NEW FOREST BILL [Lords]

HC Deb 07 May 1964 vol 694 cc1564-604

Order for Second Reading read.

8.51 p.m.

Sir John Eden (Bournemouth, West)

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

In the unfortunate absence, through illness, of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New Forest (Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre) it has fallen to me to move the Second Reading. Before I deal with the Bill, I am sure that the whole House will wish to express the hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will speedily return to active service here. I am sure, also, that they would wish to congratulate him on the amount of work that he has done in leading up to the preparation of the Bill. He was chairman of the committee which was set up to establish the Bill and he has been working on it ever since 1961. It is a particular shame that, having put in so much time on it, he cannot see his efforts carried a further important stage along the road which I hope will culminate in the Bill being put on the Statute Book.

This is not, of course, the personal Bill of my hon. and gallant Friend. It is supported by a number of associations actively concerned with the wellbeing and general interest of the Forest and forest dwellers, and in "forest dwellers" I include animals as well as man. The societies concerned are the New Forest Association, the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association, and the New Forest Cattle and Pony Breeding Association.

The general terms of the Bill were also discussed at some length with, and have received the general approval of, a number of other very notable bodies and authorities. These include the Forestry Commission, the Council for the Preservation of Rural England, the National Trust, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, the, British Veterinary Association, and, in the main and in general, the National Farmers' Union. I recognise that there is a small exception here, but an important one in the context of the Bill, in that in the branch of the National Farmers' Union most actively concerned with certain of the interests affected by the Bill discussions are still proceeding. I believe that at this stage the branch has not given its general approval to the terms of the Bill.

I am sure that no hon. Member would dissent from the main purpose of the Bill as a whole. It is to reduce, in so far as it is humanly possible to do, the number of accidents caused to animals, with resultant loss of life to the animal and in some instances severe damage to the driver of the vehicle within the perambulation of the New Forest. The Bill seeks to achieve this fine objective by the general method of fencing the perambulation, fencing certain roads, and constructing a number of grids. The Bill seeks to bring into the general perambulation of the New Forest certain areas of land and commons which are now adjacent to the forest. Naturally, I shall have more to say about that aspect later on, because it is around this feature that the main discussion has taken place and the main controversy exists.

May I first of all say that this Bill, I understand, is what is called a hybrid Bill and is, therefore, subject to hybrid Bill procedure. It has already been through Second Reading in another place. It has also been to a Select Committee in another place and will, if it is desired, go to a Select Committee of this House.

Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Itchen)

It has also had its Third Reading in another place.

Sir J. Eden

It has. I was going on to say that it has also had its Recommittal and Third Reading in another place, and so considerable discussion has already taken place on some of the points which we shall be discussing, as hon. Members who have taken an interest in the proceedings will be aware. It is for this reason that I shall not cover the ground at any considerable length, for I know that those hon. Members who have been interested in this matter will have studied the proceedings in another place most closely.

May I first of all give a very brief historical note by way of background to this Measure. The presence of a forest in that part of this country goes back to the days of King Canute. In those days it was known as the Old Forest. After the Norman Conquest the forest was enlarged and subsequently became known as the New Forest. The New Forest was the last Royal forest to be created in England.

Over that period of time throughout our history it has been the subject of a number of Acts of Parliament. I will not weary the House by listing them all but the last one is important for us in this debate. That was the Act of 1949 which followed on the Report of the Baker Committee which reported in 1947. That Act of 1949 put into legislative form most of the recommendations of the Baker Committee, but not all.

One of the recommendations referred to the right of vicinage which gives to the owners of rights of common of pasture in the New Forest the same rights over adjacent commons, even though those adjacent commons may be outside the perambulation of the New Forest itself. I will come back to this point because there is a Clause referring to it later on.

Since 1949 there have been some very important developments in the New Forest, not least the trend towards industrialisation in the immediate vicinity and even to some extent within the precincts of the forest itself. This is most notable in the part along Southampton Water by Fawley where there have been constructed a major oil refinery and a number of other major industrial concerns.

