I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."

I find myself at a considerable disadvantage in arguing a Bill of this nature, not being a lawyer, and I rely more upon the justice of my proposal than upon any advocacy of my own. This Clause is the one which originally appeared in the Act of 1907, Section 38, which was intended to deal with what we regard as the boot-making machinery monopoly existing in this country. The effect of that Clause, however, was completely spoiled by a very ingenious Amendment which was introduced in another place, and the object of this new Clause is to restore the power of the original Clause 38 in the principal Act. I do not wish to repeat what I said when I moved the rejection of the Second Reading of this Bill, but I do not think it will be out of place to remind the House that a very menacing monopoly in the boot and shoe machinery trade does exist to-day; that it extends over 85 per cent. of the total boot machinery employed in this country, and that machinery is used under conditions which I think few self-respecting firms would willingly agree to. This machinery is used under a system of leasing, the terms of which are of a very stringent character, and which have been objected to by nearly all the important boot and shoe manufacturers in the country. I think it is well to remind the House that this is not a dispute between rival firms engaged in the manufacture of boot and shoe machinery, but it is a matter about which the boot and shoe manufacturers, who are in the grip of this monopoly, have protested time and again. I wish to make that point clear to the House.

The terms of this lease are so cleverly drawn that, once a firm or an individual becomes involved in dealings with the British United Boot and Shoe Machinery Company, they find it impossible, as the years go on, to take up, if they so desired, any new invention. If any British inventor put upon the market to-day a new device for the manufacture of boots and shoes, although it would increase the production enormously and reduce the cost, 85 per cent. of the boots and shoes of this country would still continue to be supplied by the machinery of the British United Shoe Machinery Company under lease. That is a humiliating position to British industry.

I now wish to refer to the Section of Clause 38 which, my right hon. Friend informs me, he intends' to retain. In that Clause I wish to point out how that matter was dealt with in Committee. The idea of Clause 38 was to get rid of this onerous restrictive clause in the leases as they exist in America and here, and in order to get over that difficulty this Amendment was brought in, and it provided for an alternative lease, or what was called a free lease, and anyone who signs the covenant in taking this lease over has to admit quite frankly, in very definite terms, that he is quite satisfied with the terms offered to him by the shoe-machinery monopoly. Now, what was the alternative offered to a man or firm who wished to be rid of the restrictive lease? First of all, he has to pay a premium of £100 minimum and a monthly rent of £4 for a term of five years. If he is content with the old restrictive lease, there is no payment of any kind and his minimum monthly rent is £2 11s. 2d. I do not think it will surprise the House very much when I say that very few sensible people took advantage of the free lease, and the Amendment which was supposed to give additional freedom to this trade has become an absolute sham. When this Amendment was discussed in the House the Prime Minister said:

"He was afraid that if it were accepted it would render nugatory the whole of the Clause, and would enable these people to escape altogether the conditions which the Clause sought to impose."

The Prime Minister was right in his view as to the value of that Sub-section which I am sorry to hear that my right hon. Friend proposes to retain. I should like hon. Members to read this lease, although I do not propose to read it to-day. It only contains about 10,000 words, and if any body would like a pleasant week-end reading that document I should be pleased to supply as many copies as they require. Under the sort of provision which my right hon. Friend is making in the event of a man or firm being dissatisfied with the machinery which he has got, and of which he wishes to be rid, this is what happens. A very important case was tried to test the value of Sub-sections (1) and (2) which my right hon. Friend intends to retain. A firm wished to prevent this tied-lease system in regard to a certain machine. The case comes before the arbitrator appointed by the Board of Trade. The value of this machine, upon which all the patents have expired, was, in the open market, £40, but in order to be rid of his lease and his machine, he could not get it done after coming before the arbitrator at a total cost of less than £430.

What is the real difficulty between my right hon. Friend and those of us who wish to have this Clause inserted in the Bill? It is very simple. My right hon. Friend considers that in the amending Bill, as already drafted, there are sufficient safeguards, and he does not wish to specify any definite grievance in the Bill of which we wish to be rid. We consider, on the other hand—and here it is the lay mind against the legal mind—that the safe guards are utterly inadequate to deal with the tied system of the British United Shoe Machinery Company, and we want some thing perfectly definite. In Committee the right hon. Gentleman stated that he did not wish to limit either the power of the Controller or the jurisdiction of the Courts. I suggest to him now that, knowing how we have attempted in past years to deal with this grievance, and knowing the sort of arguments which were put for ward when Clause 38 and these Sub sections were inserted, and how utterly futile all the provisions have been to deal with this grievance, I suggest that he might take the business and lay point of view, and not limit his powers but extend them by dealing in a very definite and drastic way with this monopoly. I wish to impress upon my right hon. Friend that the real demand for the redress of this grievance comes from the general body of the shoe trade itself. I have had many letters on this subject from various bodies interested in the manufacture of boots and shoes, and I should like to read one short one. It is from a very powerful organisation indeed, the Incorporated Federated Association of Boot and Shoe Manufacturers of Great Britain and Ireland:

"I beg to refer to the Debate in the House of Commons on the Patents and Designs Bill and your speech thereon, and to state that the question which you raised as to the British United Boot and Shoe Machinery Company, and the terms on which its machinery is leased to the boot and shoe industry, has for some time engaged the attention of this Federation. A committee has been appointed to take all possible steps to secure either the repeal of Sub sections (1) and (2) of Section 38 of the Act of 1907. or the introduction of such other Amendments in the law as will give freedom to manufacturers in the purchase of their machinery."

That is all that they ask. They only want freedom of purchase and to do away with those unworthy and unbusinesslike limitations which are at presentimposed upon the manufacturers of boots and shoes. I have other letters with which I will not trouble my hon. and learned Friend, but I do hope that he accepts my statement that the grievance in this matter is felt not by the machinery makers but by the actual boot and shoe manufacturers.

I beg to second the Motion.

I feel the more encouraged in doing so because I am sure my hon. Friend (Mr. Wallace) and others will join with me in acknowledging the courtesy and tact displayed by my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General in conducting this Bill through Committee. We are confident that he is as anxious as we are to prevent any of those abuses to which my hon. Friend has referred. It is only because we are informed by those who are concerned in the industry and in the trade that they do not think that the Clause as it stands will protect them against this direct danger that we urge that these words should. be inserted in order to make it perfectly clear. I want it to be clearly understood that we are not making any attack upon the actual machinery provided by the British United Boot and Shoe Machinery Company. It is universally acknowledged that their machinery is of a high standard and of excellent quality. We are not fighting that; we are fighting their attempt—which has been only too successful—to create a monopoly in their machinery. If their machinery is as good as they claim it to be, and as we admit it to be, why should they be afraid of open competition? If their machinery is the best and they can produce better machinery than anybody else, then surely they need not be afraid of competition !

I also want to emphasise that this is not simply a question of competing manufacturers wanting protection against this monopoly. It is the manufacturer and also the worker in the boot and shoe trade. Unfortunately, we are only too familiar in this House with cases in which the employers are not in agreement with the trade unions, but I am glad to say that in this particular instance the employers in the boot and shoe trade and the Boot and Shoe Operatives' Union are in hearty agreement. The union, which I know well, because it has its head quarters in the city which I represent, is a very powerful union, and it is in hearty accord with the desire of those who wish to see this Section in the Act of 1917 strengthened in the way suggested by my hon. Friend. It is claimed by the British United Boot and Shoe Machinery Company that they have been the means of setting up manufacturers in the boot and shoo trade, and that those manufacturers are very strong supporters of the company and do not want it interfered with. That may or may not be true, but it is none the less true that there are a large number of manufacturers who do object to this great trust, and on the broad principle of not allowing anything of this sort to get into the hands of a monopoly which can control the whole of a trade, I support the Clause of my hon. Friend.

I have been associated with the boot and shoe industry on the workmen's side for the past thirty years, and I can therefore claim to speak somewhat officially of the position of the industry in this matter. Ordinarily, it might be felt that as workmen we should object to efficient machinery being brought into the industry, but that is not the position in the boot and shoe trade at the present time. In order to give emphasis to the position of this important industry I would like to refer to the fact that although during the War is was called upon to manufacture boots for practically every one of the Allies, and to manufacture a class of boot which had never been handled before in this country, the under standing between employers and employed is so perfect that not in one single instance was any Government Department disturbed or caused any anxiety so far as the production of the boots was concerned. We have been complimented by the Minister of Labour upon the excellent machinery which we have established for dealing with questions of difference arising between the workmen and the employers. That understanding and that state of affairs has only been possible because both sides have endeavoured to approach these questions from the stand point of what is best for the industry it self, recognising that unless the industry is prosperous, and unless it can hold its own in the markets of the world, the position of neither the employer nor the employed in the future can be in any way satisfactory. Approaching the question from that standpoint, I want to say that both employers and workmen are strongly urging that the Bill should be amended in the direction indicated by my hon. Friend (Mr. Wallace). The restrictions which have been placed, and which will be placed on the industry unless this Amendment is adopted, will seriously handicap the trade in the future. We have been told that one of the most essential things at the period is to be able to re-establish industry in this country and to develop markets whereby our production can be sold and disposed of.

The boot trade is open to very severe competition. One of the centres where competition arises is America. Strange to say, this very question has been disturbing the manufacturers of America, and quite recently they have been successful in obtaining a decision against this same company in America whereby they are now free from the very restrictions we are asking that the British industry should be freed from. What is to be the position of the boot and shoe trade in this country if it is to be hampered by restrictions from which its great competitors are free? How shall we hope to hold our own in the markets of the world? This is a more real grievance than may appear on the surface, because America has the advantage that they touch the leather markets at their source, whereas we have to import leather from America in order to use it in the manufacture of boots and shoes. I do seriously suggest to this House the advisability and the necessity of its doing all it can to leave this industry as free as possible from any restrictions that would hamper it in the future. Operatives and employers are anxious and ready to welcome the most up-to-date machinery that can be devised for the production of boots and shoes in this country. If these restrictive Clauses are maintained, it means that firms, by virtue of these leases, will be deprived of the opportunity of using machines inside their factories that may be developed by other companies. A set of machines for one department may range over six or ten machines, and they are compelled to have the whole of these ten if they want the use of one; and if in regard to one of those operations another machine is more effective, can give a higher rate of productivity, they are unable to use it in connection: with their business: whilst these restrictive clauses are retained in the leases under which they are bound to accept their machinery.

I know the Bill provides that if there is anything unreasonable in these leases there is a remedy, but they have to prove what is reasonable and unreasonable in this matter, which is not always an easy thing, however competent you may make the machinery of law for that particular purpose. Very frequently the difficulty of determining the point lies in the fact that they cannot prove their position until they have had an opportunity of testing the new machine and seeing its advantages over the one already established in their factory, and seeing that they are not allowed to place the machine in the factory, they are absolutely helpless as regards having this point determined. It resolves itself, then, into a question between the rival machinery companies, in which the industry has no concern whatever. As an industry, we are not concerned with this question as between two machinery companies producing machines necessary for the industry. All we ask is that the best this country can produce in the way of machines shall be available and at the disposal of the industry itself. That is a fair and reasonable proposal, and we say the present Bill, as it stands now, and the Clauses in the old Act, do not make this possible, and will in the judgment of the trade seriously handicap it in the future.

I could quote cases where difficulties have arisen. My hon. Friend has already mentioned one difficulty a firm had to face when they wanted to give up machines. The lease stated that they could surrender these machines on compensation to be determined by arbitration. But here was a machine, the total value of which was £40, and the firm had to pay, or it cost the firm, £430 to get rid of that machine in order that they might have a more up-to-date one in their factory. Is that a reasonable condition for an industry to be subjected to? I know of another instance where a firm were using a machine which was most essential for their trade—a class of boot and shoe made in the city of Norwich and also in Leeds. It is made in very large quantities, and this machine is essential to the industry in order that it may successfully carry on. No machine in this country possessed by this monopoly had any reference to this particular machine, but in order to establish their monopoly they imported one from America, and then started proceeding against the firm who were using this machine of their own. They were a small firm who could not de fend themselves, and the machinery company responsible for the production of the machine were also a small firm, and they could not defend themselves at law, be cause the expense to which firms have been put in this respect is enormous, running into thousands of pounds, on account of the manner in which this monopoly can impose itself on the industry as a whole. So important was this particular machine to the city of Norwich that, I understand, employers of labour actually subscribed £100 for each machine used in their factory in order that the firm which produced the machine and the firm which was using it might have adequate protection in the Courts of this country. Fortunately, they won their case; but if it had not been for the fact that the boot, and shoe manufacturers were prepared to help this firm, if it had not been for the fact that this machine was most essential for the industry, and therefore of very great importance, warranting the manufacturers in making this effort, this machine would have been driven from the market and the industry would have been severely handicapped as a result. I do suggest that at this particular time, more than any other, we ought to be careful in the passing of any legislation which is going to continue that state of things. I unhesitatingly say this is not a matter of rival interests; it is a matter of vital importance to a large industry in this country—an industry which has to depend to a large extent upon exports. Some of its export trade has disappeared during the War as a result of other nations being in a more favoured position. The industry has made the strongest effort to get other classes of export trade from the Continent which were previously carried on by enemy nations. Unless they are supported in every way possible, unless they have the freest opportunity to use the best machines that are on the market, they will not be able successfully to carry on their business as they otherwise would.

I was not a member of the Committee which dealt with this question, but I understand the Solicitor-General is of the opinion that the Bill is already effective for this purpose. Let me say to him that the industry, as a result of their experience, are not convinced upon that point; and surely, if we are agreed upon the desirability of freeing the industry from restrictions, there can be no harm in making this Bill so definite and so distinct that there can be no possible misunderstanding upon the matter! Surely it is best to be safe in this respect, and not leave anything to interpretations in a Court of law, which might ultimately decide in a way that would be injurious to the trade itself! That is practically our position in the matter, and I can assure the House that both from the standpoint of employer and employed this is viewed as a most serious question. Recently a referendum was taken of the boot and shoe manufacturers in this country. Theirs is an organisation which I believe embraces within its membership over 90 per cent. of any manufacturers engaged in business in the United Kingdom, and out of the whole of that number there are only seven who were prepared to carry on or to accept the present conditions. All the others who returned their papers, to a very considerable number, were opposed to it. An industry which as so united upon the importance of this question has a right to ask this House to give it every consideration possible whereby its future activities, so far as the production of boots and shoes are concerned, shall not be hampered, and that it shall at least have an equal chance with other countries who may be competing in the world's markets.

It seems rather odd that the principal part of the discussion on a Patents Bill should be concentrated on the operations of one particular boot machinery manufacturing company. I was not a member of the Committee which considered this Bill, nor have I heard very much of what has passed this morning, but I listened to the Debate on the previous occasion, and I think that the hon. Member for Dunfermline, the hon. Member for South Edinburgh, and others were rather carried away by their enthusiasm for the prevention of monopolies. I have no interest in the boot or shoe trade whatever, but I have a friend—an Army officer who served in the War—who is concerned with this company, and I inquired of him, after hearing that De bate, as to the allegations which were made against this company. One talks of monopolies, but a patent in itself involves a monopoly. I submit, however, that no injurious monopoly is exercised by the company in question. It seems, perhaps, at first sight, rather odd that a company should exercise its trade in the particular way in which this company does. It does not, as a rule, sell the boot machinery which it owns, but it leases it to boot manufacturers, and it insists that the whole series of machines, from one end of the process to the other, shall be of its own particular pattern. I do not see that there is any particular harm in that, after all. It has been stated that it prevents the introduction of the latest inventions and of new machinery. That is not the case. The company itself is responsible. It is always ready to take up the latest improvements, and it guarantees to its lessees that it will introduce, at its own cost, the latest improvements in any particular line of boot manufacturing machinery.

