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

Hon. Members will recall that this new Clause is in response to a request made by the Opposition in Committee.

I am grateful to the Minister for implementing a promise he gave me in Committee. I am sure he will not mind my pointing out that much may depend on the point at which this Clause is inserted in the Bill. The Clause says:

"The foregoing provisions of this Act,"

and we naturally need to know which are the foregoing provisions. I take it that the Clause will be inserted in such a place as will meet the desire of the London local authorities that any duplication of powers as between themselves and the Forestry Commission will be avoided. If that is so, not only the London County Council but the Metropolitan borough councils will be very much obliged.

I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Clause will be put in its proper place, and "the foregoing provisions" will be the previous 25 Clauses.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(COMMISSIONERS WITH KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF TIMBER TRADE.)

For the purpose of assisting the Commissioners in the performance of their duties under this Act at least one of the Commissioners appointed by His Majesty under subsection (1) of section one of the Forestry Act, 1945, shall be a person who has special knowledge and experience of the timber trade.—[ Earl Winterton. ]

Brought up, and read the First time.

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

We have reached a period in the Session which we reach in every Session when, especially on a non-controversial Bill, the House likes discussions to be as short as possible, and I shall endeavour to put the case for this new Clause in the most succinct way possible.

I base my argument on a Section of the 1945 Act in regard to the membership of the Forestry Commission, where it is laid down that at least three members of the Commission:

I would make one other point. There is at least one firm which I myself know, and there are probably others, with a worldwide knowledge of the timber trade —that is to say, a firm with business not only in this country but throughout the world. Assuming that if this Clause were accepted the Minister were to appoint a member of a firm like that to be a member of the Forestry Commission, he would be able to supply to his colleagues the most valuable information obtained from data in his possession as to the type of timber likely to be required from a world point of view—or perhaps I should put it more correctly if I said from a world shortage point of view—in this country in 20 or 30 years' time.

It would strengthen the Commission in its fight against those whom I have designated as the "pretty-pretties". The right hon. Gentleman will recollect that he said at one time that the "pretty-pretties" strongly objected to larch being planted as un-English. I understand they now object to the Sitka, the Douglas fir and the spruce. It should be made clear to the public through the agency of the Commission—and I suggest this new Clause would help to that end—what is required from an economic point of view in the matter of timber in the future. I therefore hope that the right hon. Gentleman, who, if I may say so, has shown himself to be very reasonable on this Bill, will support the addition of this new Clause to the Bill.

I can save the time of the House if I say to the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton), that, thanks to his generosity and help during the passage of this Bill, except on Monday last, I am willing to accept the new Clause. I want to make it clear, however, that the person chosen, whoever that person may be, must not at any time be regarded as a representative of the merchants. With only 10 members on the Commission, once we try to fit in all of the representatives of the various organisations we will be up against a difficulty.

A case can be made out for this Clause, since, last year, we sold no less than £1¼ million worth of timber from our national forests, and we anticipate selling at least £1½ million worth this year. The more knowledge we have of the various timber demands, what are required most and all that kind of thing the better it will be, and for that reason I am prepared to accept the Clause.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause.—(SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS REQUIRED.)

Section one hundred and five of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, shall apply to the service of documents required or authorised to be served under this Act or the First Schedule to the Forestry Act, 1945.—[ Mr. Manningham-Buller. ]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.15 a.m.

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

This Clause is intended to replace Clause 19, which deals with the service of documents. During the Committee stage I drew attention to the considerable disparity that there is between the Clauses dealing with the service of notices under recent Acts of Parliament. First of all, in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944, there is a Section dealing with the service of notices, which was most carefully considered on its passage through the House.

That Section was adopted in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, again after considerable discussion. Most of those who took part in those discussions felt that we had arrived at a Clause that could be a satisfactory precedent for dealing with the service of notices on landowners, occupiers and other such people.

When one looks at the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946, one sees that there was a departure from the precedent set by the 1944 Act. A different form is used. I do not think it is such a satisfactory one. When one looks at the Agriculture Act, 1947, one finds that both that Act and the relevant Section are modelled on the Section in the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946. Clause 19 of the Bill in its present form differs from the Agriculture Act, 1947. It is more comparable with the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946.

When we are dealing with all these various Bills, it is comparatively simple to secure a proper form of machinery for providing for the service of notices, and it seems to me unfortunate that we should have all this variation in this machinery in different Acts of Parliament. This new Clause has been put down to get an increasing degree of uniformity.

It may be that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not be able to accept it, because the Town and Country Planning Act, to which the new Clause refers, does not specifically refer to the lessee. That is only a minor alteration. One advantage of the Town and Country Planning Act is that it provides that where a registered letter is sent and is returned to the sender, that shall not count as notice, whereas under this particular form no provision to that effect is inserted.

It is a simple matter, to which I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to agree, to codify this small section of our law and bring in perhaps at a later time a Bill, which I hardly think, if properly drawn, would be contentious, to clarify the position and apply one code to the service of all notices.

As the Clause in the Bill now stands —I hope it will not stand to the end of the day like this—it would be adequate notice under Clause 19 to post the notice on a tree in the middle of the wood, to serve it on a girl picking blackberries on a nice afternoon, or, during the night, to serve it on a poacher in the wood, if one were discovered. That does not seem very satisfactory, but no doubt we shall deal with it later. I am making a plea here to get some degree of uniformity between all the various classes concerned with the dealing of notices.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) is merely using this Clause as a vehicle to give expression to the policy he would like to be pursued for the service of documents in all our schedules. I am rather impressed by the arguments which he has adduced. I think there is a good deal to be said for trying to get uniformity in our different statutes and procedure, but that is not a matter which can be incorporated in this particular Measure, as the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate.

Accordingly, all that I can say in this connection is that we will give the matter very full consideration with a view to ascertaining and deciding whether or not any such Measure as he indicated could be introduced. I am a little apprehensive about his undertaking that such a Measure would be non-controversial, having regard to the fact that this Bill was supposed to be non-controversial. Those of us who were here last Monday scarcely gathered that impression.

The only other point which remains to be discussed is whether the merits of this Clause are well founded. We have considered whether the formula adopted in the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, is more apposite than the one which we have incorporated. We have got to choose between one or other of these formulas, and we have come to the conclusion that the one which we have chosen is the better, because, while it is true that when we come to Clause 19 we have tabled Amendments, which, I think, will remove some of the immediate objections of the hon. and learned Gentleman, we think this formula more apposite to the Bill than the one which he suggests.

The Town and Country Planning Act, 1947, has this rather strange feature that, while it has a formula about the service of documents, to which he referred, when it deals with the compulsory acquisition of land it has a different formula. Then it invokes the formula laid down in the Acquisition of Land Act, 1946, which is comparable with the formula which we have adopted in the Bill subject to the Amendments which are proposed.

When we are dealing with compulsory acquisition of land under the Town and Country Planning Act we adopt the formula which we have in the Bill. In these circumstances it is a question whether we should accept one formula or the other. I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman will agree that it might be a fine balance but, on the whole, the law standing as it is at present, we feel that we have adopted the correct one, subject to the improvements that we intend to make later in the Bill.

In these circumstances I cannot see my way to accept the proposed Clause. But I give the hon. and learned Gentleman the assurance, on the broad general question which he raised, that we shall give the matter full and careful consideration.

If I may speak again with the leave of the House I shall, in a moment, and in view of that assurance, which I think is satisfactory, ask leave to withdraw the Motion. I did not give any undertaking that a Bill to deal with this point would not in some respects be controversial. It all depends upon the contents of the Bill, but I feel optimistic that if the Bill were properly drawn to deal with this problem there would be no need for controversy upon it. It would perhaps be one of the better Bills produced by His Majesty's Government. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1.—(DUTY OF COMMISSIONERS.)

I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out "adequate."

We have put this Amendment down in rather an interrogatory sense. The Clause seems to be extremely indefinite and I am not sure that we can make it more definite. There is something to be said for not putting words into a statute which are meaningless, taken by themselves. What is the meaning, therefore, of the word "adequate" in relation to the word "reserves"? Adequate for what?

It is not enough to say "adequate." Does the word mean just "adequate for our requirements in this country"? Does it refer in that case to our total requirements? Does it mean "adequate for housing," important though that is? I dare say that the right hon. Gentleman knows what he means by putting in the phrase "adequate reserves." If he does, why has he not put his meaning into the Bill? Unless some real meaning is to be attached to the word, the Bill would be better English and make more sense with the omission of this vague word which does not in any sense define what the reserves are to be adequate for.

May I point out that the heading to the Clause and to the Bill says "maintenance of reserves"?

I am much obliged to the hon. and learned Member, who is on these occasions so very helpful. We welcome the light that he throws on these often very difficult questions. As he points out, the Preamble to the Bill—I think I am right in so calling it— calls this:

"An Act to provide for the maintenance of reserves."

It is the Clause heading too.

There is nothing in this part of the Bill dealing with whether the reserves shall be adequate or not. Obviously, we are all in favour of the reserves being maintained, but what does the right hon. Gentleman mean when he says "adequate reserves"? We shall be interested to hear whether he has any meaning. If he has, he ought to have put that meaning into the Bill.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The word "adequate" means "adequate." It is like the terms frequently used by the legal profession. "Adequate" is about as clear as "as long as a piece of string." There was some reference to this word "adequate" or to "adequate reserves" in the Committee, but no hon. Member opposite or anywhere made any suggestion what he would like to see in the Bill.

The hon. and learned Member must know that in the last resort there is only one body responsible for the adequacy of the national reserves either of trees or of any other raw material, and that is Parliament itself. An agricultural Minister can give directions to the Forestry Commission, so clearly, Ministers are finally responsible to Parliament in the matter. Parliament will determine ultimately what are adequate reserves of timber as they do of any other raw material.

I do not think that there is any substance in the criticism, and in any case acceptance of the Amendment would not alter the matter in the slightest degree and would not improve the statute. The hon. and learned Gentleman must leave it ultimately for Parliament to determine what "adequate reserves" of any raw materials mean.

Whatever hon. Members may have thought when this Amendment was being proposed, and whatever may have been our judgment as to there being substance in the criticism, I am quite sure that after listening to the right hon. Gentleman the House must agree that there is very real substance in the criticism which has been made in connection with this Amendment.

The right hon. Gentleman enlightened the House by saying that the word "adequate" meant "adequate," and then he talked about a piece of string in an argument which I could not quite follow. I am sure that the House must agree with my hon. and learned Friend who proposed the Amendment that the Clause would be made very much clearer if the word "adequate" were omitted. The right hon. Gentleman made no attempt to attach any meaning to the word "adequate." He did not begin to answer the question, "Adequate for what?" Is it to be adequate for peace or adequate for war? In no sense has the right hon. Gentleman answered those questions.

Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite continually state that this is a non-controversial Bill, but I am not at all sure that I agree with that statement. If anything could make the Bill controversial in its administration it would be an effort to live up to the Clause as it stands and have the Forestry Commission determine what are adequate reserves of growing trees. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the Clause again I am sure he will agree that, administratively, it will help the Forestry Commission if the word "adequate" is deleted. I hope that even now he will accept the Amendment.

The word "adequate," in the view of the right hon. Gentleman, merely means "adequate" and nothing more. That is clear enough. The hon. and learned Gentleman who moved the Amendment asked "Adequate for what?" I would ask: Adequate in whose opinion, and adequate at what time? "Adequate" is to be determined not only by that purpose that we have in view but by those who can determine what "adequate" means at the time when they assess adequacy. In regard to growing timber we have to assess the adequacy not merely today but when the timber has grown, perhaps 20, 30 or 40 years hence.

Therefore, this is not a question which the expert can answer. It is a matter for the prophet. We have to call in the prophet, and that means that the Bill is fundamentally a controversial Bill from the point of view of those of us who are dealing with it as though it were a matter to be assessed by the experts and as though "adequate" just means "adequate" in the opinion of the experts. The fact is that we have now got into the field of sorcery.

We are asking the House to give complete powers, through the Ministry, to the Forestry Commission to give an opinion not upon the position today and not upon the balance between forestry and agriculture. The word "adequate" is inserted here not accidentally, but to convey absolute power not only today but over future conditions which no one can assess. It gives most complete powers to a body which is controlled by Parliament in the last resort.

11.30 a.m.

What does control by Parliament mean? It means the will of the Minister of the day who can command a Parliamentary majority. We are putting most fundamental rights, such as rights to land and the use of land, at the will of a Parliamentary majority to determine in a form which is completely unknown and against which no argument can be placed and no case made. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller), will take this Amendment to a Division and delete the word "adequate" so that these complete powers shall not be given to anybody.

If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see his way to define "adequate" more clearly I hope he will delete it from the Bill. I cannot see what advantage there is in using a word which has only half a meaning. The maintenance of reserves of growing timber may automatically lead to bad forestry; good forestry means achieving the maximum sustained yield and not over-stocking. Foresters would like to know how far the Minister intends to pursue the policy of over-stocking and would prefer to see "adequate" and "reserves" defined.

According to my figures, the production of home-grown softwoods in the middle of the war was four times the amount before the war and in the case of hardwoods it was five times. Does the right hon. Gentleman consider this production, which could be maintained for three, four or five years, "adequate reserves" or is he just having a shot in the dark? In the interests of both defence and forestry the term ought to be clearly defined.

I believe that the Minister rather took the view that this discussion about "adequate" was a little frivolous, but I beg him to believe that it is not so. All his forestry policy depends upon a correct and clear interpretation of "adequate." If "adequate" is to be interpreted as applying to a period of great international crisis where the whole emphasis is laid on stock-piling of timber for defence purposes, that is one policy. If, on the other hand, "adequate" is to be used not for the short-term but for the long-term, the emphasis must be not so much on the stock-piling of timber for defence purposes as on replanting, and that is another policy. The two cannot go hand in hand.

Until the Minister has denned what he means by "adequate" there can be no policy either from the Government alone or from the Government through the Forestry Commission on this matter. The right hon. Gentleman must tell us whether "adequate" is to be denned on a short-term or a long-term basis. That is the crux of the matter.

I am impressed by the arguments which have been put forward by my hon. Friends about the deletion of "adequate," but I appeal to the Minister to delete the word in order to tidy up the Bill. The Clause speaks of "adequate reserves" but the Preamble says:

"An Act to provide for the maintenance of reserves…"

not adequate reserves. I appeal to the Minister to accept the Amendment.

I should like to say a word about this, because a very large controversy seems to be developing over a very small matter. Words ought not to be put into a statute unless they make for clarity. Where the result of the introduction of a word is to constitute obscurity the word, whatever else may be said about it, becomes offensive and if possible, it should be deleted. It is clear that in this context "adequate" is not explanatory and does not import definition to the Clause but does the very opposite. If there was something about the expression "adequate" which made it recognised as a form of terminology that was used regularly and was its own dictionary that would be another matter, but here there is no such recognised use or an indication of what the word applies to either in time, material or anything else.

The Minister likened the meaning of the word to a piece of string. I can only think that he introduced the piece of string in order to tie the matter into a bigger knot than it is in already. One can see a piece of string if it is there and can discover its length, and if one has a parcel to send off one knows it is useful for tying up the parcel; but in Clause 1 "adequate" is redundant and superfluous. It is not only misleading, it is obscure.

This is not a political matter; it is purely a drafting matter. Not only that, it is a matter of precedent. It is time the House took steps to see that words which are obscure do not creep into a statute. The courts and lawyers have their hands sufficiently full nowadays without our adding to their present burdens. I hope that for the sake of clarity and peace my right hon. Friend will get rid of this word.

By leave of the House, I should like, first, to express my profound thanks to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) for his help, and, second, to suggest to him that if every word in every statute was transparently clear I should be taking the bread out of the hands of his professional colleagues.

