary purpose of this
  434
  Bill is to see that we conserve wisely and prudently, so far as we can, what reserves of timber we have in this country. Because do not let us; forget that at the present time, with the high prices obtainable for timber, there is a great temptation to people—for most people nowadays need some ready cash—to make inroads into the stocks; of timber we have to-day. Therefore, I start with this theme: whatever our Party political differences may be—aid I must say that they have emerged in this debate—do let us all try to sink them, to discover some workable and fair policy to preserve for this nation against a contingency stocks of timber which we may sorely need. I appeal to all sections of the House, and I do not think that I appeal in vain, to let everything be subservient to that end. Believe me, that end is important enough. Do not let our internal differences or quarrels interfere more than is necessary with that ideal.
  Let me now go on to say that some criticism has been made of the absence; of previous consultation. My political life started, and I certainly always thought it would finish, in another place, and several of your Lordships who havespoken to-day have had the experience which I had there. Those of us who were in the other place will agree that there was nothing about which that House was more insistent than that disclosures of policy should be made to the House, and not outside the House. So that if you are going to have consultations about broad issues of general policy you must discuss them with great discretion, and you must not get right down to particulars. You must probe to try to ascertain what is the feeling about certain broad principles. It is absolutely wrong that proposals should be revealed to outside bodies before they are revealed to Parliament. I am perfectly certain that anybody who has been in another place will agree on that proposition. I have no doubt the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, knows the facts about this matter, because he would not have made the observations he did unless he had troubled to acquaint himself with the facts. I am not going to say more than this—I choose my words with some care—that, if he will forgive me for saying so, I thought his observations were disingenuous on

  435
  this point. In the nature of things I cannot go further than that, but that is what I feel bound to say.
  But now that we have got this matter revealed to Parliament, by all means let us have ample time between now and the Committee stage to consider these proposals. The noble Viscount the Leader of the House tells me that I may say that there will be an interval of at least three weeks. If, during that time, either the noble Earl who opened the debate on this Bill and who is directly concerned with it, or, indeed, if there are any legal questions involved, I myself can be of the smallest assistance to any of your Lordships—as I think we were, to our great mutual advantage, in many of the great Bills we introduced—I am sure that he, and I know that I, will be entirely at the disposal of your Lordships to see how far we can solve some of the difficulties.
  There is one other question which I want to mention at this stage and which I think is fundamental. It is said: Why cannot you set up something in the nature of a regional body like a county agricultural committee, or something of that sort, or have something corresponding to it, to deal with forestry? Several of your Lordships have made that point. I put this to your Lordships so that you may consider it, and we can discuss it if necessary. I believe that course to be absolutely impossible, and for this simple reason: that the principle upon which we are working in this case, and have been working for many weeks past (because this all originated from 1939, and the necessity for getting licences is there to-day) is that we work on a national quota. Speaking from recollection, I would say that the national quota is something of the order of 16,000,000 cubic feet for hardwood and about 5,000,000 cubic feel for softwood; therefore it is something of the order of 21,000,000 cubic feet. That, as it were, is the year's allowance, which is all we can afford. If that is right, and if that is the right way of doing it at all—and that may be arguable—it is, to my mind, impossible to give any authority to numerous committees (applying the agricultural analogy up and down the country) to decide what is to be done in their area. It must be done on a national basis, and that is why this scheme is essentially administrative. You must
  436
  go back to the Minister of Agriculture, or the Secretary of State for Scotland, as the case may be (that, of course, is the meaning of the phrase, "the appropriate Minister"), in order that the appeal may lie to them. Thus they can square the granting or withholding of appeals with that national consideration. I do not see how you can apply the analogy of the county agricultural committees to this matter at all. After all, those committees are concerned to see that as much food as may be possible is grown in a county. The object here is a very different one it is to see that a certain amount of timber is conserved in this country, and that the cuttings in this country in any one year do not exceed that specified amount.
  LORD HYLTON: If the noble and learned Viscount will allow me to say so, I would point out that when the Board of Trade was the issuing authority for felling licences for timber, all the felling licences were issued from the regional offices. Of course there was a national quota of so many million feet, but each regional office had its sub-quota. Why should that not be done in the way we suggested?
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: If I may say so, I should have thought that to be a thoroughly bad idea, on the face of it. You give to division A a sub-quota and to division B another sub-quota. The facts might be that in division B there is a quantity of mature timber which could and should be cut, far above the quota; while if division A cuts up to its quota it must mean cutting immature timber. Therefore, it seems to me quite fanciful to say that you can deal with this matter by sub-quotas. Unless you ascertain that the conditions in all these areas are the same, I should have thought that, on the face of it, that was a bad system. I mention these things now because I am perfectly willing that all these points should be discussed and considered.