1.0 P.M.

The result has been extremely good. The lessees are satisfied with the bargain they have made, and I was informed some time ago, when I was a candidate for a town in which there were two large boot factories, at a time when American com- petition in the boot trade was beginning to be very severely felt, that the firm which adopted this company's line of machinery prospered and was able to overcome the difficulties entailed by the American competition, while the other company did not succeed in doing so until it fell into line and adopted this particular machinery. That speaks well for the system, which may possibly seem a rather peculiar one, upon which this machinery company conducts its business. There is really no harm done to anybody in this matter, and I have been informed, with regard to the circular which was sent round to the boot trade, that replies were only received from certain places, and that from a number of places no replies were received at all. That is an argument in favour of the idea that the lessees there are satisfied with the state of affairs that exists at the present time. It is a fact that the great majority of the boot manufacturers are satisfied, and object to any change in the system of leasing machines. That is proved by a memorial to the Board of Trade signed by 74 per cent. of the company's lessees. With regard to Scot land, I can quote a letter from the Boot Manufacturers' Association of Scotland, dated 28th May, 1918. It says:

"We, the boot manufacturers of Scotland, in meeting assembled, hereby declare unanimously that the services rendered by the British United Shoe Machinery Company, Limited, under their system of leases and royalties, has been most beneficial and advantageous to the shoe manufacturers of Scotland. The system has enabled the manufacturers of Scotland to hold their position in the trade, and we do not anticipate any disabilities from the continuance of their system."

The point has been made that this is an American company, but that is not the case. The company is registered in Eng land, and a great many of the shareholders are British; and, what is more, a great number of the employés of the company are shareholders in it. I take it that this is perhaps a matter of rivalry between two companies in the trade. [Hon. Members: "No, no!"] We have been bombarded with circulars of a very elaborate description, which some of us have waded through, and I submit that the matter has been altogether exaggerated by those who have spoken on the other side. According to the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, the Clause as it stands in the Bill will meet the case of preventing any extension of monopoly.

I hope that my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline and for Leicester will not feel at any disadvantage in arguing this question with me. I am certainly indebted to them for the attention which they have given to this subject, and, I may say, to all other hon. Members who have ventilated it. It is quite obvious that the point is a very important one, and I should be very sorry to think that we had not had an adequate discussion, both on the Second Heading and on the Report stage, of a matter on which not only some hon. Members of this House, but obviously a considerable number of persons outside, feel strongly. I also agree with my hon. Friends that an adequate remedy should be found, but it would obviously be wrong on my part to take sides with either the one party or the other. I was interested when the hon. and gallant Member for East Fife (Sir A. Sprot) read a Scottish resolution in favour of this system, while the hon. Member for Dunfermline read what I think was an English resolution against it.

The resolution which I read covered Great Britain and Ireland. The other is quite a subsidiary matter.

The Scottish manufacturers are. members of the Federation from which that letter was received.

I am glad that England, Scotland, and Ireland have all had their views presented. I rather regret that there is no observation from Wales; but perhaps that may be accorded in another place. At any rate, what it means is that different views have been presented. I have had sent to me on this question a letter from the chairman of a body of boot and shoe manufacturers carrying on business in the United Kingdom, and they say:

"We have been customers of the company for many years and are perfectly satisfied with the manner in which our business has been con ducted; and we strongly object to any change being made in the law for the benefit of individual shoe machinery manufacturers which will interfere in any way with our obtaining the use of the company's machines under whichever form of lease offered by that company we may elect to take."

I only read that in order to show that there are two views, and, standing where I do, it is quite obvious that it is my duty to take part with neither side, but to see that both sides have the opportunity of presenting their case at the proper time to the proper tribunals in order that it may be investigated. I look at the matter, therefore, from the general point of view. I am not going to particularise with regard to the boot trade rather than any other trade. That would be open at once, I think, to the observation that, if you find this system of tied leases prevailing in a particular trade, at is quite possible that the same system might spring up in another trade, and I should be very sorry to introduce words in a Bill which might deal with this particular grievance of the boot trade without seeing that the opportunity is given to all trades, if such a matter should arise, for their grievances to be properly ventilated. So I look at it from the general point of view. I am going to make an observation or two which I think will convince the House that this Amendment goes too far.

In this Amendment nothing is said about any particular trade. The boot and shoe trade was merely given as an illustration.

I am obliged to the hon. Member, but I am not unmindful of that. The Amendment as proposed in tends to prevent conditions being attached to the purchase, the lease or the licence of any article or class of articles which may be dealt with by sale, by lease, or by licence. That is the proposition. Can I accept it? May I point out how I think that would work unfairly? There are certain patented goods on which I think a reasonable restrictive condition may be imposed, and is rightly imposed. I had brought to my attention such cases as patented articles which for their success require the user of certain qualities of goods. I do not know that it applies in any case to a typewriter; but we are all familiar with the fact that if you use a typewriter you must use a particular quality of paper. Some of us use some form of what is called a fountain pen, and if you are going to get the best results from a fountain pen you had better use a particular form of ink prepared for that purpose, and I can see nothing unreason —able I take, for instance, a fountain pen quite independent of whether in fact that is so or not; I wish to be quite independent of facts—perhaps my suggestions are all wrong, but I can see. nothing wrong in a pen being sold upon the condition that you shall use in it a particular class of ink, because without you use-that class of ink everyone will throw the pen into the fire, with an expletive or two, on the ground that it is quite useless, and will much regret the expenditure upon it. If the Clause was accepted there could be no condition such as I have suggested to the user of any particular class or quality of goods with the patented article. That would be unfortunate. The Clause goes too far, and cannot be accepted.

May I call attention to this, because it may reassure some hon. Members who are not quite familiar with the matters which have been raised in the Debate, and perhaps have not been so industrious as to read all the material which has been sent to them by post from one side or the other? These leases, I am told, have been in use for a considerable period of time. I do not know how long, but I think I am not overstating it in saying they have been more or less in existence for something like a dozen years. In the course of those dozen years there have been proceedings taken by this particular company to stop infringement, and as Section 38 stands at present, by Clause 4 it is possible now in any proceedings to raise the question, by way of defence, that the conditions which are imposed are of such a nature that they contravene the intention and meaning of Section 38. At no time have the facilities which are granted by that Section ever been made use of, and am I not right in saying this, without trying to go too far, that the House, while quite willing to remedy all grievances, must pay some attention to the fact that so far we have found no person who has been ready to take advantage of the facilities which have been offered? I cannot accept the view that one hon. Member presented that it would be a very expensive matter. I believe a good many persons engaged in the boot trade, some of them who are probably either licensees or lessees of this very machinery, are engaged in very large operations in which their turnover is very considerable. I am not saying it is more than it ought to be at all, but they are in a very large way of business, and for those persons it would not be prohibitive to take proceedings which could be taken in order to test the validity of the lease under which the patent is granted. I have made inquiries since the Second Reading, and no such opportunity has ever been taken advantage of by the persons who are now saying they have been injured.

This Clause as proposed goes too far. But in order to restore confidence to the House, if they have an uneasy feeling, may I mention that we have under the Bill, by paragraphs (d) and (e) of Sub section (1), given the right in all cases for persons who are complaining of the licences or of the conditions to go through the ordinary channel—first of all, to the Controller, and then, on appeal, to the High Court, from the Controller, where both sides can be heard—and, after all, there is not a single Member of the House who would wish to condemn any company without it being heard—for these grievances to be tested in the presence of both sides. I have been thinking the matter very carefully over since the Second Reading and also since I had the advantage of listening to some very powerful and useful speeches made in Committee, and it has occurred to me that the fact that in these leases there is the statement made that the lessee or the licensee is satisfied and accepts the fact that he has been granted a sufficient alternative might be taken against him if he made an application to be freed from the lease or from the licence which is granted to him. It might be said, "How can you come here and complain when, under your own hand, or possibly under your own hand and seal, you have admitted that a full alternative has been given and that you have exercised your option in preferring to take the very lease of which you are complaining?" I am very anxious to keep the door open for the whole matter to be properly investigated and have, therefore, put down an Amendment to the Schedule whereby the fact that there has been a signature of a lease or a licence containing words saying that he has accepted the particular lease and that a fair option has been given to him shall not count against a person who is making an application to be freed from the lease. In doing that I have gone a considerable distance, because most of us say that a man who signs an agreement or lease ought to be bound by the terms of the words which he signed. The Amendment is,

"In any action, application, or proceedings under this Act no person shall be estopped from applying for or obtaining relief by reason of any admission made by him as to the reasonableness of the terms offered to him under Sub-section (1) (i)."

I, therefore, ask the House to allow me to put that in, and I am sure I shall then have met the point of the hon. Member for Dunfermlinc, that this lease contains words which are misleading, unfair, and even untrue. I hope, under these circumstances, the House will not allow this proposed new Clause to be inserted. I have endeavoured, as far as I possibly could, to look at the matter not only from the points of view of the common law but from the point of view of common sense, and to see that every avenue is open. I believe the real difference between us is this, that he prefers his particular method and I prefer mine.

:I came here to strongly support the new Clause, but the last few sentences of the Solicitor-General have convinced me that the main difficulty is met. It may be convenient to say a few words as to the history of this matter. In the Act of 1907, as originally proposed, Clause 38 was drawn exactly in the same words as the hon. Member opposite wishes it should now stand. Its effect was to prohibit all tying Clauses in respect of any particular patent. This was brought about by declaring that in any contract for sale, lease, or licence of a patented article any condition prohibiting the purchaser or lessee from using articles supplied or owned by other persons or requiring him to acquire from the purchaser or lessee any other article not in-eluded in the patented article should be null and void. The vendors and lessors of patented articles succeeded in defeating the effect of this Clause by getting the Committee to insert the proviso that the Clause should not apply if the seller or lessor could prove that at the date of the contract the purchaser or lessee had the option of purchasing or obtaining a lease of the article on reasonable terms with out such conditions. And, secondly, that the contract should entitle the purchaser or lessee to determine his contract or, at any rate, the lying condition, on three months' notice and on paying compensation for it by arbitration.

The lawyers at once found a way of meeting that proviso, and it was met in the typical case of this boot machinery company in this tremendously long document which they require every user to accept. In it they set out in full the copy of a dummy lease which they never intend to be really offered—and which never, in fact, was executed by anyone— but owing to the exigencies of the purchaser or hirer or user of this machinery they compel him to sign a statement that he had been offered a lease on reasonable terms and that the terms were reasonable, and they went so far as to compel the purchaser to sign the dummy lease as identifying the lease that had been. offered to him on those terms. The result was that the purchaser, user, or hirer of the machine could never question the reasonableness of the lease, because there was his own signature on the dummy lease and his own statement that it had been offered to him, and it was accompanied by his statement that the terms were reasonable. The statutory provisions as to the three months' notice were observed, but, owing to the terms as to compensation being paid, this has proved in practice unworkable. The document in question is the most ingenious document ever devised, and under it is particularly the practice of making the lease of each machine terminate at a different date, and the pro vision that on breach of any condition all the lessees shall be determined, and that no other machines shall be used but those of the lessor, the lessee is bound hand and foot to his lessor. I should have preferred the Clause to stand as the hon. Member opposite wishes it, and have done away once and for all with all those tying agreements entirely. If the patentee gets a patent granted to him that ought to be sufficient for him; it is monopoly enough, and the patent should stand on its own merit. The Solicitor-General does not desire that, but his Amendment ensures that this statement which the user or hirer of a machine has signed to the effect that he has been offered a reasonable lease, and that the terms in it were reasonable, is not to debar him from coming and raising the point that the whole conditions are clogging and are an abuse. That really meets the substantial difficulty. For all practical purposes that meets the difficuly. I was quite certain as a lawyer and a person of ordinary sense that the pro vision in the Bill was insufficient. I am quite certain that in law as the Bill originally stood the Controller would not have considered under Clause 1 (e) of this Bill the question whether the Boot Machinery Company's lease was an abuse if raised by a single person who signs one of these leases. I am confident that the trade could never have raised before him the question of the validity of this lease. Under the Clause to be moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Solicitor-General I. think this question can be litigated.

I acknowledge the courtesy of the Solicitor-General in making the concession. He says that my Clause goes too far. I am sorry to say that that with this concession it does not go far enough. While a very real concession has been granted the gravamen of our charge against this lease is that for the seller or the lessor it makes it a condition for the purchaser or for the lessee that when they buy a particular machine, they are precluded from buying any other class of machine to be used on the same kind of boots. If that is considered fair dealing I call it by another name. We want to make that sort of thing illegal. It is that point which I wish to press upon the Solicitor-General. That is our whole case, and I think it is a very reasonable case. The House understands it perfectly well, and I do not wish to argue it further.

Does the hon. Member wish to withdraw his Clause?

No.

I beg to move, in Sub section (1), after the word "comptroller," to insert the words "or to the High Court of Justice as hereinafter provided."

I think it will be agreed that this is a reasonable Amendment. The object is two-fold. It is to give an alternative and also to save unnecessary expense. In the Bill already there is provided an appeal to the High Court from the decision of the Comptroller, but in the case of a man or firm who could not be described as wealthy it as extremely hard that he should be confined only to a certain line of procedure in appealing. The Comptroller may be a Solomon in judgment, but there might be appeals from the judgment of Solomon, and the expense involved to such a firm in a. matter of this kind ought to be avoided. We attach great importance to this, because we think that the man or the firm should have the right of choice to go either to the Comptroller or the High Court.

I beg to second the Amendment.

What is suggested is that alternative methods should be provided for aggrieved persons to have their grievance deter mined. I hope that the Solicitor-General will accept the Amendment. It harmonises with one of his own Amendments later on. It simply means providing more direct and more economic methods for those concerned. The House will recognise the advantage for those connected with industry having placed at their disposal the most simple and direct methods of deter mining points of difficulty arising in connection with these matters which unfairly handicap neither side, and give facilities for the settlement of all difficulties arising between the parties.

I am sorry that I cannot accept this Amendment, but I think that on examination both my hon. Friends will see that it is really impossible. It alters the whole structure or system of our patent law. We have at present a Comptroller who is a very responsible person appointed with high legal attainments and qualifications as a person qualified to exercise the very important duties entrusted to him, and from him there is an appeal to the High Court. If all applications were to go straight to the Court it would be resented by the High Court, and it would be doing a great disservice to the large number of persons who wish to bring their applications in matters of patents before a tribunal, if you were to increase the cost to which they would be subjected, and it would make it a much more serious matter for them to make any application at all. The present system has worked well and should not be altered.

I think that my hon. Friends do not quite appreciate that the present is the very easiest, simplest, and most expeditious manner of having these matters inquired into. Further than that, if they go to the High Court direct they take away the possibility of appeal which exists at present in the case of decisions by the Comptroller.

I beg to move, at the end, to insert the words

"In case of any dispute as to the existence or scope of any record as aforesaid, or as to the use of an invention, or the terms of its use, the matter shall be referred to a judge of the High Court for decision, who shall have power to refer the whole matter or any question or issue of fact arising thereon to be tried before a special or official referee or an arbitrator upon such terms as he may direct."

I am sorry that my Amendment comes in front of the Amendment of the hon. Member for Newcastle (Mr. Doyle), which was put down without my cognisance. The purpose of my Amendment is this, to leave with the Court the decision as to what sum is to be paid to a firm or person for the use of patents. Clause 8 refers to Clause 29 of the principal Act which provides that where a patent has been used by the Crown then the amount to be paid for the user shall be settled by the Treasury after hearing all parties interested. I undertook in Committee to see the Chancellor of the Exchequer in order that that might be altered because it was felt to be wrong that the party who had to pay, namely, the Treasury, should also be the party to decide what was to be paid, and I was anxious to alter the present plan. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has told me that he has no appetite to decide these cases himself and would be very glad that they should go elsewhere. We have there fore provided that that should be done. I have been able to meet also one or two other points. Where there is a question as to the use of the invention or its terms or the existence or scope of any record, which is referred to now in the new Clause, all those matters shall go to the High Court for decision. But the High Court has the power not necessarily to try all those cases but to direct that they shall be tried before a special or official referee or arbitrator on such terms as the judge may direct. In other words we have now a Clause pro viding that an official referee, a special referee, or an arbitrator, shall be the per son who shall determine what shall be paid, and the instructions to be given as to how this should be done now rests with a judge of the High Court. The House is indebted to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for agreeing to this course and giving up what hitherto has been his prerogative.