The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) suggested that I was treating the Amendment as a frivolous one. I believe it is frivolous. The hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) asked what I meant by "adequate" and suggested that we delete the word. If we deleted the word we should be left with "reserves" which might be wholly inadequate to the national needs.

Is the meaning "adequate to the national needs"?

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to answer him. "Reserves" could be wholly inadequate to national purposes. Anything less than "adequate" would not fulfil the terms of Clause 1. The Clause begins:

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

It is the duty of the Forestry Commission to maintain adequate reserves for all national purposes at any given time. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Gloucester wants a definition on what we mean by "adequate." If he had read the Bill he would have found in Clause 2 (3) that there is power by regulation to change the attitude and the action of the Commissioners with regard to reserves. In other words, what is permissible under Clause 2 may be extended and expanded according to the circumstances at any given time. Therefore, we must have flexibility.

But that is all the more reason why this word ought not to be used, because the matter is to be looked at from time to time and will be dealt with.

That is exactly why the word must be in the Bill. The hon. and learned Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Hopkin Morris) suggested that the inclusion of the word turns this Bill into a controversial one. That is stretching words unduly. Indeed, it was the hon. and learned Member himself who moved an Amendment to delete Clause 3, which permits of flexibility.

I have never regarded the Bill as other than highly controversial, both in its content and in its provisions.

We understand that from the hon. and learned Member. He is a good parliamentarian and he thinks in 99 cases out of every 100 that it is right for Parliament to have the last word on all these things. The only exception is, of course, when it happens to be a Socialist Government.

indicated dissent.

Oh, yes, that seemed to me to be his stand. If the Forestry Commission are to carry out their duties under Clause 1 (1) then the word "adequate" must be there. So long as there is power by a regulation to make changes in accordance with the circumstances at any given time then this word is really necessary in the Bill. I regret, therefore, that I cannot fall for the blandishments of the hon. and learned Gentleman.

As the right hon. Gentleman has spoken twice, I hope that I shall be granted that leave also, because I should like to reply to him. The Minister made heavy weather of this Amendment in his second speech. In his first speech he dealt with it as a matter of extreme frivolity. In neither speech has he understood the point I am seeking to make. I understand that, because I thought he had not seen the point, although the hon. and learned Member for Gloucester (Mr. Turner-Samuels) saw it at once and I think the Lord Advocate has seen it.

This is nothing more nor less than a drafting point and the right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in thinking that the inclusion of the word "adequate" without any definition adds any clarity to the meaning of the Clause. It only adds vagueness and is misleading. What was interesting in the last speech of the right hon. Gentleman was that he said "adequate" here meant adequate for all national purposes at any given time. If that is what it means, the Bill should say so, and if it did I should not have moved to leave out the word "adequate." Unless, however, we add those words, the word "adequate" is misleading and unnecessary.

May I put it to the Lord Advocate, because it is a legal point and I despair of educating the right hon. Gentleman on a point of law. If we leave out the word, I suggest to the Lord Advocate that we are not in any way limiting the powers of the Forestry Commission. Their powers will then accord with the heading of the Bill—the power of maintaining reserves. It is not true to say, as the right hon. Gentleman said, that this is an Amendment of a wrecking character and it is not related to Clause 2 (3).

This is the start of the Bill, and if we leave out the word "adequate" it only clarifies the meaning which could be given to Clause 1 without in any way limiting the powers of the Forestry Commission.

I appreciate that to the right hon. Gentleman it does not matter whether statutes are well or badly drafted; all he is concerned with on every occasion is to maintain the draft he has put forward. Therefore, I am appealing to the Lord Advocate, because he is a lawyer from Scotland, to accept this Amendment, or to persuade his right hon. Friend to do so, because it is a matter of drafting and would improve the English of the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

To some extent the next Amendment to page 1, line 9, in the name of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) is the same as the Amendment to page 3, line 46, in the name of the same hon. Member. The two might be discussed together.

11.45 a.m.

I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, at the end, to insert

Over the question of amenity there is always a great conflict between the excessive economic materialism of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and the crank who takes the view that in no case should any tree, however old, decrepit or diseased, be felled. The noble Lord seems to think that the "pretty-pretties" are the men who never like to see a tree planted anywhere. Whoever is right in this—whether the noble Lord or those whom he designates as "pretty-pretties"—the amenity society comes well within the mean between the two extremes.

The Council for the Preservation of Rural England are not anxious to stop every tree being felled, they are not anxious to see every open space remain an open space, but to have everything planned in a decent and orderly fashion so that the public can enjoy the benefits of forestry and not lose their recreation or the footpaths which give access to the landmarks of the country. They desire that when they are out in the country and see the effects of forestry they will find light relief from the rather massive, gloomy conifers of Kielder by a certain amount of amenity planting.

On an earlier stage I moved a new Clause which had a similar but not quite identical object. I am sorry to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is not here today, although in some ways it is a relief. May I quote his reply? He said:

I am glad that the Minister has today laid down the method that is to be followed. Quite clearly, he is not inspired by the same motives as inspired the joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland in his speech on Monday. By his Amendment, the Minister is saying that he will secure that in the granting or refusing of felling orders, the Commissioners shall be guided by questions of the amenities of the district. I suggest to him that that does not go far enough.

It goes quite far enough.

The right hon. Gentleman has come to an early conclusion without hearing the arguments. As the Bill stands, the Forestry Commissioners are not enjoined to have regard to amenity in the establishment and planting of trees, but they are enjoined to do so in the felling of trees. By putting this distinction in the felling Clause and omitting it from the other Clause, we are maintaining a difference that should not exist.

After all, the wording of my Amendment is in line with other legislation which has passed through the House and which deals with both amenity and agriculture. Section 84 of the National Parks Act, for example, lays on the National Parks Commissioners that they shall have due regard to the needs of agriculture and forestry. Therefore, in a Forestry Act we should include the converse proposition that the Forestry Commissioners should have due regard to the problems of agriculture and of amenity. For these reasons, I hope that the Minister will allow my Amendment rather than his own Amendment to a later Clause, to be embodied in the Bill.

I beg to second the Amendment.

As forestry is becoming a more and more important industry, there is a danger that it may develop into some kind of specialist branch and that those interested in it, if they are not considered to be cranks, will be looked upon as opponents of agriculture and destroyers of beauty. We must take steps to ensure that that does not happen. I cannot see why the right hon. Gentleman should take any objection to the wording of the Amendment dealing with amenity, because if a private person who is a woodman does something which is thought to offend against the general opinion of the district, he would be considered to have failed in his normal duties. I do not, therefore, see why a State Department should not recognise the same duties as that private person in the same trade.

It may be argued that the words of the Amendment are rather vague—perhaps rather obscure. In the light of the last debate, that should commend itself to the right hon. Gentleman. If it is possible by means of a manuscript Amendment to insert somewhere the word "adequate," I should be pleased to do that, because in that event the Minister could hardly reject the Amendment.

I do not quite know why my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) should have referred to me in this matter. I have nothing to do with his Amendment, but as it is a non-party Bill, I give myself the pleasure and luxury of replying to him. It did not seem to me that my views on the silly-sillies had anything to do with the Amendment, but I am very glad that attention has been drawn to them both in the Press and in the House, because I am sufficiently old-fashioned to believe that the soil of England should produce, both in timber and in agriculture, what is needed for the people, and not what some people describe as beautiful or otherwise. Whether a fir is more beautiful than a birch is a matter of opinion.

My objection to the Amendment is on wider lines. I think that the first part is quite all right, but perhaps one of my hon. Friends will say what on earth they mean by "general amenity."

Adequate.

Then what is an "adequate general amenity"? Does it mean a place where one can get a glass of beer? It is one of the most fantastic terms I have ever heard. As the Council for the Preservation of Rural England have supported the Amendment, it is no wonder that they have met with so many misfortunes in the past when they tried, quite rightly, to stand up for the interests of beauty in the countryside. I hope very much that the Government will not accept the Amendment in its present form.

In my view, the Amendment is not necessary. There are places where adequate attention is paid to the interests not only of forestry but of amenity and industry. The instance I have in mind is the Forest of Dean, a very ancient forest which the Forestry Commission now administer, partly for the purpose of growing timber. There is an industrial population whose interests are looked after, and it is clear that the amenities for the tourist traffic must also be preserved.

Surely it is clear that the policy of the Commission, in administering the Bill when it becomes an Act, will be to take into consideration all three aspects where they arise. In most cases, however, there will be only the two considerations of the production of trees for timber and of amenity. When unnecessary words are written into a Bill, the tendency is to make exclusions in other directions, as those with Parliamentary experience in the drafting of Bills will realise. We do not want to put too much into the Bill, otherwise we may exclude other things. We can be satisfied that, with the powers which are given to them, the Commission will have regard to all these relevant considerations in adminstering the Bill.

It seems to me that the arguments of the hon. Members for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and Westmorland (Mr. Vane) have been adequately answered by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire. West (Mr. Philips Price). After all, the purpose of the Bill is to promote the establishment and maintenance of adequate reserves of growing trees.

What is meant by "adequate"?

I think that that word has been defined by what was said in reply to the hon. Member, who, I thought, had been adequately answered.

Do I understand that the Parliamentary Secretary is now wedding himself to the economic materialism of my noble Friend?

I am bound to say that in some respects I have regard to the points which the hon. Member has made about the "pretty-pretties" and the "silly-sillies," but I hope I shall not be asked to define a "silly-silly." I can see some of them in front of me now.

The reason for the Bill is quite clear. The two wars have taught us a lesson that the interests of the nation demand adequate reserves of timber. It is in the interests of the nation that the Forestry Commission have to work, and it would be quite wrong for us here to specify in a Bill of this sort all the interests that have to be safeguarded. Quite obviously, they are numerous. The coal industry have a tremendous interest in ensuring that there are adequate reserves of pit-props if we can get them in this country. It is obvious that the timber trade desire adequate reserves of timber. The interests of housing likewise demand adequate reserves of timber. I think it would be quite wrong to put all these interests in the Bill.

12 noon.

It is clear, as was said in this House when the debate took place last Monday, that the interests of agriculture and forestry are complementary in this connection. Surely it is the job of the Commission always to consider that. I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) who, when we were discussing the last Amendment, said that it was not wise to put unwanted words into a Bill. It seems to me that what is attempted by this Amendment is to put unwanted words into the Bill.

We agree—and we think it important— that it is wise to instruct the Commission to have regard to amenity as it applies to a particular district when actually granting felling licences. It is something they can do at that stage, and at that stage they ought properly to consider the matter. As far as general amenity is concerned, although those words were lifted out of an Act which gives instruction to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Local Government and Planning, he is already enjoined to consider the whole aspect of general amenity for the whole country. In those circumstances, we shall have to resist this Amendment and later to move the words which appear in an Amendment to a later Clause.

In view of the concession offered in the Amendment to the later Clause, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2.—(RESTRICTION OF FELLING.)

I beg to move, in page 2, line 26, to leave out from the first "trees," to the end of line 28.

I hope that the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) will feel that this Amendment fulfils his desires as expressed on the former occasion.

I wish to express gratitude to the right hon. Gentleman for having put on the Order Paper an Amendment which achieves all the purpose I tried to achieve when I put down an Amendment to the same subsection in Committee. I think it a most important point which the right hon. Gentleman has met, because the Amendment recognises the vital importance of carrying out early thinnings at the appropriate time. All foresters will be grateful to him.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 2, line 41, to leave out from "exceed," to "and," in line 42, and to insert:

"eight hundred and twenty-five cubic feet in any quarter."

Hon. Members will recognise at a glance that this is a culmination of an effort to fulfil a promise I made in Committee in order to deal with the practical difficulties mentioned in Committee, when we said that if we could we would try to deal with them between the Committee and the Report stages. This Amendment and the series which follows are designed to help to deal with those practical difficulties. Their acceptance might embarrass the Commission from time to time and perhaps make for slightly more opportunities for abuse, but on the whole the Commission are willing to accept those possibilities. I hope that hon. Members will agree that we have gone a long way to meet the case they put forward.

I wish to thank the Minister for his remarks and also for the Amendment. I believe I am right in saying that the House of Commons is functioning in its best way. We made some suggestions; the Minister said he would look at them. Perhaps our suggestions were too excessive in the first instance, but he looked at them again and has found it possible to meet us by making the provision three months instead of one month. Foresters throughout the country, and indeed landowners, will be grateful for the concession.

While I welcome the Amendment, I still think it a pity that this matter was not put on a yearly basis. I do not want to introduce a discordant note and I thank the Minister for lengthening the period from one month to three months, although at the same time I express regret that this is not on a yearly basis.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 2, line 46, leave out from "exceed," to "or," and insert:

"one hundred and fifty cubic feet in any quarter."

In page 3, line 6, leave out from "to," to "cubic," in line 7, and insert:

"eight hundred and twenty-five or one hundred and fifty."

In line 19, leave out from "to," to "cubic," in line 20, and insert:

"eight hundred and twenty-five or one hundred and fifty."

In line 27, leave out "and."

In line 32, after "ground," insert:

"and 'quarter' means the period of three months beginning with the first day of January, the first day of April, the first day of July or the first day of October in any year."—[ Mr. T. Williams. ]

Clause 3.—(FELLING LICENCES.)

Amendment made: In page 3, line 46, after second "or," insert:

"of the amenities of the district, or."—[ Mr Champion. ]

12.15 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 3, line 46, after "purpose," to insert:

The House will recollect that up to January, 1950, the duty of giving licences for felling rested with the Board of Trade and the President of the Board of Trade, in the exercise of his discretion in that matter, naturally took account of the affect of his decision upon industry in this country. I am told that at present there is great concern that employment policy is not fully considered when decisions are made by the Forestry Commission.

The timber-using industries frequently require special types of timber and it is vital for them that they should have the right kind of special types if they are to retain their market, especially when it is an export market. In Yorkshire there is a factory which requires beech for making clogs. They are not able to get that beech from the Forestry Commission, who will not allow the timber trade to have the necessary licences to fell, so that that factory is now in danger of closing through the refusal of licences. That is one concrete example. If any hon. Member wishes me to do so I will give him the name of that factory in Yorkshire, but I would rather not give it in the House, as this is a matter which does not require that degree of publicity.

There is also the problem of ash for sports goods. The timber-using trades are gravely concerned at the attitude of the Forestry Commission in refusing licences for the felling of ash suitable for sports goods. That ash has to be young if it is to conform to the specifications required by the timber-using industry. Finally, there is the important problem of sycamore, which is required as rollers in industry. That, too, is a special trade. Special trees are required for these purposes. If the Forestry Commission do not take into account the needs of the industry and of the timber trade in this connection there is grave danger that industry will suffer.

I am very glad that the powers of granting these licences are being moved from the Board of Trade to the Ministry of Agriculture, but I am sure that when the Minister accepts these new powers and responsibilities he must accept with them the responsibility of looking after the employment of men in the timber trade and in the timber-using industries. In the last Report of the Forestry Commission, they say, on the question of felling licences, on page 7:

The North-Eastern Timber Merchants' Association recently had a meeting with the North Eastern Conservator of the Forestry Commission on this problem. I understand that the minutes of that meeting have been agreed by those present, and that it has been made clear that there is no objection to quotations being made from them.

Therefore, I wish to read out one or two of the points from those minutes because they have caused grave concern in the area which I have the honour to represent. The representative of the timber merchants asked the Conservator: The Conservator replied that that was precisely the position, that the quantity of silviculturally poor timber was likely fully to meet the quota figure in the North-Eastern Conservancy, but that that there was no obligation on the licensing authority to meet the quota figures if on the terms of reference "silviculture and conservation" insufficient volume was forthcoming. I here interpose to comment that that means that so long as they have enough bad quality timber no good quality timber will be felled whether it is required for the timber using industry or not.

12.15 p.m.