  The next broad question was that of compensation. I hope your Lordships will consider this matter again, and will see that we have tried to do the fair thing. Let me tell you this fact. If you divide the number of licences by the total area quantity which is licensed to be felled, you will find that the size of the average licence is of the order of about 3,000 cubic feet. That is surprisingly small. Very often the application is for,

  437
  not a whole wood, but a particular section of a particular wood. There is one school of thought that would say: "If you apply for a licence and it is refused, let the Government take over the timber, or let the Forestry Commission take over the timber." They would then have small panels of timber up and down the country, tucked in the centre of woods, and so on, and it would be absolutely impossible to manage growing trees. Therefore, if you look at it, I think you will come to the conclusion that that is a misconception.
  Then it is said: "If you apply for a licence, and that application is refused, at once the Government should make themselves responsible for compensation." Let us see what that means. If every land owner wanted to do the clever thing, he would at once apply for a licence to fell every tree, with the result that the unhappy Chancellor of the Exchequer would thereafter find himself responsible for the consequences of the market on every tree in the country. That is impracticable. That is why—and here I come to Lord Kinnaird's point—we have tried to make it plain that the owner must certainly take the consequences, if we refuse a licence, of a fall in the market. Let us by all means see whether we can meet the noble Lord. He may have some practical suggestions to make, and perhaps it will be possible to define "quality" rather better. But let us not accept the principle that, supposing there is a fall in the market, or a difference in the market, the Government therefore become responsible for guaranteeing every owner against a drop in world market prices—without.be in observed, the corollary that if world market prices go up the owner is to compensate the Government in respect of that. That is what they used to call in Roman law societas leonina, the benefit all being on one side. I am sure that all your Lordships who come to consider this matter will agree that that is not a practical proposition. You would not, I am sure, ask for that. It would not be right.
  LORD KINNAIRD: My Lords, may I be allowed to say this to the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor? In my speech, I put forward three points, but on my notes I also had a fourth. That was to the effect that if there was any rise above the price ruling on the date of the refusal of a licence, the bene-
  438
  fit of the rise should go to the Government. In my stupidity I did not say it, but I have put it down. I think that makes the matter clear. We would not seek to get the best of both worlds.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am glad that that was put down by the noble Lord in his notes. The noble Lord is always so essentially fair, and it would have been quite impossible to maintain the other proposition. Whether the land owners would greatly like what he has just mentioned I do not know; I suppose that it depends upon their appreciation of what is likely to happen to the price of timber. If we go on as we are doing, I think it is quite possible that it will go up still further. Possibly, when the Committee stage is reached, the noble Lord will make some proposition which I shall be able readily to accept. But that is the position.
  So far as the amenity propositions are concerned, your Lordships are pushing at an absolutely open door. I am glad to hear from Lord Merthyr that the Forestry Commission get rather a good mark on this matter; I like to hear of them getting a good mark for something sometimes. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, referred not to vandalism, be it observed, but to complaints of vandalism made about the Commission. I never judge a man on the grounds of complaints made against him unless I have some reason for believing that some, at any rate, of the complaints are true. The noble Earl did not seem to have satisfied himself about them. In so far as I have investigated these matters—as I have, because for a short time during the war I was, as nearly as there was such a person, Minister in charge of forestry—I think that people speak and write a lot of silly things about most subjects in the world; and forestry is certainly no exception to that general rule.
  No doubt there are differences of view about aæthetic questions. We know that, traditionally, there are such differences. I have no doubt that the Forestry Commission, like most of us, have made a good many mistakes, but I was glad to hear Lord Merthyr say that on matters of amenity they can be trusted. I know that they are very anxious to meet the wishes of everyone concerned. And, after all, why should they not be? How foolish they would be to incur a lot of

  439
  unnecessary hostility about something when they can avoid it by being careful!
  In the old days of which I am speaking, the Forestry Commission were not under the Ministry of Agriculture. As your Lordships now know, the supreme authority in England is the Minister of Agriculture; in Scotland, it is the Secretary of State for Scotland. When the noble Lord gave his interesting illustration about fruit trees—and I know it to be correct— he asked: What do the Forestry Commission know about agriculture? Well, after all, the Forestry Commission are under the control of the Minister of Agriculture. Some of those interested in forestry used to think that forestry would get rather the rough end of the stick, because it would be the Cinderella of the party— if I may be allowed to mix my metaphors —while agriculture, of course, is the big thing. I think it has been shown clearly that we can safely leave it to the Minister of Agriculture to decide between the claims of forestry and the claims of agriculture, and as to which should give way to the other, in so far as there is conflict. And may 1 say here that I do not believe this conflict exists to such an extent as people pretend? Some land quite obviously should be under agriculture, and some quite obviously under forestry. I must say that I wish the amount of forestry land could be increased. In all these matters, I have tried to put fairly before your Lordships the sort of considerations which the Government have had before them. We shall discuss this Bill further on the Committee stage, and I regard it as so important to try to get some satisfactory measure through to conserve our timber that I shall do the best I can, with the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, to see whether we cannot go half way to meet noble Lords on these various points.
