FORESTRY BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 20 March 1951 vol 170 cc1177-240

2.59 p.m.

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

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

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (VISCOUNT ADDISON)

My Lords, I hope your Lordships will allow me to interpose for a moment to say a word about the Bill now before the House. It is not a Party Bill in any sense, and I am sure the House will be willing to treat it in that spirit. It is promoted entirely in order to try and safeguard our fast-diminishing reserves of growing timber. That is the sole purpose of the Bill. As your Lordships are aware, since the Forestry Commission was established, all political Parties have been represented on it, and I think it is fair to say that political considerations have never governed its activities. I am sure that it will not be thought amiss if I ask noble Lords, without distinction of Party, to try to help us produce under this Bill an effective and workable scheme, a scheme which will not be too cumbrous and which will help the Forestry Com-mission and all concerned, with proper consideration for those who are affected, to safeguard our rapidly diminishing reserves of timber, without any Party consideration whatever. I am sure the House will allow me to make this appeal, which is quite exceptional, and I hope it will be treated in that sense.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly.

[The EARL of DROGHEDA in the Chair]

Clause 1:

Duly of Commissioners.

1. The duty of the Forestry Commissioners under section three of the Forestry Act, 1919, shall include the general duty of promoting the establishment and maintenance in Great Britain of adequate reserves of growing trees.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE had given notice of two Amendments, the effect of which was to provide for the setting up of a Forestry Council with the duty of maintaining a reserve of growing trees. The first Amendment was to leave out all words from the beginning of the clause down to "general." The noble Earl said: I rise to move this Amendment, which raises a point of importance and principle. The Amendment, which must be read together with consequential Amendments, proposes that the important functions conferred by this Bill should not be entrusted to the Forestry Commission, but to a separate body specially set up for the purpose. I propose that because I do not believe that the Forestry Commission, either by their constitution or by their circumstances, are the best body to carry out those duties. We must remember that the Forestry Commission were created for an entirely different purpose from the matters dealt with in this Bill—namely, that of creating State forests. In this venture, in supporting the work of the Forestry Commission the State has already invested no less a sum than £34,000,000; the Forestry Commission have acquired 1,000,000 acres of plantable land, and have planted some 603,000 acres of that land. I shall be obliged if the noble Earl, Lord Listowel (I have given notice of this question), can tell us how much it has cost the Forestry Commission to plant these 603,000 acres and bring them to their present state of maturity—clearly, it is a much smaller sum than the £34,000,000 invested. I feel that it would assist us in our deliberations on this Bill if we could know that figure. The Forestry Commission, quite rightly, propose to acquire much more land and to plant many more acres. Therefore, my first point is: Have the Forestry Commission not already enough "on their plate"? They are engaged in a matter of major national importance, for which the Commission were created, and I should have thought that they had better stick to their job instead of trying to control everybody else's woodlands as well.

The Forestry Commission are not designed by their constitution to carry out the work envisaged by this Bill. Why should they be? In this connection, I should like to remind your Lordships of the Report on Post-War Forestry, published in 1944 by the Royal Scottish Forestry Society and the Royal English Forestry Society, which is about as authoritative a document as one could find, speaking on behalf of the private forestry industry in this country. I would suggest that those of your Lordships who have not read that Report should do so, because it is very much germane to what we are discussing in this Bill. I should like to read two or three short extracts from that Report. On page 15 it says: It is noteworthy that of the nine Commissioners who have been appointed since March, 1932, only two had any reputation in private forestry,"— this Report was written in 1944, of course. I shall be glad if the noble Earl (again I have given notice of this question) can tell us what are the present figures. In that connection—I shall be corrected if I am wrong—I understand that, except for the Chairman, the members of the Forestry Commission are unpaid. That seems to me to be entirely wrong. I do not think that in present times, anybody can afford to give a lot of time and do a great deal of work without payment. It seems to me that the members of the Forestry Commission are just as entitled to a director's fee as are, let me say, the members of the B.B.C. That is a principle which greatly affects the efficiency of any body. I do not know whether the members of the Forestry Commission have even their out-of-pocket expenses paid. They certainly should—and possibly the noble Earl could tell us about that.

The next extract from the Report that I should like to read is also on page 15. and says: … since 1929 the personnel of the Com-mission has become steadily less representative of forestry opinion in the country as a whole. This has tended to create a sense of frustration among those who are working for forestry outside the Commission. Those are very strong words coming from such a body. Again, I should like to ask the noble Earl: How often do the Forestry Commission, in fact, meet; and how far are they really able to control and govern the vast machine that is now working under their ægis? On the following page the Report says: In all our discussions, whether in Council or General Meeting, there has been unanimity in the view that the present administrative structure of the Commission must be radically altered, and this unanimity is shared by owners, agents, foresters, timber merchants, nurserymen and teachers of forestry. Our members are influenced by the experience that the Commissioners have not dealt sympathetically or understandingly with the problems of estate forestry. I say that it is impossible for Parliament to ignore a Report of this nature, coming from such an authoritative source. Again, on page 18 the Report says: An index of the Commissioners' lack of interest in Estate Woodlands is contained in their Annual Reports, most of which have dismissed the subject of Private Forestry in approximately half a page."— in their last Annual Report it was six pages. The section on this very important side of their work has usually been confined to a note on the grants for planting which they have passed. Then, on page 19, The Report says: This principle—that the only way to improve private woodlands is to nationalise them —appears to have been the basis of the Commission's policy throughout the whole period of its existence. These are very strong words indeed, and in the face of this Report, representing the views of the two great Forestry Societies of the United Kingdom, I say that the Government are taking a serious step in introducing this Bill conferring these powers on the Forestry Commission.

There is another and quite separate point which is made in this Report, and I think it is a very important one. It is that the Forestry Commission are the chief competitors of the private owners of woodlands—competing against them for foresters and for facilities, and in the marketing of the produce. The English Forestry Society, and the Scottish Forestry Society say this on page 16 of their Report: If private woodland owners are to be con-trolled by a body which is their most dangerous competitor—and moreover, a competitor who shows no balance sheet—they must have a reliable assurance that the administrative power will be in the hands of men who are sympathetic to their problems and needs. I have read only a few of the extracts which I might have read. A large part of this document is a strong indictment of the record of the Forestry Commission on private forestry.

Let us consider another point—the relations of the Forestry Commission with the public. I venture to say that these are most unfortunate. In many parts of the country it would be easy to start an agitation for a radical change in the composition of the Forestry Commission. If the Forestry Commission are going to poke their noses into everybody's business I cannot help feeling that they will probably be a great deal more unpopular still. On the Second Reading of the Bill I said that it was impossible to open a newspaper without seeing some complaint at the vandalism of the Forestry Commission. The noble and learned Viscount the Lord Chancellor said in his reply— and no doubt with complete truth—that a great many of these complaints about the Forestry Commission are ill-founded. No doubt that is the case, but are we right in assuming that they are all ill-founded? I cannot help being reminded of the proud mother watching the regi- ment march past and saying: "Only our Jim is in step." When you get such consensus of criticism from all over the country about the actions of the Forestry Commission, it would seem that there is something wrong somewhere. I believe that what is wrong is that the Forestry Commission are a body of experts. It is natural that that body, erected to create State forests, should be experts in forestry; but in my experience experts are very good servants and very bad masters. It has been a principle that we have always maintained in cur public life: that whereas experts should be called upon to advise, they should not be put in controlling power. We do not often give the position of First Lord of the Admiralty to a sailor, or the position of Secretary of State for War to a soldier. There have been occasions when it has been done, but the results have usually not been encouraging. In all these important questions there is the expert view, which of course must receive the greatest weight, but there are generally other considerations which are best judged and appraised by laymen.

The proposition which I would submit to your Lordships is that the whole approach of the Forestry Commission to their responsibilities is that of experts. They think of nothing but the latest teachings of forestry. May I give your Lordships a simple example of what I mean? Your Lordships will see from the Reports of the Forestry Commission that 94 per cent. of their plantings has been conifers. Everybody, of course, knows that if you require a volume of timber quickly, you will get it much more quickly by planting conifers than by planting hardwood. In view of the special objects for which the Forestry Commission were appointed, it was most important and absolutely right that the great bulk of their plantings should be conifers, because it is a matter of urgency to get more timber growing in this country as quickly as we can, though, of course, nobody knows in the least what type of timber will be required fifty or a hundred years hence in another war. Alice Holt Forest, and many other forests, were planted with oak by the Crown in the time of Nelson in order to provide battleships for the Fleet. It is one of the problems of forestry that you do not know exactly what type of timber will be most in demand at the time when the crop matures. I am not criticising the fact that the great bulk of plantings have been conifers. But if the Commission had only shown a little more elasticity, if they had planted only 10 or 15 per cent. more hardwoods, and had had broader fringes of hardwoods, so that the ordinary appearance of the countryside was not revolutionised in the way that their great conifer forests have revolutionised it, I believe that they would have encountered far less local opposition and criticism than they have done. They would be finding it far easier now to get fresh acreages. The complaint in the countryside is that the conifer forest destroys all the wild flowers, entirely revolutionises the fauna of the country and entirely changes the face of the landscape. I suggest that with a little more tact and latitude, and a little more hiding the conifers behind wide belts of hardwoods, the Commission could have overcome a large part of the opposition which they have aroused against themselves. I give that as an instance where I suggest the expert approach to the problem has not always been the wise one and, indeed, has created a great many difficulties for the Commission.

This Bill gives powers of interference with every estate in the country. Land owners, when they are considering their forestry policy, have to consider not only questions of pure forestry but also questions of finance. Private land owners are not in the position of the Forestry Commission, with the taxpayer's pocket at their backs. Finance may affect the fate of the whole estate. Moreover, land owners have to consider questions of agriculture—the relation that the woods on the estate bear to the agriculture of the neighbourhood. On Second Reading I gave an instance of how, by cutting down a wood, one could improve air drainage and thereby help fruit growing; and I was glad to have the support of the Lord Chancellor on that point. In hopgrowing counties woods are required to supply faggots for the hop pickers. All such points, in addition to questions of estate maintenance, have to be considered by the land owner in his forestry policy. It might be right, in a wet winter such as the present one, for a land owner to cut down several hundred alder trees and make a corduroy road to a particular farm. That might be the right and sensible thing to do. But under this Bill he cannot do that unless he obtains permission from some authority. I submit that that authority ought to be somebody who is sympathetic to agriculture and to the problems of the private estate. Unfortunately, we have it on the authority of the two forestry societies that the record of the Forestry Commission does not inspire confidence in that direction. The Lord Chancellor suggested on the Second Reading—and it was a perfectly fair point—that if the Forestry Commission are unsympathetic to land owners in these estate problems, then the land owner can always appeal to the Minister of Agriculture, who will bear all these points in mind. No doubt that is perfectly true. But is it really good enough, is it practical, to refer to Whitehall every time you do not get sympathy and proper understanding from a forestry expert? I suggest that it is much better to ensure in the first instance that the authority who has to be consulted, and whose consent is necessary in these matters, should be one qualified to understand the problem and from whom an appeal to Whitehall will not be necessary.

I return for a moment to the point made by the Forestry Societies, that the Forestry Commission are the greatest competitor of the private forestry estates. That is going to become more and more the case. Is it fair, right, or wise to put the private forestry owners under the thumb of their greatest competitor? It does not seem to me sound legislation or sound sense. And is it the way to encourage young land owners to take an interest in their woods? There will be a feeling among them that they will not get a fair deal. A prominent official of the Forestry Commission boasted to me in 1945 that, whereas many private land owners had been compelled to cut down immature woods during the war, the Forestry Commission had been fortunate enough to save a higher proportion of their woods. That sentiment was uttered from a purely patriotic point of view, and from the highest motives. It was, how-ever, a one-sided point of view. I submit that the authority who are going to consider which woods should be cut and which left standing, should be an impartial authority, and not themselves the greatest woodland owner.