In addition, we have witnessed in the New Forest area, as has everywhere else in the country, the development of faster moving road vehicles and this itself has brought out and emphasised afresh in the most tragic circumstances the high rate of accidents which the presence of animals and fast moving road vehicles inevitably and regrettably seem to cause. In fact, the number of animals killed in 1955 was 170. In 1963, it was 349, a slight reduction on the number killed in 1962, which was 378. The Bill is primarily directed to an effort to reduce the appalling number of animals killed and the resultant injury and damage to persons and property.

I turn now to the actual Clauses. Clause I alters the existing perambulation of the New Forest. It does this by bringing within the perimeter certain additional areas of common and other land adjacent to it. It is designed also to extend the powers of the verderers of the New Forest to these added areas. By subsection (1), areas are added and areas are excluded. The areas added amount in total to about 7,500 acres and the areas excluded amount to 9,000 acres, so the net result is a small reduction in the total acreage of the New Forest. But the real result, of course, will be to produce a much more realistic forest area than at present exists, for most of the areas to be excluded cannot be classified as forest at all. Some of them, notably towards my own constituency, are extremely dangerous in that there is a by-pass road running through them.

The areas which are brought by the Bill within the perambulation of the New Forest are mainly areas of common land and National Trust land and, in some instances, private land with common rights attached where animals are already depastured by those who live adjacent to or on the commons themselves.

Subsection (1), by bringing in these adjacent and common lands, will have the most important effect of, as it were, rounding off the New Forest as a whole and making it much more readily possible to fence the whole of the perimeter and therefore to enclose the entire perambulation.

Clause 1(2) extends to the added areas the powers of the verderers of the New Forest. Under their powers, the verderers are mainly concerned with the health of animals. They seek to ensure that, within the perambulation of the New Forest as it exists today, diseased animals are not allowed to roam but are taken off quickly. They seek to ensure that any animal which is ill or injured is treated as soon as possible. They further seek to ensure that, by careful registration of the stallions which are released on the New Forest, the standard of the New Forest pony breed is maintained as high as possible. Also, they help the animals during the winter months by giving special winter care and extra feed if needed.

For all these services, a small marking fee, as it is called, is charged. This marking fee today stands at 20s. per animal per year. The marking fee is the main source of income of the verderers and provides the source of funds out of which they can pay for the employment of agisters to carry out the work I have described. I feel that the services which are provided under the byelaws of the verderers are substantial benefits and that this is a reasonable fee to pay in return for these services.

I readily recognise, however, that in Clause 1(2) we are saying to those who have common rights on the adjacent commons which will become the added areas that from now on they will have to pay the marking fee which hitherto they have not been required to do and that their animals will have to be subjected to the same standard requirements as those animals already turned out on the existing New Forest. By way of compensation for this, it is fair to point out that these people will have access for the pasturing of their animals not just to the commons adjacent to their own homes where they are now but throughout the New Forest. Therefore, they will have a much greater area of pasturage open to them.

In Clause 1(3), it is proposed to extend the Forestry Commissioners' byelaws as distinct from the verderers' byelaws. The Forestry Commissioners' powers are described in Section 2 of the Forestry Act, 1927. They chiefly concern the lighting of fires, camping, the parking of motor vehicles and the prevention of nuisance. It is proposed to extend these byelaws to the areas added to the perambulation provided that those areas are already subject to common rights.

In Clause 1(4), the land within the added areas which already has rights of common of pasture is given the same rights even though as a consequence of the Bill they will become included within the new perambulation of the New Forest. Subsection (4) also specifically includes those cases in which the existence of rights is debatable legally but in which, nevertheless, the people concerned enjoy a de facto privilege of turning out animals. This Amendment was written into the Bill during earlier stages in another place and it has been covered by adding the words "privilege of pasture". I think that it will generally be seen to meet the point of those who feel that they have always enjoyed rights of common of pasture even though those rights cannot be substantiated in a legal form.

Clause 2 is more simple. It has been described as a machinery Clause. It provides the method by which the additional plan to show those areas to which rights of common are attached should be prepared. The plan is known locally as the Atlas. It has marked on it the perambulation of the Forest and those properties which have common rights attached to them. The Clause will bring the Atlas up-to-date since it was last prepared by the Forestry Commission under the 1949 Act. The Clause contains provision for appropriate consultation, and, as in the 1949 Act, it confers the right to object to the additional plan, when prepared, should any commoner feel it necessary to do so in his own interests.