I beg to move, after the words last inserted, to add the following words

"The right to use an invention for the ser vices of the Crown under the provisions of this Section shall include, and shall be deemed always to have included, the power to sell any articles made in pursuance of such right which are no longer required for the services of the Crown."

The House will be interested to know why I ask to have these words inserted. A somewhat curious result has been produced during the course of this War. Many Government Departments have had to make or use a large number of patented articles. They have bought, to the ad vantage of the makers and patentees, a very large number of patented articles. Although they have power to use, under Section 29, the power that is given under that Section is a power only to use, and the Government Departments now find that, having paid, or being liable to pay, royalties in respect of all these things, they are in possession of a number of articles which they cannot dispose of at all, because it would be contrary to the patent law. It is quite impossible, in the public interests, to allow these things not to be made use of, and this proposal is intended to give power to dispose of these articles and to obviate difficulties that have arisen from the patent law.

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "that" ["Provided that any Government Department may"], to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words "the pro visions of Section twenty-nine of this Act shall be read as though they applied to registered designs."

I want to have the power for the Government to take a new design, and the method of ascertaining what the Government shall pay shall be the same in respect of designs as in respect of patents.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "managing" ["the name of such manager or managing director"]. This is a drafting Amendment. The Solicitor-General has been good enough to accept it.

I accept this Amendment and that which follows in the name of the hon. Member.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "as" ["member of a firm, or as manager or director"], to insert the word "a."

I accept this Amendment.

I beg to move, in paragraph one, Section (6), to leave out the word "fifteen" ["there shall be substituted the word fifteen"], and to insert in stead thereof the word "eighteen."

This Amendment does not in any way contravene the substance or principles of the Section. It is simply intended to give a little more time to those who would otherwise be handicapped. In other countries an unlimited time is allowed, and in some countries the time is two to three years. This is a matter of special hard ship for patentees or owners in our Dominions, such as New Zealand and other outstanding places, where they have not the opportunity of coming within the period of time. I have had the opportunity of speaking with the Solicitor-General, and I hope he will see his way to accept this slight alteration.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am sorry I can not accept this Amendment. I quite understand the reason why it is moved. I do not think it is a necessary or a wise Amendment. It is an Amendment to Section 6, and Section 6 provides the period of time which has to elapse between the provisional and the complete specification. Sub-section (5) provides that, unless a complete specification is exhibited within twelve months from the date of the application, the application shall be void. That twelve months has been made into fifteen, and there is also power, under the Act as it stands, to add a further extension of time of not more than three months. As we have put in fifteen months, and could take another three months, it gives us eighteen months. There must be some sort of finality. The only case I can think of where on reasonable grounds it might be necessary to have more time would be some delayed case from a distant part of the Overseas Dominions. Such cases are so few that I think they really are met by the power of extension to eighteen months which we already have. For the purpose of securing something like finality, and dealing with the register, and so on, I think it is not wise to go beyond the ex tension we have already provided.

I should like to refer to the difficulty we have in some districts of the Greater London area in carrying on the medical and surgical treatment of demobilised soldiers. We had to give notice to discontinue the work some time ago as arrangements had not been made with the doctors for payment for proceeding with their work in the future as they could not continue their voluntary work. I speak with some knowledge of this subject, as I have occupied the positions of vice-chairman of the Essex and Middlesex Disablement Committee and also chairman of another war pensions committee. Therefore I can say that this work should be continued and which is well worth doing in the interests of the men concerned. The doctors say that they should be paid for their services now, and the Governors of the Hospital and Pensions Committee are only too willing to do their part. I was told at a conference there were large institutions being formed in some part of the country for the treatment, training and education of these men, but we have had nothing in our part of the country, and we want to know whether the work which has been so well carried on by many committees with the resources at their disposal is to be continued or given up. Many of the men are now only receiving massage, and something more than this should be done for those men who are wandering about the streets without proper treatment, and who for one reason or another were required to leave hospitals too soon. The committees have had the matter under consideration and are anxious to know if they can continue, for it will be a fine work if only a good proportion of the men can be made fit.

We are only on the Schedule. Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to have a chat with him, and I shall be glad to explain matters.

I desire to raise one or two points, and to get some clear expression of opinion about them from the Parliamentary Secretary. Clause 2 of this Bill deals with a new power which the Ministry seeks from employers of labour with regard to the earning capacity of those who are presumably asking for alternative pensions. There has always been a considerable amount of difficulty on that particular subject. A man who receives an ordinary pension may, if he can prove the facts of his pre-war earnings along with the assessment of his pre- sent earning capacity, receive an alternative pension. This Clause gives the Ministry of Pensions powers not only to ascertain, the pre-war earnings of the disabled person from the employer, but seeks a new power of ascertaining the earning capacity of any such person. On that point there is a certain range in which you can get definite information, but beyond that there are very many cases in which it is extremely difficult to get what one might call precise and accurate information. Perhaps the hardest case of all, which ought to be considered sympathetically by the Ministry, is the case of the discharged sailor or soldier who prior to enlisting was engaged in a small business of his own. Many of these men are the type of men who from year to year in the industry and commerce of this country go on carrying through a small business without any very great business habits. The business is so small, comparatively speaking, that they did not keep the accurate books which any larger firm would Keep, and these men, along with many others enlisted for the period of the War and have shared the common experience of so many men, and been disabled in the War.

2.0 P.M.

They have been awarded their flat-rate disability pension and they have made application for the better pension, the alternative pension, but in most of the cases, certainly in most of the cases which have come to my own personal knowledge, these men have been unable to provide the Ministry of Pensions with the kind of information which the Ministry insists should be provided before an alternative pension is assessed. I remember bringing to the attention of the Ministry a case from my own Constituency in Edinburgh. I think I have brought it to the attention of practically every Minister of Pensions there has been. It is the case of a man who happened to carry on from his own dwelling-house a small business of electrical fittings. He had no shop or premises, but he had a large range of customers, and he bought his electrical impedimenta from time to time just as he required them, and the only proof that this man could furnish of the income that he was earning prior to the War was by getting the people from whom he. had purchased these things to provide him with invoices of the amount of his purchases. The only inference you could make was the usual business inference that could be made from such figures, that if the man had so large a stock he was bound to be earning so much income. In a case of that kind the Ministry of Pensions will not accept that evidence. The Ministry of Pensions insists in the case of an alternative pension on precise evidence being furnished. That might be all very well if those men had entered upon an obligation in which they knew that part of the obligation was to furnish the evidence, but, of course, the War did not wait for men to put their business in order before they joined the Colours, and it does seem extraordinarily hard lines when those men, being wounded, apply for their alternative pension, they are debarred from the right of having the better class pension because they are unable, through the habits which they exercised prior to joining the Army, to provide the documentary evidence which would enable them to come within the range of that pension.

I know my hon. and gallant Friend opposite, who is responsible for the Bill this afternoon, is sympathetic in his administration of the Pension Warrant, and he is the last man in the House, as indeed the. Minister of Pensions is the last Minister in the House, that would seek to deprive a man of his just right, I have had many dealings with the Ministry, and they often stretch the Warrant to the most elastic point of breaking in order to meet a reasonable case that has been put to them. But I do venture to suggest that Clause 2, which provides them with further power of ascertaining earning capacity, does enable us to raise what is, after all, a very vital question to these men who ought, on much less precise evidence, to be able to establish their claim to the better class of pension. Clause 3 deals with the extension of power to pay pensions in advance. The essential words in this Clause are the words which give the Minister of Pensions power to issue a pension "in advance for such period not exceeding six months." I presume that power is taken to cover the cases of emigration. A great many men, and a great many of their dependants, are going abroad to seek their fortunes in other countries. Fortunately, the Ministry of Pensions has made ample provision by which the pensions to which these men are entitled can be paid, and are being paid, in the countries to which they have gone. But there arises this point — and it will appeal to the House at once— that if a man is going to seek his fortune, say, in Australia, New Zealand, or South Africa, the one thing that will enable him to make a fresh start there, which is useful to him and to the country to which he is going, is a little capital in his pocket when he arrives there. At the present moment, until this power has been taken, it has been impossible to commute a pension for the purpose of emigration, arid, in my experience, what the Ministry of Pensions so far has done has been to give an advance of three months to a demobilised soldier or to the widow of a soldier who has fallen in the War to cover the cost of emigration.

That raises the whole question of the commutation of pension. It used to be possible, prior to the outbreak of war, to commute a pension, and if a man could show sufficient reason why his pension should be commuted, in my experience the Ministry— at that time the Chelsea Commissioners— took a very reasonable view of the commutation of pensions, and, during the War, and even up to the present moment, so far as I know, beyond this Clause in this Bill, it has not, been possible to commute any pension. I should be very glad to know from my hon. and gallant Friend if pensions have been commuted to any extent. I should be very much surprised to learn that they have been. I should think the cases in which they have been commuted have been very exceptional; but, at any rate, power is taken in this Clause to commute a pension for a period not exceeding six months. I want to suggest that the time may have arrived when the power to commute a pension entirely should be restored to the man in receipt of that pension. Of course, I know the objections. Every six months a man is re-boarded, and his pension, in my experience, certainly gets on to the declining scale. The Treasury exercises vigilant control over the Ministry of Pensions, and the more revision you have the less is going to be the liability of the State with regard to these pensions. But, after all, if you take the period which is put in this Clause of six months, assuming that the man has a total disability pension at the present rate—roughly speaking, it is 30s. a week. For twenty-six weeks the amount is inside 40. So that the commutation which is given under this Clause dons not exceed, £40, and in most cases— because my hon. and gallant Friend knows the total disability pension is the one which is least often paid—it will be a sum of very much less than £ 40. If you go on the assumption that the man is going to one of our Dominions or Colonies to make good in a new country, that amount of capital is altogether inadequate for his needs. And I venture to suggest to my hon. and gallant Friend that, while it was a good thing to have taken the power to commute a pension in advance for a period of six months, the Ministry of Pensions might very reasonably consider all special cases which are put to them by which a man in receipt of a pension should be enabled, for the purpose of his new life in the new country to which he is going, to have the power to draw on that reserve of capital.

Then in Clause 5 the Ministry take power to deal with the question of the transference of their own powers. I am one of those who have always held that the Ministry of Pensions made an initial mistake when they devolved any of their powers on any other Department, and I hold that most strongly, now that the Ministry of Pensions is much better garrisoned by Ministers than ever it was in the period of its existence. I can understand the previous Ministers of Pensions, being unable to look after the charge to which they were appointed, wishing to devolve some of the powers with which they were entrusted. I always regret, for instance, the fact that the Ministry of Pensions parted with the power of training men, because, as a matter of fact, the more widely you separate the functions which ought to operate under the Ministry of Pensions, the more need there will be in the future for an attempt to co-ordinate all these dispersed functions, so that the House and country shall have a general conspectus of what is being done for the discharged man. So far, if I remember rightly, the Ministry of Pensions has devolved its power of training, and certain of its powers with regard to treatment, to other Departments. Training has gone to the Ministry of Labour, and I think the House Will agree£ or, at any rate, such Members of the House as are present this afternoon, because it is one of the unfortunate things that on a big vital question of this sort the House is always so wretchedly empty. It seems to me this is one of the most important questions this House can discuss. It is one of the questions which more directly concern the men who have served the community than any other, but, by the luck of circumstances, we always seem to have an empty House and an exhibition of very little interest in a very vital concern— I say this function has been dispersed to the Ministry of Labour, and the House will agree that there is no Ministry to-day which is more concerned with acute problems, and which in the future—particularly the immediate future—is more likely to be concerned with acute industrial problems than the Ministry of Labour. Every morning we get up there is a fresh strike, before lunch-time there is a second, and before we dine there is a third. That is the general experience of the average member of the community to-day. You rise in the morning to breakfast with a strike, and you go to bed with five or six other strikes. The Minister of Labour ought to have all his attention concentrated upon the industrial situation and ought not to be hampered with such a question as the training of discharged and demobilised officers and men. It takes away from the powers of this House to review the treatment of these men, because the only way in which you can, for instance, discuss a question of that kind is on the Estimates; and the Minister of Labour and everybody in the House at this moment knows that, if the Ministry of Labour Vote were put down to-morrow, the last thing that would have a chance of being discussed would be the training of demobilised officers and men. There are so many other important questions that Mr. Speaker or Mr. Deputy-Speaker, presiding over the deliberations of the House, would very properly put those questions in such an order that the efflux of time would make it impossible to discuss any question concerning the discharged and demobilised men.

And why should not the Ministry of Pensions retain the power and control of the training of these men? After all, the Ministry is equipped not only with a Minister of Pensions but with an Undersecretary of Pensions, both of them devoted to the work in which they are employed, and giving not only of their time but of their ability to the administration of the Pension Warrants. I am quite sure that, if I had the good fortune to preside over the destinies of the Ministry of Pensions, I should like to feel that I had in my power and in my control the whole life of the man from the moment he was awarded his disability pension to the moment he was turned out of the training-centre as a retrained and useful man. I think they ought to keep within their own purview the history of the discharged and disabled man from the beginning to the end. Clause 5 gives the Ministry power by Order in Council—a method to which this House strongly objects in these days. It was a method to which we did not object during the progress of the War, because it was an easy and a convenient method of getting things done, but it is a method to which we very strongly object now that the War is out of the way and Peace has been signed. This Clause gives the Ministry power, by Order in Council, to transfer functions, and I should be glad if my hon. and gallant Friend, as precisely as he can, will give me the information as to what functions, so far, have been transferred to other Departments, and whether my hon. and gallant Friend contemplates on the part of the Ministry transferring any further functions.

I should like, before we part with the Third Reading of this Bill, to have clearly in my mind the possibility of the transfer of any other functions. I have said quite plainly and bluntly that I object to the transfer of any function. For instance, I objected to the transfer to the Ministry of Labour of training. Before I am prepared to give my right hon. Friend carte blanche in a matter of this kind, I should like to know what the Ministry have in their heads in regard to these arrangements? In regard to the machinery after you have done it I do not very much mind. By all means create what machinery you like. But it is important to know whether other functions are to be transferred. In Clauses (7) and (S) we have given effect to the promise—I am grateful in passing for the carrying out of that promise—of the creation of what is popularly called the statutory right to a pension. I want hon. Members of this House to be quite clear as to how far this statutory right to a pension is going to affect the men who have served from 4th August, 1914. down to the period that is covered by the phrase "duration of the War." At present the man who is assessed for a disability pension has no right of appeal. I know my hon. and gallant Friend would put up a case against that in public, but I think what I am saying is really true. What, of course, he does have is that he can go to the medical referee or the local war pensions committee and give them his circumstances to review. After all, that is going to absolutely the same body as granted his first pension. It is not really a Court of Appeal. It is as if a man who is condemned should go buck to the same judge who has condemned him and ask him to reconsider the case. If you are going to have a real Court of Appeal, obviously, it, must be an entirely fresh set of people who will reconsider the whole case de novo so that the man may have a chance. At present the man has only one chance inside of six months to put his case before the medical referee or the local war pensions committee.