I hope the Committee will not think I am disputing the principle on which this Bill rests, or the principle that the noble Viscount the Leader of the House referred to in his appeal a few minutes ago. I think we all agree that we must have a Bill to deal with our timber reserves. We must have a Bill to prevent indiscriminate felling. We must have a Bill to deal with estate-breakers and the like—people with whom I have no sympathy at all. But what we are proposing to do is very important indeed, and we must be careful that we employ the right agents to carry out the necessary work. After all, we are interfering with the right of a man to do what he likes with his own property—a fundamental right that goes to the basis of political liberty. But we all agree that we must interfere with that right in this instance: the national necessity demands that the right should not be completely unfettered. But in interfering with it we are doing a very serious thing; and we must not do it in a way that is going to take the heart out of the young land owners or make them feel that they will not in future have any responsibility for their woods or for the management of their estates but instead will be under the control of an unsympathetic body. After all, it is the land owners' love of their woods that has created practically all the mature forests in this country. Twice in this generation, in two world wars, this country has been saved to a large extent by the care and love that past land owners have bestowed on their woods. Therefore, if we are going to interfere with the work, the pride and the independence of land owners, let us do so very carefully. Private land owners have been reproached —I think they were the other day during the debate on the Second Reading, and they have been elsewhere—for not having replanted all the woods felled in the two wars. It is not. however, through any lack of desire that these woods have not been replanted. The responsibility for the non-replanting of these woods rests on the politicians who imposed and maintain death duties on agricultural estates and also, to some extent, on the Forestry Commission, for their inadequate grants between the wars—the figures of which I have always thought derisory, considering the expense of planting and bringing to maturity a young plantation.

I gave the noble Earl notice of this question, and I shall be grateful if he can tell us how much it has cost the Forestry Commission to replant felled woodlands since the War—say in the years 1947–48, 1948–49 and 1949–50. It would be interesting to have the actual figure. It has been the experience of too many land owners that their products, especially thinnings, were unsaleable in peace time and in war time control prices did not represent an economic return. And that attitude that the land owner ought not to make any profit out of his woods is continued to some extent in this Bill, which calmly proposes that all the national stockpiling should be at the expense of the land owner. I do not believe that that sort of attitude is the way to get the best co-operation out of any Englishman or Scotsman. If the Government provide a sympathetic and understanding authority, they will get willing and hearty co-operation; but if they impose an unsympathetic bureaucracy, they will not. It is because I feel that the Forestry Commission are aloof, and not in touch with the countryside, that they have been unsympathetic and niggardly to private land owners in the past, and that the Commission already have an enormous task in regard to their own woods, that I move this Amendment.

It would be far better, in carrying out this important legislation, if we could start with an authority specially designed and specially suitable for the purpose. What the Government have done is to take a Bill, quite clearly drafted in the Forestry Commission, and hitch it on to their policy. This policy is far too important not to require a special instrument for its execution. That is the issue that is raised in this Amendment. As a consequential Amendment, I have drafted a new clause setting forth the sort of body which I believe would be more suitable to deal with these issues, a body on which not only forestry but also all other relevant interests would be properly represented, a body selected by the Ministry of Agriculture. The names of these societies from whom the Minister should appoint members are, of course:, merely an indication of the type of experience which I suggest he should look for in forming his Forestry Council. I put that down as a consequential Amendment but now is not the time to debate that particular clause. I hope that nobody will found criticisms of this Amendment on the new consequential clause, because that we can debate in its turn if this Amendment is agreed. If any noble Lord thinks that the Council I have proposed could be improved, an Amendment could be made. The point which I raise in the present Amendment is simply whether it would not be wise to appoint a new authority to deal with this complicated and very important work, instead of pushing it all on to a body that already has an enormous national task of its own, and which was designed for an entirely different purpose. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 6, leave out from the first ("the ") to ("general") in line 7.—(The Earl of Selborne.)

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF LISTOWEL)

I am sure we are all grateful to my noble friend the Leader of the House for starting the discussion of this Bill on the right note. I shall certainly do my best to live up to the standard he has set and, if I should fall from grace, noble Lords opposite will clearly pull me up. The noble Earl who has just sat down gave me notice of some questions, and I propose to start by answering them. The first question he asked was: What has been the net cost to the Forestry Commission of the planting and growing up to the present date of 603,000 acres? The answer to that question is that the cost of planting the 603,000 acres has been approximately £26,000,000. The next question was about the cost to the Forestry Commission of planting up land previously under a tree crop. The noble Earl wanted to know what the average cost was over a period of three years. In 1947–48 the cost was £50 per acre; in 1948–49 it was £46 10s. 0d. per acre, and in 1949-50, it was £43 per acre.

The next question that the noble Earl asked me was how many members of the Forestry Commission have had experience in managing estates. Four members of the present Forestry Commission have had such experience, and one member has had experience as an agent for large estates; so the noble Earl will see that the number has gone up since the date of the figures he himself quoted. The next question the noble Earl asked was how often the Forestry Commission usually met. The answer is that they usually meet once a month, except in the month of August, but of course they meet more often if there is sufficient business to justify more frequent meetings. The fifth question of the noble Earl was whether the members of the Forestry Commission are repaid their travelling and other expenses, and whether they have a subsistence allowance. The answer to that question is, yes, they have.

There is one comment I should like to make on the strictures which were passed by the noble Earl on the work of the Forestry Commission. I think most of them came from a certain paper from which he quoted. I must point out that that paper was published a long time ago: it was published before the 1945 Forestry Act. Since that time, the Forestry Commission have changed considerably, both in their organisation and in their methods, and they have become responsible, through the appropriate Ministers, to Parliament. The noble Earl's Amendment amounts to a request to the House to pass a vote of censure on the Forestry Commission. I am glad to think that most noble Lords who have a close acquaintance with the work which the Forestry Commission are doing do not share the noble Earl's dissatisfaction with their record. I do not think they would agree with him that a vote of this kind would be justified.

The effect of the noble Earl's Amendment would be to transfer the duty of securing an adequate reserve of growing timber from the Forestry Commission to a Forestry Council, the body which he mentioned, and it would transfer to the same body the powers provided in the Bill for this purpose. In this manner, responsibility for forestry would be divided between two bodies: the Forestry Commission, which would look after the State forests, and the Forestry Council. Noble Lords will agree that divided responsibility, as we know from experience, is apt to be wasteful of time and staff. It would become particularly difficult, if not impossible, to plan forestry development for the country as a whole. I do not know whether the noble Earl wishes to transfer the staff of the Forestry Commission to his Forestry Council. He does not say anything about that in this Amendment or in any subsequent Amendment he has put down to the Bill. If that were not done, the Council would be a brain without any body to implement the decisions which it took.

I really think that the request that we are putting to the House is much less alarming than the noble Earl makes out. We are not asking the House to give the Forestry Commission new powers in this Bill: all that we are asking is that their present powers should be authorised by Statute instead of being used in virtue of a Defence Regulation. We are not asking for any considerable change in the present. situation. The Forestry Commission have, in fact, been exercising ever since the war most of the powers mentioned in the Bill, and no one has quarrelled in quite the way the noble Earl has done with the manner in which those powers have been used. I am sure that most of the Committee take the view that, whatever may be their shortcomings, on the whole the Forestry Commission have done a very good job of work in the interests of the country as a whole. The noble Earl has said nothing in the course of his remarks to show that the Forestry Commission are unfit to go on exercising these powers, and to continue to do that which they have been doing over a long period of time. I do not think that anything less than an indictment based on convincing evidence of the inefficiency of the Forestry Commission could justify the transfer of their powers to a different body. I hope the Committee will resist the Amendment. Perhaps the noble Earl will be good enough to withdraw it.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

In reply to the noble Earl, I should like to say that my Amendment is in no sense a vote of censure on the Forestry Commission. My point is that the functions conveyed by this Bill are very different from those under which the Forestry Commission was created and which it is carrying out in regard to its own forestry. However, if the Government take such an adverse view of this Amendment, I do not propose to press it. I think a great deal depends upon the concessions in the way of Amendments that are made to the Bill at other stages. Personally, I regret very much that this additional work is being put on the Forestry Commission. I think it would do better to stick to its own work. I will not press the matter, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

3.42 p.m.

EARL DE LA WARR moved, after "duty "(where that word occurs a second time) to insert "in consultation with the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee. "The noble Earl said: This Amendment is much less fundamental than that which has just been moved by the noble Earl, and I think I can put the main points fairly briefly before the Committee. The Committee will see that the Amendment refers to a body known as the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee. This body is already in existence, but on a purely voluntary basis-. If the Committee would turn to pages 18 to 20 of the Marshalled List (I think if. is necessary to do so in order to understand this Amendment), they will see that there are two Amendments put down to insert a new clause after Clause 13, one to be moved by the noble Earl opposite, and the other in my own name. Both those Amendments are designed to give statutory existence to this Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, but they go further and deal with a. body that we will discuss later—namely, the Regional Advisory Committee. That body does not come into this Amendment. The two Amendments to insert a new clause after Clause 13 are very similar. The Government have gone a long way to meet our request that these bodies should have statutory existence, and when the time conies I will withdraw my Amendment and gladly support that of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. But in neither of those Amendments are the functions of the Committee laid down; all that we do is to give them statutory existence.

The Committee will see that my Amendment is followed later by other similar Amendments which attempt to define the functions of and the manner and occasions upon which consultation shall take place with the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee. I would impress upon the noble Earl opposite that we on this side of the Committee place great importance on this series of Amendments. It has been said repeatedly that we on this side are not opposing the main principles of the Bill, and in that matter I should like to associate myself with what the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, said when we were going into Committee. But in consenting to the granting of these drastic powers, we are determined to see that every sort of interest is brought into consultation. We believe that history shows that since the Forestry Commission was set up all forestry interests have shown their desire to co-operate, and we are determined to insist upon that right to co-operate. I would stress this, particularly, for one special reason. Many of us feel that these powers could have been obtained by the Government without any of the disturbance to forestry opinion which has, in fact, been caused by what we feel, rightly or wrongly, is the tone of this Bill. I am sure the Government made that mistake quite unintentionally. We appeal to them to realise that some special gesture is needed if they are to reassure forestry opinion. I think I can assure the Government that if they accept this and other similar Amendments they will be going a considerable way in that direction. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 7, after ("duty") insert ("in consultation with the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee").—(Earl De La Warr.)

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT JOWITT)

I have been asked to reply on this Amendment. This Bill was not drafted by the Forestry Commission; it was drafted in the ordinary way. The Forestry Commission is now the servant of the Minister of Agriculture and the Secretary of State for Scotland, and is particularly under their control. Of course, the Commission can make suggestions in the course of their duty, but, as the noble Earl knows well, it is for the Ministers to decide what is to be submitted in the Bill. The Ministers have to give their consent and approval to what is in the Bill. I do not want to accept this Amendment, not because I do not understand the noble Earl's point of view—I am ready to go as far as I can to meet him—but because to insert this Amendment in this particular place would be very bad drafting and would lead to confusion. What we want to do in this clause is to set out quite plainly what is the duty of the Forestry Commission, they being under the control of the Ministry. I think the noble Earl will see that I am right about this point. We set out in Clause I that the duties of the Forestry Commissioners shall include a certain duty. If you turn to the Amendment at the bottom of page 18 of the Marshalled List, you will see that we are proposing a new clause, beginning as follows: For the purpose of advising the Commissioners as to the performance of their functions … There the method is the right one. We assert what the duty is, and then we assert that in carrying out that duty they must consult with certain people. One thing is the duty, and the other is the method of carrying out the duty. I do not think there is any point whatever in confusing the two things. When we come to the new clause, let us, by all means, make it plain (if it is not plain already), that that is an essential step.

I am quite at one with the noble Earl, and I do not want to dodge the point at all. I think that if he looks at it he will see that to insert the Amendment here, making it part of the duty instead of part of the method of carrying out the duty, is confusing and would be bad drafting. As the noble Viscount the Leader of the House suggested, we are very ready to see if we can help. I would suggest that we go through the Bill and if, when we have gone through it, the noble Earl thinks there is any doubt at all about this matter, then I will most gladly meet him. At the present time it seems to be bad drafting to include in the duty that which is appropriately included in the method and technique by which the duty has to be carried out.

