§ 1.—(1) A Rural Development Board shall consist of not less than six nor more than twelve members appointed by the appropriate Minister of whom more than half shall be appointed as having had experience of, and shown capacity in, or otherwise as having special knowledge of, agriculture or forestry.
§ 6.27 p.m.
§
THE EARL OF DUNDEE moved, in Part II, to add to paragraph 1(1):
Provided that in any case in which members of a Board are appointed as having had experience of, and shown capacity in, or otherwise as having special knowledge of, forestry, not less than half of such members shall be so appointed to represent the interests of private woodland owners.
§
The noble Earl said: This Schedule lays down the constitution of the Rural Development Boards, and provides that more than half of the members appointed shall have
had experience of, and shown capacity in, or otherwise as having special knowledge of, agriculture or forestry".
My Amendment proposes that so far as forestry members are concerned, not less than half shall be appointed to represent the interest of private woodland owners. I admit this might involve some rather delicate mathematical calculations for those who had to choose the members of the Board. Supposing they wanted to appoint only one member with special knowledge of forestry, he would have to be representative of the woodland owners because one is the smallest number which is not less than the half of one. It would, therefore, be necessary to appoint two, if they wanted to have one from the Forestry Commission as well.
§ I have always been strongly in favour in all the circumstances of co-operation between private woodland owners and the Forestry Commission. Sometimes the representative of one can speak for both. But the Forestry Commission is becoming very specialised now and, unless a member who happened to be put on to represent their interests had been in the private woodland officers' department, he might not have enough knowledge of the problems of private owners, 102 to represent them reasonably effectively. I think it would greatly increase the authority of these Boards and the confidence which would be reposed in them if my Amendment were accepted. I beg to move.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 101, line 28, at end insert the said proviso.—(The Earl of Dundee.)
§ LORD HUGHESIt is the Government's intention that Boards shall be small independent bodies, composed of members selected for their personal qualities, their knowledge and their experience, and not as representatives of various interests. Indeed, it would be difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to give representation to all the interests on these Boards, which will consist of only six to twelve members. The coordinated development of agricultural and forestry in their areas is one of the main functions of a Board, and the Schedule stipulates that more than half of their members shall be drawn from those who have special knowledge of agriculture or forestry. The importance of having members with local knowledge of the Boards area has also been stressed, and an assurance has been given in another place that this will be borne in mind. It is also important, I think, that there should be some members who can bring a fresh independent approach to the problems that will face the Boards.
As regards members "having special knowledge of" forestry, I do not think it would be wise to oblige the Minister in all cases to appoint at least half of these as direct representatives of private woodland owners. Many assurances have been given, both in this House and in another place, that Boards will take private forestry interests fully into account. This will be an essential part of their duties. It is recognised that there is a big job in these areas for both the private woodland owner and the Forestry Commission, and both will be actively encouraged to tackle it. Perhaps I may just point out a practical difficulty. In some cases the most suitable person to put on a Board might be someone who was engaged in private forestry as an agent but who did not, in fact, fulfil the qualification of himself being a private landowner. That person might be excluded if we were to bind the Minister 103 in this way. So I think it is better to leave the wording as it is, in the knowledge that Boards will consult all the interested parties as they draw up their programmes. I am certain that close links will be established with the various interests, including private forestry. I am sure, too, that Boards will welcome the views put before them at any time by private forestry organisations, and will consider with great care any representations that may be made on any particular issue.
While I am certain that the interests of private woodland owners will be most carefully considered by these Boards, I cannot agree that we should seek to achieve this by the method proposed in this Amendment. Undoubtedly there will be cases where, quite naturally, a private forestry owner will find himself asked to serve on one or more of these Boards. I think it would be wrong that we should seek to get down to this on a basis of representation, because if this were to be carried to its logical conclusion it would mean creating a number of Boards which would be bigger than is desirable and probably, therefore, less able to do the job they are intended to do.
The noble Earl has been extremely cooperative throughout these proceedings and this spirit has not gone entirely unrewarded. We have given, I think, favourable consideration to those aspects designed to help forestry owners. The Government have agreed with them where we thought we should lean over backwards to encourage the forestry interests. This is a case where we believe that it would be a mistake to do so, and, that being so, I hope the noble Earl will find it possible to withdraw this Amendment and go out on the co-operative basis which he has applied to this Bill throughout the Committee stage, even though he did not get his later Amendments incorporated in the Bill.
§ THE EARL OF DUNDEEThe noble Lord's explanation is almost verbally the same as the explanation which I have had to give on numerous occasions in regard to numerous Amendments of this kind when our positions were reversed, and I entirely understand the point. I should again like to thank him for what he has just mentioned and for the very 104 forthcoming way in which he has met so many of our points on this subject. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ Schedule 5 agreed to.
§ Remaining Schedules agreed to.
§ House resumed: Bill reported, with Amendments.