When we discussed this the other day on the Ministry of Pensions Estimates two appeals were asked for by the Select Committee which reported on this matter. The House is entitled to congratulate itself upon the fact that the members of this Select Committee have devoted so much time to the Report they have published. In my opinion it is a very valuable report. It is a report to which I subscribe very cordially as one of the most persistent critics of the Ministry of Pensions ever since it was instituted. I am very grateful to the members of that Committee for the work they have done and the Report they have published. They ask for two things. They ask for a statutory right to a pension, and the right of appeal, not only as to the title to a pension, but on the amount of the pension awarded. I shall not deal with the amount at present. I want to raise that question separately on the Schedule to this Bill. I will only deal with the question of the appeal as to the title. In accordance with the recommendation of the Select Committee this Bill sets up an appeal upon the question of title. I am quite free to admit that, strictly, the Ministry of Pensions have met the House, and the Select Committee, in the terms which are in the Bill. But there is one thing about which I want to be quite clear—and I trust that those interested will support me in trying to get a clear definition on this subject. This is now the month of August, 1919—that is to say, it is over five years since men began to get wounded in the War. Many of the men who were wounded in 1914– 15 have not even an appeal against the assessment of the medical board. There was no medical referee in those days attached to the local war pensions committee to which any of these men could appeal. All of us have in our mind, or, if not, we remember receiving many letters about it from constituents, of men who felt they had been turned down unjustly on the question of the assessment of their pension. I want to ask this: Does this appeal which is set up in Clause (8) entitle any man who is eligible for a pension from the first date on which men were being wounded to go to this tribunal? This is an extraordinarily important point.

The Select Committee have carried through their labours within the last three or four months. Before that Select Committee was set up, many of us in this House, when occasion offered, did our best to state the claims of these men, and I am perfectly certain—and I see a couple of members of the Select Committee present here—that what was in the minds of the Select Committee was that every man should be entitled to this appeal—that it is not, or was not, desired to give men that right from this time forward, but. that in this matter this Bill should be retrospective. I should be surprised to know from any members of that Select Committee who are here now that that was not what was at the back of their mind when they made this recommendation. It is not at all clear. I should have liked to make it more clear, but for the fact that we have been attempting to meet my right hon. and gallant Friend opposite in letting him get this Bill into operation, feeling it was better to have some sort of Bill in operation before we went into Recess without being meticulous about the phraseology.

It is not, I say, at all clear in Clause 8 that the man will have the statutory right—as it were, the inalienable right— of the man who still feels—and many men do—that he has very much better evidence now, because he has had his own medical attendant, evidence from the date when he was turned down, and the evidence of himself of getting worse in health. It should be clear that these men have the right for the last time to go before this new Appeal Tribunal which has been created. and to satisfy themselves that, after the sacrifices they have made, they are getting fair play from the State. It is an extraordinarily essential thing that this House of Commons, elected on whatever basis you like, but elected before the War was over, should not rise from its work— certainly should not go back to the country for another General Election—without the feeling that they have carried through the promises and pledges they made. I am rather keen on that. There has been so much said and done outside the House of Commons with regard to this subject of pensions that I want to establish the position that the House of Commons has not neglected its duty with regard to these men. Those who have followed the proceedings of the House of Commons during the last four years know for a certainty that, time after time, many of us have never lost an opportunity of putting up the case of the discharged men, and Ministers, who have been responsible for administration, have done everything they could, within the limited powers given to them, to carry our suggestions into effect. I think, however, it is essential—I myself am very keen upon it —to establish the claim that this House, as a House of Commons—not as a Coalition Government. not as an Opposition, not as a Labour party, or anything of that sort, but simply as a House of Commons representing the entire country—has not neglected the claims of these men, and that we, as Members, have worked hard in Committee, on the floor of this House, and on every occasion that has been possible, to make good the promises and pledges we gave to them.

I come to the last point with regard to the Schedule which deals with the constitution, jurisdiction, and the procedure of the Pension Appeal Tribunals. I thought of making a few Amendments with regard to the constitution of the tribunals, but no two of us might agree as to who the tribunal ought to consist of, and it is per haps not worth while putting up an alter native point of view so much as making another point. The Select Committee, whose work I have already described, also asked for an appeal on the question of the amount, and that is one of the things that has not been granted by the Government. I pointed that out and criticised it on the Pensions Estimates, and I showed that it was just the precise point in a man's disabled career that he felt most keenly about the question of assessment, and if he can get on that point the proper kind of appeal, it would create a greater feeling of confidence that the Ministry of Pensions and the Government were doing what they ought to do for the discharged men. The Minister of Pensions rather dropped the hint that he would not be averse to giving an appeal on the question of amount if it was a permanent one, but, after all, that would be a beginning.

The present assessment is for a period of three years, and no doubt hon. Members could produce evidence from discharged men in which they say they are tired of being under so many doctors. I know of one man who had seen twenty-seven doctors within the last three years in connection with his pension, and that man does not want to see another doctor until the morning of the Resurrection. [An HON. MEMBER: "Too late."] No it would not be too late, because he would be the inhabitant of a better world. There is nothing that prevents a man getting well so much as the fact that he does not know what he is going to get when he is well. If he knew his pension was going to be x shillings a week, that it was not going to be touched, and that it was to be his permanent pension, he would settle down to that frame of mind which might enable him to recuperate. This is a very import ant question which means a great deal to Governments in the future.

My hon. Friend told us that there are 2,000,000 or 3,000,000 people in receipt of pensions. That is at least one out of every twenty-five people in this country, and probably the proportion is one out of every twenty in receipt of a pension on account of the War. That is a big pro portion of public opinion. We do not want those kind of things to interfere with ordinary political events in this country, or with parties or the progress of parties. We want to settle those things, and put them on one side as being definitely done away with. I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will assure the House that when a pension has been assessed as a permanent pension, say half a dozen times within three years, and at the end the pension is put down as x shillings a week, if that man desires it, I think he should have an appeal to the tribunal on the amount that is going to be paid for the remainder of his life. The pension is not obtained for six months only. The percentage of permanent pension is so email at the present moment that you could easily afford the opportunity for an appeal in those particular cases. I think it is very important that when we have the opportunity we should impress this point upon my hon. and gallant Friend.

I can almost anticipate what the reply will be, and there is a great deal to be said for it. The hon. and gallant Gentleman. will probably say, if you open up the question of appeals on amount, you are going to make it so impossible to deal with the problem that you will probably hinder the proper administration of pensions. That is probably true, generally speaking, but it is not true of permanent pensions. What I suggest could be done with regard to permanent pensions. I did not want this Bill to pass without hon. Members having an opportunity of expressing their views on these points, and keeping a kind of hold on the Bill, in spite of the fact that we are willing to allow the Third Reading in order that this Bill may reach the Statute Book at the earliest possible opportunity.

I must thank my hon. Friend opposite and the House for the way they have facilitated the efforts of my right hon. Friend in getting this Bill through. This Bill is framed to carry out the pledges which my right hon. Friend gave in his statement to the House, and it accepts, except in. details, the findings of the Committee which has just, reported. My hon. Friend has raised points with regard to three of the Clauses of the Bill outside the questions affected by Clauses 7 and 8. He began with Clause 2, making inquiries as to how it was possible to arrive at the pre-war earnings of those men who were in small businesses and trades before the War in order now to be able to establish their claims to an alternative pension. I can assure the House that the question of ascertaining the pre-war earnings of the men who went out to serve is occupying the earnest attention of those who have to administer the Royal Warrant. Necessarily very many difficult problems arise. In many instances books were not kept, and the particular statistics that were necessary for our purpose had to be obtained by making careful inquiry in the neighbourhood from those tradesmen with whom the man dealt, and also from the houses from whom he obtained his goods to carry on his retail occupation. I may say that, in my opinion, there is no Department that is better organised at the moment, and no Department that has men of more outstanding ability, than the Alternative Pensions Department. My right hon. Friend felt that he was called upon to occupy an extraordinarily difficult position, and that made him seek and obtain men of great ability to cope with the many difficulties which he foresaw would arise. My hon. Friend can, therefore, take it from me that we are doing everything possible to ascertain precisely the amount of the pre-war earnings in order to establish a man's right to an alternative pension. This Clause to which he has referred only corrects an error which was made in the former Act. It enables us to use the machinery that we have for ascertaining the pre-war earnings of a man who returns to this country with a claim for an alternative pension, in the case of those men who have not returned, but where it is necessary to ascertain the pre war earnings for the commutation of the widows' pension.

The general question of advances and the question of commutation do not really arise under Clause 3, because all that we are seeking by that Clause is to enable us to give a slightly longer or larger advance to those men who are returning to the Colonies in order to enable them to cover the journey and the period which they re quire to get settled in their new sphere of life. My right hon. Friend has already informed the House that he hopes in a short time to be able to announce amicable arrangements with Canada and our other Colonies whereby pensioners who reside in those Colonies shall be put upon the Colonial rate in its entirety, and the bill which will result footed by this country at the termination of each financial year. He went into the case very fully in order to show that he had in mind the possibility of a Canadian who has re turned from the War with a pension bigger than we are able to give under our Royal Warrant living side by side with some one who came from Canada and joined our Imperial Forces here, and who, therefore, comes under the Royal Warrant, although he has now gone back to Canada. The particular question which my hon. Friend raises to-day, therefore, has given consider able thought to my right hon. Friend, and he proposes to meet to a very large degree the possibility of hardship to which my hon. Friend has referred. My hon. Friend went a little further, and suggested the possibility of enlarging the com mutation of pensions. That raises a very wide question of policy, and I have not had an opportunity of consulting my right hon. Friend on the point, but I think this House would be wise not to press for the commutation of pensions, except in very exceptional cases, because it is obvious, if we were to allow pensioners to commute their pensions and receive considerable sums down in full discharge of their rights and privileges under the Royal Warrant, it might be that, through foolishness on their part, or through the evil designs of others, the sum would disappear in a short time, and, as it would never do under any circumstances for this country to have these men going about in a state of destitution, we might have once more to put them on the pension books. We had better not in the meantime go further in the question of commuted pensions.

My hon. Friend raised the old controversial question as to whether the late Minister of Pensions was right in allowing the transfer of training to the Ministry of Labour. In my opinion, our predecessor in office was perfectly right. Anyone who has had to deal with the great labour problems that affect all those men who are returning to civil life will recognise that the proper authority to deal with them is the Ministry of Labour. On the other hand, the Pensions Ministry does exactly what my hon. Friend has suggested. He said that we ought to have charge of a man for the whole of his invalided life. We do. No pensioner leaves the auspices of the Pensions Ministry until he is certified by our own medical staff to be absolutely fit to undertake the training which the Ministry of Labour proposes to give him. We are establishing throughout the country six very large and suitable industrial centres, so that the men shall have the very best treatment, coupled with the elementary training in whatever particular direction they desire to travel. My hon. Friend may rest assured that, far from the Ministry rashly parting with a man before he enters the industrial world, it is the desire and duty of my right hon. Friend to see that the responsibility of passing men on to the Ministry of Labour rests with competent medical advisers. Consequently, the desire of my hon. Friend is adequately met. The question of the statutory right to pensions comes under Clauses 7 and 8. My right hon. Friend, with a rapidity which the House has appreciated, has embodied in this Bill the pledge which he gave a short time ago to those Members who were present when he made his extraordinarily able statement. He gives a full statutory right to a pension. My hon. Friend now comes down and says that he would like very much to know, whether it; would be possible to give an appeal not only on the question of entitlement, but also as to the amount of the pension which may be awarded by the Board.

Permanent pension !

I am glad my hon. Friend has modified the view which he expressed before, that it would be possible to have an appeal on these grounds. If he asks me whether, when a permanent pension has been awarded, it will be possible for my right hon. Friend to allow a man who is dissatisfied with the amount to have an appeal, I can only say that, although we have not specifically discussed this question together, I have heard him suggest that there is a possibility of meeting my hon. Friend in the matter. In consequence of the very great distance my right hon. Friend has been able to go in this Bill, I hope the House will be satisfied when I say that I myself see no administrative difficulties whatever in the way of giving those who are being awarded a permanent pension a right of appeal, but I hope the House will thoroughly understand that the question of an appeal on the amount is really an appeal on assessment. It is on the assessment that the amount is translated, and consequently it really means an appeal to a rather superior class of medical board that my hon. Friend is asking for. I may say that the door is by no means closed on the possibility, but I cannot pledge my right hon. Friend without having first consulted him. In conclusion, may I say just a word or two upon the point raised by my hon. Friend referring to allowing the new Appeal Tribunals to re-hear all the cases which have already been tried by our present appeal tribunals? That, as a matter of course, I must submit to my right hon. Friend, but I do not think it possible. After all, I guarantee to say that no tribunal set up by the Lord Chancellor could be more independent, more painstaking, or more sympathetic towards discharged and disabled men than are the tribunals that at present exist. I guarantee to say it is impossible to find men who are more devoted to their work and more anxious to do it in the fairest way than the tribunals which have already sat, and I am confident that if any hon. Members had attended any of the Courts, and seen the painstaking manner in which they conduct their business and their fairness with the men before them—an assessor, a sailor or soldier, hearing all the evidence for and against—they would agree we could not have a fairer or more judicial tribunal. Outside the question of expense, I hope my hon. Friend will remember that we are trying to catch up arrears, and that although we have nearly fifteen of these tribunals our arrears are not nearly over come. It may be said, "They never should have arisen," but that is another matter; and I may point this out to the House, that it has been found necessary in order to cope with the gigantic number of cases on first awards to make those first awards rapidly and swiftly in order to allay any suggestion in the country that a man is not going to get a pension at all. It is obvious that with this hurry in making assessments, especially in cases where demobilisation was pressed upon the country and men were thrust out with out medical examination, and came on to us with very meagre details regarding their past medical history, it becomes all the more necessary for the tribunals in reviewing cases to take all the time they require, in order that the haste in the first instance may be corrected by the exercise of the utmost possible pains when it comes to a question of appeal.

I would like to ask a question if I may. My hon. Friend has been very good in meeting us, but I do not want to part with this Bill without knowing exactly where we are. I took him to say that this new Appeal Tribunal will not operate until this Act becomes law, and that, therefore, nobody who has had a pension prior to the date on which this becomes law will have the right to appeal to this tribunal, and I would like to ask him this—not really to close his mind upon that subject. And, if I may, may I ask him if he is aware—may I put it as a question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?— ask him if he is aware that when Judge Parry's tribunal was set up on the question of appeal against the gratuities and in favour of pensions it was found there was at least 50 per cent. of error—one out of every two cases—in the decisions which had been come to, and that my hon. and gallant Friend may be doing himself and the Ministry an injustice if he finally closes his mind? I do not ask him for a decision, but I ask him not to say definitely in this Third Reading Debate anything which would prevent any man who has had a decision from coming to this tribunal. That is not much to ask, and I hope he will agree.

I am very anxious not to leave the impression upon the House that I am in favour of it or that I think it is possible. With those reservations I will certainly keep the door open, and promise to consult my right hon. Friend at the earliest possible moment. In a matter of such importance as that I cannot, of course, make any definite pledge to the House, but with my knowledge of the congestion of work at this great Ministry and the excellent way in which the tribunals have done their work in the past, I cannot conceive that it would be an administrative possibility to reopen all these cases and to give them another appeal to what would be practically a similar tribunal, only set up under different auspices. I think these are all the points that my hon. Friend touched on, and once more I wish to thank the House most heartily for the way in which they have facilitated my right hon. Friend and myself in getting the Bill through.

May I ask the hon. and gallant Gentleman one point— and that is with reference to the consumptive sailors who were invalided out of the Navy before the War? Under the same conditions of service, practically consumptive sailors have been invalided out of the Service during the War with a pension, but there are many very hard cases of sailors who were doing exactly the same work before the War, only perhaps not quite so hard, invalided out with no pension at all, and who are now in great straits. May I ask if there are any hopes for those men? Up to now they have not seen any signs of it.

I am afraid that does not arise on this Bill.

:As chairman of a local war pensions committee I also have experienced great difficulty in arranging alternative pensions in the cases of those who gave up businesses to join in the War. I have just arranged one after a long time, where there was great difficulty in getting the requisite information as there was no Income Tax paid in pre-war times. It was important to obtain the 2s. or 3s. extra for the woman and her three small children in that case. If we can have it laid down on broader and more definite lines that we may grant these alternative pensions on proper conditions it will prove very useful to many who need that assistance. At present non-payment of Income Tax was a bar.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the word "seven" ["to appoint seven Commissioners"], and to insert instead thereof the word "eight."