VISCOUNT SW1NTON

May I ask one question to clear up the Lord Chancellor's proposal? My noble friend's Amendment to Clause 1 puts upon the Forestry Commission the clear obligation to consult the Advisory Committee which is to be set up under the new clause in the discharge of their functions under Clause 1. Do I understand from the Lord Chancellor that this is equally the Government's intention, and that they will insert in whatever is the appropriate place in the Bill words which will make it plain that it will be the duty of the Forestry Commission to consult the Advisory Committee in discharging their duties under Clause 1? Subject to what my friends may say, I should think that if that is so, there is clearly agreement between us. There is no difference as to what is our intention; it is only a question of where to put in the necessary words in the appropriate way. We should not like to part with Clause 1, which, I agree, lays on the Forestry Commission their duty, without being clear that we shall be satisfied at a. later stage that they will consult with the Advisory Committee.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

That is our intention, so we are completely at one about this matter. I think we have the words we need in the new clause after Clause 13. If we have not, I shall be very ready to consider any amended form of words to make it plain that the Forestry Commission are bound to consult with these other bodies in order to carry out their duties.

EARL DE LA WARR

The noble and learned Viscount has gone a considerable way to allay our fears, but what I want to be sure about, if I withdraw this Amendment, is that there is to be some real provision in the Bill for consultation with this body. I well remember that, as a very young Under-Secretary, working under the noble Viscount, Lord Addison, I used to be sent off about twice a year with a little typewritten brief to meet a Committee —I believe the Committee was concerned with fish. I was a very young Under-Secretary, with no power at all in the Department. I would sit in the Hall with various representatives of the Fish Council; at the appropriate time I would read out my little Departmental brief and then sit down, and, after a while, the meeting would disperse. That was how much we bothered about the advisory council on fish. I am most anxious that this forestry body shall not be in a position like that. The noble and learned Viscount has gone a considerable way to meet us, and I feel that—for the moment at any rate—it would be appropriate for me to withdraw my Amendment, on the understanding that we can consider the matter on the Amendment which the Government are proposing to insert after Clause 13, in order to make sure that this Committee is really operative. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2:

Restriction of felling.

(2) No licence shall be required under this section—

1. (b) in respect of the felling of trees of a diameter not exceeding three inches or, in the case of coppice or underwood, of a. diameter not exceeding six inches;
2. (c) in respect of the felling of any fruit trees or any trees standing or growing on land comprised in an orchard, garden, churchyard or public open space;
3. (f) in respect of the felling by an Electricity Board of any tree which obstructs the construction by the Board of any main transmission line or other electric line, or interferes or would interfere with the maintenance or working of any such line belonging to the Board;
4. (g) in respect of the felling by any person in any calendar month of trees of which he is the owner, so long as she aggregate content of the trees, as ascertained in the prescribed manner, does not exceed two hundred and seventy-five cubic feet

(5) In this section "Elecricity Board"means an Electricity Board within the meaning of the Electricity Act, 1947, "electric line"and "main transmission line "have the same meaning as in the Electric Lighting Act, 1882, and the Electricity (Supply) Act, 1919, respectively, and "public open space "means land laid out as a public garden or used for the purpose: of public recreation, or land being a disused burial ground; and references in this section to the diameter of trees shall be construed as references to the diameter, measured over the bark, at a point five feet above the ground level.

3.57 p.m.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTONmoved, in subsection (2) (b) to leave out "three "and insert "four "[inches]. The noble Earl said: This Amendment and the consequential Amendment at page 2, line 28, are simple, but I want to try to show the Committee that to the woodland owners they are of extreme importance. A very large proportion of the wood which is required by woodland proprietors for fencing purposes—this applies particularly in Scotland, where we have not the hedges that you have in England—is drawn from these small diameter trees with which this clause is concerned. The three-inch limit of diameter which is laid down in this clause is too small; timber of that size is not large enough for suittable and adequately strong fencing posts —that is to say, posts which will not only stand up to weather but also keep out stock—to be cut from it. It often happens that a plantation lies alongside a field which encloses stock—sheep or cattle— and it is essential that a fence should be there to prevent possible inroads on the plantation by the stock. The normal size of post is three inches by three inches, and your Lordships will appreciate that you must have square fencing posts. Round fencing posts are unsuitable for a number of reasons: you cannot creosote a round fencing post unless you peel it of its bark, which is a laborious process, and has to be done by hand. And since an uncreosoted post is not durable, it is necessary to have a square post. You can get a three-inch by three-inch square post only from a pole of four inches diameter. I think the fundamental purpose of this Amendment will now be clear to the Committee. It is to enable us to get this timber of which I have spoken from these thinnings which come out of our woods.

If an owner is to carry out his planting programme smoothly and efficiently, it is essential that he should be able to cut from his woods small-diameter trees for fencing timber when and if he requires them. Must he apply for a licence every time he wants to put up a fence? If the licence is refused, how is he to fence his plantations and carry out his commitments and plan of operations, whether the woods are dedicated or not? The paragraph as it stands must be exactly contrary to the intention of the Forestry Act of 1947, the primary object of which was to stimulate the reafforestation of our devastated woodlands. It would surely be a short-sighted policy if anything were allowed to remain in this Bill that would adversely affect the reafforestation of our woodlands. That is what we want, above all; to have them replanted as quickly as possible. I think the clause as it stands would not have that effect. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 2, leave out ("three") and insert ("four').—(The Earl of Haddington.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I want to sup-port this practical Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Haddington. I think the noble Earl who is responsible for this Bill must go into this question. What my noble friend has said is perfectly correct. It is essential for us to have these larger posts, because fence posts must be square. They must measure three inches by three inches, and to get that size we must have posts of four-inch diameter. Perhaps in England they are not required to the same extent as in Scotland. We used to have dykes in the old days, but dry dyking is gone now and we have to replace it with fencing. Not only for forestry but also for agricultural purposes, estate owners have to produce a good number of what we call "stobs "for fencing in stock. We cannot do it under this clause, and would have to apply for a licence; and that makes absolute nonsense of the position. I hope the noble Earl will find out the truth about this.

VISCOUNT MERSEY

I should like to support what the two noble Earls have said. The object of reafforestation is that the land owner should be self-supporting. If he is not to be allowed to cut the right sort of post but, every time he does something a little out of the ordinary, has to apply for a further licence, it makes his position very difficult.

LORD SALTOUN

I also should like to say a word in favour of the Amendment. I do not know whether my noble friend is pressing this Amendment, but I should like to see it urged to-day and brought forward on Report stage, unless the Government wish to accept it to-day. To a great extent farming in England is looked after by subsection (2) (a) of the clause, but when we come to Scotland, what my noble friend said about thinning trees is perfectly true. I want to give your Lordships a rather more detailed picture of that. In Eng-land a great deal of farming consists of permanent pasture, with only a small amount of arable cultivation. In Scotland we have farms with every inch of soil under tillage, and largely on what is called a six-course shift. When a crisis arises, or when the Government want more corn —and wheat is spreading much farther north than it used to when I was a boy— farmers leave the six-course shift and go to a seven-course shift. Anyone with a practical knowledge of agriculture knows that it is a difficult thing to reorganise a six-course farm as a seven-course farm, but, of course, the farmer gets more corn if he does it. The point is that any alteration in farming entails an enormous consumption of fencing, and every farmer must have posts at his disposal. Farmers are always fencing and refencing, even if they are not changing their shifts. The fences must be strong enough to hold in stock. Nothing is said here about straining posts, and I do not know how the farmer will find his straining posts. I hope the Government will consider what my noble friend has said, and will accept this Amendment, either to-day or at the next stage of the Bill. I hope that my noble friend will see that it appears on Report stage and will press it if necessary.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I should like to support this Amendment for a slightly different reason. From the forestry point of view, I think it is of value to have a larger size exempt. It is often convenient to start thinning right away. In a short period of a month or so, it is not easy to obtain a licence quickly, and, if the larger size could be felled without a licence, the woods could be thinned and the farmer could get on with his fencing. It is a matter which should be considered in the interests of forestry itself.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I think there may be some misunderstanding here. I agree with the noble Earl that the land owner should have enough good stout timber to enable him to do what fencing he needs, and that he should have enough timber for all estate purposes. If noble Lords will look at paragraph (g) of subsection (2) of Clause 2, they will see that an allowance of 275 cubic feet of timber of any size can be cut every month, free of licence. That timber can be cut and used for estate purposes without a licence, and we hope this will cover the land owner's requirements of timber for his estate.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

I thank the noble Earl for his explanation, but it will not do. It is not sufficient. All the 275 cubic feet will be required for purposes other than fencing. I can assure the noble Earl of that.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

The noble Earl has made a substantial point. I think he will agree that the amount of timber required by an estate depends on its size. A small estate will require less timber than a large one because there will be fewer purposes for which timber will be required. I am not going to commit the Government; but I shall certainly consult with my colleagues and the Forestry Commissioners. I think it is the intention of the Forestry Commissioners to grant a licence for additional timber beyond the 275 cubic feet, in cases where a land owner can show that the amount sought will be required for estate purposes. But I think the 275 cubic feet will be enough for the average estate; only the large estate may find it will not go far enough.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

Will a land owner have to apply for a licence every time he wants to fence a field, or would it be a permanent licence?

VISCOUNT MERSEY

Would it be a running allowance, or has an application to be made every time?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

No licence at all would be required for the felling of 275 cubic feet every calendar month. That will run on. May I address myself to the noble Earl's Amendment? I do not think it achieves what he wants, and it does something he does not want; that is why we do not like the Amendment as drafted. It will allow the felling, free of licence, of trees which are four inches in diameter. That permission would not be abused by a reasonable person, but, on the other hand, unreasonable persons could abuse it, and the door would be open to the Helling of a large number of trees in young plantations. If that happened, we should be unable to build up our timber reserves, and I am sure the noble Earl does not want that result. It is a risk that might happen if the larger diameter could be felled free of licence.

VISCOUNT SWINTO1N

It is not in the Amendment, but if it were laid down that the four-inch timber could be felled for estate purposes the noble Earl's argument would not apply. The only reason why we want this Amendment is for fencing, and that applies all over the country: it applies in the north of England as much as in Scotland. It has become all the more important now, when we have attested and unattested herds. I think the Amendment would be acceptable if it were stated that this cutting should be done only for estate purposes. We do not want people to fell small trees and go and sell them, but we do not want to be held up in what the Government imposes on us as a duty—namely, the maintenance of our estates—by having to seek a licence for what is ordinary day-to-day business for any land owner who keeps up his estate properly.

LORD SALTOUN

I think the noble Earl. Lord Listowel should have in mind that 275 cubic feet is only about 2,500 yards of fencing. That does not go very far.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

We are all agreed that land owners should have as much timber as they require for fencing and other purposes on their estates. I think there is no difference between us there.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

The noble Earl is not giving us enough.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

We are agreed on meeting fencing needs. What we do not agree about is the method by which this allowance of timber can be provided without interfering with the preserving of our forestry reserves. We had useful discussions with the noble Lords opposite between the Second Reading and this stage of the Bill, with the result that several improvements have been made, and we have been able to meet noble Lords opposite on a number of points. May I suggest that noble Lords should discuss this matter with us, between now and the next stage, so that we can work out something which will give us what we all want—namely, enough timber for the reasonable requirements of an estate?

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

Can the noble Earl give us the assurance that when we discuss this point we shall have somebody representing the management of land—an agent or factor—who can say whether we are going to get the right amount? The needs of every land owner are different; they vary from estate to estate, and from country to country. We must have some-one there capable of advising us, if we are going to specify an allowance, although I do not think it possible to put an allowance on this requirement.