Then the timber merchants' representative asked the Conservator:

This is because the Forestry Commission have not been enjoined, when issuing or refusing licences, to have regard to the home-grown timber needs. There is also the danger that a number of men who are now employed in the timber trade in timber felling will be thrown out of employment because the timber merchants will not be given the throughput in order to keep those men in employment.

There is a further consideration that I wish to put before the House. If, as the Forestry Commission have said in their Report, and if, as was stated by the North-Eastern Conservator at the meeting from the minutes of which I have quoted, only timber that is silviculturally poor is allowed to be felled, it will mean that on that estate which is in a good silvicultural condition and where care has been taken in the management of the woodlands, no timber will be allowed to be felled, whereas on those estates where the timber has been neglected felling licences will be obtainable without difficulty.

I suggest to the Minister that that is not in the interests of his forestry administration. I ask him to reconsider the attitude shown both in the Report and by his Conservator for the North-Eastern Region. Certain special considerations have to be borne in mind in respect of that region. We have there a very large number of timber-using industries; in particular we cater for a great majority of the demands for sawn mining timber. It is, therefore, important that in that region the timber trade and the timber-using trade should have as much home-grown timber allotted as is consistent with keeping a fair reserve of timber in that region.

It was estimated in the last woodland census that in the North-Eastern Conservancy there are 165 million cubic feet of growing timber. It was also estimated in that census that the annual increment is five million cubic feet. The present administration of the Forestry Commission is limiting the licensing quota for felling in that Conservancy to just under one and a quarter million cubic feet. In other words, that Conservancy, which has the highest demand in the country from industry for timber, is being granted licences to fell only a quarter of the annual increment.

I appreciate as well as any other hon. Member how short we are of timber and how important it is that we should build up reserves in this country. But when I see in that conservancy some 130,000 acres of plantable land, a great proportion of which is held by the Forestry Commission, which is not planted, I feel that the right way, in the interests of industry, forestry and agriculture, is to plant more acres rather than to deprive the timber trade and the timber-using industries of that timber which they require to maintain employment and to secure exports.

I beg to second the Amendment.

The examples and arguments mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) demonstrate the need for an Amendment such as this. The Bill rightly puts emphasis on reafforestation and conservation, but surely it is also necessary to try to ensure a proper balance between that and utilisation. We must try to ensure that our native timber does it share towards meeting the needs of industry. I think that this should be recognised by adding these words to the Clause. This should be one of the considerations which should govern the decisions of the Commission.

I am sure that, especially in his constituency, the speech of the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) will be read with a great deal of interest but, frankly, I could not discover what it had to do with the Amendment. The burden of his speech was a criticism of the administration of the Commission in relation to the powers exercised under the Defence Regulations and not in relation to the powers under this Bill. His argument was in support of an Amendment to permit to the trade clear felling.

My Amendment seeks to insert the words:

"of meeting the demands of industry for homegrown timber or."

That demand can be met not necessarily by clear felling but by selective felling, which is more likely to affect beech, ash, and sycamore.

It seemed to me that the hon. Gentleman's argument was directed towards giving clear felling to the timber trade. Apart from that, his Amendment does not give effect to what he wants. Under the Clause, the Commissioners must grant a licence unconditionally unless it is expedient to refuse it or to grant it subject to conditions. If the hon. Gentleman's Amendment was included, the Clause would read:

"Where any such application is made, the Commissioners may, if it appears to them to be expedient so to do in the interests of good forestry or agriculture or of meeting the demands of industry for home-grown timber or for the purpose of complying with their duty under section one of this Act—

I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has, quite by mistake, misread the Clause. It reads:

"… in the interests of good forestry or agriculture or of the amenities of the district, or for the purpose of meeting the demands of industry for home-grown timber or …"

The right hon. and learned Gentleman has got it wrong.

No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. His Amendment would mean that this would be a reason for not granting a licence, or for only granting a licence subject to conditions. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has not appreciated the effect of the Amendment. It seems to be directed towards an exactly opposite purpose to that about which he spoke. Even if he were well founded in his argument, his Amendment would not do what he seeks to do.

If we regard this as a matter of broad principle, the principle seems to be whether we should accept any Amendment the effect of which would be to permit clear felling to the users of wood in the trade. Manifestly, that would be going too wide. If there should be any criticism of the administration of the Commissioners, it could be raised at the proper time, but not perhaps in connection with this Amendment.

The whole purpose of the Bill is well known to the Committee. We know that timber is grown in this country nowadays so that it can be used. We know that today there is a great demand for timber in many spheres. The object of licensing is to restrict the number of trees to be felled because stocks are low at present. Surely the duty can be entrusted to the Commission of licensing the maximum possible amount consistent with their duty as laid down in Clause 1.

Should there be any criticism of the manner in which they carry out their duties, there is a time and place for that criticism. But if we have to chose between licensing and the proper husbandry of the stocks at our disposal or the giving of clear felling rights to people in the trade, then, in the interests of silviculture and forestry, we must adhere to the principles contained in the Bill.

Accordingly, on broad general lines, we resist the hon. Gentleman's argument. Further, the Amendment which he seeks to put into the Bill would defeat the very purpose which he has in mind.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 41, after "application," to insert:

As the subsection stands, there is no power to extend that period to prevent the automatic refusal of a licence. It is with the object of giving that room for movement, that flexibility which is desirable, that I move this Amendment which will enable the period to be extended by agreement between the applicant and the Commission, so that where negotiations are continuing there will be no automatic refusal of an application.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I should like to say at the start that we intend to accept this Amendment, and I wish to thank the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) for putting it down. This subsection was inserted in another place. It is not one which is entirely free from difficulty, and I think that the real justification for its insertion was the fact that in subsection (5) the right to have consideration arose from the date when the application was refused. Therefore, it was thought necessary to include this new subsection so that, if the application had not been decided within a definite period, it would be deemed to be refused, thereby making a terminus from which inter alia consideration might run.

For that reason, this subsection is probably justified, but we agree that perhaps it was too rigid as it stood. The effect of this Amendment will be that if the Commission find that they have not been able to reach a decision in relation to an application—not through any laxness on their part or any dilatory action, but merely because the mechanics of the application cannot be completed—further time may be agreed upon.

12.30 p.m.

For instance, they may have to consult the local planning authority, and they may have difficulty in getting an answer within the three months envisaged in the Clause. They could then inform the applicant that they are not likely to have a decision before the expiry of the three months, and suggest a further period which will be agreed with the applicant. I think this is very desirable. If the applicant refuses to agree to the extention, of course he will do so at his own risk because, if he refuses, at the expiry of the three months, the application will be deemed to have been refused if a decision could not be given in the matter.

I think this Amendment improves the Clause considerably and overcomes the further difficulties which might flow from the Clause as it originally stood, and once again I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for submitting it.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 48, after "Act," to insert:

Under subsection (6), it is provided that, where the Commissioners refuse to grant a licence, they shall give notice in writing to the applicant of the grounds of their refusal, and I commend to the attention of the House the words of limitation that are used there. It is where the Commissioners refuse—not where the Commissioners are deemed to have refused, but where they actually refuse— that the obligation is placed upon them of giving notice of the grounds of their refusal. In subsection (6), to which reference has just been made, where it is provided that an automatic refusal shall be deemed to occur at the expiry of three months, or such longer period as may be agreed, there is no reference to a refusal by the Commissioners. All that is stated in line 44 is where, in fact, the Commissioners have done nothing.

The right hon. and learned Gentleman may maintain that his view is so clearly right that these words are unnecessary. I am quite sure that he will not convince me that that is so, and I suggest to him that, since he believes he is right and I believe that I am right, we should assume that this matter is in doubt, and in that case surely it is better to put in words which make the position absolutely clear beyond all chance of doubt. These words certainly do make the Clause mean what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said it does mean when speaking on the Committee stage.

How it is going to work out in this way I must admit I am not quite certain, because it follows that, if we have the Commissioners not giving an answer within the three months, they are deemed to have refused the application, and so, in the view of the Lord Advocate, they are immediately under the duty, not having been able to give an answer to the applicant for three months, to give reasons for that refusal. If that could be done, I should have thought it could have been done before the expiration of the three months, but that, apparently, is the Lord Advocate's view of the relationship of subsections (6) and (7).

While I am puzzled to see how that will operate, I commend this Amendment to him, because I believe that it will bring the Bill more into line with what the right hon. and learned Gentleman said the Bill should do.

I beg to second the Amendment.

One of the things which has kept the legal profession in comparative economic security is the fact that it takes different views about the construction of Acts of Parliament, and probably it is not surprising that the hon. and learned Gentleman and I take opposing views regarding the construction of this Clause.

May I say that I adhere to the view which I previously expressed? It seems to me that the point has become largely academic, and principally as a result of the Amendment submitted by the hon. and learned Gentleman to which we have just given effect, I should imagine that it would be very rare indeed that this situation could arise, having regard to the nature of the Clause as now amended. In my view, if a person refused to agree to a continuation, and his application was deemed to have been refused, the provisions of subsection (7) of this Clause would be attracted, and all that the Commissioners could do by way of giving grounds would be to give an explanation that the application had been deemed to be refused because an adjudication on it had not been reached.

That, however, is not the important administrative point. If a person has a right of appeal—and, of course, the hon. and learned Gentleman will appreciate that he has no right of appeal in all cases, because it depends whether it is a first, second or subsequent application and what has taken place—if he has that right of appeal, the procedure under Clause 4 provides that the case will eventually be remitted to the committee set up under Clause 4.

One of the things which the Committee will want to know will be the views of the Commissioners on the merits of this application, and they must accordingly call for a report. I am told that that will be the procedure. If they call for that report, again as a matter of procedure, a copy of that report at that stage will be submitted to the appellant to inform him of the views of the Commission on the merits of the application. In so far as that could be done at the stage covered by subsection (7), it would be a simple statement that the application had been deemed to be refused because it had not been adjudicated upon, and that point seems to me to be largely academic.

What we really want to ensure is that if the case goes before the committee, and if, at that stage, there is any report on the merits by the Commission before the committee, a copy of that report will be submitted and made available to the appellant in the appeal. For these reasons, ( a ) because I do not think the Amendment is necessary, ( b ) because it is academic, and ( c ) because I really do not think it would take the case any further, I must resist the blandishments of the hon. and learned Gentleman and refuse to accept his Amendment.

While in no way convinced by the right hon. and learned Gentleman's advocacy, but in view of the most satisfactory and encouraging way in which he met me on the last Amendment, and in the hope that he will meet me again on later Amendments —because if he does the Bill will certainly be improved—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5.—(COMPENSATION FOR LOSS THROUGH REFUSAL OF LICENCE.)

I beg to move, in page 6, line 13, after "of," to insert:

In that debate, the right hon. Gentleman raised the objection that if he accepted any of the suggestions then made he would also be accepting responsibility for fluctuations in the market. There is undoubtedly a good reason for that view, but I venture to make another suggestion which avoids that disadvantage, and which, I think, will get to the root of this problem.

The main loss which any tree owner will suffer through the hold-up of a felling licence is the loss of growing crops on that land, unless, of course, he has applied for a licence to fell trees which are in the prime of life and which are growing substantially. I do not think that would be so. In most cases he will be prevented from felling a crop which has, in fact, ceased to grow.

Therefore, his land, instead of growing a crop and producing, perhaps, 100 cubic feet of timber per acre per annum will, in fact, be producing nothing, and will be used as a Government warehouse. If the Government requisitioned a warehouse built of bricks and mortar and roofed in they would expect to pay a compensation rent. But, in this case, they expect to have the use of valuable and productive forest land for an indefinite number of years and to pay nothing for it.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not say that to accept the theory of com- pensation for loss of increment would add undue complications to the Bill. It would not do so because, as he knows, the Forestry Commission, like other forestry authorities, have produced yield tables and are capable of assessing the quality of the soil and of the amount of timber which can be grown on a particular piece of land. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will treat this as a very serious suggestion which would improve the Bill, because it is in that spirit that I am moving the Amendment.

12.45 p.m.

Whenever I hear the quotation from St. Paul which says,

I beg to second the Amendment.

I am quite sure that the hon. Gentleman does not expect me to accept this Amendment. If there is a harvest for well doing, I must have a decent one to come for well doing during the earlier part of the morning, and still earlier. What the hon. Gentleman seems to forget is that Clause 5 is in itself something in the nature of a revolution and I am sure that neither he nor, I think, any hon. Members opposite, nor any of their colleagues in another place, really expected to get any compensation at all. But Clause 5 does concede that where a licence is refused—mostly temporarily—the owner does get compensation for any deterioration of the standing crop of trees. Beyond that, I am afraid, it would be quite impossible to go.

The hon. Gentleman asks for compensation for loss of increment. What he means, apparently, is that if a licence is not granted for trees which have ceased to grow, they ought to be removed, and that the owner ought to be able to plant other trees which will grow more rapidly than the old ones. On the other hand, if it is reserves of which the hon. Gentleman is speaking and not compensation, that is a totally different question. His Amendment, however, refers to increment. But the increment for which he is asking can only accrue on the data when the next crop of trees mature and are sold, and who can say in advance what that increment will be?

In any case, my conscience is clear in believing that in almost every case the owner of the timber will ultimately benefit through a licence being temporarily refused, because, in most cases, the trees will continue to grow. Where the trees have reached a very old age and deterioration is likely to be more than the growth of timber, then I think that in almost every case a licence would be granted. It is possible that if the trees were left a year or two longer, their girth would increase and the timber merchants would give a better price because of the increased growth. I think we have been very reasonable to the point of super-generosity, and, therefore, I hope the hon. Gentleman will not press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 26 to 29.

The right hon. Gentleman said that he considered Clause 5 was a revolution, and that we on these benches had got something which we never expected to get. I cannot possibly agree with that, although I think that Clause 5 goes some way to giving justice to land owners and farmers, big and small, who will suffer from some of the provisions in this Bill. The Clause deals with compensation for loss through refusal to grant a felling licence. Subsection (3) states: of debate I am proposing to leave out— will be administered.

I suppose almost any disaster or lesser evil which may visit a wood can be attributed to some extent to neglect. Certainly under this subsection the Forestry Commission are taking or being given very wide powers in assessing what is or what is not neglect. I should like to tell the right hon. Gentleman what is worrying me and what is worrying a number of foresters in this country. If trees are suffering from the ravages of spruce aphid or beech agaric, which are far from being uncommon, it might well be argued there was an element of neglect if steps were not taken to deal with them. But in the normal course of forestry, even in the woods and forests of the Forestry Commission, mature or semi-mature trees are not treated if they are suffering from a non-killing disease.

Steps are taken to control the pine shoot beetle and the pine weevil. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me adequately whether diseases and pests of this sort will have to be controlled by private foresters and the extent to which they will have to be controlled? Must they live up to the practice of the Forestry Commission or will something else be accepted as freeing a man from the accusation that he has neglected his woods?

I cannot quite associate the Amendment on the Order Paper with the questions the hon. and gallant Member is asking. They do not seem to have any relation whatever to leaving out lines 26 to 29.

I am trying to explain to the right hon. Gentleman that this Clause deals with compensation for loss through refusal of a licence. Let us take the case of a man who has been refused a licence. From then onwards this subsection (3) ensures that where that particular plantation can be said to have been neglected the owner of the woods will not be compensated for any deterioration in the quality of the timber. What I am trying to get from the right hon. Gentleman is a definition of neglect. I am suggesting to him that he will find it extremely hard to define the degree of neglect which will penalise a woodland owner. It would be of interest to woodland owners throughout the country if he tried to give some indication—if he knows —of the kind of incidents which may arise and which will or will not be treated as neglect.