Clause 3, one of the most important Clauses of the Bill, deals with the general question of fencing. By subsection (2), the verderers will be enabled to erect fencing along or adjacent to the altered perambulation of the New Forest for the purpose of containing animals. This means that a ring will be put round the New Forest. This fence, together with the cattle grids now being constructed by the Hampshire County Council as the highway authority, will provide a form of protective seal around the whole of the New Forest, thus preventing animals from within the forest from getting out and also protecting the animals within from having contact with animals which are now outside it. It will also have the important byproduct of preventing the straying of animals outside the perambulation, thus substantially reducing accidents in the areas adjacent to the Forest where drivers of motor cars do not normally expect to find animals wandering.

Subsection (4) of the Clause gives the verderers power to erect what is called drift fencing. This is fencing which is placed in certain areas with the specific purpose of encouraging or diverting animals to go to other areas to cross major roads. At present, animals move freely across the forest. In some places where they cross to get to water holes, for example, they happen to choose extremely dangerous parts of the road. The erection of extra drift fencing at these places will prevent the animals from crossing at those points and will, it is hoped, divert them to points higher up or lower down the road but less dangerous than those which they have habitually used.

The powers in Clause 3 are confined throughout to the open wastelands of the forest—that is, the Crown land which is subject to common rights—and to a small portion of other land most of it carrying common rights and belonging to private individuals or to the National Trust and which is marked on the plans deposited with the Bill.

Clause 4 also deals with fencing and gives permissive powers to fence the whole of the main road, the A.35, from Southampton to Christchurch where it traverses the New Forest. These powers are similar to those already conferred by the 1949 Act in respect of the A.31, which is the Cadnam to Ringwood road. The A.31 is the main fast through road of the area and the fencing on it is already well advanced. As I use it frequently, I assure hon. Members that it has considerably reduced the presence of animals on the road verges and has thus contributed greatly to the recent noticeable reduction in accidents.

If hon. Members wish to raise any points on the Clause, I shall endeavour to deal with them. At this stage, I merely say that the public right of access will continue to be provided for as far as possible by the construction of wicket gates and stiles along the fences. To ensure that animals may continue to roam freely as they have done in the past, underpasses will be constructed for them, so that while they will be prevented from crossing the metalled surface of the road, they will still be free to roam from one side of the forest to the other by means of specially constructed underpasses.

Those who are responsible for the construction of this fence will have in mind the aesthetic requirements of the forest as a whole in choosing the type of fence which is constructed. This is a very important Clause when we bear in mind the speed at which vehicles travel. If I may interject a personal view, I would much rather that the Clause had been strengthened by the provision of a speed limit. I was not impressed by some of the arguments against the introduction of a speed limit and I cannot understand why we should not at least make the effort to educate the travelling public and to remind people, even if only at the beginning and end of the road, that they are entering a special area which requires special care and warrants special measures.

I can explain Clause 5 quite simply by referring hon. Members back to Clause 3 when I spoke of the construction of the protective seal. In future years there may be developments within the perambulation of the forest which might require the construction of a new access road. If that were done and there were no grid and no special measures were taken, there would be a gap in the protective seal. The point of the Clause is to provide that any gap which is subsequently created in the seal shall be closed by the provision of a grid and other necessary measures.

Clause 6 is an amendment of Section 18 of the 1949 Act. It enables the Minister of Agriculture to authorise the appropriation by the Forest Commissioners of open waste land for camping sites. The powers here are restricted to that part of the existing New Forest which is owned by the Crown and subject to common rights. They do not extend to the added areas. At present, camping areas are unrestricted and anybody who has seen the New Forest after a holiday weekend in the summer will share my horror and disgust which I inevitably feel at the conduct of one's fellow men in these circumstances. It is quite fantastic.

Last year, about 7,000 milk bottles alone were collected from the New Forest. This is not only unsightly and unattractive but extremely dangerous to the animals, because many of the bottles get broken and the animals cut their fetlocks on them. This is an appalling source of damage to the forest animals and the result of thoughtlessness on the part of those who enjoy the amenities of the forest for camping.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

Do I understand that the hon. Gentleman takes the view that this Clause would prohibit camping elsewhere in the forest?