EARL DE LA WARR

Will the noble Earl also give an undertaking that he will bear in mind the fact that if you are running an estate you cannot get a licence for all you require? I doubt whether there is anyone here who has an estate office and who does not employ one clerk additional to those he employed previously. Possibly the noble Earl does not appreciate what it means when it is said: "You can easily make another application."If the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, withdraws this Amendment, I believe he would be wise to do so only on a definite assurance that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, will take note of these most important points. Otherwise we shall be in the position of having another Committee stage on Report.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I can certainly say that we shall ask for any expert advice that may be needed to deal with the point; and I am sure that the advice of noble Lords opposite will in itself go a long way to meeting that requirement, because several noble Lords own large estates and know about their management. I also appreciate what has been said about licences, which is one of the matters we desire to get right.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

If we are to go into these discussions, is it on the basis that the Forestry Commission will treat us decently when we apply for a licence? Frankly, while accepting that the Forestry Commission have all the good will in the world, as I see it, that is wholly unacceptable in principle. The essence is that you should be able to manage your estate without having to make these applications every day. I am all for getting agreement on this point, but I do not want to go into negotiations on any misunderstanding as to their purpose. The object of negotiations should be to arrive at a convenient and practical way of expressing what is our common intention. If the intention is that we shall get, without licence, what is appropriate to the management of estates of different sizes, then I believe that would be acceptable, and I am sure that we could come to an accommodation. But if the intention is to go into the matter on the basis that we shall have to make an application and satisfy somebody in an office probably a hundred miles away from our estate, who may say that, before he grants the licence, he is coming over in a motor car to see the area, that is not reasonable. Before we agree to enter into these discussions, I should like to ask the noble Earl what is in his mind—to meet us via what he calls a reasonable granting of licences, or on the basis that there will go into the Bill the free right of landlords to do what is reasonable and necessary, without licence, in the day-to-day management of their estates.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

The noble Viscount is too practised a negotiator to expect anyone to bind himself in advance about what may come out of negotiations. But I can say that we will certainly consider sympathetically the view that has been expressed about the desirability of obtaining sufficient timber without licence. I am sure the noble Viscount will also see the difficulties of the Forestry Commission, who must carry out their statutory responsibility of seeing that we have a sufficient timber reserve, which can be done only through this procedure of licences.

EARL DE LA WARR

Before the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, rises again, may I say that I cannot help feeling that the noble Earl, Lord Lislowel, has given us a masterpiece of a Parliamentary answer. I am not sure that we are much further on than we were. It occurs to me—I am entirely in the hands of the Committee— that we might be wise not to insert these words in the Bill to-day, fully appreciating that if we made, say, the naked alteration, ircreasing the size from three to four inches, we should be making possible certain things which we should not support. On the other hand, if we inserted the words "four inches," instead of "three inches," we should expect on Report to amend the clause further on the lines suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, who said that it should be made clear that this alteration is not for the purpose of sale but for the purpose of legitimate estate work.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

There are two points which affect me. The 275 cubic feet per month will not be adequate timber for the average estate owner to carry out his repairs to fences round his plantations, and so on. We want to be able to get poles of up to four inches diameter for making fencing posts, where and when we can, without a licence. That is the whole point. We want them for estate purposes, and not to sell them. Would it meet the noble Earl if we inserted the words "for estate purposes "?

The Earl of LISTOWEL

I am afraid that I cannot accept another Amendment without time to consider what its implications are likely to be. So far, this discussion has proceeded in a friendly atmosphere, and we have done our best by mutual agreement to arrive at conclusions which are satisfactory to both sides. If noble Lords opposite wish to divide in order to impose their will on the Government, they are perfectly free to do so; but I cannot help feeling that it would be a pity to change the atmosphere in which we have been working right up to this stage of the Bill.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

May I make a suggestion? Would it not be better to accept Lord Listowel's assurance that he will go into the matter between now and the Report stage, and that the noble Earl, Lord Haddington, should reserve the right to bring the Amendment forward again on Report?

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

With that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.19 p.m.

THE EARL OF SELBORNEmoved, in subsection (2) (c) to leave out "an "and insert "a park." The noble Earl said: This Amendment will have the effect of making paragraph (c) of Clause 2 (2) read: in respect of the felling of any fruit trees or trees standing or growing on land comprised in a park, orchard, garden, churchyard or public open space; I think I am right in saying that in the Forestry Acts of 1919 and 1945 gardens and parks were treated as being in the same category. I venture to say that a land owner should not have to go to the Forestry Commission if he wants to make some improvement in his park. From the point of view of the object of the Bill— namely, conserving the limber supplies of the country—the amount of timber involved in this regard is infinitesimally small. I suggest that it is an unnecessary interference with the land owner's life that he is not allowed to alter his own park, besides his garden, without the permission of the Forestry Commission. It must be the experience of everybody that trees are planted in a park, and the time comes when they obscure a particular view of which one is very fond: then, as a matter of course, they are cut in order to restore the view. As I said, this is a very small point, the number of cubic feet of timber involved being very small indeed. It is surely a strong measure to say that a man cannot even clear the view in his own park without going to the Forestry Commission for a licence. Therefore I suggest that it is right and proper, as in all the previous forestry Bills, to put parks and gardens in the same category, and say that this is part of the Englishman's home and that he should be allowed, within those narrow limits, at any rate, to do what he likes with his own property. I beg to move

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 5, leave out ("an") and insert ("a park").—(The Earl of Selborne.)

VISCOUNT BLEDISLOE

I should like to support this Amendment. Your Lordships know that England is famous for her private parks and for the extreme ingenuity and care which land owners— who have what I may call a tradition in this respect—have given to these parks over many generations, so that England may continue to be the envy of the whole world in the matter of park layout. Having some considerable knowledge of people overseas, I know that many of them are coming to this country to-day to see all that is beautiful in England. It is to places like the private parks of England that many are coming in order to see parkland at its best, with the trees cared for and arranged with a view to scenic beauty. I am constrained to add my voice to this appeal, as the poet Pope, alluding to a member of my own family, said more than 200 years ago: Who plants like Bathurst and who builds like Boyle?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I hope I may remove the fears which have been expressed by noble Lords. There is no intention or desire on the part of the Forestry Commission to interfere in any way with the layout of parks and avenues which are associated with a private house. There is no reason to imagine that any pressure will be brought to bear on the land owner with regard to the felling of trees which are part of the layout of a park, with the private house as the centrepiece. The effect of this Amendment, which would exempt the felling of all trees standing in parks, would be to open the door very widely indeed to the felling of a considerable amount of timber, which would deplete our national resources. For example, I am advised that access land, whether inside or outside a national park, would be exempted under this Amendment. It would not include only trees standing on land in private parks. Noble Lords who come from Scotland will tell me whether I am right when I say that the question arises of policies in Scotland. Those are areas attached to private houses, where there are plantations covering a considerable amount of ground and growing a large quantity of valuable timber.

LORD SALTOUN

I think Scottish policies are much smaller than English parks.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am interested to hear that, because I understood that Scottish policies were a conspicuous example of parks containing a very large quantity of valuable timber and extending over a large area. As we proceed with this Bill, I think your Lordships will find that we are doing everything possible to put into it any necessary protection for reasonable purposes—the sort of purpose which the noble Earl opposite had in mind. But this particular way of trying to protect private parks would open the door widely to abuses, and I feel that it would be wrong to do that in this Bill.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I should like to remind the noble Earl that it is not merely a question of preventing a man cutting down a tree in his own park: it involves also the power of the Forestry Commission to force a man to cut down a tree in his own park. If the noble Earl will look at Clause 7, which deals with felling directions, he will see that it gives the Commissioners power to order anybody to cut down any tree they like, except as set out in subsection (2): No directions shall be given under this section requiring the felling of any such trees as are mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (2) of section two of this Act. Therefore, if the noble Earl maintains his attitude, what he is really asking for is the right of the Forestry Commission to order anybody to cut down any tree in his private park, and also to refuse him the right of cutting down any tree he wishes to cut down. As I said, this is a complete departure from all previous forestry legislation. Section 5 (1) (b) of the Forestry Act, 1945, exempts any land which forms part of any park, garden or pleasure ground, … The same phrase occurs in the Act of 1919. But in drafting this Bill, the words "garden" and "pleasure ground" have been kept in, and the word "park" has been struck out. I hope your Lordships will insist upon this Amendment, because for the home of an individual to be interfered with without any great national cause is a serious interference with amenities. The noble Earl said that vast quantities of timber might be lost if this Amendment were carried. Does he really think that that is likely? The amount of timber standing in our private parks is very small. It is the last thing that most owners would ever cut down if they could possibly help it, and I suggest that, as in the Act of 1919 and the Act of 1945, parks and gardens should be put in the same category.

EARL DE LA WARR

Many of your Lordships will feel that this is an important and difficult question. I feel sure that there are many noble Lords on the opposite side of the House who are extremely sympathetic to the Amendment. I imagine that there are a limited number of parks which are extensive and well wooded and where large quantities of timber would be involved. I am sure that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne would be the first to recognise that point. But I think noble Lords opposite will also recognise that, on the whole, those are exceptional cases. Would it not be possible to evolve some form of words which, instead of providing for absolute prohibition, would limit the area of exempted parks, and then issue an instruction to those concerned to take account of certain matters? I should prefer to see something on the lines of limiting the size of the park or the acreage to be exempted. Can the noble Earl give us some undertaking that he will look into this matter and see whether he cannot concede something to my noble friend?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Per-haps I may be allowed to say a word on this point. I have considered this matter, and I must say I have great sympathy with the noble Earl's pleadings. There are two difficulties that I see. I considered whether we could possibly have some definition of the area of parks. If we could, there would be much to be said for it. But it is difficult to find a satisfactory definition. The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, is concerned about Clause 7. He deplores the fact that it might be possible for some trees which have great æsthetic value to be cut down. We might do something about that in the way of providing that trees in parks should not be cut down. After all, the object of this Bill is to preserve what standing timber we have, as best we can, in view of the great shortage and the frightful difficulties in which we should be placed if, by any unhappy chance, we should find ourselves once more at war. We have nothing like the reserves we had in the 1914–18 or in the 1939–45 war; and if—which Heaven forbid!—we were to find ourselves involved in hostilities again, we should be in exceeding difficulty. That is why, whatever my sympathies may be, I am not very willing to accept any Amendment which might lead to considerable leakage.

There is one other matter which I and no doubt many of your Lordships have in mind. As regards this park which Bathurst planted—and long may he reign over it!—and the park which Lord Selborne has in mind, I should be happy to leave matters in the hands of the owners of these great country estates. But there are a great many sales taking place now, by people who are exploiting properties in a way which the original owners would never have done, and we must face that fact. We know how people come in and buy these parks and turn everything they can into cash; we have all seen and deplored it.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

I gladly accept the compromise suggested by the noble and learned Viscount. Perhaps the matter can be dealt with in Clause 7— and also the question of the amount of timber that can be cut free in relation to the size of the estate. If that can be done, it will probably cover the point we both have in mind. I admit there is a danger in the buying and devastating of these parks by estate breakers. I am as anxious as the Lord Chancellor to put a stop to that.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I really rose in answer to the noble Earl, Lord de la Warr. I have no authority to say anything at the present time, but I will certainly explore the matter and see whether something can be done in Clause 7 to remove the danger which Lord Selborne has indicated. I must not be understood as having given any undertaking, but I shall be happy to look at the matter and see what I can do, bearing in mind the dangers which have been pointed out.

VISCOUNT MERSEY

The remarks of the noble and learned Viscount and other noble Lords remind one of a line in Bolingbroke's speech in Richard II: Dispark'd my parks and fell'd my forest woods ".