Let us take another case. What about dieback in the case of larch? If a semi-mature or even mature larch plantation suffers from dieback—and mature larch can suffer from it—will he say that there has been neglect? His own experts will tell him that a complex combination of diseases and physical conditions cause dieback. Canker may be one cause and frost may be another, but all the components of this particular disease are not fully known. How are the Forestry Commission to determine whether there has been neglect in a plantation which suffers from dieback?

Will he consider the onset of heartrot as being caused by neglect? There are many technicians who consider it is frequently caused by bad drainage but there is by no means agreement on this matter. There are large plantations of larch and other trees in this country suffering from heartrot. Will compensation be paid in the case of a plantation suffering from it?

Has the Minister any views about the degree of drainage which must be maintained in a mature plantation? I do not know the standard set by the Forestry Commission themselves. I know, however, that most private foresters could be accused of neglect of drainage when a wood has become mature. Drainage is a very expensive matter in a mature plantation and in 99 cases out of 100, unless there is a wind-blow, the wood does not suffer by allowing the water-table to rise. On the other hand it may suffer and I should like the Minister to tell me—if he can give a broad generalisation—what degree of excellence in drainage he will expect the Forestry Commission to insist upon. The other side of the picture is that one can ruin some plantations by too good drainage. Some agricultural operation may be carried on a mile or so away which may lower the water-table, and the trees may suffer as a consequence.

I hope the Minister sees that there will be difficulties in administering this subsection and that it would be fair to woodland owners throughout the country to give some indication of how he thinks it should be administered. There is also the matter of vermin or beasts. Quite large trees, particularly sycamore, can be damaged by grey squirrels and certainly by deer or goats. If deer or goats or grey squirrels or even horses and ponies gain access to a plantation and damage the trees, will the Forestry Commission allege that there has been neglect?

Finally, and perhaps the worst case of all, what about fire? The Forestry Commission, of course, can afford to maintain an extensive system of fire protection and fire watching, but it will be quite unreasonable to suppose that private woodland owners can keep men posted to guard against fire or keep the necessary apparatus to deal with a fire when it has been discovered. If fire gets into the tops of standing conifers, a whole wood of thousands of acres can go up in flames in a few hours or in a few days. Can the Minister say what degree of alertness for dealing with fires he would want the Forestry Commission to expect from owners?

I see in the rather dismal expression the right hon. Gentleman has had on his face for the last two or three minutes the sort of look that would lead one to suppose I am trying to catch him out. I am not doing anything of the sort. I agree the questions are rather difficult to answer in detail, but they are questions which are being asked by woodland owners, and the mere fact that the right hon. Gentleman, I suppose, is going to tell me that they are impossible questions to answer shows that there really is difficulty of interpretation of this Clause. I move this Amendment in the hope that we may have some enlightenment from the Parliamentary Secretary, but I would assure him that I shall not press this Amendment to a Division.

I beg to second the Amendment.

1.0 p.m.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman was right when he said that we were not likely to accept this Amendment. Of course we are not, because it appears to be a wholly unreasonable proposal. After all, if an owner applied for a licence to fell, perhaps even in expectation of refusal, he could after making such application cease to take any interest in the trees at all, and if through neglect they decayed the nation would become liable to compensation, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman had his way. That would seem to us to be wholly wrong, and it might also militate against the object that we have in this Bill of ensuring that standing timber shall be in a sound condition.

The hon. and gallant Gentleman asked direct, detailed, specific and, I think, important questions about what would happen in the event of certain diseases, and so on, which would cause a deterioration in the timber. I think it is clear that no answer to those points can be given in this House at this stage. What will happen? I can well imagine that in the circumstances which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has visualised, the owner of the timber will make an application to the Commission for compensation. The Commission will then have to consider that application in the light of the expert advice which is available to them, and those experts will, of course, be aware of all the diseases which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has mentioned and all the possible causes of deterioration of the timber in respect of which this application has been made.

Then what happens? If the application for compensation is refused by the Commission, the applicant then has the right to have the dispute between him and the Commission determined by the Lands Tribunal, an important and independent body which will have before it the weight of evidence on both sides, and will have to assess the value of that evidence and, upon that, give a decision. For those reasons we shall have to resist this Amendment, which I gather is not going to be pressed by the hon. and gallant Gentleman.

I, for one, have not obtained much enlightenment from what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but in view of the assurance which I think he gave, that the Bill will be administered in a reasonable way, and as he has drawn attention to the fact that there is an appeal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 11.—(ENFORCEMENT OF CONDITIONS AND DIRECTIONS.)

I beg to move, in page 11, line 44, to leave out from "by." to the second "the," in line 45.

This is a drafting Amendment of a paving nature in relation to a further Amendment on the Order Paper to page 22, line 5.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 19.—(SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS)

I beg to move, in page 17, line 23, to leave out from "If," to "it," in line 24.

The object of this Amendment, I hope, will commend itself to the Minister of Agriculture, and I hope that this time I shall succeed in making the point of the Amendment clear to him. The object of this Amendment is to bring Clause 19 into conformity with the Section for which he himself was responsible in the Agriculture Act, 1947, and therefore I hope that this desire to make one Act for which he is responsible agree with another Measure for which he also has some responsibility will commend itself to him.

I beg to second the Amendment.

We are prepared to accept this Amendment, and perhaps for an even better reason than was advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The House will observe that this Clause applies to the service of all documents. It will be seen that subsection (4) as it stands contains the words

"If the appropriate Minister is satisfied that reasonable inquiry has been made."

and so on. That would be all right in relation to documents served on his behalf, but in respect of documents served on behalf of another body it seems to us to be inappropriate that the Minister should be called upon to determine whether or not reasonable care had been taken and reasonable inquiry had been made within the meaning of the subsection. For those reasons, and for rather different reasons than those advanced by the hon. and learned Gentleman, we think the Amendment is well founded and we accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

I beg to move in page 17, line 29, at the end, to insert "responsible."

In Committee the hon. and learned Member for Northants, South (Mr. Manningham-Buller) drew attention to the fact that this subsection was rather vague. Reading it literally, any person on the land could be served with a notice, and he thought that the subsection should be more clearly denned to make it plain that the person who should be served with the notice should be a person in a responsible position. This Amendment seeks to meet that objection.

I am grateful to the Minister and the Lord Advocate for tabling this Amendment to meet the point I raised in Committee. Here again, another argument in favour of this Amendment, in addition to the one advanced by the Lord Advocate, is that this Amendment makes this part of this Clause correspond with the similar Section in the Agriculture Act, 1947. It avoids service on a person blackberrying or poaching constituting good service under the Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 17, line 30, after "no," to insert "such."—[ The Lord Advocate. ]

Clause 22.—(APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.)

I beg to move, in page 20, line 16, at the end, to insert:

Since then I understand that in June there appeared in "The Times" an advertisement of a house for sale, stating that it had both park and policy. That again has raised the question whether Scottish policies are included under the provisions of this Bill, and this Amendment is moved in the hope that the Government will either accept it or will give a definite assurance that they are satisfied that there is no shadow of doubt that Scottish policies are included in the Measure.

I beg to second the Amendment.

I hope that the Lord Advocate will be able to tell us, in the same way as was explained in another place, that the word "policies" is covered. I think this is a more substantial Amendment than might appear to be the case on the Order Paper. There are different legal interpretations in England and Scotland.

The illustration given by the hon. and gallant Member for Richmond, Yorks (Sir T. Dugdale) would perhaps be more apposite in favour of an argument for having an interpretation Clause in the advertisement of "The Times" rather than having it incorporated in the Bill.

This point was raised during the Committee stage, when I expressed the view that "park" was a word well known in Scottish circles, and that I did not think it was necessary to have any further definition. "Park" has the same meaning in Scotland as it has in England and Wales. It has been used both in purely Scottish and in United Kingdom legislation. For instance, it found its way into the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1925, and into the Forestry Act, 1945, which is a United Kingdom Measure.

The expression is well known in Scotland, whereas, "policies" is not really a term of art as a legal expression. It has not found its way into any Act of Parliament that I can remember. If we now begin, in this Bill, to define it, it might cause doubt on the meaning of "park" as contained in previous statutes. For that reason I do not think we can accept the Amendment, which, in any event, is, I think, unnecessary.

In view of the very highly qualified advice which we have received from the Lord Advocate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 25.—(INTERPRETATION.)

I beg to move, in page 22, line 5, at end, to insert:

"and in the case of trees which have been felled means the person who was the owner immediately before the felling."

This Amendment is largely drafting. It is designed to remove any difficulty which would arise on a claim made for compensation under Clause 5 after the trees had been felled, since the definition of owner in relation to trees is the owner of land on which the trees are growing. If they have been felled, there would be no one who could call himself the owner within the definition. This Amendment is designed to clear that up.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the Third time."—[ King's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, of the Duchy of Lancaster and of the Duchy of Cornwall, signified. ]

1.12 p.m.

Although it is laid down that on the Third Reading strict consideration must be given to what is in the Bill before the House the Chair has never minded a reference being made to the Minister in charge of the Bill, and I am very pleased, on behalf of my hon. Friends on this side, on this non-controversial and, I hope, useful Bill, to say how much we appreciate the attitude which the Minister has taken. He has met us on the Report stage on very many points. Personally, I should like to say that when sitting opposite to the Minister I felt myself in a slightly embarrassed position. I have so often agreed with him that I have sometimes wondered whether I was a Socialist and whether the Minister was a Tory.

I only want to say a few things about this Bill. I believe that as amended it will have a beneficial effect in encouraging and promoting good forestry and the extension of planting, which is so sorely needed in a country which still neglects thousands and thousands of acres of actual or potential woodland. The Bill is complementary to the Act of 1919. I might say here, by way of parenthesis, that we ought to remember, on behalf of the much abused coalition Government of those days, that it was the first Government to deal with the very neglected subject of forestry.

The discussion on the Bill has done something to make the public realise the immense future for home-grown timber and for forestry products in this country, as well as what a scarce material it is. Indeed, there is a world-wide scarcity of timber, and there is no reason to suppose that the scarcity will become much less in the future. I hope the Bill will popularise afforestation and re-afforestation. That is extremely important.

The attitude of rural folk towards forestry is certainly not unfriendly. My experience has been that the people in the countryside welcome the creation of a new State forest or the improvement of existing woodlands under private ownership, because it means employment, after the creation of smallholdings, and also it means housing. It is usually town dwellers or week-enders who object to open spaces being planted, because they want to walk anywhere they like and picnic at will. Country folk are not greatly pleased when they see the Minister of Town and Country Planning heading a procession of members of the London School of Economics and men and women dons from our older universities, with his resonant voice shaking the very earth. They prefer to see the local pack of hounds hunting a fox through a well-grown larch plantation.

Therefore, I believe that this Bill will do much good and will popularise forestry in the countryside. I think I can say on behalf of all my hon. Friends on this side of the House that, while there are some things in the Bill which we would prefer were not there, we give it our blessing and hope that it will help this great cause in our country.

1.17 p.m.

Although the discussions during the Committee stage of this Bill may have lasted longer than some of us anticipated, I think that, as a result, the Bill is much improved. I should like to add my thanks to the right hon. Gentleman for the concessions he has made, and for the very friendly and conciliatory manner in which he has listened to the points which were raised from this side of the House.

My own belief is that everything depends on how the Bill is worked. If over emphasis is laid upon what I might call the stockpiling issue then the effect of the Bill will be to the detriment of good woodland management. I am also most anxious that the Clauses in the Bill should not be so operated by the Minister that, in fact, the small woodland owner will find himself in great difficulty. If any undue rigidity is applied to the granting of felling licences, the small estate owner may have considerable difficulty not only in financing his own woodland management, but financing the improvements which, under the Agriculture Act of 1947, he is under a direct obligation to carry out upon his own estate.

We are most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for the concession he made in respect of the quantity of timber allowed to be felled and sold on a quarterly basis instead of a monthly one. I do not wish to look a gift horse in the mouth and a quarterly basis is quite an improvement, but I beg the right hon. Gentleman not to underestimate some of the practical difficulties which will arise even on a quarterly basis. They will arise on a great many estates which are not big enough to carry what is broadly called a "forestry staff," and where one can only fell timber and get it away in the dead season when labour is available from the farm.

It is here that considerable difficulty has been experienced in the past and may be experienced in the future—the Bill does nothing to remedy this matter—from the delay in granting licences. A neighbour of mine applied for a licence to fell, but six weeks elapsed before the application was even acknowledged. After various reminders, a licence was finally granted, but not until a period in which my neighbour was engaged in barley sowing. No labour was available from his farm to fell and clear the trees from his land, although he had got the licence.

I should like to give one more example of undue delay in the granting of felling licences. The case was brought to my attention the other day of a woodland owner who applied for a licence to fell timber on an estate which he had recently inherited. The principal object of the application was to discharge the Death Duty assessment. He applied for the licence in October, 1950, in respect of 72 trees. In the following month the Forestry Commission sent a representative to his plantations, as a result of which a licence to fell only 28 trees was granted.

The owner appealed against the decision to the Forestry Commissioners in December. In the following January a further appeal was made to the Director of Forestry in London. In February, the Director of Forestry suggested that the Private Woodlands Officer should pay a further visit to the district; in April the original decision was confirmed. Thus, between October and April, a six months' delay took place. Although the owner was subsequently able to fell his trees, his land was devastated for six months. He ought to have been able to remove all the trees in a matter of weeks.

Finally, as to the compensation Clauses, I still think that it is unique that the Government should ask only the owner of trees to stockpile at his own expense. It is clear from the Committee discussions—and even the Minister admitted it—that, boiled down to actual practice, the compensation clauses are unworkable because the method of assessing the degree of deterioration will defeat everybody. Clause 5 may look all right on paper, but in practice I do not believe that one per cent, of woodland owners who make application for compensation will be able to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that any such deterioration has taken place in their timber owing to the refusal of a licence.

We commend the Bill. We hope that it will be operated intelligently and not too rigidly, and, above all, that the right hon. Gentleman will see that applications for licences to fell are not unduly delayed. Then, if the Bill does not do much good, it will at least not do much harm.

1.25 p.m.

I join in the tributes that have been paid to the Minister for the agreeable manner in which he has piloted the Bill through all its stages. It is in line with the temper and the manner which the right hon. Gentleman always displays when he presents legislation. It is, indeed, a tribute to him personally that during his period of office as Minister of Agriculture he has managed to get through the House so much agricultural legislation.

Having said that, I must turn to criticism, not about the Minister personally but about the Bill. Contrary to what has been said up to now, I do not think that this is a good Bill, either in the provisions regarding the felling of trees or in the changes made in the compulsory purchase procedure.

This is another Bill to give the Forestry Commission a great deal more power, but it lays down no clear principles on which they are to exercise it. There is procedure for appeal from the Forestry Commission to a special commission, but no principles are laid down upon which the Commission are to exercise their discretion or to come to a decision.

I cannot help feeling that we have missed an opportunity for a complete review of forestry legislation. The House and the Ministry could get down to this conflict between agriculture and afforestation. There need be no conflict. I am sure that the interests of agriculture and of afforestation lie side by side. I would like to see a Measure introduced to cover all the Measures already in force—the 1919 Act, the 1945 Act and the present Bill—to provide for regular statutory consultation with the agricultural executive committees and to deal with the compulsory purchase procedure.

It has been said that the Bill has been improved during the Committee stage, but it has not been very much improved. It could have been improved further if the official Opposition had used all the opportunities available to them. On Monday night, a Clause was carried against the Government, with my party voting against the Government. Then, to our surprise, when the Motion was made to report Progress, the Division was not pursued.

To our further surprise, when a further important Amendment was proposed in regard to local inquiries, for some reason the official Opposition failed to support the Division, although they had the numbers in the House to defeat the Government. I am sorry that in this case the Opposition have not used their opportunities to improve the Bill. It is therefore open to us to oppose the Third Reading of the Bill.