Sir J. Eden

No, that is not so. I am glad that the hon. and learned Member asked that question. If I gave the impression that that was so, I apologise to the House. Camping can still take place elsewhere, but it will tend to become slightly more regularised since even man tends to be somewhat governed by the herd instinct in these circumstances. I think that this will reduce the amount of damage caused by the leaving of litter through general camping. This provision will not interfere with the rights to unrestricted camping throughout the whole of the forest.

Clause 7 gets us away from the matters which we have been discussing to another interesting subject. This is referred to as pannage. Pannage is the right to put pigs out on common land in order to feed on the acorns and beech mast. At present, the timing of pannage is fixed to certain dates, namely, between 25th September and 22nd November. This fixing of the dates does not take account of any seasonal fluctuations which may occur due to weather or other circumstances and it does not take account of the presence or absence of the particular food on which the pigs are to feed. The Clause gives the Forest Commissioners power to fix a pannage time, of not less than 60 consecutive days, which is the present time, after consultation with the verderers, at any time when conditions are right for this to be done. This, again, does not apply to the added areas.

Clause 8 enables the verderers to make temporary enclosures for the purpose of preventing the suffering of animals during spells of exceptionally severe weather. This Clause, I think, will be particularly welcome. The very hard winter that we had the year before last caused a great deal of work for the verderers and people seeking to care for the animals, and by this Clause they will now have powers to make a temporary closure to collect them altogether, which will facilitate their care during periods of exceptionally hard weather.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and, 40 Members being present—

Sir J. Eden

I was about to turn to Clause 9. In explaining the purpose of this Clause, I should point out that under Section 1 of the 1949 Act there are 10 verderers, four of whom are what are referred to as appointed verderers. This Clause gives power to pay reasonable travelling expenses for these appointed verderers when they attend the official meetings.

Clause 10 would enable the verderers to authorise the Forestry Commissioners to create new ornamental woods and to enclose land for this purpose. The powers under this Clause would be restricted to that part of the forest now owned by the Crown and subject to the rights of the commoners. They would not refer to the added areas, and I should emphasise that no single enclosure under this Clause shall exceed 20 acres in area.

Clause 11 is a precautionary Clause in that it ensures tha the Forestry Commissioners' byelaws shall continue to apply to land transferred or enclosed for highway purposes. It refers to verges alongside the roads which are subject to fencing. It is designed to make sure that no camping, for instance, can take place on the roadside verges in the forest.

Clause 12 makes provision for an increase in the maximum fine for offences under the verderers' byelaws. This is quite a reasonable point. The present maximum was fixed as long ago as 1877, and it is fair that it should be brought up to date. Clause 13 makes a similar provision in respect of the Forestry Commissioners' byelaws, and Clause 14 refers to the payment of expenses which arise under the Bill, and describes how they are to be raid.

Clause 15 is an important Clause, although it is completely non-controversial. It reminds the Forestry Commissioners and the verderers that they shall have particular regard to the need to conserve the flora and fauna of the forest, and to preserve any geological or physiographical features of special interest. Clause 16 safeguards the position of the National Trust under the National Trust Acts, 1907–53. This Clause has been approved by the National Trust.

That completes my survey of the Clauses. I am sure that no hon. Member will dissent from the general purposes of the Bill, and it is therefore with confidence that I ask the House to give it a Second Reading.

9.26 p.m.

Dr. Horace King (Southampton, Itchen)

First I ought to congratulate the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) and his friends—and the Government—for surviving the procedure which has just been resorted to by the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Mrs. Emmet), which, if successful, would have effectively killed the Bill. The Government found great difficulty in allowing time for a Second Reading debate, and if the hon. Lady's effort had been successful they could not have found time for another Second Reading debate.

I also congratulate the hon. Member for being the father of a boy and the godfather of a Bill all within 48 hours. I sincerely congratulate him on his speech, especially in view of the fact that nobody knew until late last night that the Bill was to be on today's Order Paper, and also in view of the fact that he had to deputise for his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre) at very short notice. I am sure the House will agree that the hon. Member has given us a very lucid and fascinating picture in explaining this important little Bill.