LORD LAWSON

I should like to ask the noble and learned Viscount, when considering this question of clumps of trees, to keep in mind also the question of such clumps in open spaces in industrial areas. I have had an experience or two recently of industrial areas which have been devastated so far as timber is concerned. This, of course, was done under licence, but when I drew attention to one such case I received sympathetic consideration from the Forestry Commission. I wanted to raise this point on the Second Reading of the Bill but unfortunately was not able to be present. I think the Forestry Commission should set themselves against the cutting down of these trees, in whatever condition they may be, because they cannot be replanted in those areas. I hope the Lord Chan-cellor, in giving consideration to this matter, will bear in mind such instances as those. The finest forest in the world is no good to a community if it is miles away. Some open spaces in crowded areas have been denuded and deprived of trees, and the same consideration should be given to such areas as is apparently to be given to private owners.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will certainly look at that matter, but the preservation of trees is rather the function of the Ministry of Local Government and Planning, who grant tree preservation orders. The noble Lord will find that Clause 2 (2) (c) of this Bill provides that no licence is required for the felling of such trees. The noble Lord wants rather the opposite: he seems to want an injunction allowing such trees to remain. That, as I say, is the function of the Ministry of Local Government and Planning under their own Act, and not of the Forestry Commission. I have no doubt that in proper cases an injunction of that sort would be granted by them. With regard to Clause 7, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, will bear in mind that the Commissioners are empowered to give felling directions only if they think it expedient in the interests of forestry. That, I suppose, would be the sort of case in which some trees were overcrowding others, or something of that kind. The purposes of this Bill, as I have said, are generally to establish and maintain adequate resources of growing trees in the country. Therefore, they cannot pursue the general line of saying, "Cut down this or that tree," until they are satisfied that it does not interfere with that purpose.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

But it is a much more serious thing for the amenities of a country house for trees in a park to be cut down than it is to say, "Thou shalt not cut down." However, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.40 p.m.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (2) (f), after "by" to insert "or at the request of." The noble Lord said: I hope that this small Amendment will not be controversial. Its object is to save both the owners of trees and the Forestry Commission from un-necessary waste of time and labour. As your Lordships will see, at present if an electricity board wish to erect an electricity line, and various trees have to be cut down—as is frequently the case—the electricity board can cut them down, but not the owner, unless he obtains a licence. All that this Amendment does is to say that the owner, if a board asks him to cut down a tree, can do so without the necessity of asking for a licence. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 13, after ("by") insert ("or at the request of").—(Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

Although it may be hard to believe, it is always pleasanter for a Government spokesman to be able to say "Yes" than to say "No." On this occasion I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on his Amendment, because not only can we say that we accept it in principle, but we can say that we accept it as it stands. His drafting has stood up to the criticism of the expert draftsmen whom we have to advise us. I am much obliged to the noble Lord for what we think will be a distinct improvement to the Bill.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY

I thank the noble Earl.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD HYLTON moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (f) to insert: () in respect of the felling of any tree which is diseased, dead or windblown. The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is perfectly clear. I hope that it will be as well received by the Government as was the last Amendment. The Lord Chancellor has just said that the object of this Bill is to preserve the standing timber for national emergency and other purposes. There is no point in trying to preserve a dead tree. Therefore, we think that a dead tree and windblown timber should be included in the exemptions under Clause 2. The provision could usefully come as an additional paragraph after paragraphs (a) to (g). This matter is so obvious that it does not require much explanation. Dead trees standing on the ground are, of course, bad forestry, as everybody with a knowledge of forestry will agree. From the point of view of the Forestry Commission it does not seem worth while to issue a licence every time an owner wishes to cut down a dead tree. I think it is reasonable to ask the Government to let the owners of dead trees cut them down and take them away. The same argument applies in the case of windblown trees, except that they are an even greater nuisance on the ground than dead trees, because, if they are lodged among living trees and are not taken away, they spoil the trees which the Government and noble Lords on this side of the House are so anxious to preserve. Therefore, under both these heads it seems reasonable that these two categories of timber should be included in the exemptions from felling licences. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 17, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Hylton.)

THE EARL OF STAIR

In support of this Amendment, may I add that recently I had a strip of woodland, a good many acres in extent, which was not only partly blown but also dying of disease. I planted these trees myself some twenty-five or thirty years ago. After considerable hesitation I decided, with my foresters, hat the best thing to do was to cut down the trees, before they all died, and to replace them with something else. I approached a timber merchant who was willing to take the whole lot. I did not want to cut them down at all, except for the fact that they were either blown or dying. The timber merchant was delighted to take them. Then I was refused a licence, on the ground that the quota for Scotland was already filled for that amount of trees. By another year, at least another 20 per cent. of those trees will be dead of this particu- lar disease, which many noble Lords know quite well. I think it is entirely unreasonable that I should not only have to apply for a licence for trees which I myself planted, without any assistance from anybody, but that the licence should be refused.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

Before the noble Earl replies, may I add my experience to that of the noble Earl, Lord Stair, who has just spoken. I know of a case in a very large plantation composed of larch and Scots pine where the Scots pine are actually "dying on their feet," and a licence has been refused for the same reason—that the quota for Scotland has already been expended. That does not seem sense to me. Do the Government want timber or do they not? If they want timber, surely that timber should be cut and stored even if the Government do not wish to put it into the market. But I beg the Government, if they wish to have good stockpiling of timber as I understand they do, amongst other things, not to allow the trees to "die on their feet." The Government must, I think, reconsider this question of special cases when the quota has been expended. My second point arises out of what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said. I would add dangerous trees to the categories mentioned, because there are often trees which are just about to fall, for instance, on to a house. We all know how long it takes to get anything these days, and if you have to go and get a licence, the damage will be done by the time the licence is obtained. You must cover the case of dangerous trees; it is essential for the safety of the community.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

There is one point which has not been mentioned. Your Lordships will all realise that dead trees left standing are a serious menace to good forestry, because the bark of dead trees is fertile, breeding ground for the pine weevil. If there is a young plantation along with dead trees, the pine weevil will breed in the young trees, and the whole crop will be ruined. It is a strong reason for removing all dead trees as soon as possible.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I think I can go a considerable distance towards meeting the points of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and other noble Lords who followed him. The noble Lord's Amendment applies to two types of trees, dead trees or windblown trees, and he would like both those types exempted.

THE EARL OF STAIR

And dying trees.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

Dead trees are already exempt, so that no Amendment is required in that respect. If the noble Lord will read the beginning of subsection (1) of Clause 2 of the Bill, he will see that the reference there is to "growing trees": Subject to the provisions of this Act, no person shall fell any growing trees unless a licence granted by the Commissioners under this Act is in force authorising the felling. This Bill applies the restrictions and powers of the Forestry Commissioners only to growing trees; dead trees are altogether outside the limits of the Bill. So much for the dead tree, which everyone hopes will be cleared away by the owner at the earliest possible moment. So far as windblown trees are concerned, there are two types of windblown tree. The occasional windblow is one, and that can be dealt with in one of two ways. The first thing to consider is this allowance of 275 cubic feet. If just two or three trees have been blown down on an estate in a heavy gale, the odds are that they can be fitted into this allowance. That might not be possible if a larger number of trees had been blown down. I can give this assurance: that in the case of the occasional windblow a licence would not be refused if application were made to the Forestry Commission. They would automatically give the licence if it were shown that the tree had been blown down in a gale.

But there is a much more difficult type of windblow which has to be considered. We all know that from time to time there are very heavy gales, which affect many different parts of the country, and in these heavy gales a large amount of timber may be blown down. When this happens it becomes essential to license the blown trees, and of course reduce proportionately the number of licences which are issued for growing trees, so that the quota for the year is not exceeded. I think that will be agreed by everyone to be desirable, if the quota for the year for the country as a whole is to be adhered to. So that if these blown trees were to be made free of licence (as would happen if the noble Lord's Amendment were accepted), we should not know how many had been felled or what volume of timber had been cut down; and accordingly, we should not be able to adjust the rate of licence elsewhere. I am afraid that it is impossible to accept the noble Lord's Amendment as it stands, but I am sure he will appreciate this wider point, of which he may not have been aware before. I think the Bill as drafted goes a long way to meet the point that he has raised.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I am sorry the noble Earl has missed out my dying and dangerous trees. You have got to deal with these dying trees, or you must be suffering from some form or other of mental constipation. Why should you not deal with the trees on the ground, and cut them up and store them? You do not have to put them on the market. You do not have to increase your quota of growing trees. You could still keep your same quota of growing trees. Let the Forestry Commission buy the other trees which are dying, and cut them up and store them. That is stockpiling pure and simple. Further, will the land owner need a licence before cutting dying trees?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

They are in the Bill. The noble Earl will find that under paragraph (d) at line 7 on page 2.

THE EARL OF STAIR

The noble Earl has also missed the principal point that I made—namely, the question of these diseased trees spreading infection to other trees. At the present moment the trees that I am talking about are infecting all my neighbours' trees, and if this matter is left for a year or so, double the number of trees will be absolutely worthless as compared with now.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think that the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, should answer the whole of Lord Stair's point. He gave us an example of a plantation of spruce trees which, though not actually dead, were in an advanced state of deterioration. How does the noble Earl propose that they should be dealt with? What is his impression of the impact upon the quota system of that situation? Presumably, he will say that the noble Earl, Lord Stair made his application this year, that he has been unfortunate in the quota, and will probably have better luck next year. But, quite apart from the fact that further deterioration will have taken place, for all one knows the particular merchant who is prepared to take these trees this year may be engaged elsewhere by next year, and may not want them, so that the noble Earl, Lord Stair, will have lost the opportunity of selling this timber. It is not for me to say how this matter should be dealt with. If the noble Earl wants to stand on the Bill as drafted, it is up to him to say how a matter of that character will be dealt with. There is one more general point. I should have thought that this Amendment had some importance from the point of view of the Forestry Commission. We all know what is likely to happen. In a case like this the woodland owner is tempted to disregard the law. That would be the worst thing that could happen. So often, when there is an unreasonable law and a perfectly good, law-abiding citizen breaks it, that is the beginning of the rot. Surely it is for all of us to see that we pass only such laws as are supported by the good, common sense of the average law-abiding citizen. In the interests of what the noble Earl is trying to establish, I should have thought he would be well advised to take this matter back, and look at it again. If there is something wrong in our drafting here which he feels makes it difficult to support, I can assure him that we are not standing on our drafting. I ask the noble Earl to realise that there is a genuine case being established here and he would be wise to look at it again.

VISCOUNT GAGE

On a drafting point, I do not understand the line of reasoning which, according to the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, says that a tree is outside the scope of this Bill because it is dead, yet includes uprooted trees as growing trees. Surely an uprooted tree can hardly be described as a growing tree—at least, it will soon cease growing.

THE EARL OF HADDINGTON

That was just the. particular point I was going to make. There is a category of tree which has not been mentioned by the noble Earl. Often, sometimes up to a hundred trees are partially blown over by a strong gale, and are leaning up against stout, sturdy trees. They are not dead; they are still growing because half of their roots are in the ground. Are those trees, which are a menace to the rest of the plantation, to be removed without a licence, or has a licence to be obtained? Under what category do they come?

LORD KINNAIRD

May I say a word that might help? If the Committee agree with my interpretation of English, we are really given these powers already under paragraph (d). There it says that a land owner may fell a tree for the prevention of danger. I maintain that danger does not apply only to people. If, as Lord Haddington says, a tree is leaning upon another tree it is a dangerous threat, because it might knock the other tree down. I think that is covered by paragraph (d). Sickness and infection are also a danger, and a tree is a danger to its neighbour if there is a possibility of its spreading disease.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Kinnaird, for his intervention, which I think has put the position very clearly indeed. I think it would be difficult to include diseased trees in the Bill as a type of tree which is to be exempted from the provisions of the Bill, because there are many tree diseases which leave the timber perfectly sound—for example, there are leaf diseases. I do not profess to be able to follow noble Lords far in this field but I think that is correct. On the matter of dying trees—a point raised by the noble Earl, Lord Airlie—again it is extremely difficult to tell when a tree is dying; but if the noble Earl can help us to draw up a definition which will cover a tree only when it is on its last legs then we may be able to do something about it.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I think most of us should be able to tell when a tree is dying. At any rate, any qualified forester knows when a tree is dying or is going back.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

May I take up the matter with the noble Earl after this stage of the Bill? I apologise to noble Lords for not being able to expatiate at greater length on this subject of dying and dangerous trees, but Lord Hylton's Amendment referred only to dead or windblown trees, so I am rather lacking in the background of advice which Ministers need when dealing with a matter of this kind. But I hope that I have been able to satisfy him that, if only dead trees are concerned, they will be outside the Bill and no licence will be required; and that so far as windblown trees are concerned, there is a problem which arises only in certain circumstances, when a very large number of trees are blown down in a gale.

LORD HYLTON

I am much obliged for the assistance I have been given on this Amendment by many other noble Lords with far greater experience of forestry than myself. I am glad that by a sort of side wind we have cleared up the position of the dead tree. As to, the windblown tree, that seems not to be covered properly. I think the main difficulty is that, with this tight quota, if a windblow should occur towards the end of a forestry year, the quota for that area will, probably, have been exhausted. Therefore there is no room to include the windblown area in question within the year's quota. I fancy that that may have happened in the case mentioned by the noble Earl, Lord Stair. We ought to make some provision for such a situation. Surely, it is not beyond the wisdom of Parliament to make some proper provision so that, if some windblow should occur after the quota is full, there could be a special quota to cover this timber. I do not think that anyone with practical knowledge of forestry would consider it desirable that areas of windblown timber should stand about in woodlands for, it may be, twelve months or more. That must be bad forestry. Therefore, I ask the Government whether, during the course of the next stages of this Bill, they will look into this question of windblow and see whether it is not possible for them to make the quota perhaps a little more flexible, so that in such exceptional circumstances these trees can be cleared rapidly. If the noble Earl can give me some assurance of that kind, I will gladly withdraw my Amendment.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am pleased to meet the noble Lord on this point, and I appreciate the attitude which he has adopted. He has clearly understood our difficulty. I will certainly look at this problem of windblow between now and the next stage of the Bill with a view to seeing what can be done.