1.29 p.m.

I would thank the Minister for accepting the new Clause which was moved earlier by my noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) in regard to the composition of the Forestry Commission with the object of including a Commissioner with special knowledge and experience of the timber trade. This alteration will bring about a most necessary balance of interest between afforestation and conservation on the one hand and utilisation on the other. I am sure that that is a useful addition to the Bill.

I am sure also that all friends of the Minister will sympathise with him that he has had to be here today to see the Bill through when he could have been taking the air on the Town Moor at Doncaster. I hope that he will feel that his sacrifice has been worth while and that the country has a good Bill which is workable and adequate. Perhaps the Bill is not as good as many of us would have liked it to be, but it has been much improved by a certain amount of Parliamentary give-and-take, and I therefore commend it to the House.

1.30 p.m.

I congratulate the Minister on his wisdom in piloting the Bill, and not least on accepting the will of the House on an important Amendment on Monday, which greatly improved his Bill. I also support what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bebington (Mr. Oakshott) in what he has said about the new Clause which the Minister has accepted.

I was a member of the Estimates Subcommittee which examined the work of the Forestry Commission two years ago, when we came to the conclusion that the fact that there was no experienced timber merchant on the Commission and that advice from the timber trade had not in the past been sought at all levels was a serious drawback to the working of the Commission and was in certain cases leading to waste.

I hope that the Minister will select a member of the timber trade from the northern part of England. It is in the North-East or the North-West that the problems of the extraction of timber are of great importance, for the estate forests are principally in those areas and the problems of extraction which are of concern to the Commission will be well known to the timber merchants there. I believe the new Clause to be probably the best Clause in the Bill. It may lead to great economies in future and also to far better relations between the timber trade, the timber using trade and the Forestry Commission.

I should like the Minister to tell us how he will use the powers which the Bill grants him. At an earlier stage I asked whether the interests of the users of homegrown timber would be considered by the Forestry Commission and the Minister, but I regret that the Lord Advocate seemed to regard it as a drafting point, even applying to it the curious phrase "constituency point." When I speak of a conservancy I do not mean a constituency. I was talking about the North-Eastern Conservancy which has some 75 constituencies in it, and over the whole of that area the big problem is how the Minister will secure the reserves of growing trees there.

Two methods are open to the Minister. He can accelerate his rate of planting and thus increase the number or growing trees, or he can adopt the other policy of restricting the quota of felling licences to such an extent that while a reserve of trees is still standing, he may at the same time imperil the future of the industry in that area and also imperil employment in the timber trade. It is to be regretted that throughout the stages of the Bill we have had no clear line from the Minister about that.

I understand that at present the quota of felling licences granted throughout England and Wales amounts to 20 million cubic feet. Of that, nine million is for sawn mining timber. I make no complaint about that, for it is required to maintain production in the coal mines, but I assert that the balance of 11 million cubic feet is insufficient at present for the need of the timber-using industries. It is also insufficient to keep in employment the men at present engaged in the timber trade. I hope the Minister will reconsider the position.

According to the Minister's own census report, the annual increment throughout England and Wales is some 60 million cubic feet, and therefore he is only allowing one-third of the annual increment to be felled. In order to maintain our export trade in timber products and to keep the men in the timber trade in employment, it is important that the national quota should be stepped up. Whatever may be the argument about the national quota, the argument in the case of the North-Eastern Conservancy is very much stronger because in that area we have the greater part of the industries which are using the timber products, including the great weight of the coal mining industry and also the ironstone mining industry.

It is only right that the highest possible quota of felling licences should be granted in that conservancy. When we find that the present quota in the conservancy is only one-quarter of the annual increment, it seems that there is something wrong with the policy which appears to be the one that the Minister will carry out under the Bill.

I want to revert to the statement in the Forestry Commission's last Annual Report that the Minister intends to restrict felling licences merely to poor stands of timber or, in the words which his conservator used at the meeting that I quoted earlier, intends to allow only the silviculturally poor trees to be felled. I believe that to be a retrograde attitude. It will mean that the industry will not get the special types of timber which it requires. The Lord Advocate seemed to think that our argument was one for more clear felling, but it is exactly the opposite to that. What we require in order to get special timbers—whether they be sports ash, sycamore rollers or clog beech—is selective felling.

The Minister's present attitude to felling licences does not allow selective felling, and I believe that to be against the interests of the industry generally. It is far better that the timber merchant should be able to go into a wood and pick the timber he requires for special uses than that he should have to clear fell a whole lot of mature trees in order to pick out the one or two trees which he requires for the job.

We must remember that any rule allowing only silviculturally poor timber to be felled militates against good forestry practice in this country. The Minister should be doing all he can to encourage the good estate owner who is looking after his forests rather than the bad estate owner who is neglecting his, and if the Minister confines the felling licences to what is silviculturally poor he is aiding the bad owner and not the good owner.

I am glad the Minister has these responsibilities thrown on his shoulders, but he must recognise that his responsibility in this matter is not limited merely to forestry or even to amenity but is to the whole nation at large, and in the case of the whole nation the question of the employment of men in the timber-using industries and in the timber trade must loom very large. I beg the Minister to give us some reply on this problem because there is at present grave disquiet in industry and in the timber trade at the policy which is being carried out.

1.39 p.m.

The congratulations which have descended upon my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture have come mainly from hon. Members opposite and, in case that may cause him some slight embarrassment, I feel constrained to intervene and add my congratulations upon this very useful Measure.

As one who had some experience during the war years in the production of home-grown timber, I was extremely glad that my right hon. Friend found it possible to accept the new Clause moved by the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) to include upon the Forestry Commission a practical man who will know something about the problem of the extraction of timber from our forests.

Unfortunately our densely packed forests were not thinned to the extent they ought to have been during the inter-war years. During the war years we frequently discovered that it was extremely difficult to extract the timber because there were not adequate roads leading into the forests. At that time I felt it would have been easier to overcome the problem had there been in the early stages a practical man on the Forestry Commission who regarded it as essential that there should be roads of adequate width for tractors. From that angle alone, therefore, it is important that we should have this new Clause incorporated in the Bill.

The hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) mentioned that it might be possible to have a member with practical knowledge on the Forestry Commission from a certain part of the country. I think he was making a claim for that part of the country which he represents in this House. If such a claim has to be made, with due modesty I would claim that some consideration might be given to Scotland.

No, all I was saying was that there should be a north country man rather than a south country man, and I include Scotland in that part of the country.

It depends largely on how far north the hon. Member is prepared to go. I often feel that the further north we go, the better. In any case during the last two world wars Scotland made a considerable contribution towards the production of timber, and if there is any claim on geographical grounds, Scotland ought to be well represented.

I join with right hon. and hon. Members opposite in congratulating the Minister on another useful piece of legislation. It is by no means the first that my right hon. Friend has introduced and carried through with singular success in this House and I sincerely congratulate him on the workmanlike way in which he has set about it.

1.43 p.m.

It is appropriate in the final stages of our debate on this Bill that we should be talking about utilisation, which is the final stage of all forestry operations. It is one which a House like this in general and foresters in particular are always apt to forget. Without utilisation forestry is a useless activity.

When the right hon. Gentleman was speaking in the earlier stages, at times I thought he was looking on timber as ammunition which can be manufactured and of which one can build up vast stores in peace time and shoot it off in time of war. That is a false conception, because we can never have reserves of timber adequate or inadequate to meet any emergency or increased demand if we do not at other times provide a livelihood for those who are producing it, and if we do not also maintain a healthy home timber trade. And that we have been inclined to overlook.

Without a healthy home timber trade, and skilled and adequate reserves of trained manpower, we cannot convert and saw the substantially increased quantities of timber which we need to feed through it in times of emergency. At the present time it is necessary for us to impose some quota on indiscriminate fellings, but over the last year or two we have felt that the quota has not been settled in the most amicable way.

I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman would say there had been consultation before the final figures were fixed, but if he were to say so, I would dispute that he was using the word "consultation" in the normal sense. What happened was that the home timber trade, the growers and others, were invited to the Forestry Commission and presented with figures in much the same way as Balkan statesmen were presented by Hitler with figures in the years before the war.

Now that the data is so much more complete, it ought to be possible before arriving at a decision to discuss the plans for four or five years and perhaps to yield concessions; even if not as many as the right hon. Gentleman has made to us today, at least some. People would go away much happier if they thought they had achieved something, rather than being given a figure, say 20 million cubic feet, and being told, "This is what you are going to have for this year and it does not matter what argument you produce."

A large proportion of the theoretical increments shown by census returns is on small, young stands, too small at the moment to be utilised. Therefore, the figure of one-third given by my hon. Friend is misleading. All the same, in view of the fact that the most recent census has shown that the quantity of hedgerow timber in this country is vastly in excess of what was thought to be the amount, it should be possible to maintain this year's figure, if not to increase it.

I want to make a plea to the right hon. Gentleman to consult all sides of the industry properly before deciding the final figure for the quota. I ask him, too, to try to use the broad measure of sympathy which we know he has in his nature, when administering this Measure, to see not only that none feel aggrieved, but that the whole nation feels some benefit from it.

1.47 p.m.

I intervene only to take up a point made by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton). It appeared from his remarks that the hon. Gentleman was rather over-anxious for the timber consuming interests of this country so far as felling operations were concerned.

My teen years were spent in the North of Scotland in connection with timber felling operations where a relative of mine had a supervisory position. So I was closely in touch with felling and afforestation in all its branches. It was brought home to me forcibly in that period, by seeing the devastation caused by windblown timber and the difficulty of extracting it once it got into that condition, that it is most difficult to extract with a tractor. Consequently if the plea of the hon. Member for selective felling were granted in Scotland, it would bring conditions where wind would get a grip of the forests and result in large areas being swept away before the trees reached maturity or before the controlling interest wanted that part of the forest felled.

It would be a short-sighted policy merely to say to the timber merchant, "You go into the forest and select this tree or that group of trees," because it would create a vacuum within the forest.

Selective felling is done by the owner of the trees selecting those he thinks can come out. It is in the interests of silviculture to help get the crown for the other trees. The timber merchant then sees if those selected trees will be good for the timber trade. Certainly he would not march into the wood and hack left, right and centre.

I am glad the hon. Gentleman has made that clear. His exact words were that we should allow the timber merchant to go into the wood and select his trees. If the hon. Member will read his speech tomorrow, he will find that that is what he said. One of his hon. Friends indicated very great concern at what the hon. Member was saying, and I concurred. Now, the hon. Member is trying to say something else.

We ought to regulate the felling of trees and not to have selected, by an owner or timber merchant, groups of trees here and there in a particular forest or plantation. It ought to be done in a much better way, so that the wind is not allowed to cause trees to be blown before they are needed for industry or anything else.

1.50 p.m.

In defence of my hon. Friends, I must reply to the hon. Member for Ayrshire, Central (Mr. Manuel) that selective felling has a very definite meaning. It is a semi-technical term and certainly does not mean what I imagine the hon. Member thinks it means.

I do not think that the Minister will be surprised when I say that in my view this Bill, when introduced in another place, was a thoroughly bad Bill; but I think he will agree that when the Bill left another place, it was far less bad. Now, after having gone through all its stages in this House, even if it is not possible to call it a good Bill, I, for one, am quite prepared to agree that it is very much better than when we began our consideration of it.

I must express most sincerely my hope that what we may call the forestry provisions of the Bill will lead to a higher standard of forestry throughout the country. I agree with almost everything that has been said when assertions have been made that there is plenty of room for improvement in private forestry. But even in the last few minutes of our consideration of the Bill, I must remind the House that in my view it is still an infringement of or encroachment on the rights of property and remains a stockpiling Bill by the Government at the expense of a small section of the community.

The Bill remains a stockpiling Bill, and I am still suspicious—and I must give voice to this suspicion—of what the right hon. Gentleman really wants the Forestry Commission to do in the way of compulsory acquisition. As I said on Second Reading, when I was a Commissioner it was the proud boast of the Commission that we had never used our powers of compulsory acquisition. I would have hoped very much that the Commissioners might today have been able to maintain that boast. But conditions may have changed, and it may well be that there are occasions nowadays when the powers of compulsory acquisition must be used. I hope, however, that the Commission will use their newly-won powers in as few cases as possible.

The only other remarks I want to make about the Bill are to remind the House of the large number of occasions in the Bill in which the Forestry Commission are granted discretionary powers. In almost every Clause the Commission are given an opportunity of determining this, that, or the other, within the terms of the Clause. The test of whether the Bill proves effective must in the end be determined by the way in which the Commission use the discretionary powers with which they are armed.

There is only one other thing I want to say, and I have to some extent hesitated before saying it, but I think that it ought to be mentioned: that is, how extremely unpopular are the Forestry Commission throughout the country. It was most embarrassing, when I was a Commissioner, to find from my friends, from private woodland and forest owners and so on, how very unpopular were the Commission. I know the reason the Forestry Commission are unpopular, and I think that hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House also know the reason.

This unpopularity arose very largely from one individual, of whom I have always said that he is the most able forester in the world. That is a pretty substantial claim to be able to make on behalf of anybody, but there is not the slightest doubt that he has the peculiar knack of putting up the backs, not only of the staff of the Forestry Commission, but also of private woodland owners and of those societies who try to, and do, represent the interests of private forestry. I think that can in truth be said, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides will agree.

The hon. and gallant Member is speaking of a man who cannot reply.

I think that the Minister is mistaken in saying that the gentleman to whom my remarks refer cannot reply. In fact, I know that the right hon. Gentleman is mistaken, and I hope that that remark will not be made again.

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. That question is not in the Bill.

No, it is not in the Bill. We can only talk about what is in the Bill.

I quite agree, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that as a result of the interjection by the Minister I was taken away from the terms of the Bill. But it is right that the House should know how unpopular are the Forestry Commission, and the right hon. Gentleman will not deny that that is so.

I close by expressing the hope that owing, perhaps, to more understanding in administering the terms of the Bill as it leaves this House, it will be of some assistance to private forestry and will also enable the carrying out of the stockpiling which I, too, admit is necessary.

1.58 p.m.

I should like to say how much I appreciate the most generous personal observations of the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) and of several other hon. Members who spoke subsequently. Having sat on the opposite side of the House for very many years before I trespassed upon this side, I thought it was the duty of the Minister to pilot the Bill through as quickly as possible Sweet reasonableness plays no small part in that achievement.

I think that this is a good Bill. It has, perhaps, made us all realise the enormous importance of forestry. There is scarcely any industry or service in this country—or, indeed, in any other country—that can manage without timber, and I do not think any hon. Member would doubt that our reserves have fallen to a dangerously low level, due largely, perhaps, to no fault of any particular person or body of persons. But that is the case. Therefore, to aim at adequate reserves cannot be wrong. I understand the point made by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) and by the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash (Colonel Ropner) about stockpiling, but it is a very necessary thing that this or any Government should undertake, and I am very glad that it has been my privilege to repair what has been a serious neglect for very many years.

The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Mott-Radclyffe) complained that applicants had to wait too long for felling licences. It would be easy to solve a problem of that description if we were to employ very many more officers. When one thinks of the number of applications —last year they numbered in the region of 16,000—it is clear that we cannot do as one lady expected should be done. She applied for a licence to fell, and because she did not get it in three days she sent a telegram. If we are receiving 16,000 applications for licences in the course of a year, it is perfectly obvious that sometimes visits, inspections, and that kind of thing, have to be undertaken. I am certain that as far as the Commis- sion can give a ready reply, it is desired that that should happen.

To the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) I would say that the Forestry Commission know something about good afforestation. It is indeed their duty to set a first-class example and whoever pays a visit to any one of our forests, north, south, east or west will agree that some of the best undertakings in this country are the magnificent forests we have. I entirely agree with the noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) who referred to the observations of some people about firs and about beauty, or the absence of beauty. I think they are good to look at and are a very pleasing sight. I am never tired of expressing appreciation of those who over the last 30 years have done so much to build up our national forests.

