HC Deb 01 November 1949 vol 469 cc280-2

Agisters employed by the verderers shall be granted the powers of special constables within the perambulation of the Forest: Provided that the agisters to whom these powers are granted shall first be approved by the chief constable of the county of Southampton.—[Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

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

This new Clause can be briefly moved. The point of issue is to try to grant the agisters, who are the servants of the verderers, and whose task is to see that the commoners' cattle is not interfered with, to have the powers of special constables. We feel that in an area such as the New Forest, which is very scattered, and where one may have to go a long way before finding a policeman, these powers are necessary for the agisters if they are properly to fulfil their task. The keepers of the Forestry Commission are special constables, and the agisters work closely with the keepers. We feel it right that they too should have the same powers. I hope that the Minister will be able to grant us this. It is a small matter and would do much to ensure the safety of the commoners' cattle and enable them to be properly looked after.

Mr. G. Brown

I will try to be as brief as the hon. and gallant Member has been and I hope that in doing so I shall not be thought discourteous. The Minister feels unable to accept this new Clause for a variety of reasons. One is that all in authority who have had to consider this matter—the Home Secretary, who has been approached on several occasions, the Chief Constable of Southampton, who would have to be responsible for the enrolling and maintenance of this force—have all expressed themselves against it on a number of general grounds.

7.0 p.m.

We do not think that there is any necessary reason for agisters to be special constables to enable them to carry out their duties of looking after the commoners' animals. We do not feel that they would be in any stronger position. By virtue of being special constables they would not be authorised, for example, to enforce the by-laws as are the Forestry Commission keepers, who are in an altogether different capacity. We do not think that making the agisters special constables would strengthen their powers to prevent theft. In any case it does not follow—I am making no reflection on a body of men who no doubt do their work very well—that the people employed as agisters to look after the animals of commoners are ipso facto bound to be suitable for enrolment as special constables.

Nor does it follow that they would be available for general training which the Chief Constable regards as an important thing, or available for general duties as special constables. It would create some difficulty to have two bodies of men with different employment in the Forest both acting as special constables. It would create considerable difficulties for those responsible for the force and would not make any stronger the powers of the men concerned or ease their difficulties. In the circumstances, therefore, with those explanations, which I hope will be acceptable, I ask the hon. and gallant Member not to press this matter.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

I must confess that I am very disappointed with that answer. In the first place, I do not think it reasonable to say that the agisters and keepers, who work with the greatest co-operation, might be liable to quarrel when they are special constables, just because they are under different authorities; any more than the Middlesex Police would tend to quarrel with the C.I.D. It is true that the keepers have to enforce the by-laws of the Forestry Commission, but the agisters have to enforce the bylaws of the verderers; that is their task. Just as it is of great advantage to be a special constable to enforce the Forestry Commission by-laws, so is it to enforce the by-laws of the verderers. The same arguments which made it seem necessary to the Minister to have his keepers as special constables apply to the agisters as servants of the verderers.

I think that the third point made by the hon. Gentleman was slightly unfair, when he said that agisters, just because they were agisters, need not of necessity be the type of people who could be special constables. The same argument could be applied to the Forestry Commission keepers, and that just because men are employed as Forestry Commission keepers it does not automatically follow that they are suitable to be special constables. As the hon. Gentleman knows, men employed either as forestry keepers or agisters would be eminently suitable as special constables.

The hon. Gentleman said that agisters would not be available for general duties or training as special constables. I am certain that whatever duties, and I do not think they are many, that the Forestry Commission keepers are called upon to fulfil in this way, the agisters would be only too glad to do themselves. I would ask the Minister to think about this again, and to give his consent. It is a very small thing, but it does mean a great deal to the people in the forest. I cannot see that anybody will lose anything by it.

Mr. T. Williams

Out of sheer courtesy to the hon. and gallant Member I should like to make this concession, were it possible, but it just is not, in ordinary circumstances. It is however true, and this ought to be placed on record, that there is nothing to prevent an agister from becoming a special constable as and when he likes. But because he is an agister he is not necessarily a special constable. I consider my hon. Friend is quite correct and we could not have two sets of persons, one trained and one untrained, doing the same sort of job. That would be bound to create confusion. I hope that those who are going to be agisters will first of all make themselves special constables and get the appropriate training so that they may be more effective in doing their job.

Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.