This Amendment will have the effect, if accepted, of increasing the total number of the Forestry Commissioners from seven to eight, and the number of the unpaid Commissioners from four to five. I believe it is the intention, and certainly it seemed on the Second Reading to be the general desire of the House, that one of the unpaid Commissioners should be a Member of this House. I think it is very desirable that there should be not less than four other unpaid Commissioners, so that each part of the United Kingdom, if it is intended to appoint them on a representative basis, may be represented by an unpaid Commissioner. I do not think I need argue the point at greater length; I beg to move.

I quite understand the object which my hon. Friend has in mind, and also the object which is in the mind of the hon. and gallant Member for Kincardine (Lieut.-Colonel A. Murray) in his Amendment which comes next on the. Paper, namely, that there shall be an un paid Forestry Commissioner who shall be a Member of this House, and who shall stand much in the same relation to this House as the unpaid Charity Commissioner does at the present time. With regard to that, I speak with some knowledge, because I was once the unpaid Charity Commissioner. He is a member, not of the Government, but usually of the party to which the Government belongs, and he changes with every change of Government in consequence. He attends the board meetings, and so forth, is cognisant of all that is going on, and answers questions on behalf of the Commissioners. Similarly, when the Estimates come on, although the Financial Secretary, in the case of the Charity Commission, is responsible, the unpaid Commissioner as a rule attends to assist the Financial Secretary. I am quite willing that that plan, which I think works well, shall be adopted here, and for that reason I am willing to accept this Amendment and to add one member to the Commission. He will be a more or less ephemeral person, coining and going with Parliaments and Governments, and, therefore, the total number of seven more or less permanent Commissioners will not be interfered with, but we shall have a link between the Commission and this House. I am, therefore, willing to accept this Amendment, and to move an Amendment lower down to define clearly what the duties of the additional unpaid Commissioner will be.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman, in the remarks which he has just made, referred to the Amendment which I was proposing to move. I am very glad that he accepted the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Eye. He said that he proposed to move an Amendment further down to say what were to be the duties of the extra Commissioner who was to be a Member of this House, but he did not say whether or not he proposed to accept this Amendment of mine, to insert, at the end of the Subsection, the words "who shall be a Member of the Commons House of Parliament."

Perhaps I may explain. I am quite willing to accept such words as those proposed by my hon. and gallant Friend, but I think they would come in better lower down, and, if my hon. and gallant Friend will not at this point move his Amendment, I will move, at the end of the Clause, to insert as a new Subsection the words

"One of the unpaid Commissioners shall be a Member of the Commons House of Parliament."

These words merely follow the precedent of the Charity Commission Act, and make it clear that the added Commissioner is to be the Parliamentary Commissioner to whom I have alluded.

In view of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman has said, I do not move my Amendment, I presume that, when he moves the new Sub-section which ho has mentioned, we shall be able to have a short discussion on it. There are one or two points in connection with the duties of the Parliamentary representative which I hope we shall be able to clear up at that stage.

I beg to move, in Subsection (1), after the word "Chairman," to insert the words "and one at least a person having scientific attainments and a technical knowledge of forestry."

The words of this Amendment, as they originally stood on the Paper, were "and one at least having a scientific and technical knowledge of forestry." I have altered the words slightly, because I want it to be understood that one of the Commissioners should be a man of general scientific knowledge, and at the same time should have some technical knowledge of the subject with which he has to deal. I do not think it is necessary that I should speak at any length in urging this Amendment. Everyone will admit that it is of the utmost importance that certainly one member of the Commission should be a man of scientific ability. That is essential not only on account of the importance of the questions bearing upon forestry which will be brought under his notice, but also in order that he may be able to appreciate the various scientific facts that may come under his notice from the committees that will be appointed to indicate the results of the different kinds of research work in connection with forestry. The British Science Guild have issued a short memorandum on this subject from their Parliamentary Committee, in which they point out that there is no statutory acceptance of the obligation that any Forestry Commissioner shall be able to understand or perform any of these duties, or to test the qualifications and administrative value of any Assistant-Commissioner, or to profit by the advice of any consultative committee. With a view of indicating the necessity that one of these Commissioners shall have scientific knowledge, I have put down this Amendment. I should like to point out that the Minister who wound up the Debate on the Second Reading of the Bill—namely, the right hon. Member for the Gorbals Division of Glasgow (Mr. G. N. Barnes) —said that he was quite certain that the Government would give sympathetic consideration to the proposal which I then made.

I do not feel that this is really necessary. As a matter of fact, it will, as I have reason to know, be provided for most adequately in the formation of the Commission. I do not know the intentions of the Government with regard to certain members of the Commission, and I do not know if they have decided, but undoubtedly it is essential that there should be a technical member of the Commission having high qualifications in forestry. The gentleman who has been acting in that capacity up to the present will, I know, continue in it, and his qualifications are these. He is a Bachelor of Science of Aberdeen University; he obtained a Rhodes Scholarship and came to Oxford, where he took First Class Honours in the Science School. He is also a Bachelor of Arts, and took the Diploma of Forestry at Oxford, at the head of the list; and he became Burdett-Coutts lie-search scholar of Oxford University. Incidentally, he is a Double Blue; and I think, if it is a man with these qualifications who is to be selected as the technical member of the Commission, the hon. Gentleman (Sir Philip Magnus) might also be satisfied without the insertion of these words.

That may be so in respect to the present Commissioner, but it might not be so at, some future time—at the end of the period of five years, for instance. I take it that the Amendment is moved in order to secure for all time that on this Commission there should be at least one person having a scientific and technical knowledge of forestry.

I really do not think it is necessary. No one can see any Government setting up a Forestry Commission without appointing, at all events, one member who has scientific knowledge; indeed, it may have exactly the opposite effect to what my hon. Friend suggests. It rather seems to suggest that, so long as there is one who fulfils the necessary obligations, the other seven might be absolute ignoramuses. I think we should do better if we do not accept these words. It rather casts a slur on the Commission when you say one at least shall have technical knowledge.

I am afraid I must press the Amendment, for the reasons advanced by the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Murray). It is not a slur upon the Commission, but it might be a slur upon those who may have to appoint Commissioners at some future time, if it is any slur at all, but I do not see that it is any slur. It only indicates what the whole scientific world desires should be done—namely, that it should be a statutory obligation upon the Government to appoint at least one member of the Commission having scientific knowledge.

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (1), to add the words "and of whom not less than two shall have special knowledge and experience of plantation and forestry in Scotland."

The object of the Amendment is to secure fair and permanent representation of Scottish forestry on the Commission. Scotland has a very large and a very special interest in this question, and has recently done a good deal of administrative work. It is in order to meet that feeling that I move the Amendment.

The Government fully recognises the great importance of the work that has been done in Scotland, and for that reason, unless there is any special objection raised in other quarters of the House. I shall be prepared to accept this.

Why should this be limited to Scotland? Why should not the same knowledge be required in England? It would be better to put in a Clause which will apply to the whole of the United Kingdom. Why it should be required that one Commissioner should have special knowledge of forestry in Scotland and it should not be necessary that any Commissioner should have special knowledge of forestry in England is certainly something I cannot understand, and I am quite certain scientific men will not understand.

The only reason is that more than half the land which is suitable for afforestation is in Scotland, and we thought it only fair to take care that Scotland gets adequate representation. That was the only reason why I accepted it. It was not proposed by me. The Scottish Members put it down, and they have a very good case.

Would it not be safer to leave out any qualification at all? The whole of the argument of the Government against the Amendment of my hon. Friend (Sir P. Magnus) applies with equal force here. To say that certain members of the Commission are to have special knowledge of one part of the country but need know nothing about another part of the country would surely be a very invidious state of affairs. We may surely trust those who have the appointment of the Commissioners to say that, as the bulk of the forestry will probably occur in Scotland, the people they select shall have special knowledge of the work in Scotland. But it is equally necessary in England. I have frequently come across people who have known forestry in the North pretty well, but show lamentable ignorance if you bring them down to Hampshire and Dorsetshire. It would be most invidious to say so many people should be qualified in the North of England, so many in the South, and so many in Scotland. Surely you ought to trust the people who make these appointments to see that the Commissioners will be men with adequate knowledge, not merely of one special part of the United Kingdom, but shall have a general knowledge of forestry.

I hope my bon. and gallant Friend (Sir A. Boscawen) will adhere to his acceptance of the Amendment. In Scotland there is very considerable doubt as to the wisdom of a central Commission. I am certain that acceptance by the Government of the Amendment will go a long way to allay that feeling of distrust which is entertained, and, however great the need's of forestry in England and elsewhere, it is in Scotland that the main portion of the work will have to-be done.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2), to leave out the words "not more than three of."

The object of the Amendment is to leave out the obligation to appoint a larger proportion of the Commissioners as unpaid Commissioners. I am very sympathetic to the Government's idea, possibly of economy, in having unpaid Commissioners, but there are certain objections to it which, I think, should be considered. During the War it has been a fact that a number of the unpaid officials have not been sufficiently under the control of the Department to which they should have been answerable, and, although that is only the case in a small degree possibly, nevertheless it is a principle that I think we should recognise. If we can get Commissioners who are prepared to work without a salary I believe it would be possible for them to return, their salaries.

Is it in order for a private Member to propose a charge on public funds affecting the payment of certain Commissioners who, according to the Government proposals, are to be unpaid?

I should like to hear the views of the Parliamentary Secretary.

The effect of this Amendment would be to increase the amount paid in the form of salaries. I do not know that it would increase the total charge, but pro tanto it would diminish the amount that could be spent in afforestation. I do not know whether, as it does not increase the total charge, it could be ruled out of order as being moved by a private Member.

The Financial Resolution says,

"That it is expedient to authorise the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of a sum not exceeding £3,500,000 into a Forestry Fund."

That would enable the Amendment to be moved.

It is only a different allocation.

I am alive to the fact that if we pay more in salaries there will be less for planting trees, but, out of the £3,000,000, the amount in salaries is not very great, and I think the advantage of having these Commissioners paid, and all that that means, quite overrides the possible diminution in the amount of money immediately available for tree-planting and other constructive work. The Amendment also includes leaving out the words, "and the term of office of an unpaid Commissioner shall be five years."

I hope the Committee will not support this Amendment. I quite understand the object of the hon. and gallant Member. He thinks that the work would be better done by having a. greater number of paid Commissioners. That is not the view of the Government or of those who have worked on this matter up to date. I believe the scheme we have put forward is a perfectly practicable scheme. We have already three paid Commissioners, and it will be quite easy to find at least four other gentlemen who take great interest in the work and who would do a great deal of work unpaid. I am rather surprised that the hon. Member, who generally is on the side of economy, should propose to increase the bureaucracy by four paid officials at the expense of the work they have to do. I am sure the Friends of the hon. and gallant. Gentleman will not support him.

After the explanation, I bog leave to withdraw the Amendment.

I beg to move, in Subsection (2), to leave out the words "four thousand five hundred pounds," and to insert instead thereof the words'' three thousand pounds."

I propose to reduce the salaries which are to be paid, and I am sorry that one hon. Member who sits on this side should, as a prologue to this discussion, have given an opportunity to the Government to jeer. I am against the proposal to have two types of Commissioners. It is a great mistake, and it means that on this central board the four Commissioners who are unpaid will exercise the same authority, and be able to do the same things as the paid men. I think that is bad at the beginning. If it is possible to get four gentlemen who will render that service unpaid to the State because of their interest in the question, it is surely possible to get seven. We could supply the whole seven from Scotland, which is a most generous country.

Unpaid?

There is a delusion among Southerners that Scotsmen require to be paid for everything they do. The greatest services to the State are rendered by Scotsmen without any pay. [Hon. Members: "Name !"] On that- point it is a mistake, and it is wrong to have as Commissioners seven men, four of wham are in a different category from the others. Pour of these men are really the masters of the other three, because no man who draws a salary under the Forestry Commission can have the same power and authority in a joint meeting of the seven as the man who does not draw a salary.

What about the Development Commissioners?

They are the most effete body that ever existed.

They have done a great deal of good work.

I have never heard of it. I do not know what they nave done. I see no evidence of it. I shall be glad to have any testimonials in praise of the Development Commissioners. I have seen no evidence anywhere of the work which seems to appeal to hon. and gallant Members. It is a wrong system to combine in a board of this kind, because it really means a board of unpaid and paid men. The second argument is this: We have denied increased salaries to overworked Ministers within the last few days on the grounds of economy. I fit is possible to get four out of seven men to do this work for nothing, surely a £l,000 honorarium for the other three is, quite sufficient Yesterday the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that we were heading straight to bankruptcy. They were repeating what has been said from the beginning by us, and in the same phraseology that we have used. If we are honest on this question of economy, then my hon. Friends will support me in moving this reduction and limiting the salaries to a total of £3,000. I have made it an aggregate salary, because I want to give the Minister in charge perfect freedom to pay any of the three £l,500, or to pay one his travelling expenses and so on. I am giving him the use of £3,000, and I am making no point about the distribution of the money. If you can get four out of seven to do the work for nothing, £3,000 is quite sufficient to cover the other three. Obviously £4,500 is not adequate for three competent well-equipped men. My hon. Friend opposite dealt with the scientific point of view, and he wished to insert some words to make sure that these people would have scientific knowledge. In a decent university no one would ever dream of saying that £1,500 was an adequate salary.

£1,500 a year?

No, it is not adequate.

Many professors have less.

I am not saying that many have less or that they have more. What I say is that it is not an adequate salary for any man who has to undergo scientific and professional training. With all his expenses and what it costs him to attain his knowledge it is not an adequate salary, and he could not live on it unless he got other work to do. No professor of a university exists on his salary as a professor. It is the other work that comes to him because of his position that enables him to take the post at that amount of money, and here is an unnecessary Act of Parliament—because this Bill is absolutely unnecessary so far as Scotland is concerned; we do not want—

You should say, "I do not want it."

I will say "I" do not want it. I always understood that in the House of Commons, when we say "we," we use it in an editorial sense.

You spoke on behalf of Scotland.

Let the hon. Member go to his constituents on the question of taking away from Scotland her powers with regard to forestry. In this matter he would not have any "coupon" to help him into this House. Where is the Secretary for Scotland? He has never been present at any of these Debates.

I am told that he is ill.

He was not ill when we were discussing this matter before. He is not here because lie is not in favour of this Bill.

May I ask is this in order?

I may remind the hon. Member that the Amendment is, to leave out the words "four thousand five hundred," and to insert instead thereof the words "three thousand." Because it is a manuscript Amendment it is, perhaps, rather difficult for the Committee so far to understand what the Amendment is.

If the Committee had left me alone, I could have made my speech quite short. If hon. Members object to my phraseology, surely they do not expect me to take all I get without giving something back! My point is economy. If you have seven members of a Commission, four of whom are unpaid, it is a waste of public money to give £1,500 a year to each of the other three, particularly as those of us who represent Scotland—I am speaking for myself in this particular instance—are strongly of opinion that the people of Scotland do not want this Bill. They never asked for it, and they object to this waste of public money.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the word "paid" ["term of office of a paid Commissioner."].

This Amendment, and one which follows, are mere drafting Amendments. They arose from alterations made in the Bill in another place. As the Bill was originally

I need not occupy the time of the Committee for a single moment. I cannot accept this Amendment. This matter has been very carefully-thought out, and the salaries proposed, we believe, are reasonable.

I (beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the word "five" ["paid Commissioners shall be five years"], and to insert instead thereof the word "three."

If the Government do not give us a little more time to consider Amendments on this Bill we cannot do better than hand in manuscript Amendments. I will attempt to hand copies of such Amendments to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill and to the Chairman. As to this particular Amendment, five years governs the period of an ordinary normal Parliament. We want to devise some method of controlling not only the paid, but the unpaid Commissioners.

I hope the hon. Member will not press this Amendment. It is really important, having regard to the greatness of this work, that as far as possible there should be continuity of policy. If I were to criticise, I should say that five years was rather too short a period. I am quite certain that three years is much too short. We really want to initiate a big policy and we want continuity of policy. You are not likely to attain those ends if you limit the tenure of office to so short a period.