The hon. Member for Westmorland said that we had not consulted private woodland owners, but had just told them. It is really not correct to make a statement of that description. My information is that private woodland owners have been consulted at every stage and have been given all the facts and figures. I have on record expressions of thanks for writing to private woodland owners.

Would the right hon. Gentleman say to what exactly he is referring, whether to the Bill or to the administration of the quota?

I am referring to the administration of the quota and consultations with private woodland owners. In any case, the hon. Member is out-of-date, because Clause 15 establishes a Home Grown Timber Advisory Committee and regional advisory committees also, so that consultations with the interests will now become statutory as a result of this Measure.

The hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash referred to the unpopularity of the Commission. I do not think that the Commission are nearly as unpopular as the hon. and gallant Member would make out, except with those people who do not get all they want from the Commission. If the timber trade as a whole, or the private woodland owners, sought an increase in the price for their timber and the Forestry Commission were unable to persuade either the Board of Trade or the Treasury that that increased price was necessary and called for, it would be the Forestry Commission who would be blamed, quite wrongly, by people who really ought to know better.

I am very pleased to have been privileged to pilot this Bill, with plenty of assistance, through the House; but I deprecate the observations of the hon. and gallant Member in referring to any particular individual associated with the Forestry Commission. That person may have been good, bad, or indifferent, but it is a principle to which we all readily subscribe that we do not unnecessarily attack in this House civil servants when they have no opportunity to reply. May I say that I am fully appreciative of all—

Will the right hon. Gentleman please give way? I have not attacked a civil servant who has no right to reply, and the right hon. Gentleman knows that I have not.

Well, we will leave it there. The person concerned is a civil servant and has no right to reply here. Because of that fact, I do not think it is quite the right thing for the hon. and gallant Member to do. I hope that this Bill works out to be as useful as some of us think it will be.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

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

This Clause is substantially intended to meet a point raised by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) on Second Reading which I think he has sought to implement by putting down another new Clause—Presentation of Accounts—on the Order Paper. The hon. Member thought that it was unnecessary to have a statutory provision that the annual accounts should be laid before 30th June, when, in fact, it has proved impossible to do so.

I do not think that has caused any great difficulty in practice, but we are prepared to agree that it might be more convenient to alter that obligation and make it

It is very gratifying to find that this small change has been made possible and I am glad to see how much better is the drafting of the Government than my own.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, considered; read the Third time, and passed.

I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, to leave out "Act, 1936 (Amendment)."

This Amendment is designed to carry out a very small change which the right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvin-grove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot) suggested in the Second Reading debate. He wanted to simplify the title from the present to a simpler form. We, I think, have adopted an even simpler form by which the title will be "Tithe Act, 1951."

I agree that this is a simplification that goes further than my own suggestion. As the line runs,

"we curtail the already curtail'd cur"

I am glad to see that it has been found possible to shorten and simplify the title of an Act of Parliament.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4, 5, 6 and 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(REPORTS OF PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMISSION.)

I beg to move, in page 7, line 1, to leave out subsection (2), and to insert:

(2) In every financial year a report of the proceedings of the Commission shall be sent by the Commission to the Treasury and appended by them to the accounts for that year copies whereof are required to be laid before Parliament under section twenty-seven of the principal Act:

Provided that where in any financial year the proceedings of the Commission include no items other than those relating wholly and exclusively to routine matters or to matters which are dealt with in the said accounts, a statement of that fact shall be sent by the Commission to the Treasury in lieu of a report and appended by them to the said accounts.

I move this Amendment in pursuance of a suggestion which I made on Second Reading. It seemed to me that the suggestion that there should be practically no comment by the Tithe Commission on the accounts that they were presenting was perhaps an undesirable compressing of the proceedings. It is very difficult to master these accounts, and I think it would be to the advantage of Parliament and, indeed, of those outside if it were possible to have something in the nature of an explanatory note sent along with the accounts; and that if for any reason the accounts are only routine there were a note to say, "These accounts are merely routine and do not raise any new principle."

This, also is a very minor proposal, but we feel that it is unnecessary. Under the Bill, the Commission will have to report back if there is anything other than routine involved. Therefore, if it does not report anything other than routine it will follow automatically that there was nothing else to report. All that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman proposes is that there should be a statutory obligation on the Commission to say, in addition, that there is nothing further to report. That seems to us, on the whole, unnecessary.

I do not intend to get into a state about this matter, but I think it would be better if there were, on each occasion one picks up a report and looks at it, a note saying, "Nothing to report." That is much easier to understand, when one is dealing with many such documents, than for the position to be left as being that if there had been anything to report it would have been specially reported.

However, I do not wish unduly to press the Amendment on the Government, although I still think that it would be of advantage to those who have to work on these complicated documents if the statutory form in which the accounts are presented were in accordance with the terms of this Amendment. If the Government cannot see their way to accept my proposal, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(MINOR AMENDMENTS, AND REPEALS.)

I beg to move, in page 9, line 14, at the end, to insert:

2.15 p.m.

As a loyal supporter of the Church, I am glad that anything that I have to say today does not affect the Church in any way. To show how bad conditions were I might perhaps refer to a tithe payer who had been taken to court to pay his tithe. This payment was particularly onerous in the Eastern counties. The judge said to him, "Have you any suggestion to make?" The tithe payer said "Yes, I suggest that the tithe owners take my farm and pay me the tithe."

The result of the feeling engendered in those days was that the Tithe Act, 1936, was introduced and piloted through its various stages by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Kelvin-grove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot). The agreement made between the two parties was that a reduction of the par value of the tithe at that time should be agreed to, and that at the end of 60 years the tithe would be extinguished. The agreement reached was that £100 par value of tithe would be reduced to £91 11s. 2d.

I wish the Committee to note how carefully the figures were arrived at in that they included 11s. 2d. The purpose for which I am moving this Amendment is to show that the Tithe Commission, by interpreting Section 47 (4) of the Act, altered completely the agreed figure at which tithe was to be broken down. The figure of £91 11s. 2d. eventually became somewhere about £91 15s. or £91 16s.

I do not wish the Committee to think that I am bringing forward something which is small or frivolous, although it has to do with halfpennies. When I spoke on Second Reading I mentioned a figure of hundreds of thousands of pounds which the Tithe Commission extract from the tithe payer to which they are not entitled. My right hon. and gallant Friend rather felt that I had exaggerated the figure. I have not had time to look at the exact amount, but I suggest that I was making a considerable under-statement.

On one estate of 4,000 acres with which I was connected at one time the result of the interpretation of this Section was that £12 10s. per annum was taken from that estate every year. The accumulation of that over 60 years at cumulative interest meant that that estate would have to pay £1,250 more than it was ever intended it should do by the breaking down of the £100 to £91 11s. 2d.

I do not know what the actual area of land paying tithe is: I think it will be a modest estimate to say 20 million acres. If 5s. per acre more is paid than ought to be paid, as in the case of the estate I have mentioned, the Tithe Commission will, in 60 years, have extracted from the tithe payers about £4 million to £5 million more than the agreed figure. The sum at stake is substantial.

I wish first to draw attention to Section 2 of the Act, which lays down exactly the amount on which agreement was reached—£91 11s. 2d. My submission is that the breaking down of the £100 to that figure was never intended to be used in respect of each tithe payment. As the Committee well know, tithe was paid in the old days on field enclosures, which were very often extremely small, resulting, in many instances, in four or five tithe payments in respect of one field. I submit that the figure of £91 11s. 2d. should have been applied to the total tithe rent charge on an estate or on a farm and should not have been applied to each tithe field.

The importance of applying this to each tithe field is that in Section 47 (4) it is laid down that:

I complain that probably a bright youth in the Tithe Office discovered that if that was applied to half-yearly payments every time a charge had odd pence, it mean that that tithe, having odd pence on it, was raised by ½d. I gave an illustration last Friday, and I will give it again now. On my farm I have one tithe field on which the par value was 3d. In breaking that 3d. down to the redemption value, it became 2.650 pence, or something like that; the calculation was worked out to three places of decimals. Therefore, the charge remained at 3d. I got no reduction on that field.

What I complain about is that the Tithe Commission then printed what they called their redemption sheets, which were not part of the Act. They produced these sheets with various columns. Column 1 gave the number of the tithe; column 2, the par value, and column 3 the redemption annuity. Column 4—and this is what I object to—gave the half-yearly payments.

Having lost the turn of the coin on the 3d. when it was broken down to present value, it was then charged as a half-yearly charge as l½d., and I was charged 2d. Therefore, instead of getting the benefit of the £91 11s. 2d. redemption, I was charged 33⅓ per cent. more. I do not think that those who framed the Act intended that.

I give another instance. This was given to me by the Tithe Commission in correspondence I had with them. On another field the charge was Is. 4d., and the annuity charged, by breaking down the £91 11s. 2d., came to Is. 2.65d. Obviously that was more than a ½d. and the charge was Is. 3d. But, by dividing 1s. 3d. into half-yearly payments, the Commission still made a charge of Is. 4d. There was no breaking down of that value at all.

When that section was put into the Act of 1936, it was obvious that it was never contemplated that it would be used in such a way. Otherwise it would not have said:

The Tithe Commission, for two years after the Act was passed, collected their annual tithe correctly. If there was an odd penny, they collected 1d. less in one half year and an extra 1d. in the next half year. They did that for two years until a bright youth in the Tithe Commission office saw an opportunity to extract from the tithe payers vast sums of money to which the Commission were not entitled. Obviously it must be wrong. Two halves cannot make more than one whole.

The Tithe Commission are collecting rent charges not in two halves, but in more than one half, which amount to more than the whole value of the tithe. That is entirely wrong. There have been two county court cases on this question, one of which I had to carry myself. It cost me a bit of money. I told the Commission that I should never pay the tithe until they put me in court, and so they put me in court for 5s. 7d. It was a rather expensive business, and I had hoped that the National Farmers' Union or the Country Landowners' Association would take the matter to the House of Lords to find out whether I was right or wrong, but they did not.

I am fortified in my opinion by what has been written by Dr. Millard, who was a great tithe expert and whose book was a standard book on the subject. Incidentally, at one time he was Secretary of the Tithe Commission. He said:

2.30 p.m.

The hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) is obviously most expert on this question, and he puts a persuasive case, but when one looks at the other side of the argument and the facts as we see them, I do not think that he made it conclusively. In the first place, the 1936 Act decided that fractions of a penny should be treated in this way. It also laid down that the compensation which the Government paid should also be on the same basis. Therefore, if only for that reason, there would be some difficulty in going back on the bargain in a one-sided way after the compensation has been paid.

Secondly, there is the difficulty that if we were to adopt the hon. Gentleman's suggestion the tithe payers would benefit in the matter of their annuities only to the extent of £6,000 a year out of a total sum which, I think, amounts to £2,500,000. That in itself shows what a very small fraction of the total we are discussing.

As the law at present stands, tithe payers are losing to the extent of £6,000 as a result of the treatment of fractions of a penny. If, however, we were to make the change suggested, the Tithe Commission would be worse off to the extent of £12,000. Therefore, I think at least it can be said that under the present system we are nearer to the mark than we should be under the alternative.

In addition to that, the hon. Gentleman said that we were dealing with vast sums; I think he said hundreds of thousands of pounds. According to my information, that is not the case. If this £6,000 were averaged out over the 300,000 or so persons who are involved, the amount at stake is only 5d. per person per year. I think that that shows that this is really a very small matter, that it represents no more than one of the slight anomalies which we cannot avoid when dealing with fractions of a penny.

The hon. Gentleman also spoke of one landowner who, he alleged, lost £12 10s. as a result of this arrangement. My information is that, if such a person does exist, he must have benefited to the extent of at least £1,000 a year as a result of the original bargain under the 1936 Act. According to my information, it is most unlikely that such a person could exist, because he would have to own something like 6,000 tithe fields, and it is doubtful if such a person can be found; at any rate, he could be found only in very exceptional circumstances.

There is, however, one other compelling reason against making this change in practice now, and that is that it would involve the Commission in recalculating as many as one and a half million separate assessments, and that, of course, would involve a considerable use of staff and administrative effort. It does not seem to us, that for the sake of the exceedingly small amount involved, that could possibly be justified. Therefore, in our view, we ought to let the matter stand as it is under the 1936 Act.

I do not think that the explanation of the Financial Secretary, on the three grounds which we have heard from him, is a very good one. If I may recapitulate what he said, his three main reasons were: first that to accept this Amendment would mean a reopening of the bargain reached in 1936; second, that it would cost the Tithe Redemption Commission some £12,000 a year to accept it, and that on the other side of the coin—the halfpenny perhaps—the tithe payer would pay only £6,000; and, third, that this would cause a great deal of administrative difficulty and increased use of staff, because all these assessments would have to be reopened.

I would like to deal, quickly, with each of those arguments. First of all, the Amendment does not seek to reopen the bargain reached in 1936. It merely says that, from now, or from the time when this Bill is passed, this question of fractions of a penny either on the one side or the other shall be disregarded.

That means, not that the previous transactions shall be reopened, because those are already things which have been done and accomplished, but that the Tithe Redemption Commission shall do justice; that, whereas there is this rather odd provision in Section 47 of the 1936 Act, in practice, the Tithe Redemption Commissioners have so weighted the scales and adjusted the calculations that they are always gainers and the tithe payers always losers.

The gentleman who runs a "Diddl'em" machine on a pier at Brighton always manages to get a rake-off for himself. I am not suggesting that the Tithe Redemption Commissioners are in that position, but they, at least, have statutory authority for saying that they are always going to win, whatever happens to the tithe payer.

The second objection of the hon. Gentleman was that tithe payers throughout the country will be paying only £6,000 but this is an annual sum of £6,000 to be paid for 60 years, since this arrangement is to be wound up at the end of 60 years from 1936. Every year, therefore, under this provision which we seek to amend, £6,000 is being extracted, I would say unjustifiably, from the tithe payer.

I suggest that if, in fact, we are to save by this Bill £2 million—which is the estimated amount of the economy which the Financial Secretary told us on Second Reading would be the result of this Bill—the Tithe Redemption Commissioners might be prepared to lose a few thousands, and that, if they are gaining so much on the swings, they might be prepared to lose a little on the roundabouts.

The hon. Gentleman's third argument was that it will mean a lot of administrative difficulties and increased use of staff if all these assessments have to be reopened. Is that really a valid argument for maintaining an injustice? I think there is an injustice, but it is not like some of the things which occasionally come before the House, and I think it is an injustice which we ought to try to remedy if we are satisfied that there is a fair case. The Financial Secretary has said that this is really a very small matter and only a question of odd halfpennies, but there are very big commerical undertakings which have a similar problem and which are quite prepared to meet a certain amount of loss.

Let me remind the Committee that in banks all questions of halfpennies on cheques are automatically disregarded, sometimes to the advantage of the bank and sometimes to their disadvantage, but they take the rough with the smooth. I would suggest that what is good enough for the banks, remembering the great institution which they are in this country, should also be good enough for the Tithe Redemption Commission.

I suggest that this Amendment is one which would remove what is obviously a nuisance, to put it no higher than that, to the bulk of tithe payers. I hope the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the matter, and that he will be prepared to accept, if not the actual terms of the Amendment, something equivalent which will have the effect of putting this matter at rest.

I, too, hope that the Financial Secretary will look again at this point between now and the further stages of the Bill. The Amendment is an attempt to make a more equitable settlement between the Tithe Redemption Commission and the tithe payer. The reason for disregarding these small sums was, of course, that this is a system of accounts and payments of extraordinary complexity, in which it is very desirable to find some means of disregarding these tiny fractions, which frequently cause an amount of clerical labour altogether out of proportion to the amount which anybody might gain as a result.