LORD HYLTON

On that undertaking I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HYLTON moved in subsection (2) after paragraph (f) to insert: () in respect of the felling of any tree necessitated by carrying out development for which planning permission has been granted under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947.

The noble Lord said: The object of this Amendment is to ensure that when per-mission to develop is given under the appropriate legislation, the forestry position is covered by the planning authority, in consultation with the Forestry Com-mission, so that it will not be necessary for the owner to apply for a licence if any felling of timber is necessary to carry out that development. That seems to me to be a sensible administrative arrangement. It would entail the planning authority's consulting the Forestry Commission before giving planning permission if a large amount of standing timber were involved in the carrying out of the development. That would have an advantage, in that it would assist the developer, because when he had planning permission he would then know that the forestry position had been covered by the planning permission. I think that we all desire to simplify for the miserable developer all the processes of law that he now has to undergo. If—as I think it would—this Amendment would assist the developer in his task, I hope the idea will appeal to the Government, and that this small Amendment will be accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 17, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Hylton.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I appreciate the noble Lord's point; we agree with him about what he wants. We recognise that a development scheme which is in the national interest—even if it means sacrificing a certain number of trees—for which planning permission has been given, should not be held up because a licence to fell trees has been refused. The difficulty about the Amendment is that it would allow trees to be felled as soon as planning permission had been given, even if the development of this particular piece of property—whatever it might be—did not actually take place until several years later. This, of course, might mean the unnecessary loss of a consider-able quantity of timber. I sympathise with what the noble Lord wants, and if he will be good enough to withdraw this Amendment, we will try to draft an Amendment which will overcome the difficulty I have mentioned, and meet his point.

LORD HYLTON

I am grateful to the noble Earl. I think that probably some words such as: when the work of development has actually begun would meet the case. If words of that sort could be added, I think the point raised by the noble Earl would be met. In view of the assurance which he has given, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.5 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (2) (g) to leave out all words after "person" and to insert: of trees of which he is the owner, so long as—

1. "(i) the aggregate cubic content of the trees which are felled by that person without a licence (exclusive of trees the felling of which without a licence is authorised by any other provision of this Act) does not exceed two hundred and seventy-five cubic feet in any month; and
2. (ii) the aggregate cubic content of the trees so felled which are sold by that person whether before or after the felling (exclusive as aforesaid) does not exceed fifty cubic feet in any month, or such larger quantity as the Commissioners may in any particular case allow."

The noble Earl said: This is an important Amendment and, judging from the discussions which we have had, I think it will appeal to noble Lords opposite, as well as toeing what we consider a reasonable alteration in the Bill. What this Amendment does is to leave un-changed an owner's ration of 275 cubic feet per month (that is the amount of wood which he can fell without a licence for his own purposes) but to limit to fifty cubic feet the amount he can sell out of this allowance. This, we hope, will give the owner enough timber for use on his own estate, and will prevent the risk of abuse which would be serious if it were permissible for the whole amount to be sold. For instance, your Lordships will appreciate that without such a provision there would be nothing to prevent timber merchants extracting a large quantity of timber by returning month after month, and felling 275 cubic feet of timber on some estate which had a con- siderable quantity of standing timber. I am sure your Lordships will appreciate that, if this kind of thing did happen, serious inroads would be made into our reserves of growing timber. We have to stop that sort of thing, but at the same time we want the owner to have enough timber for use on his own estate. We think that this Amendment, which limits the amount that can be sold but does not reduce the total amount of the owner's allowance, will meet that point. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 18, leave out from ("person") to the end of line 22, and insert the said new words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

EARL DE LA WARR

Although there are certain other points connected with this clause in which we are interested, on this specific point I should like to support the noble Earl. Beyond question there has been a certain amount of evasion by timber merchants, who have gone round from estate to estate, of this provision of a ration of 275 cubic feet per month. I hope that the noble Earl may be able to say something beyond what he has already said regarding the possibility of making this estate allowance subject to a sliding scale, based on the size of the estate concerned. He threw out a hint of that a short while ago, and I think it would be most helpful if he could now develop the point further. I should also like to suggest, whilst on this point, that this allowance ought to be considered on an annual rather than on a monthly basis. At first sight, when we read of the allowance of 275 cubic feet a month, those of us who do sums might be inclined to think this means 3,300 cubic feet a year. But it is not merely a question of mathematics, for to work out the sum in that way takes no account of the fact that during certain months the sap in the trees is rising, and the owner would do well not to cut them at such times. Therefore, the amount of timber involved is very much less than might appear to be the case at first sight. But those are suggestions which really belong to the next Amendment to be moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, so I will content myself with merely giving a general blessing to what the noble Earl has said.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

If I may reply to the suggestion just made by the noble Earl, may I say that we should consider, as one way of providing this timber for estate purposes, a sliding scale to correspond to the size of the estate. I think we shall certainly consider that proposal.

I am grateful to the noble Earl for submitting something so beneficial and practical. I shall certainly go into that point between now and Report stage.

EARL DE LA WARR

And the annual point, too?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

Yes, the annual point, too.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment which has just been accepted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 29, after ("seventy-five") insert ("or fifty").—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (4) after "Act" to insert: (" (a) may direct that paragraph (b) of sub-section (2) of this section shall have effect as if for the reference to a diameter not exceeding six inches there were substituted a reference to such smaller diameter as may be specified in the regulations; (b)") The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to enable the Commissioners to reduce the size of trees which can be felled without licence. It may be found that the six-inch diameter limit, which is the limit provided in the Bill, is too large. This reduction could be made only by an affirmative Resolution, so that the effect of the Amendment is that any alteration would require the ex-press approval of both Houses of Parliament. We think that the Commissioners ought to be in a position to ask Parliament for this authority if they find it necessary. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 32, at end insert the said paragraph.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

EARL DE LA WARR

It is by an affirmative Resolution? Then I do not think we want to oppose the Amendment.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 34, leave out from the first ("of") to ("and") and insert ("that subsection").—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

This Amendment is also consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 34, leave out ("such regulations").—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Ouestion, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

This further Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 36, after ("seventy-five") insert ("or fifty ")—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, in subsection (5) after "used" to insert: otherwise than in pursuance of section one hundred and ninety-three of the Law of Property Act, 1925, or of Part V of the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act, 1949.

The noble Earl said: The object of this Amendment is to narrow the definition of "public open space" so that it covers what we want it to cover and excludes what we want it to exclude. The Amendment makes clear that the exemption from licensing does not apply to land to which Section 193 of the Law of Property Act, 1925, applies—that is, metropolitan commons and commons in borough or urban districts: and does not apply to open country to which the public have access under the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 44, after ("used") insert the said words.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

This Amendment is consequential. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 45, leave out ("and").—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, to insert at the end of subsection (5): and references in this section to the cubic content of trees shall be construed as references to that content as ascertained in the prescribed manner. The noble Earl said: This is not an Amendment of substance. It really indicates the way in which reference to the cubic content of trees is to be interpreted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 3, at end insert the said words. —(The Earl of Lislowel.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I should like to ask the noble Earl a question. The Amendment says that the cubic content shall be ascertained "in the prescribed manner." Why is it necessary for the Minister to make a prescription about this? There is a recognised trade measurement of timber, and I do not see why it is necessary to make provision for departing from that method.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I do not think this is an innovation in any way. There is a customary way of ascertaining the cubic content of trees and I do not think there is anything new about it. If the noble Karl thinks there is, I will certainly look into it.

EARL DE LA WARR

I do not think there is any necessity for a new way of measurement. If the noble Earl will withdraw his Amendment, it can be looked into.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I shall certainly look into it, and if any difference remains between us I am prepared to consider any further Amendment, but at this stage I am not convinced by the noble Earl that these words do mean something new.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Quest on, Whether Clause 2, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I should like to ask the noble Earl one question. He told us, I am sure rightly, that a regulation by the Commissioners under the Amendment he proposed and which the House accepted would require an affirmative Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. No doubt he is right, but I should be much obliged if the noble Earl would show where in the Bill that is prescribed.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I will gladly do so. The reference is to Clause 17 (4) of the Bill, which states: Regulations made under subsection (4) of section two of this Act"— which is the subsection to which the noble Viscount referred— shall be of no effect unless approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

I am obliged.

Clause 2, as amended agreed to.

Clause 3:

Felling Licences

3.—

(2) Where any such application is made, the Commissioners may, if it appears to them to be expedient so to do in the interests of good forestry or agriculture or for the purpose of complying with their duty under section one of this Act—

1. (a) refuse to grant a licence; or
2. (b) grant a licence subject to any conditions which they consider expedient as aforesaid, including conditions relating to the restocking or management of the land to which the licence relates in accordance with the rules or practice of good forestry and in such manner and during such period (not exceeding ten years) as may be specified in the licence.

(4) Where the Commissioners refuse to grant a licence under this Act, they shall give notice in writing to the applicant of the grounds for the refusal.

EARL DE LA WARR

On behalf of my noble friend Lord Selborne I beg formally to move the next Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 5, leave out ("Commissioners") and insert ("Council ").—(Earl De La Warr.)

THE EARL or LISTOWEL

I am afraid that I cannot accept this Amendment.

EARL DE LA WARR

I thought I would give the noble Earl the opportunity of accepting. I will withdraw it.

THE EARL OF LTSTOWEL

I am quite willing to give my reasons, but I want to save time, and I am content if the noble Earl is willing to withdraw on behalf of his noble friend.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

This Amendment is mainly drafting, but I should just like to explain its effect. The Bill as amended would provide that the Commissioners can impose such conditions as they consider expedient, instead of "any conditions," which is the possibly wider expression included in the Bill at the moment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 12, leave out from ("to") to ("they") and insert ("such conditions as"), —(The, Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD AMHERST OF HACKNEY moved, in subsection (2) (b) after the first "which" to insert "after consultation with the applicant." The noble Lord said: This is a small but, I venture to say, important Amendment. Its object is to ensure that, when the Forestry Commission grant a felling licence to which conditions are attached, before granting it they should consult with the applicant. The point is that if we are going to make the best of forestry there must be the best possible relations between the Forestry Commission and those people who have to plant the trees. I feel that if before producing the conditions in the form of a licence the Forestry Commission consult with the owner, and take into consideration all his difficulties, even though eventually they come to the same conclusion, that will go a long way towards reassuring the applicant that his case is getting the fullest possible consideration. It is with that object that I beg to move this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 12, after ("which") insert ("after consultation with the applicant").— (Lord Amherst of Hackney.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I should like to congratulate the noble Lord on scoring another bull's-eye. I am not sure whether it is necessary to include this provision, because the applicant for a licence to fell would be consulted if the Commissioners wished to attach conditions to the issue of a licence. However, if the noble Lord feels that a provision to this effect should be included in the Bill, we arc perfectly willing to accept it, and in the form which he proposes.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.27 p.m.

VISCOUNT GAGE had given notice of several Amendments in subsection (2) (b), of which the first was to leave out "including conditions relating to" and to insert "for the purpose of." The noble Viscount said: This Amendment and those two next in my name relate to the same point and, therefore, although I shall move them separately, I shall inflict only a single speech on your Lordships to cover the point. I am not particularly wedded to the wording of this Amendment. My intention is simple, and I hope that it has been made clear. I want to limit the powers of the Forestry Commission in this matter of conditions, and to confine them to the simple issue of restocking these woodlands. I come from a county where we have many thousands of acres of scrub and devastated woods, and I believe it is proper that the Forestry Commission should have the right to say to an owner who applies for permission to cut trees: "You may cut, but you shall replant, and you shall do it in such a way that the trees that you plant have a reasonable chance of growing." I am sure that there are a large number of other owners and interested people who agree that that is right in principle. Nevertheless, having gone so far with the Government, I see great difficulties. There is the quite common case where the ownership of the land and the ownership of the trees is divorced: the man who sells the trees and gets the money is not the same man who has to go to the expense of replanting. I agree that this is apparent in sub-section (3) of this clause, but I feel that this is rather a clumsy way of dealing with the matter, because it appears to give the owner of the land an almost indefinite power of holding up an application for a felling licence. I confess that I cannot for the moment think of a better way of doing it, but it is not very satisfactory.