I do not see the force of the hon. Gentleman's argument. I would be quite willing to withdraw my Amendments if he could convince me by argument that they were wrong. He first of all says this is not his Bill and that he is only in charge of it, and that if it had been his Bill the period we are discussing would have been a much longer period. What difference can there be in continuity of policy if three years was substituted for five year? I am asking him to agree to the shorter period because there is not agreement as to the large policy that he says ought to be initiated. Opportunity ought to be given to this House to review the appointments at the stated times I suggest. I think the hon. Member ought to make some concession to us on a Bill as to which we have never been consulted.

I do not think the Amendment is designed to improve the Bill. My hon. Friend (Mr. Hogge) would have no forestry whatever in Scotland rather than have any control of policy by a body on which Scotland is to be strongly represented. I hope the Government will not give way to Amendments moved in that spirit, which will make it much more difficult for us to get the Amendments we want.

I hope the Government will not accept this Amendment. It is about time something was said by a representative of a rural constituency and a constituency which has the largest potential timber-growing area in Scotland. When the hon. Member says that Scotland does not want this Bill, he may bespeaking for Edinburgh, but he is certainly not speaking for the constituency I. represent. If this Bill, with its defects removed, is passed, I am perfectly certain that my Constituents, whom I have consulted very closely on the matter, will welcome the Bill.

I beg to move, at the end, to add

"(6) One of the unpaid Commissioners shall be a Member of Parliament who shall be answer able to Parliament for all acts and deeds of the Forestry Commission."

The language- of this Amendment is not perhaps in legal phraseology, but there has been very little time to prepare Amendments. I understand the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to accept an Amendment in this form: "One of the unpaid Commissioners shall be a Member of the Commons House of Parliament." He explained to us that the Charity Commissioners were represented in the House By an unpaid member and who acted as expert adviser to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on all questions which arose in connection with charity matters. But he has not told us that the Financial Secretary would represent the Forestry Commission in this House directly. Until we know that, I do not feel inclined to withdraw. I think it is important we should have Parliamentary control of expenditure and of policy, so far as possible, under this Bill. I think the discussions to-day and on the Second Reading show that there is some opinion in the country which is not favourably disposed to the Bill.

As I have already indicated, I am substantially in agreement with the views of my hon Friend, and I am willing to accept the Amendment in the form he mentioned. I could not accept the additional words "who shall be answerable to Parliament for all acts and deeds of the Forestry Commission," as they would make the unpaid Forestry Commissioner a member of the Government. What I understand to be the general wish is that, without having a separate Minister in this House, there should be a link be- tween the House and the Forestry Commission, as in the case or the Charity Commissioners and, I think, the Development Commissioners. That means that the unpaid member attends the ordinary meetings of the Commissioners and is cognisant of all that goes on, and when questions are put in the House referring to the work he answers those questions. I myself was an unpaid Charity Commissioner for five years, and I answered a good many questions. When the Estimates came up for consideration they were in charge of the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, and it was always the unpaid Commissioner who made the explanations necessary to obtain the Vote. In the case of the Charity Commissioners, the only words used are those I suggest. There is nothing said in the Charity Commission Act about the unpaid Commissioner being responsible to Parliament for the acts of the Commissioners. My belief is that the system I have described has worked well and the words indicated will carry it out.

I cannot agree with that. I have also had experience of the operations of the Charity Commissioners. I have heard questions replied to by the Charity Commissioner who happened to be in the House. The Charity Commission is in a very different category from the Forestry Commission, because we have agreed by the Financial Resolution to take £3,500,000 out of the Consolidated Fund for this particular object. The Parliamentary Secretary gave us an assurance earlier that he was going to suggest the arrangement later on that there would still be Estimates submitted in the House from year to year as to the expenditure of these large sums of money. This does not provide for responsibility.

Yes, it does. The actual responsibility for the Vote will rest with the Financial Secretary. That is the case with the Charity Commissioners at the present time, and will be so with these Commissioners.

That is quite true, but the actual spending of the money can be raised on a Vote which may or may not be discussed during one of the twenty allotted days of Supply in this House. The chance's of a, discussion of that kind are remote and are governed very largely by the larger political issues which arise at any one time. To take only one example, we have listened to Debates on the Colonial Office Vote in which the question raised had practically nothing to do with the money which we were actually discussing on the particular allotted clay. What I think my hon. Friend wants to get by this Amendment, and what I want to secure, is that we shall be able from day to day, it we choose, to put questions to somebody who will be responsible for the Forestry Commission in this House, just as now I, for instance, can ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary for Scotland questions in regard to forestry. I can put a question any day I like on the Paper to the Secretary for Scotland asking him with regard to the progress of afforestation in any particular district, and I can follow that up with supplementaries or can raise it on the Adjournment at eleven o'clock. What I want in the House so far as Scotland is concerned is the ability to raise those same questions when they are taken away from the administrative office of the Secretary for Scotland and put in charge of the Commissioners. I am sure my hon. and gallant Friend cannot but feel that I am. entitled to get the same kind of satisfaction from the new office that is being set up as I could in the past, and if he meets us on that point I shall have no objection.

One way to accede to the request of the hon. Member would be to appoint a new Minister with the necessary staff to carry out the duties of the office, but I presume he would not like that.

I would oppose it.

Ho would oppose it, but what then does he suggest? So far as I can see, the only alternative is that the financial responsibility must rest with the Financial Secretary, but it will quite clearly be advantageous to this House that one of the Forestry Commissioners should be a Member of this House. If the Committee accepts this Amendment, that one of the unpaid Commissioners shall be a Member of the Commons House of Parliament, it does not necessarily mean, that that Member shall answer questions for the Forestry Commission. The hon. and gallant Gentleman suggested that he could do so, but there is no obligation.

I have no objection to one of the Commissioners being a Member of the House of Commons, but I think we have a right to see that the House of Commons has the opportunity, if and when it wants it—I am not saying we shall want it every day—but I think the House of Commons should have a regular opporunity from day to day of raising questions connected with forestry just as they do in regard to any other office.

It would be open to any Member of Parliament to put down a question at any time he likes, either to the Financial Secretary or to the unpaid Forestry Commissioners; and in the same way, if the answer to a question was unsatisfactory, it would be open to any Member to move the Adjournment or to liaise the point on the Adjournment. The Forestry Vote would be in the same position as any other Government Vote, and if any number of Members wished to have it discussed in this House they would only have to make the usual arrangement with the Whips and it could be taken on an allotted day.

I think the discussion has been a very useful one indeed, because it has thrown light upon what the condition of this unpaid member of the Forestry Commission will be, and also it has brought out that we still have the opportunity, through the Financial Secretary or through that Member, to ask questions or to criticise or whatever it might be. My hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh is naturally very cautious. He is always very cautious, and he has had a great deal more experience in this House than I have. I have always found in the snort time I have been here that he never feels quite able to accept the proposals coming from the Front Bench without fear that there might be something behind them, but I think on this occasion he may accept what has been said without fear of anything detrimental occurring under the Bill. So far as that is concerned, I propose, in view of the explanation and the undertaking, if one might so put it, to withdraw my Amendment and then to move an Amendment in the form proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

I rise only to ask the Minister in charge of the Bill whether we shall be given the names of these Commissioners before the Third Reading? I understand it is usual in these cases to give the names, and, as things are, I think it is very important that the Committee now. or the House on Third Heading, should be given the names of as many Commissioners as is possible, as was done in the case of the Ways and Communications Bill.

I am not in a position to give the names, and I cannot give any definite pledge that they will be given before the Third Heading. I have had a good deal of experience of Bills of this sort, and I know it is not the general practice to give the names, although it is sometimes done.

I bog to move, in Sub-section (2), after the word "duties" [" powers and duties of the Board of Agriculture "], to insert the words "including the obligation to implement current contracts."

I consider this is an Amendment of some importance. It will be within the recollection of the Committee that when the Development Commission was in charge of afforestation, to meet the views of some landed proprietors who were unwilling to part with the forestry portion of their estates, both the Development Commissioners and the Board of Agriculture for Scotland framed schemes, under which the ultimate proceeds were to be divisible in proportion to the contribution of each. Under the proposals of those two bodies, at least one proceeds-sharing scheme was initiated in Scotland. It was in respect of that scheme, which I would consider to be a current contract, and in respect of any other schemes which may have been entered into, that I placed this Amendment on the Paper. In the speech made by the right hon. Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) on the Second Reading, he said

"undoubtedly, that idea of proceeds-sharing, which was adumbrated and, I believe, actually started in one case by the Development Commissioners in Scotland, is going to be one of the main ways in which we hope to be able to aid afforestation."

That I consider to be a very important pronouncement. After a question from me, he went on to say:

"The Bill undoubtedly provides that where the Development Commission has made an existing contract with the consent of the Treasury the future financing of that contract shall rest with the Development Commissioners. I have not heard any suggestion from the Development Commissioners that they wish to give up the control of contracts which they have made, although they may involve the expenditure of money in the future."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th August, 1919, col. 270.]

I have placed this Amendment on the Paper because I can see nothing in the Bill which places upon the Forestry Commission the obligation to implement current contracts of the nature of the particular one alluded to by the right hon. Member for Camborne, and it is in order that the Commission may be empowered to take over these contracts that I move my Amendment.

This is just a little bit technical. There are contracts of the sort to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has referred in each part of the United Kingdom. There is the single instance of the proceeds-sharing arrangement in Scotland, and there are arrangements in England, such as the arrangement with the Liverpool Corporation for the afforestation of the area there. There are others. There are several arrangments for purchasing the land and gradually afforesting it in Ireland, where the only afforestation of the Development Commission has been done. In each case these were contracts made by the Boards or the Departments concerned, with advances from the Development Commissioners' Fund. It is at present provided in the Act, Clause (3), in the proposed Sub-section (4) —the underlined portions which we are not supposed to see, but which we can see—that

"An advance shall not after the commencement of this Act be made under sub-Section (1) of Section one of the Development and Road-Improvements Funds Act, 1909, for the purposes of forestry unless before that date the Development Commissioners have made and the Treasury have approved a recommendation for the advance."

That assumes, of course, that the contracts that the Development Commissioners have made through the Boards will continue to be implemented by them out of their funds, in each case being contracts, of course, which the Treasury have approved. I think the suggestion of my hon. and gallant Friend is quite a good one. The matter should come under the Forestry Commission. There should not, even in regard to the comparatively small number of arrangements made in the past, be two bodies. It is better to implement arrangements so that the matter should be dealt with by one body of persons. Therefore, it might well be an advantage that the current contracts of the Development Commissioners, carried out through the Department of Agriculture, should be transferred and exercised by the Forestry Commissioners.

On the other hand, it is a little difficult, without consultation with the Development Commissioners, and without getting their approval, to put them in rather a sudden way in the Bill. I think we can be certain of this, that the Forestry Commissioners will not want to take on contracts involving future expenditure unless the Treasury arrange that the money also should pass through their hands. If the House takes the same view, it will only be a matter for mutual arrangement between the Departments concerned. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill can quite easily arrange it between the Development Commissioners, the Treasury, and the Forestry Commissioners. It is only a question of finding out exactly what these contracts are and getting an agreement with the Forestry-Commissioners, about which I think there is no doubt whatever. Transfer the money out of that which would have been paid out of the Development Fund into the Forestry Fund. I do not think it needs legislation. If the general opinion of the House were in favour of the Amendment, I think it would be sufficient that the hon. and gallant Gentleman in charge of the Bill should undertake to confer with the Treasury in order to get that arrangement made. If it was done now by Amendment you have this rather unsatisfactory state of things: whereas all the duties were transferred to the Forestry Commissioners, the money to carry out those duties would remain in the Development Fund. I think it would be rather hard that the Forestry Commission, which will have plenty of work of its own to do, should be charged with carrying out further financial provision for schemes started in Scotland, England, and Ireland, without having the funds with which to do it. It would be much better to do it after the financial arrangements are transferred to the necessary fund, than to put the duty on the Forestry Commissioners before you have arranged the manner in which it is to be carried out.

I sympathise with my hon. and gallant Friend on his point that the Forestry Commission should take over the existing obligations, but I really do not think it is necessary to put that in the Bill. I think we should endeavour to arrange with the Development Commis- sioners, who have been supplying the money up to date for the existing contracts, and the Treasury and the various Departments of Agriculture, that this work and the money shall be transferred to the Forestry Commission. If my hon. and gallant Friend withdraws his Amendment I am willing- to undertake steps to see that what he desires shall be carried out, but it will only complicate the machinery if we make this a statutory enactment.

I am much obliged to the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his sympathetic reply, but I am bound to take notice of the somewhat vague character of his promise. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Camborne (Mr. Acland) assumed that under the Section it would be possible for the Development Commissions to hand over these contracts, and the hon. and gallant Gentleman said he would endeavour to arrange, as far as possible, that those contracts can be taken over. If I can be assured that these current contracts will not be allowed to lapse and that some arrangement will be made under which they will be continued, I will ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

The hon. and gallant Member can take it from me absolutely that; they will not be allowed to lapse, but I cannot say precisely in what manner they will go on.

I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (3), to insert the words, "Subject to any Regulations that may be issued by the Treasury."

Anxiety has made itself apparent in various quarters of the House as to whether there was sufficient Treasury control of the operations of the Commissioners under Clause 3. There was an' Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Kincardineshiro (Lieut.-Colonel Murray) to insert the words "special Treasury approval" in one of the Subsections of Clause 3, but I am strongly of opinion that if any words are required at all to provide for special Treasury Regulations that this is the place at which they should be inserted

I quite agree that some such words ought to appear, but I prefer that they should be in this form: "Subject to any direction which may be given by the Treasury."

I beg to move at the beginning of Sub-section (3), to insert the words "Subject to any direction which may be given by the Treasury."

Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman explain exactly what is the reason for this alteration, and why he suggests his own words instead of the words of the hon. and gallant Member? Is there any particular reason why the change of words should be made?

It is simply because the Treasury prefer it in that form. They want to give general directions under which the Forestry Commission may act, and in consulting them about the Amendments they preferred that form, and the Government adopted it.

Do those words give them wider or less power?

I have not the slightest idea what the reason is. I know the Treasury desire it in this form, and as I have great respect for the Treasury, I said I would move those words.

I beg to move, at the beginning of Sub-section (3), to insert the words

"Subject to the approval of the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries or the Board of Agriculture for Scotland or the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland."

In my view, this is the root point of the whole Bill. Some hon. Members opposed the Bill altogether on Second Reading because it did not provide for adequate statutory co-operation between the Board of Agriculture and the Forestry Commissioners. So far as I was concerned, I said that the Bill would be acceptable to me on Third Reading if some such provision as indicated in my Amendment were inserted. The hon. Member for East Edinburgh (Mr. Hogge) said a few moments ago that Scotland did not want this Bill. I agree that it does not want the Bill as it is framed at the present moment. Scotland does desire that there should be some statutory co-operation between the Board of Agriculture and the Forestry Commissioners. I am very glad that on Second Reading the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the Camborne Division (Mr. Acland) used these words:

"I very much welcome what my hon. and gallant Friend has said with regard to the need of the closest possible co-operation between the Forestry Commissioners and the Departments of Agriculture. I hope if any Amendment is moved in Committee to make it more certain, if possible, than it is now, that it will be favourably regarded by the Government."

Then he went on to say:

"It is evidently the intention of the Forestry Commissioners to keep in the closest touch with the Board of Agriculture and in acquiring certain areas to agree with them before they acquire them." — [Official Report, 5th August, 1919, cols. 262–63.]

That deals with another point, i hope that the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment or some Amendment which will carry out the object which I have in view. So far as Scotland is concerned, I think all Scottish Members will be prepared to agree that this is vital. At any rate, I suggest that is so, and other Scottish Members will be able to speak for themselves. While the bulk of Scotland desire a Forestry Bill in order that a move may be made with afforestation, they are anxious that land settlement schemes should be developed side by side with afforestation schemes, and in order to achieve real social progress in those two respects for the Scottish people some such Amendment as this should be made in the Bill.