My hon. Friends have pointed out that these payments were made on the basis they desire for two years before the change in practice was introduced. If it could be done then, it might be possible that it should be done again. As for the sums involved, it is quite true that £6,000 a year for a long period does amount to a very considerable sum.

I should have thought that it would have been worth while for the Financial Secretary to the Treasury to have another look at it between now and the Report stage, because what could be done for two years could certainly be done for other years. The main purpose of this system of accounting was not that one side or the other should gain, but that we should be able to pass a sponge over these very small fractions of currency which involve a disproportionate amount of clerical labour.

It is one of the greatest difficulties with which we have to deal in public accounts that everything, down to the minutest fraction, must be pursued and accounted for, and we were given here a reasonable latitude. If it does not work out to the disadvantage of one side or the other, it may be possible to look into it again to see whether the practice of the banks in disregarding the odd sums on the one side or the other should be adopted.

I would not like to hold out any hope of reconsidering the matter further, because I think that it would be misleading hon. Gentlemen opposite. We have already reconsidered it further since the Second Reading debate, and I am sorry that we cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman. I assure him that we have looked into the matter carefully, but that we feel that his case has not been made out.

I am extremely sorry that the Financial Secretary will not look at this question again. We are not asking for anything unfair, but simply that an agreement arrived at in 1936 between the Tithe Commission and the tithe payer whereby £100 of tithe was broken down to £91 11s. 2d. should be adhered to, and that the Tithe Commission should not collect from the tithe payer £91 15s. or £91 16s.

The Financial Secretary said it would mean all sorts of calculations, and so on but, as my hon. Friend said, that is not the purpose of our Amendment. We are not asking the Commission to go back on what has happened. That is past and done with. All we are asking is that from the next collection they should do exactly what they did when the Tithe Act was passed, which was to collect the tithe half-yearly, and, if there were any odd pence, to collect them only in one half year and not in the other. All they have to do when sending out their tithe demands is to see that the odd penny is included in one half-yearly payment and not in the other.

The Financial Secretary says that it is only a matter of £6,000 a year. I have not the tables available, but I would like him to tell the Committee what £6,000 a year for 60 years at 4 per cent, works out at. His argument that if that sum were spread over the payments made by all tithe payers it would only represent 5d. in each case, does not carry much weight with me. The use of that argument is misleading. I worked it out very carefully, and I was not challenged on that statement in court by the learned barrister who opposed me.

I still say that the figure I have given of £12 10s. a year is correct. I have not revised it for this debate. Even on the hon. Gentleman's own admission, the Tithe Commission are reaping the benefit of an immense sum of money from the tithe payers to which they are not strictly entitled. It is a complete injustice, and I think the Minister should at least have another look at the matter to see whether anything can be done about it.

Amendment negatived.

I beg to move, in page 9, line 19, at the end, to insert:

"(8) Paragraph ( d ) of section twenty-nine of the principal Act (which excludes annuities charged in respect of the lands out of which extraordinary tithe rentcharges issued from the remission granted by section fourteen of that Act in the case of certain annuities charged in respect of agricultural land) shall cease to have effect, but without prejudice to any other of the provisions of the said section twenty-nine."

This Amendment is merely a formality. It is necessary to insert these words in the Bill because, for reasons of Privilege, they could not be inserted in another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11.—(POWER TO TRANSFER FUNCTIONS OF THE COMMISSION TO ANOTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT.)

I beg to move, in page 10, line 17, to leave out subsection (3), and to insert:

This is not a very sweeping change, and I should have thought that the Financial Secretary might reasonably allow this relevantly small alteration to be made.

I am not sure that there is not some misunderstanding here. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman in his speech on Second Reading asked us to ensure that the negative Resolution procedure was enforced on this point. That, in fact, is the case as the Bill now stands. Under Clause 11 (3), the negative Resolution procedure will operate. This Amendment, if I understand the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aright, seeks to substitute the affirmative Resolution procedure instead.

I can only say that we still feel that our original proposal for a negative Resolution is correct. It seems to me that we are carrying out the proposal which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman himself recommended in his earlier speech.

2.45 p.m.

It was certainly not my intention to convey that impression, and, looking at my remarks since the Financial Secretary spoke, I do not see that I said that. I do not think I could have desired the Financial Secre- tary to do something which he was already doing. That would have been a very unusual thing for any hon. Member on this side to do.

In any case, whether that was so or not, I am now proposing that it should be by affirmative Resolution, and I suggest that the proper procedure is for any alteration in an Act of Parliament to be made by Parliament. Under the negative Resolution procedure the alteration is made and then if Parliament dislikes what is being done it can pray against it.

In the case of an affirmative Resolution, Parliament alters what it has done. That, I submit, is surely the right way to proceed, and I think that the Financial Secretary might say a word or two on the merits of the question instead of on the interpretation of the Scriptures, on which I do not desire to take my stand. I am not at the moment standing on anything which I did or did not say on Second Reading, but on the Amendment down in my name on the Order Paper, which I still maintain would be a useful Amendment for the Committee to adopt.

I also would like the Financial Secretary to give a further answer on this point, because my right hon. and gallant Friend has referred to something fundamental concerning the; rights and privileges of this House. If, in fact, the Bill is to provide for orders and regulations to be made which can amend or in other ways adapt the principal Act, it is only right and proper that Parliament should have the chance of deciding on such alterations.

I would urge the hon. Gentleman to look at this point again. If the Clause is left in its present form, we shall have another series of orders and we shall have Acts of Parliament changed merely by ministerial order. That is an idea which has crept into the legislative machinery of this country for far too long now, and it is time that Parliament began to take a stronger stand on the point.

It is, of course, always convenient for Ministers to be able to amend Acts of Parliament by order if they so wish. It is a far simpler procedure, but, in all the circumstances, does not the hon. Gentleman think that Parliament should have the right to look at these things and to decide whether Acts of Parliament which it has itself passed should be amended in that way?

I will only say that if it is such a very fundamental point, it is odd that the right hon. and gallant Gentleman should have changed his view since his speech on Second Reading.

What he actually said on Second Reading was:

It is not, of course, correct to say that under the negative Resolution procedure the change is merely made by ministerial order without giving an opportunity for the House of Commons to express its view, or, if it wishes, to annul the decision. We have Prayers on frequent occasions in the House in which the House, usually unsuccessfully, but sometimes successfully, seeks to annul a decision by the Government.

I was arguing at that point about how it was intended to do this and to whom the Financial Secretary wished to transfer the powers. He made no reply whatever at that time, nor has he made a reply this afternoon. He is asking for a blank cheque to give these powers to a Department he has not particularised.

It is quite true that I did say inadvertently that this was the sort of thing which might reasonably be brought before the House by the usual procedure and was a matter against which the House could pray. But that was a case of inadvertence and if the hon. Gentleman will read my argument in full he will see that I was stressing very strongly that Acts of Parliament should not be altered without our knowing what was being done and without the matter being specifically brought before the House.

It cannot be said that I have changed my opinion by suggesting now that some stronger procedure should be adopted than the one we were discussing at that time. No justification of any kind whatsoever has been brought forward for this proposal. It was laid down by both Houses of Parliament that these matters should be administered eventually by the Revenue. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury is willing apparently to abdicate and he asks us in advance to give the authority and transfer the powers to a Department not named at a date not stated and for a reason not given. If he wants that done he might be asked, without undue hardship, to ask Parliament to do that instead of its being done in the back offices of the Treasury or of some other Department.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12.—(SHORT TITLE, CITATION, CONSTRUCTION, REPEAL AND COMMENCEMENT.)

I beg to move, in page 11, line 5, to leave out "Act, 1936 (Amendment)."

This Amendment is consequential upon an earlier Amendment affecting the title of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

First and Second Schedules agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments (changed to Tithe Bill); as amended considered; read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 30 to 37.

I should like to speak on all four Amendments to Clause 3. They are: In page 2, line 42, at beginning, insert "No person shall be convicted." In line 43, leave out from "section," to end of line, and insert:

Clause 3 of this Bill sets out two distinct offences in relation to unclean filling materials. Subsection (1) makes it an offence for a person to have on premises which are registered for the purposes of the Bill filling materials which are not clean. Subsection (2) makes it an offence for a person to sell filling materials which are not clean. Subsection (3) sets up in relation to both preceding subsections, which in turn delineate the offences, a statutory defence which is in three parts.

The first is that if a person can show to the courts by way of defence that he has purchased the filling materials which are said not to be clean as having been clean and he has had a written warranty from the vendor to that effect. The second is if he can also show he had no reason to believe at the time the filling materials were not clean, and the third that he must also show that the filling materials at the time of the prosecution were in the same state as they were when he first bought them.

The court is entitled to say that that is a defence which the statute permits him to make. I do not think the matter can be left there and the purpose of the Amendments is in some way to tidy up the drafting and also—a fundamental point—to change the onus of proof.

I call the attention of the Committee to Clause 3 (1). Having set out in its early part the definition of the offence, namely, having on premises registered for the purposes of the Act filling materials which are not clean, the subsection goes on to say:

The point I wish to make is that, as the Clause stands, it automatically makes it an offence for a person to have unclean filling materials on the premises unless he can prove his innocence by virtue of paragraphs ( a ) or ( b ) of subsection (1). But when we come to subsection (3) we have the alternative statutory defence I have already described to the Committee. It is an alternative in this respect that on the face of the statute the court will be able to say, if a man is charged under subsection (1), that unless he proves the matters dealt with in paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) of subsection (1) he is automatically guilty of an offence. Therefore, from his point of view there is little value, if any, in the statutory defence permitted by paragraphs ( a ), ( b ) and ( c ), when taken together, of subsection (3).

3.0 p.m.

I think it is agreed that it is only in very rare cases that Parliament should allow legislation to be passed which changes the fundamental burden of proof in a criminal matter from the prosecution to the defence. It has always been one of the glories of the British legal system that in criminal matters a man is assumed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. Recently, over the course of years, with the best of intentions, from time to time Parliament has made a change in that system. It has said that a man shall be guilty unless he proves certain factors which would show his innocence.

As I read these subsections, I think there is a fundamental anomaly because, as I have tried to explain—this is a complicated matter, I know, but I am doing my best to explain it—the power of the court to acquit a defendant charged under this Clause cannot be exercised unless he has proved to the court the matters referred to in paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) of subsection (1). Therefore, from this point of view there is absolutely no value whatever in the statutory defence relating to warranty which is set out in subsection (3).

The purpose of these Amendments is to change the alignment of the Clause altogether, to transfer paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) of subsection (1) to subsection (3), making them matters of defence in the same way as the warranty defence which is already in that subsection, and also to change the burden of proof.

The Committee will see that the second and third Amendments change the wording of subsection (3) so that, as amended, the subsection would read as follows: a ), ( b ) and ( c ) which are already in that subsection. Then we have at the end—and this is the fourth Amendment—the other two defences which are already set out in subsection (1). This is a very complicated matter to explain in a speech in Committee, but I feel this is an important point and not a trivial one. We ought to try to tidy up this point before we proceed with the Bill, and with the object of making further progress I will say no more.

If this is a difficult matter for a competent lawyer like the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay), what is it going to be for me? However, with great respect, I suggest that somehow he has got things a little out of focus.

In this Clause as it stands we make it an offence under subsection (1) to have dirty materials on registered premises. Then in paragraphs ( a ) and ( b ) of that subsection we make exceptions—that is, where it can be proved that the dirty materials were brought on to the premises in an article for re-conditioning. Quite distinct from that, in subsection (3) there is the warranty defence against proceedings.

As to the linked Amendments, they seek to put the reconditioning provisions into subsection (3). Yet reconditioning is outside the framework of the Bill, so that the Amendments upset the framework of the Clause, and I am advised that they bring about the wrong results. Use of unclean materials in reconditioning is not an offence under Section 3 of the Bill. It is expressly excepted in subsection (1). Subsection (3) deals with the warranty defence. It says that if a person has dirty materials and if he has done his level best by ordering clean materials from persons who were licensed suppliers, that is a defence which he can use, and he can then bring in the persons who provided the material. I am advised that the Amendment upsets the framework of the Bill, and, therefore, I am asking the Committee to resist it.

I am rather surprised to hear that, because the last thing I want to do is to upset the framework of this admirable Bill. I want to see it in operation as much as any hon. Member of this Committee. Possibly the point I tried to make has not been appreciated, and I am not surprised, because it is a complicated matter. It is rather absurd of this Committee to legislate by saying, first of all, that on all premises registered under the Act it shall be an offence for a person to use unclean filling material unless he proves certain things, and then in the next subsection but one to give him a statutory defence which is not of the least use to him, because the court can convict him automatically under subsection (1) unless he proves certain things.

In other words, though he wishes to avail himself of the statutory defence, which is set out under subsection (3) and goes to court with that end in view, even though the court may be satisfied that he has made out his statutory defence under subsection (3) they will say to him, "But unfortunately this Act of Parliament says we must convict you unless you prove Section 3 (1, a and b ). That is the difficulty we are in.

Subsection (3) provides protection quite distinct from that given in subsection (1). If the person's defence is that of warranty and he says that this material was ordered from someone else, then it would be followed through, and there would be proceedings under subsection (2) against the supplier of the material causing the offence. The first part of the Clause deals entirely with protection against prosecution where reconditioning of articles is concerned, for that, like second-hand upholstered goods, is outside the scope of the Bill. That is where the difference is.

I do not think the hon. Gentleman realises that the words of subsection (3) refer to any proceedings under subsection (1) or subsection (2). I quite agree that the statutory defence relates to subsection (2). There is this warranty defence, but it is also linked with subsection (1). If the hon. Gentleman were prepared to say that he would delete the words in line 41 on page 2, I think he would meet the position to a certain extent, although I am not happy about this question of the burden of proof. I do not know what the Government's intentions are with regard to progress today, but I would hope that this matter will be looked at again at a later stage. In the circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered Lo stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(LICENSING OF PREMISES FOR MANUFACTURING RAG FLOCK.)

I beg to move, in page 4, line 10, to leave out paragraph ( b ).

Subsection (3) of this Clause sets out the power of the local authority to refuse to grant or to renew a licence to a person manufacturing rag flock on certain premises. There are two qualifications. The local authority is so empowered where the premises have not been furnished with proper machinery. Secondly, there is a qualification in paragraph ( b ) which I find somewhat difficult to understand. When were were discussing the matter on Second Reading last week, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to this point and said:

The intention of the Clause is to give the local authority the opportunity to refuse to grant a licence for a building only part of which is in use for the manufacture of rag flock for upholstery. The other part of the building may also be engaged in using or even in manufacturing rag flock, but for other purposes, and a licence is required only for the part making the rag flock for use in bedding or upholstery. Rag flock is used in the manufacture of roofing felt and other products, and it is quite possible to have a building in one part of which rag flock is used for upholstery and in the other part of which it is used for other purposes. It would be quite possible in that case for dirty flock to be slipped through from one part of the building to the other.

The purpose of the paragraph is to give the local authority an opportunity to refuse to grant a licence in such circumstances where they have good reason to believe dirty materials could be slipped through in the way I have described.

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for the explanation. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.15 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 4. line 14, at the end, to insert: The purpose of the Amendment is to add one more ground on which a local authority might refuse to grant or renew a licence for the manufacture of rag flock in certain premises, that is, when the person who seeks the licence has been convicted more than once for an offence under the Bill. It would be appropriate to place in the hands of the local authority discretionary power if such an individual made an application to them. They should have authority and discretion to refuse. I think that the Amendment will strengthen the Bill.