Then there is the case of the man who is desperately hard up for money, who might have great difficulty in replanting without assistance. These are real difficulties, but I feel that they can be overcome by the exercise of discretion and good will, because, as I say, there is a good deal of support for this principle. But these, and similar difficulties, will be almost insuperable if the Forestry Commission seek to impose conditions going right beyond the principle of restocking, such as those regarding general management, for which I do not think there is anything like the same measure of support. Take the quite common case of an owner who wants to cut down twenty or thirty selected trees, in a wood of forty or fifty acres. As the Bill is drafted, it seems to me possible for the Forestry Commission to say: "We will give you this licence only if you manage the whole wood in quite a different way from that which you have done hitherto. You must clear fell there, and you must thin there," and so forth. This kind of direction might be perfectly good forestry, but is it right that it should be brought in on a side issue, depending on the chance that the owner might apply for a licence? Should it depend upon such wording as it seems to me this clause contains? This clause talks about land to which a licence relates. Surely, a licence does not relate to land—it relates to specified trees, and, in the case of selective felling over a large area. I say, with great respect, that it seems to be anybody's guess as to what the meaning of these words may be.

I submit that this clause would be difficult to work, even if it were confined to restocking. I submit that if the Government want to go beyond re-stocking, and if they want to impose a virtual plan of operations upon an owner, without any of the grants connected with the dedication covenant, that will not be either popular or workable. In fact, I think that in the case which I quoted, where the ownership of the land is not the same as the ownership of the trees, it will be virtually impossible for the owner of the trees to get the owner of the land to agree to the, submission of a licence, because the owner of the land would be undertaking quite unknown liabilities. It seems to me that there is no immediate urgency about this part of the Bill, which deals with the planting of trees for the distant future. If the Government really desire to bring whole new areas of woodland under more scientific management—and I agree there is a good case for so doing—I feel that they should approach the question in a more direct and a more scientific way. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 13, leave out from ("aforesaid") to the first ("the") in line 14, and insert ("for the purpose of").—(Viscount Gage.)

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I should like to support this Amendment, and I beg the Government to pay a little attention to what the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, has said—and said extremely well. This is a very arbitrary clause, and it seems to me that the Forestry Commission wish to develop into a sort of O.G.P.U. They want to come into the arena of management, and that is what they are doing in every case. They are going into matters which are outside their scope, and which should not be within their scope. Management should be in the hands of the man who has planted the trees and who owns the land. I cannot believe that it is right that the Commission should expect the owner to go out of the arena altogether, in any circumstances.

THE EARL OF L1STOWEL

I should like to follow the example of the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, and to speak to two of his Amendments at the same time, because they are linked. The noble Viscount has raised an extremely interesting and important point, and my only regret is that it seems to have led to some misunderstanding of the intentions of the Forestry Commission. The Forestry Commissioners did not intend—as I think the noble Earl, Lord Airlie, suggested— to smuggle in some sort of authority in all conditions. They share the desire which all your Lordships have, that the powers given to the Commission for the restocking and replanting of the land should be limited very narrowly to whatever powers may be required for that simple purpose. We do not desire more general powers, or powers which would be used in a more general way. We agree entirely with the noble Viscount. All the Forestry Commissioners want is simply the power to restock, and the power to see that the newly planted trees are maintained. There is no question of their going beyond that and trying to manage the estates. There-fore, we are entirety in agreement, and there is nothing between us at all. Perhaps the noble Viscount will be willing to consider this matter from the point of view of wording, so that we can get exactly what we want at another stage.

VISCOUNT GAGE

Speaking for myself, I should be very willing to accept the undertaking given by my noble friend. I have no doubt that the intentions of the Forestry Commission are admirable, particularly with my noble friend Lord Radnor as a member of that body. But long experience has taught me that what really counts is the actual words in a Bill, and in my own experience I have noticed that great efforts are made to strain words to their utmost capacity—in which work I must confess that I have taken some part. Therefore, I accept the noble Earl's promise and I shall examine the emanations at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

I also accept what the noble Earl has said, but paragraph (b) says the Commissioners shall grant a licence subject to any conditions which they consider expedient as aforesaid, including conditions relating to the restocking or management of the land.…. What does that mean but management?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I said that we are prepared to accept an Amendment which will remove the offending words.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

5.40 p.m.

VISCOUNT GAGE moved, in subsection (2) (b) after "relates" to insert "or of alternative land made available by the owner." The noble Viscount said: The object of this Amendment is, I think, perfectly plain. I want to give to the owner and the Commission a certain discretion as to where the replanting contemplated in this clause should take place. I have in mind an owner who might have a small wood of, say, four or five acres, which he might wish to cut down, incorporating the land into a farm. He might be perfectly willing to replant somewhere else, and he might have land which would be scrub and unsuitable for any other purpose, on which he was prepared to plant trees. The initiative in a matter of this sort ought to come from the owner, because it is he who is responsible for general estate policy. I do not think the Commission ought to be prevented from agreeing to such a scheme simply on the grounds that no provision had been made for it in the Bill. With modern methods and machinery for clearing away roots it is possible and often desirable to change the use of land from old woodland into good agricultural land, and to change scrub into properly afforested land; and a certain amount of elasticity to enable that to be done should be provided for in the Bill. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 15, after ("relates") insert ("or of alternative land made available by the owner").—(Viscount Gage.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am much obliged to the noble Viscount for what he has said. It might be extremely convenient if an owner were able to complete replanting on an alternative site. That is certainly a course which ought to be open to the owner; and if it were adopted the Commission ought to impose the same conditions concerning replanting and maintenance. If the noble Viscount will allow me to look into the wording, I should like now to agree in principle with his suggestion, while retaining the right to do something on these lines.

LORD LAWSON

Does this mean that where woodland is growing very old and decayed, the owner should be allowed to cut it down and use the land for some other purpose? If that is so, I should like to consider the matter for a moment. The first Industrial Revolution wreaked great violence to certain great areas of this country. I have considerable sympathy with those who have difficulty in maintaining their woodlands, and I quite understand that they want to cut some of the woodlands down for the purpose of meeting expenses. But the Second World War made its contribution towards the destruction of little clumps of trees and woodlands in the areas which had already been destroyed by the first Industrial Revolution: every tree in sight was cleared. I find in Durham—and one has only to go from York to Darlington and on to Newcastle to see how many trees there are in that part of the world —that woodlands that have sentimental associations for generations of people have disappeared. Thousands of boys and girls who have become men and women cherish memories of the days when they gathered primroses and blue-bells in those woods. There is great sentimental interest attaching to these woodlands, and that is a very good thing for the people of this country. But the woods have been cut down without any-body knowing anything about it. I should like to know whom the timber authority consult in such a matter. I discovered. for instance, that the Control that covers Durham is in York. Are the local authorities—the parish or district councils —asked about these matters? They are the people who should be consulted, because they represent the community. Even if the woodland concerned is one that has grown old, surely it is better than no woodland at all—especially as there is no guarantee of replanting in case of felling.

I have now made the point that I wanted to make on the Second Reading. I was very anxious to make it, for I have seen the destruction of these comparatively small clumps of trees and single trees going on during recent years, and my indignation has grown all the time. I think that the people who do the world's work, in the sense of industrial work, and live in areas where there are great heaps of slag and coal and the like, should have some consideration in this matter.

VISCOUNT GAGE

I have no wish to deprive anybody of his rightful amenities, but surely the kind of case about which the noble Lord has been speaking so eloquently is met by the tree preservation order procedure in the Town and Country Planning Act. After all, the county councils have considerable powers. And I must say, with the greatest possible respect, that the Durham County Council, to which the noble Lord has referred, have shown a great deal of industry of late in certain other respects.

LORD LAWSON

I meant the parish councils and the district councils.

VISCOUNT GAGE

It is within the purview of the county council, after consultation with district councils, to make tree preservation orders. I should have thought that the noble Lord's complaint should be addressed to them. In raising this matter I had no intention whatever of trying to deprive anybody of his or her accustomed amenities. I do not feel prepared to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, in view of the fact that proper provision for that for which the noble Lord pleads is made elsewhere—and, indeed, is provided for later on in this very Bill.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I think my old friend Lord Lawson has received an adequate reply from the noble Viscount, Lord Gage. The main safeguard for these clumps of trees standing in the vicinity of villages and towns is the power of the local planning authority to issue tree preservation orders.

LORD LAWSON

May I point out to the noble Earl that the licence is given and the cutting down proceeds before the people are aware of it? It is true they can get a tree preservation order, but it is no use after the licence has been given and the cutting down has begun. That is my complaint.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am not allowing a licence under this Bill to override a tree preservation order: I hope the noble Lord does not think that. The other point is that, in considering any alternative sites for replanting, as the noble Viscount has suggested, clearly amenity considerations would have to be taken into account. They would be among the considerations which would decide whether or not a site was chosen for replanting. I hope that the noble Viscount will stick to his point, because I do not think there is any reason why it. should conflict with the amenity interests which have been voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Lawson.

VISCOUNT GAGE

When I said that I would not withdraw my Amendment, I meant that I did not wish it to be dismissed on the plea that it interfered with amenities. I will withdraw it in response to the noble Earl's kind assurance that the wording will be looked into.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

This is an Amendment of substance, but I do not think it is in the least controversial— I gather that the noble Earl opposite agrees. The effect of the Amendment is to give the Commissioners power to grant a licence to fell without attaching any conditions. That is not a power which they have under the Bill as now drafted. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 18, at end insert ("but in any other case shall grant a licence unconditionally").—(The Earl of Listowel.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

5.52 p.m.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to add to subsection (2): Provided that in considering whether to refuse or to grant a licence unconditionally or subject to any conditions, the Commissioners shall take into account any representations made by the Regional Advisory Committee for the conservancy in which the trees are growing.

The noble Earl said: This is an important Amendment. Again, as in the case of my first Amendment at the beginning of the Committee stage, it depends and follows on the Government Amend- ment after Clause 13. Under that Amendment, the constitution of the Regional Advisory Committee for each conservancy in Great Britain is set out, but once again, as with the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, it is given nothing to do. In this particular case, we regard it as most important that the Regional Advisory Committee should be given a locus for intervention. The Regional Advisory Committee should have a locus to intervene, either on its own behalf or at the behest of any wood-land owner or anyone else affected by the circumstances. We regard it as a test case as to whether or not the Government intend this system of Regional Advisory Committees to work as a reality. If the Government say they cannot accept this Amendment, I think it will cause great concern to woodland owners throughout the country. Therefore, in order that the Government may have an opportunity at once of saying whether or not they are prepared to accept this Amendment (for we cannot continue the discussion later if they refuse it), I should like formally to move it.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 18, at end insert the said proviso.—(Earl De La Warr.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am completely open-minded about this matter, but we want to get the position clear. I should like the noble Earl to consider the position created as a result of the withdrawal of his first Amendment in regard to the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee. He withdrew that Amendment on the understanding that in the new clause after Clause 13 the Government would introduce words to make it a duty for the Commissioners to consult this central body, the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, be-cause the noble Viscount emphasised the importance of this point. It would be tidier to impose the same duty in regard to the Regional Advisory Committee, rather than to make a specific mention at this point in the Bill of consultation with the Regional Committees. We have to try to be logical. That is all I am asking. I know that the noble Earl would wish to be logical too. I am not a draftsman, but I can see some difficulty in dealing with the Regional Committees in one way and the central body, the Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee, in another way in the Bill. I want to do it in the tidiest possible way and later on have as little drafting as possible to do.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

With great respect, I submit that the Minister is wrong about not inserting this proviso. There was the question of general duty, and on that the Lord Chancellor said it would be wiser not to put in that general duty clause the duty of the Commissioners to consult with the Advisory Committee. But now it seems to me we are on quite different ground. Here, there is a specific case which the Com-missioners are told to try—the application for a licence which the Commissioners may either refuse or grant unconditionally, or may grant subject to conditions. The noble Earl himself agreed that he would put in the words proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Amherst of Hackney, that, if they are going to impose conditions, the Commissioners have to consult with the owner before they impose those conditions. Therefore, on his own showing, this is the right place to insert the consultation which they must have. I think it would be not only untidy but wrong not to insert here quite definitely that the Commissioners shall hear the Regional Committees if the Regional Committees desire to be heard. I think that to include all these duties in an omnibus clause at the end, even if that were the intention of the Government, would be wrong. If your Lordships desire (and I think it would be right to do so) to make it plain in the Bill that the Regional Committees should have this status, then I am clear that this is the right place to insert the provision.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

As I said at the beginning, I am open-minded about this Amendment. If noble Lords opposite feel that they want the Amendment in this place in the Bill, I am perfectly willing to accept it in principle, if the noble Earl will allow me to look at the wording before the next stage.