  There is one further matter with which I will briefly deal—I am not going to discuss all the points which have been raised, because every point will, of course, be considered. 1 wish to speak particularly of Clause 12. I must say that I am surprised at the objection raised to Clause 12. That clause arises in these circumstances. Let us suppose that a tree preservation order is made. Sometimes, as your Lordships know, such an order is made in respect of a particular tree, sometimes in respect of a group of trees, and some-
  440
  times in respect of a wood. The owner of this tree, or this group of trees, or this wood, wants to fell it or them. What is the position? If we did not have Clause 12 he would first have to go to the Forestry Commission, and would then possibly have to appeal to the Minister of Agriculture to get that side all right. When he had done that, he would have to go to the local authority and, perhaps, appeal from them to the Minister of Town and Country Planning (as he used to be), to get that side all right. When the owner had done all these things, if he was still available and reasonably hearty he could perhaps proceed to cut down his tree or trees.
  What we are trying to do in this clause —and I should have thought the noble Lord who objected to it would have blessed us for it—is to say, in effect, "Make your application to one Department only; make your application to the Forestry Commission. Behind the scenes we have an arrangement whereby the Forestry Commission will consult with the Ministry of Town and Country Planning, or whatever you call it now, and they will come to a conclusion between themselves and give you one answer. "The whole object is to simplify this complicated machinery from the point of view of the person who puts it in motion. I cannot for the life of me see what there is to object to in Clause 12. If the noble Lord is really anxious that these two applications should be made—the owner would have to go first to one Ministry and then to the other—that also is a matter which we will gladly consider. But we considered that in Clause 12 we were doing something which the owner of the tree or trees would like. It seems to me that this is not a very difficult clause to understand. However, I have the authority of Lord Hylton for saying that he would rather make two applications, and as there is nothing very unreasonable about that I see no reason why we should not oblige him, if that is the general view. But, if your Lordships will allow me to say so, I think it is very unwise. I cannot understand what that anonymous solicitor whom the noble Lord consulted meant by saying that there would be no further tree preservation orders. I cannot conceive what he had in his mind, because this machinery of ours has been worked out between the two Departments and everyone is perfectly happy about it. But

  441
  if the noble Lord says he wants the double application, then he can perhaps have it, but he is unique.
  That deals with the substance of my reply. We shall have plenty of time to consider this Bill. All the points that your Lordships have raised will be considered. We will go as far as we can to meet your Lordships on these various points, because the issue which is here involved is an issue which affects us all and affects the defence of this country.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, before the Bill is given a Second Reading, perhaps I may say a word. I know that it is unusual to reply after the Government spokesman has had his say, but the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor has made an appeal to us to look at this Bill in a constructive manner and I want to say a word in response to that appeal. I am certain that he will find us reasonable on this and, I hope, on every other question. He stressed the great importance of forestry, especially in time of war, and I entirely agree with him. I do not think there is any difference in any part of the House on that point. The only real question is: What is the best machinery to carry out the purpose of the Bill? That is a matter which must be threshed out by Parliament.
  When I first read the Bill I must confess that I formed the impression, although the noble and learned Viscount seems to prove me wrong, that it might be called a Forestry Commission Bill, and that the Government had adopted paternity at a later date. That may or may not be. At any rate, it seems that the Forestry Commission had a great deal more to do with the Bill than the United Kingdom Forestry Committee. There is nothing wrong in that, of course. The Forestry Commission are a very distinguished body and, as we know, have done admirable work. I do not want to go into details about the points raised by the noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor. There will be plenty of time for that when the Committee stage comes along. But I hope that he and the Government will realise that, if we have offered criticism of some of the provisions of this Bill, we are conscious. perhaps more conscious than some other sections of the British people, of the very real problems with which not only the owners but also the
  442
  developers of land are faced at the present time.
  We should not like to feel that anybody, however distinguished—the Forestry Commission or anyone else—was the sole judge between two views on a matter of this kind. The noble and learned Viscount said just now, if I understood him correctly, that it would not be one Commission or another, but that the final arbiter would be the Minister of Agriculture. Some of these problems, problems with which we are all faced as the result of very heavy taxation and other aspects of our lives, into which I need not go at the present time, would be very difficult even for the Minister of Agriculture. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor and the noble Viscount the Leader of the House, at any rate, appreciate these very real problems. The noble and learned Viscount has suggested that there should be some consultation between us before the Committee stage with a view to obtaining agreed solutions to some of our problems, and I most warmly welcome that suggestion.
  On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  TITHE ACT, 1936 {AMENDMENT)BILL [H.L.]
  5.44 p.m.
  Amendments reported (according to Order).