When this matter was discussed by the Committee that considered afforestation, a considerable time was spent on deciding whether the principle of this Amendment should be recommended or not. At first I was very much inclined to support the proposals that the Boards of Agriculture, not only of Scotland, but of England and Ireland, should be the predominant partner in any schemes of afforestation which might be adopted. But on further consideration I came to the conclusion that they would be overlapping the Forestry Commissioners in the work they had in hand, and I was forced to the conclusion that it would be far better, subject to the control of the Treasury, that the work of afforestation should be left in the hands of the Commissioners. I am very much inclined to think that the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray) would be quite satisfied if part of his Amendment were accepted, the Scottish Board of Agri- culture being included in the Bill, and the rest left out. I think he would be quite satisfied with that. [Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray: "Yes!"] I must say, however, that the discussion and the evidence in connection with this scheme of afforestation were distinctly in favour of the matter being left entirely in the hands of the Commissioners, subject, as I said before, to the approval of the Treasury, and the words inserted by the Amendment which has just been accepted will, to my mind, safeguard the Treasury and the country and leave the Commissioners to do their work unhampered by other bodies.

I quite appreciate the importance of this question and the importance of bringing about what I may call a liaison between the Boards of Agriculture in Scotland and in England and Wales and Ireland and the Forestry Commissioners. But I think it would be disastrous if, we will say, we found the Board of Agriculture of England and Wales competing for some light, sandy soil for the purposes of reclamation against the Forestry Commissioners who had ideas of afforestation respecting it. Also, I think it would be disastrous if the Forestry Commissioners acquired a lot of land suitable for agriculture or for land settlement or something of that sort. I feel, therefore, speaking now not merely as being in charge of this Bill but as representing the English Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, that it is absolutely necessary we should come into close contact, and have these various bodies working together. In the interests not only of agriculture, but in the interests of small holdings, in the interests of reclamation, and in the interests of forestry, we must come into touch so far as possible. But I could not accept an Amendment in the words of my hon. and gallant Friend opposite (Lieut.-Colonel Arthur Murray), because he will see, I think, that it goes very much too far. It would come to this, that without the leave of the Board of Agriculture the Commissioners could do practically nothing: they could not purchase a single acre of land, they could not sell any land that they found unsuitable, they could not purchase or sell standing timber, they could not plant anything. Why should the Board of Agriculture be concerned in the purchase or sale of standing timber? And if he looks over the page he would see they could not go into the collection and preparation of statis- lies relating to forestry, and so forth. I fully accept the intention, which the lion, and gallant Member has, and I think he is perfectly right in his intention, but this Amendment, as it stands, goes much too far. There are one or two other Amendments which deal with the same question. There is an Amendment in, the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Renfrew (Colonel Greig), and there is. one in the name of the hon. and gallant. Member for the Bye Division of Sussex (Major Courthope). The Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Renfrew, I see, specifically limits the opera-lion of the Clause to Scotland. I have already accepted the Scottish Amendment, and I am afraid I cannot draw any further distinction without leading to much more serious trouble with my English and Welsh Friends than I have already done. But I am prepared in a comprehensive manner, dealing with all parts of the United Kingdom, to propose an Amendment lower down which I hope the Committee will agree will carry out the object which we all have in view. I propose to move, at the, end of Sub-section(2) of Clause 3, to insert the words,

"Provided also that, before acquiring any land under this Act, and before selling or otherwise disposing of any land £0 acquired but not required by them for the purposes of this Act, the Commissioners shall consult the appropriate agricultural Department, and in the case of land proposed to be sold or disposed of, shall give that Department an opportunity of acquiring the same.

The appropriate agricultural Department shall be, in England and Wales, the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries; in Scotland, the Board of Agriculture; in Ireland, the Department of Agriculture and Technical instruction for Ireland."

What would be the effect of that? The Forestry Commissioners, before they acquired any land, would have to consult the appropriate Board of Agriculture. That would avoid any kind of overlapping or competition for the land. It would enable the appropriate Board of Agriculture to point out that the land proposed to be acquired for forestry was really wanted for agriculture or for small holdings or for some other purpose. It would in many eases enable a plan to be worked out between the Departments whereby part of the land—the poorer land—could be used for afforestation, and the better land might be used for small holdings. It would enable the two Departments to work out comprehensive schemes for the provision of small holdings for the men who are employed in the woods and forests, and in that way there would be the liaison between the appropriate Board of Agriculture and the Forestry Commissioners which, to my mind, is absolutely desirable. At the same time, it does not go so far as my lion, and gallant Friend's Amendment, which would really shackle the; hands of the Forestry Commissioners to such an extent that they would not be able to carry-on their work. I hope, therefore, that the Committee, after hearing this explanation, will be willing to consider my suggested Amendment to be a good substitute for that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kincardine and for those that are on the Paper in the names of my hon. and gallant Friends behind me.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman has spoken in this matter to some extent on behalf of the Board of Agriculture. I should like to say a word or two on behalf of the Interim Forest Authority, which has considered this question very carefully. I think the Amendment which the hon. and gallant Gentleman now suggests does really provide everything that can reasonably be wanted. What we want is surely, in the first place, that before any land is acquired the Boards of Agriculture shall be informed and consulted. It would not be fair to limit it even to agricultural land, because there is the case of land which may be better utilised for reclamation, for the making of agricultural land, than for forestry; and we all agree that if you can make use of land for agricultural purposes it is better than using it for forestry. Therefore before any land is acquired the Boards of Agriculture must be consulted. The second-point is that you may have some land which you have acquired after consultation, and you may find—possibly some years later—that you are able to dispose of a piece. An offer may have been made for a piece. There, again, if you are going to dispose of a piece of your land, you ought to give the Board of Agriculture the opportunity of saying that they would like that piece of land for some purpose of their own. If they say, "No," it does not involve any great delay; you can go ahead. But you ought not to sell to a private person without giving the Board of Agriculture concerned the chance of saying whether they would like it.

The other thing provided in the Amendment is that when the forestry authority has acquired land and found because they have had to acquire the whole subject that some of it is surplus to their requirements for forestry and purposes connected therewith, such as making necessary roads, building cottages for their employés, setting up saw mills or whatever it may be, they should give to the Board of Agriculture a chance of utilising it—and, indeed, it will be very much, better that the Board of Agriculture should utilise it. It would be absurd that the forestry authority should have to have land agents looking after agricultural farms which they had had to include in the whole subject they had bought. It would be far better that administration of any agricultural subject in the forestry area should be undertaken by the Board of Agriculture. That is one of the specific things mentioned in one or other of the Amendments, and that is included also in what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen) has proposed, and therefore it covers tile ground.

I do not know what my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Murray) is going to do about his Amendment, but the suggestion which has come from the Minister in charge very largely meets the point of view of Scotland which has been expressed as regards the liaison there ought, to be between the Commissioners and the Boards of Agriculture in England and Scotland and I think the proposed new Clause coming on later will meet the view I have. We want them to be as it were a first lien upon any surplus land, and that the Board of Agriculture in Scotland—and it equally applies in England—shall at least have a right to say whether they want to use it for the creation of small holdings. I have confined my suggestion to Scotland because we have a particular tenure for these small holders. We want them to have security of tenure. I should be very much inclined to withdraw my Amendment in view of what the hon. and gallant Gentleman (Sir A. Boscawen) has said. I do not want to stand in the way of my hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut-Colonel Murray), but the Minister has gone a long way to carry out the real idea at the back of my mind.

I hope the Committee will accept the suggested Amendment of my hon. and gallant Friend (Sir A. Boscawen). I am very glad to see that both under the Amendment proposed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite And the Minister in charge England and Ireland are also recognised in countries which are interested in forestry, and that this will apply to those countries as well as to Scotland. If the Amendment as originally proposed had been adopted it seems to me it would have been disastrous because it would have necessitated not only a consultation but the obtaining of the permission of those other bodies before any of the other measures indicated in(g),(h) and (i) could possibly be carried into effect. This liaison which has been suggested seems to be very desirable, and in regard to any question of purchase or selling of land it is most desirable and important that the Commissioners should consult the Board of Agriculture of the three countries.

I should like to point out to my hon. and gallant Friends that the proposal made by the Government goes much further and is much more comprehensive than either of their Amendments. The hon. and gallant Member (Lieut.-Colonel Murray) has moved an Amendment which can only apply to Subsection (3, a),while my lion, and gallant Friend (Colonel Greig) has put down an Amendment which would only affect Subsection (3, ft). The proposal of the Government will do what I attempted to do by my Amendment, and that is to have a general safeguard ensuring that in all material points the Agricultural Department concerned shall be consulted, and shall have the right of pre-emption in respect of surplus lands. I think that should come at the end of the Clause as a proviso rather than as one of the lettered Sub-sections.

Those of us who are deeply interested in afforestation and also in agriculture are very desirous that as many trees as possible should be planted, but we also desire that the trees should be planted on the land most suitable for afforestation, and not on land suitable for agricultural purposes. Therefore, I appeal to the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill to be sure that any Amendment that he provides will secure that the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries in this country and the Board of Agriculture in Scotland will have the power to suggest something about the planting of these trees. The other day I was passing through an estate in Scotland where I saw some magnificent small holdings. These small holdings have been in operation for 200 years, and have been cultivated there successfully, and I was shocked to find that the holdings were now being planted with trees, and that the smallholders were being turned adrift. We want to prevent anything of that kind, if possible. Therefore, I respectfully ask the lion. Member in charge of the Bill to see that nothing of that kind is possible.

This Bill fails to some extent in not providing in Scotland some kind of link by which the Board of Agriculture can be associated with the advisory committee in dealing with this question of administration, but this Amendment goes too far. It puts the Board of Agriculture in a position of superiority, which is not desired. Really, what is wanted is some sort of co-partnership, and I think the Bill fails to the extent that it does not provide that. I understand that the hon. Member in charge of the Bill proposes an Amendment of some kind to deal with that matter. In that case I should be thoroughly satisfied.

I desire to support the Amendment proposed by the Government. My hon. and gallant Friend (Lieut.-Colonel Murray) will agree that his Amendment does go rather far. The hon. Member's Amendment as regards Clause (3, a) would put the Board of Agriculture in a position of superiority. We want cooperation, as was said by the hon. Member for Ayr Burghs. We want the two authorities to work together. This is the crux of the Bill. There has been some feeling in Scotland, and we want to be sure that the Board of Agriculture works along with the Forestry Commissioners. I think the Government proposal is adequate. It is absolutely comprehensive and secures a complete liaison-consultation with the Board of Agriculture for purchases, before selling, and also with regard to surplus land. I think that the liaison is safeguarded throughout. Anything must be avoided which places one Department above the other or leaves them apart, as was the case under the Bill as originally framed. We know the result when we have two Government Departments working on independent lines. I congratulate the Government on the proposed Amendment, which meets the difficulty and provides the necessary liaison, without which we cannot get t-his good work carried on.

I am very glad that the hon. Gentleman has agreed to the principle of the Amendment. I hope that the Forestry Commission, if and when it is set up, will take note of the expressions of opinion in this House to-day that there should be the very closest co-operation between itself and the Boards of Agriculture in the various parts of the United Kingdom. The hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Sussex (Major Courthope) said that the Amendment by the Minister in charge of the Bill went further than mine. In one respect that it so; in another respect that is not so. There is another Amendment of mine, by which I propose to leave out paragraph (b). The veto of the Board of Agriculture would apply to all cases in which land was acquired or disposed of. I prefer my own Amendment, but, in view of the expressions of opinion by the Committee, and in view, also, of the manner in which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has met me in this matter, for which Scotland is grateful, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out paragraph (b).

This Amendment was partly consequential to the last Amendment, but I move it in order to get some explanation from the hon. and gallant Gentleman with regard to this particular paragraph. My reason for moving this Amendment was that without the Amendment, which has just been moved, in the Bill the retention of the paragraph might lead to ill-considered purchases. The Forestry Commission would be rather prone to buy land purely for afforestation purposes, and then, having found that a certain portion was not suitable for afforestation, get rid of it at the best price they could obtain, and I think that this Amendment should be moved, unless the hon. and gallant Gentleman will remove some of the objections which I have to the paragraph.

I hope the ton. Member will not press this Amendment. There must be some power residing in the Forestry Commissioners to get rid of any land which is proved to be unsuitable. The Commissioner will probably have to deal with large tracts of land, and if some of it is found unsuitable they must have power to dispose of it by sale or exchange. It will be subject, of course, to the proviso winch I propose to move.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3, a), to leave out the words "grant or by way of" ["Make advances by way of grant or by way of loan"].

I believe the "words I am moving to omit were put in in another place. I think a very good case will have to be made out by the Government if the Committee is to allow the system of grants to remain in the Bill. From my reading of Clause 3, I assume that the State is to take- the substantial risks of the scheme and that the proprietor is secured, and that all ultimate profits beyond the 4 per cent. are to go to the proprietor of the land. The Clause does not appear to me to state how, if at all, the State's proportion is to be secured. I see nothing to show upon what security the State is to make the grant. In a scheme to which allusion, was made earlier to-day it was expressly provided that the security was to be established by a long lease of the land in favour of the Development Commission. To the best of my recollection the Development Act did not allow loans to private owners. It is obvious that the scheme in this Clause will probably be very acceptable to proprietors who wish to plant their land to their own advantage but, so far as I can see, to the risk of the State. Further than that, nothing is said as to the State's supervision of any of these operations which are to be assisted by Grants. The proprietor is to have a free hand in the matter. Those are the reasons why I move that these Grants should be omitted from the Bill. All the ultimate profits go to the proprietor, and besides, he is to have a prior lien for his own contribution.

It is proposed to allow the Forestry Commission to make certain Grants under the condition that the Grants shall be repaid at 4 per cent, compound interest after the return of the expenses of the scheme, which fall on the proprietor, have repaid him a return at 4 per cent. The Treasury intend to make regulations under a proviso already adopted which will confine the operations of the Commissioners by the general scheme which was recommended by the Report of the Reconstruction Sub-committee. There certain definite conditions were laid down as to the terms on which Grants should be made. First of all, there is the question of size of the area. A small scheme which could never have much influence on the timber supply of the country would not be worth spending money upon, but where you get a scheme of a certain size, say, 100 acres, there is something tangible to go upon, and help should be given so as to make it certain that the plan laid down by the Forestry Commission would be carried out and quite definitely for the thirty years necessary. That meant a different system of sylviculture than obtained in the past. There is no chance of making use of the trees for gain during the thirty years since the trees grow so close together. A Grant will give the State the certainty of establishing woods and providing proper timber of value to the country. It is proposed to pay £2 or £3 per acre towards the expenses of planting which cannot be estimated at less than from £10 to £12 per acre.

Far hard woods.

On the timber which can be regarded as a possible commercial proposition—namely, coniferous timber—the Grants would be less than that, and this is how it works out. I am thinking now of the chance of a man making a profit. If you take Scots pine, you have an eighty years' rotation and accumulate over that period £10 per acre as cost of planting and as. per acre per annum, which may easily be the annual value of the land and cost of maintaining the crop during the course of the rotation, you get, with an average crop of Scots pine, at the end of the eighty years, to the point that the Scots pine will have to sell at more than 2s. lid. per foot cube before you get the 4 per cent, return. There is not a very bright prospect that you will get that sort of money for a not very high-class timber, but that is the sort of prospect which forestry must bear to the would-be planter if he really tries to work it out on a business basis. Do not let us have an idea that, even if these small Grants are given, it is going to make anybody's fortune. It is not. Timber-growing as a business speculation is not going to be at all bright.

Has the right hon. Gentleman calculated the value of the small timber that will be thinned out?