EARL DE LA WARR

I think that is fair. The noble Earl will accept the Amendment, and we agree that he shall have an opportunity to look at the wording, and possibly suggest a drafting Amendment on Report stage. Meanwhile, the Amendment goes into the Bill.

THE EARL OF LISTOWBL

I had hoped that the noble Earl might withdraw it.

EARL DE LA WARR

Why?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

In order to get some drafting alterations.

THE EARL OF SELBORNE

No.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

That is what we have been doing up to now, provided that the principle of an Amendment has been accepted. I have said that I accept the principle of this Amendment. I hoped that the noble Earl would be willing to withdraw the Amendment, so that it could be incorporated into the Bill at the next stage. I believe the noble Viscount, Lord Gage, was the last person to accept that procedure.

VISCOUNT SWINTON

With great respect, we seem to be leaving an even more complicated and complex Report stage than Committee stage. I would ask the noble Earl to remember that the Committee stage is the convenient place to put things in, because we can have this kind of conversation across the floor of the House. When we get to Report stage we exhaust our right after speaking once, unless we move to recommit a clause. I can imagine that, as we are going on now, the Report stage of this Bill will be interminable. We should have to discuss what the form of the clause would be, and where it should be put in; and it is almost certain that we should have to recommit the clause in order to discuss it. Therefore, I appeal to the noble Earl. We wish to decide here and now two things; first, that we accept the principle that there should be this consultation; and, secondly, that we accept the principle that the consultation should be provided for in this clause. The Committee wishing to take those two decisions, it is much simpler to accept the Amendment here and now; and if the Government can provide better words when we come to the Report stage, then they can put down an Amendment.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I am perfectly willing to do it in that way, if the noble Viscount prefers it. I was only pointing out that it was a change of procedure. We may have some drafting Amendment to introduce later.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.2 p.m.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL moved, after subsection (3) to insert: (4) In dealing with an application for a licence in respect of any trees the Commissioners shall have regard to any plan of operations or working plan relating to the trees which has been approved by them, whether in pursuance of a forestry dedication covenant under the Forestry Act, 1947, or otherwise; and no conditions shall be imposed on the grant of a licence authorising the felling of trees on land which is subject to such a covenant as aforesaid.

The noble Earl said: This Amendment provides for two things: first, it relates to woodlands which arc either the subject of a dedicated scheme or, although not part of a dedicated scheme, are being worked according to a working plan, such as is adopted by all prudent foresters. The Amendment says that the Commissioners, in dealing with an application for a licence to fell, must have regard to any plan of operation or working plan which they have approved. Secondly, it says that so far as fellings in dedicated parts of a woodland are concerned, the issue of a felling licence is obviously unnecessary, because the owners of these dedicated woodlands have already entered into an agreement with the Commissioners to replant and to maintain the new plantation. This power would be completely unnecessary in such a case, and by this Amendment we propose to make it plain in the Bill that it cannot be used. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 25, at end insert the said subsection.—(The Earl of Listowel.)

EARL DE LA WARR

I am not quite clear about this Amendment. I gather the impression that if we agree to it, it really takes the place of my Amendment at page 3, line 28.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

May I make perfectly clear that it does not prejudice the noble Earl's later Amendment on this subject?

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

EARL DE LA WARR moved to add to the clause: () Where the felling of any trees to which an application relates is in conformity with the provisions or conditions of a plan of operations or other working plan approved by the Commissioners, the Commissioners shall grant a licence unless the appropriate Minister certifies that by reason of an emergency which has arisen since the approval of such plan the granting of a licence would be detrimental to the national interest, and in any case where the said Minister so certifies any breach of such provisions or conditions caused by or consequest upon the refusal of a licence shall not be treated as having occurred by virtue of any act or omission capable of remedy. The noble Earl said: Although this is a very important Amendment, it may be convenient to the Committee if I move it extremely briefly in order that the noble Earl opposite shall have an opportunity of telling us the feelings of the Government upon it. I accepted his assurance just now, and we agreed to the last Amendment on the basis that it in no way affected this Amendment of mine, although my legal advice is that we were extremely unwise to agree to the first few lines of that Amendment. However, I have accepted the noble Earl's assurance on that point.

The purpose of this Amendment is simple—namely, to lay down that where there is a plan of operations that has been agreed by the Forestry Commission, that plan of operations including permits to fell, then, subject to certain conditions, any licence that is applied for by the woodland owner shall be granted. The one condition that we have inserted in this Amendment is that after the approval of a working plan approving the felling of trees, it may be that completely new circumstances may arise—either alterations in the international situation or perhaps even some big alteration in the raw material situation. In that case, we think it right that the Forestry Commission should have power, if so desired, to apply to the Minister for a special declaration to the effect that new circumstances have arisen which, in the national interest, justify a variation of a working plan. Subject to that exception, this Amendment lays down that trees within dedication plans, woodlands that are being operated under a working plan agreed by the Forestry Commission, shall virtually not be subject to a felling licence. Although the owners would have to apply in fact, we say that the licence should be granted. I do not want to bring forward any arguments upon this point until after the noble Earl has told us the view of the Government. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 28, at end insert the said subsection.—(Earl De La Warr.)

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

We are much indebted to the noble Earl, Lord De La Warr, for getting us over a difficulty which we felt in finding the right form of words rather than on any matter of principle. What we, and he, want is to see that people who are engaged in forestry and running their woods in a sensible way, such as dedicated woodland owners and other good woodland owners, shall not be interfered with by the Forestry Commissioners to any unnecessary extent. In the other parts of the Bill these owners have been exempted from the attachment of conditions to licences which are issued for felling, and they will also be exempted from felling directions. The only point at which the Forestry Commissioner will impinge upon that is in the matter of applying for licences to fell. We think that the noble Earl's Amendment makes it perfectly clear that a licence to fell will be granted automatically except in certain circumstances. What are those circumstances? Those circumstances arise only when the Minister certifies that, by reason of an emergency which has arisen since the approval of the plan (that is to say, of the working plan), it would be contrary to the national interest for the licence to be granted. The sort of thing that might happen is that in any one year the quota would have to be varied so that a smaller amount of timber was felled in these dedicated woodlands. That is the sort of thing that we mean by a national emergency which might interfere even with a planned operation under a dedicated scheme. But this Amendment seems both to safeguard the position of the woodland owners who operate under dedicated schemes, and to give the Commission the necessary emergency powers which will be used only on the certificate of the Minister, who will be in a position to judge whether an emergency has arisen or not. I am sure that the noble Earl will appreciate that we shall probably want to look at the wording of the Amendment again, but we can accept it in principle at this stage—that is to say, we shall be prepared to agree to it if the noble Earl wishes.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

6.10 p.m.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE moved to add to the clause: () Without prejudice to the provisions of the last foregoing subsection unless within eight weeks of the application for a licence under this section the Commissioners give notice to the applicant of their decision on such application the provisions of this Act shall apply in relation to the said application as if the licence to which it relates has been refused: Provided that where the Commissioners have served notice on the applicant under subsection (3) of this section the period of eight weeks referred to in this subsection shall be reckoned from the date on which the person entitled to such interest in the land as is mentioned in the said notice is joined as a party to the application.

The noble Earl said: Clause 3 as it stands now does not impose any time limit within which the Forestry Commission must dispose of applications for felling licences. It is suggested, therefore, that procedure (and I use the word "procedure" advisedly) analogous to the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act should be introduced by which, unless an application for planning permission has been granted within a specified period, it is deemed to be refused. The Amendment proposes that unless within eight weeks from the date of an application for a licence the Commissioners have given notice of their decision, the permission shall be deemed to have been refused unless in terms of subsection (3) the Commissioners postpone consideration of an application on account of the applicant not having such an interest in the land as entitles him to apply for a licence. In such a case, the period from which a licence would be deemed to be refused would commence to run from the date that the applicant had been joined as a party to the application. It is considered that in all the circumstances the period of eight weeks is reasonable. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 28, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Airlie.)

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I had down an Amendment in this connection tout I am not moving it because the noble Earl's Amendment seems to me to be more complete. I should just like to say a few words in support of his Amendment. I would stress the importance of having some limit on the time which one has to wait for a decision on an application for a licence. I would emphasise, too, the difficulty of looking far enough ahead in every case when applying for a licence so as to allow for a time-lag, the importance of doing certain kinds of forestry work at certain times of the year, and the fact that the offices of most people who are engaged in estate forestry are heavily loaded at the present time, so that they could not conveniently allow several months to elapse after applying for a licence of this sort. So far as I can see, the only objection which might be raised to this Amendment arises from the arrangement whereby applications for felling licences are to be referred to planning authorities in case they wish to make tree preservation orders. I can hardly believe, from my experience of working on a county planning authority, that a period of two months would cause any difficulty. After all, a planning authority have continually to make decisions which people need for the purposes of their. business, and which may be for building development of one sort or another. I think it is generally known that planning authorities have made arrangements to carry out that work, and they do act quickly. If any licences have to be referred to them in cases where tree preservation orders are suggested, it would be as easy for a planning authority to decide these matters quickly as to decide any other. I hope that the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill will see his way to accept this reasonable and practical Amendment.

LORD SILKIN

I hope that I may be pardoned for intervening, but I think I ought to draw the attention of your Lordships to what this Committee is imposing upon the Forestry Commission. They have to consult the town planning authority, as the noble Viscount has just said. In addition, this Committee have just imposed on the Commission two other obligations: one is an obligation to consult with the owners of land if they want to impose conditions, and the other is that they shall take into account representations of the Regional Advisory Committee. I think this obligation to consult the planning authority must of necessity complicate the machinery. It may in certain cases take time, not necessarily through the fault of the Forestry Commission. I do not know whether or not my noble friend is going to accept the principle of the Amendment, but it seems not unreasonable that there should be a time limit. I have thought it right to remind the Committee of the difficulties which they are imposing on the Forestry Commission in making a decision.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

I think we all agree that we want decisions on these applications for licences to be reached without any unreasonable delay. We want a decision to be taken at the earliest practicable moment, but we have to allow the Commissioners a reasonable time in which to make inquiries and to make up their minds. It is not easy to fix a definite period of time within which a decision should be taken. However, I agree with what the noble Earl wants to do, and we are prepared to accept the Amendment in principle. I should, however, like a chance of looking at it rather more carefully between now and the Report stage.

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

I understood the noble Earl to say he would accept some period of limitation even if not perhaps one of two months.

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

It might have to be a slightly longer period.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

Can the noble Earl say what he means by a slightly longer period? In another place, on March 6, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in a Written Answer to a Question about applications for licences to fell timber, stated that: The time taken up by the reference of licences to planning authorities varies considerably, the average time being between one and two months. In other words, the period varies between four and eight weeks. I am now asking for eight weeks. The noble Earl suggests that longer might be wanted. How much longer?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

Eight weeks may be all right. On the other hand, three months or twelve weeks may be better.

THE EARL OF AIRLIE

If it is some-thing in the nature of twelve weeks I am prepared to agree. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

6.20 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

It may be convenient that your Lordships should break off discussion of this Bill at this juncture, because if we enter on questions relating to Clause 4 we shall be opening up new aspects of the measure for consideration, and that consideration may be prolonged. If your Lordships are agreeable to breaking off now, I will move that the House do resume. In doing so, I suggest that it would be convenient to continue discussion of this Bill on Wednesday, April 4. I beg to move that the House do now resume.

Moved, That the House do now resume. —(Lord Shepherd.)

VISCOUNT RIDLEY

Is it expected that discussion of the Bill will be concluded on that day, or will it continue until the next day?

THE EARL OF LISTOWEL

We hope to finish on that day.

On Question, Motion agreed to, and House resumed accordingly.