It is all very well to say that one of the grounds upon which a licence can be refused is that the machinery is inadequate or that the premises are unsuitable. We ought to have regard to the personality and the nature of the applicant. It may be said that this is additional to the penalty imposed by the court by which the man is convicted, but I am not afraid of that. The local authority should have discretion to take cognizance of the fact that a person applying for a licence is someone who, within the confines of this legislation, is of bad character.

It is a good thing to provide grounds, for local authorities will wish to consider all the factors when granting licences. However, a single offence may be a glaring example of a breach of the law, whereas two offences may be so minor as not to matter very much. Although the suggestion is that the commission of two offences must be taken into consideration, the Amendment leaves it that a single offence, which may be far worse than two minor offences, need not be taken into consideration. If the Minister is thinking of accepting the Amendment, I hope he will bear this in mind with a view to further Amendment on the Report stage.

To reply to the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Messer) I should point out that the reason for suggesting that local authorities should take into consideration the commission of more than one offence is the very one which he has given. The first offence upon which a person is convicted may be a very minor one. In some ways these provisions may be very difficult for some manufacturers to carry out, and I believe that we should give them the benefit of "a dog's first bite." A conviction upon a very minor infringement ought not always to be held against a man, but if he is convicted more than once, whether the offences are minor or major ones, that is a matter which the local authority is justified in taking into consideration.

This is perhaps a very attractive Amendment and it says what appears to be reasonable—that if a person has done wrong on one or two occasions the local authority should be able to refuse him a licence. That is an attitude that I should have expected to be displayed by a layman like myself rather than by the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) who is a lawyer. Earlier he made an impassioned speech in which he said that one of the great prides of British justice was that the prosecution had to prove its case. In the Amendment he proposes to convict before the man has committed an offence. In effect the Amendment says, "We shall penalise you because you might do something wrong if you had an opportunity to do so." That is a great change in the hon. Gentleman's attitude.

The offence is created by the Bill, and it is for the courts to determine whether an offence has been committed and, if so, what penalty shall be imposed. There is also provision for increasing the penalties in the case of repetition of offences. While there are dangers in rag flock manufacture, there are not the dangers which may be found in connection with food and drugs and that sort of thing, and we feel that it would be unwise to provide an additional penalty which might be imposed according to varying standards by local authorities throughout the country. We feel that it would not be correct to accept the Amendment, and on those grounds I ask the Committee to reject it.

As the hon. Gentleman has said there are apparently difficulties in the implementation of the suggestion, in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 8.—(POWER TO EXTEND PROVISIONS AS TO RAG FLOCK TO OTHER MATERIALS.)

I beg to move, in page 6, line 26, at the end, to insert: a ) to ( l ). The operative one is ( l ) because, after cataloguing materials as different from each other as seagrass, hair, feathers or down, unwoven synthetic fibres, and so on, it says "such other materials as may be prescribed," which is to say—anything.

It does not seem to be quite the thing that we should pass a Bill going with great particularity into regulations for dealing with an admittedly awkward product, and simply say under ( l ) "Of course it may apply to anything else." The Report did not go that length. It went rather carefully into the matter, and on page 33 there is a list of articles which are commonly used as fillings.

The Parliamentary Secretary said he had gone to great trouble grinding up on these materials so that he would be able to stand a cross-examination on Mexican fibre, vegetable fibre, jute, and a number of different plants; hair— horsehair, hoghair, goat-hair; feathers— principally duck and hen; down—the fine soft under-plumage of fowls—an attractive phrase. He was a little hurt that we had not pursued the matter further to give him an opportunity of displaying the knowledge he had so painfully acquired.

But really it was not necessary for him to acquire any of this knowledge. All he or anybody else has to do is to say at the end, "Of course the fine soft under-plumage of fowls comes under this, and so does anything else." We say there may be places where any kind of filling material may be used as an ancillary process to the main operations conducted on the premises. Indeed the seat upon which the Parliamentary Secretary is sitting is filled with Sorbo rubber. A rubber works could be brought with one sweep of the pen of the Parliamentary Secretary under these rather complicated regulations simply because paragraph (1) of Clause 33 says "such other materials as may be prescribed."

While we think this is all very well as a humorous proposal, it is not quite the thing for an Act of Parliament. Therefore, we suggest that these proposals might not extend, as we say in this Amendment, to—

The right hon. and gallant Member for Kelvingrove (Lieut.-Colonel Elliot), who has moved the Amendment, suggests that perhaps we have been going a little too far. But his Amendment goes much further, because even if it did not wreck the Bill, it would give it a very nasty shake. As I mentioned on Second Reading, the Bill seeks to deal only with a very small minority who have brought disrepute upon the trade because of bad practices. There is always a very small section who are prepared to resort to evasion, and that small section could evade the whole purpose of the Bill by saying that their activities were "an ancillary process" to some other undertaking not associated with rag flock manufacture.

Not if they were working with rag flock.

No. But one of the purposes of the Bill is to deal particularly with rag flock, and this is done in Clauses 4 to 7, and in a very special way, because of the possibility of contamination, disease and vermin and the need for special pro- cesses of cleansing. Over and above that, there are other filling materials which can quite easily be dirty and verminous but which might not have such a deleterious effect upon public health. These are dealt with under the Clause, and power is taken to make Regulations.

Vermin would not get a very good living on most of the things catalogued.

Hair.

They would have a most difficult task to live on thin wood shavings, for example.

In a furniture factory there are such things as wood lice—and they can bite; but they could not live on upholstery.

I do not know whether I am allowed to anticipate subsequent later Amendments, but there is an Amendment down in the name of the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay) regarding the regulations to be made under the Clause, and we are accepting the suggestion in his Amendment that the Regulations we make shall be subject to annulment by the House. There is, therefore, protection against the Department doing silly things and introducing or prescribing standards which are unreal, inasmuch as there will be discussions with the trade, and if the trade object, the House will have the opportunity to object to the regulations concerning standards, methods of testing, etc.

We ask the Committee to resist the Amendment, because it would give to the type of people we are trying to catch the opportunity to resist being controlled by calling their operations ancillary.

Had the Parliamentary Secretary said at the beginning that he was conceding our point, we could have passed on to the next business. I have no desire to prolong the discussion. The hon. Gentleman now says that he is conceding our point and will give the opportunity for a Parliamentary review. Naturally, on those occasions we shall be able to review these things. I certainly do not wish to press the Amendment in view of that. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 31, to leave out "laid before Parliament," and to add:

"subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

I am very glad to hear that the Parliamentary Secretary is prepared to accept the Amendment. Therefore, I will not take up time with any long explanation of it. I think it is wise that we should have the power of reviewing the rather technical regulations which are to be made.

The hon. Member raised this point during Second Reading, when I promised that I would consider it. As a result of the consultations which have taken place, I am pleased to accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 9.—(RECORDS TO BE KEPT ON REGISTERED AND LICENSED PREMISES.)

3.30 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 6, line 34, to leave out "consignments of."

For the convenience of the Committee the eight Amendments proposed to this Clause can be considered together.

I am glad to hear you say that, Colonel Ropner, because all these Amendments are designed to clarify the position in regard to consignments under Clause 9.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 35, leave out "delivered," and insert "consigned."

In line 37, leave out "delivered to or consigned," and insert "consigned to or."

In line 39, leave out "consignments of."

In line 40, at beginning, insert "consigned."

In line 42, leave out "consignments of."

In line 43, leave out "in and out of," and insert "consigned to or from."

In page 7, line 2, leave out from "include," to end of line 6, and insert:

"the prescribed information as to the nature and quantity of the materials or articles consigned, the persons from or to whom they were consigned, the places from or to which they were consigned and the dates of receipt at or despatch from the premises."—[ Mr. Lindgren. ]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 10 and 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 12.—(DUTY OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES TO ENFORCE THIS ACT.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary why, under subsection (3) of this Clause, a local authority in Scotland is prevented from instituting proceedings for an offence against this Measure.

Perhaps I had better answer that question. The simple reason is that we believe in public prosecutions in Scotland at the instance of the Public Prosecutor and not in private prosecutions, as is more common in England and we propose that prosecutions be taken by the Public Prosecutor.

That seems an admirable precept which might be followed in England, that proceedings might not be taken under this Measure except at the instance of the Attorney-General. I am grateful for the explanation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 13.—(POWERS OF ENTRY AND INSPECTION.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 38, leave out "eight." and insert "nine."—[ Mr. Lindgren. ]

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 15.—(RIGHT TO HAVE SAMPLES TESTED.)

I beg to move, in page 11, line 17, to leave out "laid before Parliament," and to add:

"subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

This Amendment is consequential on the Amendment already made to Clause 8.

We accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 16 and 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18.—(PENALTIES.)

I beg to move, in page 12, line 5, to leave out "fifty," and to insert "one hundred."

If I may, I will discuss at the same time the next Amendment, which stands in my name, in page 12, line 8, after "hundred," to insert "and fifty." I propose this Amendment because in my view the maximum penalty of £50 for a first offence under this Statute is not sufficient today.

As I said during the Second Reading debate, £50 today is only the price of a suite of upholstery and such a figure will not act as a deterrent, especially to a hardened offender. It is comparatively easy today for an offender to find £50 by merely auctioning an old Victorian easy chair, which, I understand, are now very much in demand by American visitors.

It is a fact that under the old Rag Flock Act it became noticeable that many offenders against it came up time and again, and the fines under that Act were not a deterrent. I am merely asking my hon. Friend to amend this Clause to make it effective by providing for a maximum fine of £100 in the first instance. The standards which we are laying down in the Bill have been voluntarily in operation by the trade for the last four years.

It cannot, therefore, be argued that operators in the trade are not equipped with the right machinery and should be given some time to equip themselves. They have that machinery, and any offence under this Measure will be a deliberate one, which it is our desire to prevent.

When my hon. Friend replies he may say that he cannot accept the Amendment because it would put this Measure out of line with many similar Measures. I suggest that we shall only be facing up to reality by increasing the fine in the way I suggest. These other Measures might be out of date. Why should we pass today a Measure which is already dated?

I wish to support my hon. Friend. As everybody who has any experience of petty sessions knows, the maximum penalty is rarely exacted unless there is a serious breach of the law. A figure of £50 does not allow of a very wide variation for what can be a very serious offence. It ought to be understood that the maximum penalty indicates that it is a serious matter, and this is a more serious matter than is perhaps understood by people who know little about the trade. It will be known by those who are familiar with the trade that for years the trade unions have been pressing for legislation in this direction. There should be a deterrent which will fit the seriousness of the offence.

I do not need to develop the point which my hon. Friend made about the value of money, but if one relates the value of what will, as the Bill stands, be the maximum penalty in this case to the cost of production there is no relevance whatever. It is true to say that £50 might not be a sufficient deterrent. If the imposition of the maximum penalty is to deter anyone from breaking the law I suggest that £50 is not sufficient.

The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Haire) has advanced a very important argument. I hope that it will be noted, not only in the Committee but in the country, that it is now necessary, as the value of money constantly falls under the present Government, to increase monetary penalties. I think we may say that the longer the party opposite retains office the higher will have to be the penalties to deal with breaches of the law.

Seriously, however, this Amendment is to be commended. Obviously, magistrates' courts having to consider penalties will have to bear in mind what we intended to do. The higher the penalties we fix the more obvious is the serious view we take of infringements of this statute. Therefore, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment.

I urge my hon. Friend to take heed of the suggestion that this penalty should be increased. I do not do that for the same reason which we have heard from the hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Hay). I put it to him that, since this Government have been in power, our standards of protection for the public have risen. We are more determined than any other Government before that public health should be cared for. We should take greater notice to ensure that any small percentage of our traders who infringe decency and the standards which we consider right are severely dealt with.

After so many pleas from hon. Gentlemen who have been very helpful during our consideration of this Bill, I am sorry to have to oppose this Amendment. We must keep in some relationship one with another the penalties imposed in Acts of Parliament. The penalties under discussion are not the only ones. There is a penalty for the first offence and there is another for the second and subsequent offences. There is also the penalty of confiscation of materials or of articles and of the publicity which arises from these offences. If that publicity has any effect it means that those offending will lose trade. We feel that, with the heavy penalties of confiscation of material and loss of trade, the Bill as it stands is sufficient.

As one who has sat on local benches, I sometimes feel that we go a little out of line in providing large penalties which are brought somewhat into ridicule when local magistrates impose a fine of £2 2s. or £3 3s. where the maximum penalty is £100. We feel that the penalties in the Bill, taken collectively, are sufficient. While in no way associating myself with the idea that this offence should be treated lightly, I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

I take it that my hon. Friend realises that the penalties of confiscation of goods, loss of trade and publicity resulting from prosecution have been in existence in the past. They have not acted as a very good deterrent.

It has been almost impossible to bring a case in the past. Once material was made into a manufactured article, traders were outside the law. Even under present legislation in regard to rag flock manufacture it has been difficult to bring a prosecution, let alone get a conviction. Under the old Act one had to prove intention to use dirty material and it is difficult to prove intention before a court when lawyers are present. Now we have the possibility of making prosecutions more easily and securing convictions.

In view of what the Parliamentary Secretary has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 19.—(OFFENCES BY CORPORATIONS.)

3.45 p.m.

I beg to move, in page 12, line 10, to leave out from "Act," to the end of line 19, and to insert:

The purpose of the Amendment is to make clear that, if an offence is committed by some director or other servant of a company engaged in activities with which this Bill is concerned, and it is obviously committed with his knowledge, approval, connivance or consent, he should be guilty of an offence, and that it should not be, as is stated in the Bill, for him to show that the offence committed by the company was not committed with his approval, connivance or consent. It is a simple but important point, and I hope the hon. Gentleman may accept the Amendment.

I promised on Second Reading to look at this point. We have done so, and I have pleasure in announcing that we accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 20 to 29 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 30.—(REGULATIONS.)

I beg to move, in page 15, line 44, to leave out "laid before Parliament," and to add:

"subject to annulment in pursuance of a Resolution of either House of Parliament."

This Amendment is consequential on those already made.

We accept the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 31 and 33 to 35 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 36.—(APPLICATION TO SCOTLAND.)

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Mr. HAY: In page 17, leave out lines 27 to 29.

There is a further Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the Lord Advocate dealing with the point which I have in mind—in page 17, line 27, leave out from "and," to end of line 29, and insert:

"for references to the day on which a summons is served and to the day on which it is returnable there shall be respectively substituted references to the day on which a complaint is served and to the day on which the prosecution thereon proceeds to trial."

It would appear that, as the Bill now stands, the use of the words

"the day on which a summons is returnable "

in the Scottish courts is interpreted as the day on which the prosecution proceeds to the trial. Not always does the prosecution proceed to the trial on the day for which the summons was issued, and there may be one or more adjournments. I am glad to see that the Amendment which has been put down by the right hon. and learned Gentleman has that point in mind. Although I am not quite certain of what is intended, it appears to be the same point. If one considers this matter in relation to Clause 21, one sees its importance. Clause 21 (2) makes it necessary for any proceedings under the Act in respect of filling materials, a sample of which is taken—

I am not sure whether the hon. Member desires to move his Amendment. I understand his point is covered by the following Amendment on the Order Paper. If he does not desire to move his Amendment, he is, of course, out of order in speaking on it.

I was not proposing to move the Amendment as such, because I think the point has been met by the next Amendment on the Order Paper in the name of the Lord Advocate.

The hon. Member cannot speak on an Amendment which he does not propose to move.

Amendment made: In page 17, line 27. leave out from "and," to end of line 29. and insert:

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 37.—(REPEALS.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

I am wondering whether, by the repeal of the earlier Acts, the present Bill does, in fact, contain a saving for any proceedings which may be pending, because the Committee will see that in Clause 38 (2) a time is set for the coming into operation of this Measure. Will there be a saving for pending proceedings when this Bill comes into operation three months after it is passed?

I think that that point is covered by the Interpretation Act of 1889.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.