I had left that out. I have made calculations, and I could give them if necessary, which bring in the thinnings, but they do not come very early in the scheme, of course. They come at the later period, and even if you accumulate the value of the thinnings from about the fortieth or the fiftieth year and upwards, they do not make a very great difference to the calculation. Of course, there are better propositions than Scots pine. If you have got land that will carry Douglas, and if you calculate that over sixty years instead of eighty years, and take a larger yield per acre than you do in the case of Scots pine, you will get in that crop, and I think in that crop only, just a chance of making a 4 per cent, return. That is about the only proposition which really, at that rate of interest, will give you the 4 per cent, return on your money. Therefore, as I say, this is not likely to be a profitable affair, but it seems to me still to be a thing worth offering for this reason, if for no other, that, to the extent to which private proprietors can be induced to plant by these small Grants who would otherwise not plant, the State will be getting the advantage of timber at a very much cheaper rate than under any other possible alternative scheme of this Bill. Proceed- sharing, of course, must mean a much larger outlay by the State. Leasing or purchasing of the land always means that the whole outlay falls on the State. These very small Grants that are proposed, to the extent to which they really do induce planting to take place which would otherwise not take place, would be the cheapest form in which the timber-growing of the country can be expanded.

The right, hon. Gentleman keeps saying "these small Grants," but the Report of this Committee says:

"In order to avoid the trouble of having to deal with small areas, a minimum area shall be planted…and the grant shall only be given for at least 100 acres."

The assumption, surely is that the Grant will be in many cases for schemes of 500 and of 1,000 acres of woodland.

When I talked about Grants being small, I meant small in proportion to the expenditure on planting that would fall oil the owners. I meant email per acre. It may be that considerable amounts in totals will be given by these Grants, but if that is so, you will get the total production of timber, the extra 2,000,000 acres of timber that the country, in my opinion, so very much needs, at a very much cheaper rate than in any other way. But my point in talking about the small Grants was that they were small compared with the total expenditure of getting forestry schemes going. It is proposed that the repayment should be at the rate of 4 per cent., which will give the State back, at the end of sixty years, £10 for every £1 advanced, and at the end of eighty years about £24 for every £1 advanced. It is proposed that that should be secured quite definitely on the land itself and on the timber, and what is the possible profit you are offering a man? What you are saying to him is, "Will you do something which, under no conceivable circumstances, can pay you, but may ultimately pay your successor?" You are saying to him, "We will have you go in for this scheme of ours, giving your successor a return of 1 per cent, less than if he had gone in for War Loan." Under the proviso attached to these Grants, it cannot be represented that there is going to be profiteering for landowners, but, on the other hand, it can be said—and I think justly—that it is very important in this new departure with regard to forestry that the forestry of the private owner and of the State shall, so to speak, be under one hand; that the owner shall feel that, although the Grant offered is small compared with the cost falling upon him, and even although the forestry is very poor from a commercial point of view, yet the owner shall feel that the State is behind him, and looks favourably on it, and shall not say, "Oh, yes—forestry; that is a thing we are going to do, but we do not care whether you do it or not." The fact that these Grants are offered is, at any rate, an outward and visible sign that the State is interested in the development of forestry by private owners, and the Grants must not be regarded as undue assistance of what must, in any case, be an extremely problematical and doubtful proposition.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3, d), to leave out the word "they" ["such, conditions as they think fit"], and to insert instead thereof the words "axe approved by the Treasury."

This is really all covered by the words put in at the instance of my hon. and gallant Friend behind. Everything in this Clause is subject to Regulations by the Treasury.

In moving the Amendment I want to make perfectly certain that that is so. When moving the last Amendment there was, so far as I could see, nothing to show how the State's portion was to be secured.

I am sorry to interrupt my hon. and gallant Friend, but, assuming these words were put in, they would be subject to the words that have, been inserted at the beginning of the Sub-section by my hon. and gallant Friend behind me: "Subject to any Regulations that may be issued by the Treasury."

I am sorry; I have forgotten that. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in Subsection (.3, g), after the word 'preparation," to insert the words "publication and distribution."

This will enlarge somewhat the power? of the Commissioners. This paragraph will then, read very much on the lines of paragraph (h). The mere collection and preparation of statistics, unless they are, published and distributed, will not be of much service. Those statistics, however, will be of very great value if they are published and distributed to schools and educational institutions m which young people will be trained in the theory and practice of forestry.

I propose to accept this Amendment, except that it is necessary to revise ft to make it read somewhat differently.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (3), to leave out the words,

"Provided that any advance by way of a grant under this Section shall be subject to the condition that any profits resulting from the operations in respect of which (he grant was made shall, after allowing for a return to the owner of four per cent, compound interest on the cost- incurred by him (exclusive of the amount of the grant), be charged with the repayment to the forestry fund of the amount of the giant together with compound interest at four per cent.

Any question arising between the Commissioners and the owner with respect to the amount of any repayment under this proviso shall, in default of agreement, be decided by a person nominated by the President of the Surveyors Institution, and for the purposes of this proviso the expression "owner" means the person for the time being entitled to the profits on the operations in respect of which the grant was made.

My Amendment is to cut out the proviso at the end of Sub-section (3), to which reference Has already been made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Caniborne. The Committee has just decided that Grants shall be included. My principal objection, to this—and I hope to satisfy the Committee and my right hon. and gallant Friend the represensentative of the Government—is that it is inconceivable this proviso can operate. The only effect, if this proviso remains in the Bill, will be that the condition of the receipt and payment of a Grant will be an obligation placed not only on the recipient but on his successors in title for eighty or 120 years, as the case may be. That obligation may last for three or four generations, I am not for a moment suggesting that the owner of woodlands should not keep accurate accounts. I think he should. But this would not affect the whole of a man's woodlands. He will have to keep separate accounts for the particular portion of his woodlands involved. My belief is that the result of this provision, if left in, will be to make owners exceedingly shy of accepting Grants at all. I believe, in effect, it will destroy the incitement by which the forestry authorities hope to get a large amount of afforestation done at a minimum cost to the State My case depends upon my being able to satisfy the Committee and the Government on this point, because it is always inconceivable that anything should be paid according to this provision. The right hon. Gentleman said In; did not believe that it could be doing under £10 or £12 an acre, and that figure is only possible where the forestry organisation is of the very largest size, as in State or Crown forests. I do not think that any private owner can plant at anything like so low a figure, and the amount contemplated would not probably do more than cover the difference in cost of planting between the private estate and Crown land. I have taken everything against my argument. I have taken skilled labour at 40s., and I have taken the case of ordinary pit planting. In my district I find that, without making any allowance for clearing the ground, draining, or fencing, that the cost works out at £1d 6s. 8d. per acre, which is the cost of planting with a 40s. wage.

Let us assume that the grant is £3, and that reduces the amount of outlay by the landowner to £12 6s. 8d On the 4 per cent, tables for eighty years that equals £284, which is the very minimum on which any man, whether an estate or a private owner, can hope to manage and look after his woodlands, and this includes 10s. an acre for rent, although I believe the actual figure will be much nearer 12s. 6d. or 13s. per acre. An expenditure of 10s. an acre per annum for eighty years on the 4 per cent, table works out at £275 12s. That, added to the aggregation of capital, means a total of £559 12s., and no one can look forward to the time when the value of a crop of conifers or larch will reach anything like that sum. It will probably be said that I have made no reference to thinnings, and I have not. On the other side, I have made no reference to cleaning and for the first two or three years after planting you have to clean your plantation.

If you take the figure of 40s. for the labour and the cost of cleaning and gapping on the 4 per cent, tables, you will find that it far exceeds the value that anyone can obtain for a crop of conifers. I have left it out for the sake of the simplicity of my argument. I do not want the argument to be any stronger than it is. It is strong enough. I have, therefore, left out these other points just the same as I have left out the question of fencing, draining, and so on. Taking every single thing against my case, you have to get £559 12s for your final crop before the proviso becomes effective. Under these circumstances, is it worth while imposing an extremely vexatious condition when your proviso can never, so far as human foresight can see, take effect? I do ask my hon. Friend to accept this Amendment and to leave out this proviso, so that the inducement offered by the Grant may be free from troublesome restrictions, and so that the planting authority may be able to get the maximum of planting done not only at their own expense, but also at the expense of private owners.

I am very sorry, but I cannot meat the views of my hon. and gallant Friend, although I can understand the practical objection, that he has to this particular proviso which was agreed upon in another place as a fair proviso in cases where Grants were made. There is always objection among some people to the making of Grants at all. At the same time we hold that Grants may be necessary if we are to get the maximum amount of planting done, and that the Grant should be ultimately repaid to the Forestry Fund with interest at 4 percent., and that after that the owner should have 4 per cent, compound interest upon the money which he has actually spent.

And which he can never get.

I listened to my hon. and gallant Friend's figures with great interest and attention, and I am bound to say that he did prove, as things are to-day, that they would never get it, but we are dealing with eighty years, and, with regard to hard wood, we are dealing with 140 or 160 years. Who can tell what the rate of interest and what profits or losses may be eighty or 140 years hence? Therefore, although I think my hon. and gallant Friend absolutely proved his case as regards present-day conditions, I do not think it necessarily follows that the same conditions will prevail at the end of this long period. I think, therefore, that this is a fair proposition which will enable a good many people, who would otherwise have a great many objections to it, to swallow the system of Grants. If, in practice, it is found that the trouble and expense of keeping separate accounts prevents planting being done under thin system and if the Forestry Commission find that the whole thing is blocked owing to this provision, I feel perfectly certain that they will be the first to ask that the provision should be withdrawn. For the time being I feel bound to adhere to the compromise which was arrived at in another place, and which I believe to be a fair compromise.

I merely want to say that it may come as a surprise-to the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite (Major Courthope) that although my name is down to this Amendment as supporting it, I am now absolutely opposed to it. That is not the result of his speech, but is a result of the rejection of the Amendment I had put down to omit the system of Grants. Now that the Committee has agreed to the system of Grants I think it eminently essential that this proviso should be retained in the Bill, and I hope, therefore) the Government will retain it.

I think it would be a very good thing if the Committee would like to be guided by the opinion of the Chairman of the —

Order, order!

I beg to move, at the end of Sub-section (3), to insert the words

"Provided also that before acquiring any land under this Act and before selling or otherwise disposing of any land so acquired, but not required by them for the purposes of this Act, the Commissioners "shall consult the appropriate Agricultural Department, and in the case of land proposed to be sold or disposed of shall give that Department the opportunity of acquiring the same. The appropriate Agricultural Department shall be in England and Wales the Board of Agriculture and Fisheries, in Scotland the Board of Agriculture, and in Ireland the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland."

I now move the Amendment that I suggested a little while ago to bring about that contact and liaison between the various Boards of Agriculture and Forestry Departments which will prevent overlapping and friction, and will enable us to work afforestation in with agriculture, small holdings, reclamation, and so on. I understand it is generally accepted everywhere.

It appears to me that this Amendment refers only to the acquiring of land and the disposal of it when not required, but does not really link up the two bodies.

May I tell my hon. Friend that there is a later Amendment which requires a representative of each of these Agricultural Departments to be on this Commission?

I beg to move, after Sub-section (3), to insert

"(4) An advance shall not, after the commencement of this Act, be made under Sub-section (1) of Section 1 of the Development and Road Improvement Funds Act, 1909, for the purposes of forestry unless before that date the Development Commissioners have made and the Treasury have approved a recommendation for the advance."

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "by" ["likely to be damaged by rabbits"], to insert the word "deer."

I may be permitted to say, in moving this Amendment, that I have some little knowledge of deer forests, and I know the difficulties of dealing with this very important question, but I think it is one which the Government should attempt to meet. I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman may say that it will be impossible to deal with cases in which deer move, it may be, from a distance of twenty or thirty miles on to a particular forest area, and there may be difficulties in carrying out the object of my Amendment in a case like that; but I do think that something should be done. I think it may be possible to put upon the proprietor the obligation to fence, or something of that nature. At any rate, I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman will accept the Amendment, or, failing- that, that he will be able to suggest some other means of dealing with what is unquestionably an important matter so far as afforestation is concerned.

Although I sympathise with the object of my hon. and gallant Friend, I really cannot accept this Amendment. It would introduce an enormous change to give to one particular authority the right to authorise persons to go out and destroy deer round the whole countryside. The Clause itself makes a great advance in allowing a public authority to authorise the killing of rabbits, vermin, and so on, which may come across the boundary into a wood or forest. That, after all, only affects a limited area. But, as my hon. and gallant Friend says, deer may come for miles, and we should have the Commissioners practically authorising persons, say over the whole of Bossrshire, to destroy deer which may, under certain circumstances, invade a particular wood or forest. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend that a proper course to take would be to require fencing or something of that sort, if it is found that serious damage is done. But this is a very big question. It must be remembered that the damage done by deer not only affects young trees in woods and forests, but also affects agriculture in many ways, and affects it even more than it does woods and forests. If there is to be a large and comprehensive alteration of the game laws in that respect, I respectfully submit that it should be done directly by Amendment of the existing game laws, and that we should not do it by a side wind in respect of one tiling only, namely, afforestation. I therefore cannot possibly accept this Amendment, but I will say this. If it is found that serious damage is done, and that afforestation in Scotland is being impeded by devastation caused by deer, we shall have to consider whether it will not be necessary, in connection with afforestation, to bring in some measure to compel fencing.

I should like to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. and gallant Friend. We are dealing with the question of afforestation and cannot travel away from it, but we know the tremendous damage that has been done by deer, and I think we should seriously consider the position, and see if we cannot have, if not an Amendment in the exact words of my hon. and gallant Friend, at ay rate some reconsideration of the position, and avoid the damage done by deer to afforestation as much as possible.

I cannot say I am satisfied with the hon. and gallant Gentleman's answer. He has only said in the event of damage being done the Government would consider the matter. He knows perfectly well that damage will be done, and I hope the Government will consider what steps they can take and not wait for a year or so until damage is done. In view of what has been said, if the Government will do that I will not press the- Amendment.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "hares" ["rabbits, hares or vermin"], to insert the words "black game."

This enters into the same category as that of deer. It will be necessary to send out people on all sides to destroy black game within many miles of an afforested area. Anyone who has a plantation alongside a moor in Scotland knows the damage that can be done by a young blackcock in one night. I suggest that the Government should consider legislation which would allow the black game to be killed in planted areas during the close season.

Of course, we will consider that, but this again is not a. matter of afforestation only. Black game does an enormous amount of damage in cornfields.

We are dealing with afforestation here.

But it is really a matter that has to be considered on a comprehensive basis and this is not a Bill to amend the game laws but for afforestation. There may be a strong ease, but if you wish to amend the game-laws a Bill must be brought in for that purpose. You cannot do it by a side wind in respect of one thing only. It must have general application.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1) to leave out the words, "the Commissioners" ["the Commissioners shall appoint"], and insert in stead thereof the words "His Majesty by Order in Council."

Under the Bill it will be possible for the Commissioners to appoint and dismiss, as they may determine, an Assistant Commissioner in each of the three countries of the United Kingdom. I only speak so far as Scotland is concerned. No doubt the hon. Baronet (Sir P. Magnus), who is the watch-dog of England, will give us his views in respect of England. So far as Scotland is concerned it would meet with the approval of the Scottish people if some such Amendment as this was put into the Bill. If there was a desire on the part of the Commissioners to appoint a new Assistant Commissioner for Scotland, Scotland should have some say in the appointment, and that could only be achieved by the appointment being made by His Majesty by Order in Council and not by the Commissioners direct, as they are empowered to do under the Bill.

I am sorry I cannot possibly accept this Amendment. It would mean reversing the usual practice in all Government Departments, whereby Assistant Commissioners are appointed by the Chief Commissioners or by the Department itself. This would cause friction. According to the Amendment, these officials would neither be appointed by, nor removable by the head officer. They would be semi-independent persons. That is most undesirable, and would lead to much trouble. Therefore, I hope the hon. Member will not press the Amendment.

In the next Clause the Consultative Committee will be appointed by Order in Council.

The Consultative Committee is quite a different thing. It is a Committee to consult, but these are executive officers, and the executive officers of a Department must be appointed in. the usual way. You cannot go over the heads of the Department.