I will not follow him into matters of history, tempted as I am to do so, because I love the history of the New Forest. I will merely remind the House that Westminster Hall would have been the bedroom of a great Palace if it had not been for some commoner in the New Forest who murdered William Rufus before he got Westminster Palace going. If he had succeeded we would probably not be having debates now about the Gothic character of the extension that we are about to make to the Palace.

Some of us steadily objected to the Bill every Friday on which its promoters tried to get it through the House at Four o'clock without a debate. We did so because we believed it wrong that a Bill of this magnitude, even if it has the blessing of the Government, should be silently approved on a Friday afternoon, especially by hon. Members who have been sitting in the House on Fridays objecting to similar Private Members' Bills which have already been debated—Bills like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) on racial discrimination, and my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central (Mr. Short) on concessionary fares for old-age pensioners. I am glad to have succeeded in forcing the Bill to be debated in the open in the House. The speech of the hon. Member is abundant justification of the stand that I have taken during the last three weeks.

I, too, am sorry that the hon. and gallant Member for the New Forest is too ill to be here. We have fought each other since, in 1945, we fought up and down the New Forest. We have now fought each other for 19 years. That fight has always been political and never personal. Although we have been fiercely opposed politically, we have never had a cross word in those nineteen years. I pay tribute to the work of the hon. and gallant Member in preparing the Bill. An attempt was made to reconcile almost all the interests concerned in the Forest, local government, verderers, commoners—these two are the same thing as a matter of fact—and the cattle breeders—again the same thing. It was not difficult to reconcile the claims of the New Forest cattle breeders, the New Forest Commoners' Defence Society, and the verderers of the New Forest because they are the same people wearing different hats.

I say that he deserves credit for all that he has done, but I am going to attack certain features of this Bill. The illustrious grandfather of the hon. and gallant Gentleman fought magnificently for the commoners against enclosure and even against the Crown. He would have been on my side in the criticisms which I propose to make. This is indeed a hybrid Bill. A Private Bill deals with some private citizens and gives them some some special privileges not offered to other citizens. This Bill certainly does that. According to Mr. Passmore, Secretary of the Commoners' Defence Society, who gave evidence before a Select Committee in another place, the passage of this Bill will add to the value of the property of commoners inside the New Forest. But, although it is not spending public money, it gives permission for the spending of public money, of the ratepayers and the taxpayers, to a sum of, perhaps, £100,000.

The Liberals—to whom I shall refer later—estimated the amount at £150,000. I am one of those who are a little troubled about the form of this Bill. In Clause 17(3), printed in black to safeguard the constitutional position of this Private Bill, it is stated: Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds, or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, levying, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge. Yet in Clause 14(3) it states: Any increase attributable to the provisions of this Act in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament by way of Rate-Deficiency Grant under the enactments relating to local government in England and Wales shall be defrayed out of moneys so provided. It seems to me to be a contradiction within the Bill This again is a reason for not allowing this Bill to have a Second Reading without a single word being spoken in the House of Commons.

An even greater reason so far as I am concerned is that part of the Bill, I believe, is unjust to a group of my fellow citizens. There is considerable support for the Bill. There is support from the New Forest Commoners, the commoners inside the present New Forest. If the Bill becomes law, they eventually will put up a small sum of money, probably about one-tenth of the amount involved, against ten times as much from the ratepayers of Hampshire or the taxpayers of the country. There is opposition to the Bill, too. I believe this Bill ought to go to a Select Committee before which those citizens who have a grievance against the Bill and do not support it should be heard. It may be that they are a minority. I shall speak later of the case of the small minority, and I believe that this place exists to protect minorities.

Let me destroy the illusion that this Bill represents the unanimous views of everyone living in the New Forest. The New Forest Labour Party opposes the Bill. It appreciates that new legislation is necessary for the forest, but urges that rather than proceed with a Bill in this hybrid way the Government should set up another Commission, like the Baker Commission after the 1949 Act, to inquire into the whole state of the New Forest, its customs, practice and economy, before new legislation is introduced. They believe that, in this modern age, the whole question of the rights of the commoners in the New Forest—some which date back for centuries and others which may have been bought last week or a year ago—need to be re-examined. They believe that the Verderers' Court, of which the promoter of this Bill is, I believe, the Chairman, is an anachronism, and that all inhabitants of the forest ought to be represented on a body if we are to leave that body in control of the forest.

Sir J. Eden

I do not think that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre) is the Chairman of the Verderers' Court.

Dr. King

I think that he is a member anyway.

To paraphrase the remark of Dunning, a former Member of Parliament, the power of the verderers has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished. The New Forest Liberals produced an excellent memorandum on the Bill and its implications. There are various suggestions for improving the Bill. They share the view of the New Forest Labour Party that 400 out of the 700 commoners who are New Forest commoners which have privileges and exercise powers contrary to the wider national interest. They believe that the forest ought to belong to Britain and that the Court of Verderers ought to be truly representative of all who live there. They agreed with the New Forest Socialists that the formula, "No taxation without representation", means that if the taxpayers who are not commoners are contributing to the well-being of the forest they should be represented.

Many Liberal and Labour folk in the forest believe that although the main objects of this Bill are praiseworthy, the preservation of amenities and the saving of lives of animals and human beings could be better achieved by limiting the number of animals allowed to graze in the forest and enclosing certain parts in which those animals could go. The Lyndhurst Parish Council—not a Labour Party-controlled organisation—is on record as having declared its opinion that the number of animals in the forest ought to be limited to those for whom the commoners could provide shelter in the winter.

I am glad the hon. Member mentioned the unanimous view of the Liberal Party and the Labour Party in the New Forest, that there should be a speed limit on cars going through the forest of 40 miles an hour. I believe that many of the suggestions made by the Liberal and Labour Parties are sound and that sooner or later we shall have to democratise the Verderers' Court, which consists of ten people, five of whom are commoners and five of whom are nominated by various bodies. I also believe that we need a full inquiry into this unparalleled beauty spot which belongs to Britain as it belongs, in part, to the commoners, and that such a full inquiry should be followed by a public Bill.

In the meantime, however, I differ in one respect from my Labour and Liberal colleagues in the forest, whose broad views I share in their attitude to the Bill. I gather that they would, if they could, prevent the Bill becoming law. We have long ago destroyed the idea that commoners own the forest, just as they even longer ago destroyed the idea that the Crown owned it. We have managed to reconcile the claims of the Forestry Commission and the commoners, and it is a simple fact that the animals which graze in the forest not only add to its natural beauty but are also responsible for the state of the exquisite greens in between the trees. I believe that the commoners give to the forest as well as take from it.

The idea of enclosure may be scientifically the best way of preventing accidents, but it would take away one of the great charms of the forest because one of its beauties is the animals roaming about and that one meets as one wanders through it oneself. At present, the grim fact is that modern traffic is making the destruction of animals and human beings in the New Forest a steadily increasing nightmare.

I will not add to the figures quoted by the hon. Gentleman. We have considered these accident figures in the Hampshire County Council year by year with growing alarm, and, as a council, we have done something, through the provision of cattle grids, to prevent at least some accidents. I believe that we cannot have motor cars, animals grazing and an unfenced forest at the same time. I believe that the Bill, although it does not solve the large problems that I have raised, at least goes some way towards doing so and I therefore support it.

The two chief roads through the forest are the A.31 and the A.35. In that strange way of ours in approaching such matters, we have empowering provision for fencing the A.31 in the 1949 Act. The Bill gives authority to the Minister and, through him, the local authority, to fence the A.35.

It would be unjust and unreasonable to expect the commoners to pay the whole cost of fencing the two roads. They could not do it, anyway. I doubt whether they have even paid all the money they owe for fencing the A.31, which was one-tenth of the total cost. Even if they only pay one-tenth of the cost of fencing the A.35 they will be shouldering a considerable burden.

Although the Bill does not mention the cost of fencing, the commoners have an eye to the main chance and in one Clause secure that, if the highway authorities take part of their private land which gives them their common rights in order to do the fencing, they must pay compensation. I believe then, that Britain ought to meet most of the cost of the fencing. It is something for the good of Britain—and I say "Britain" rather than Hampshire, because the New Forest is a national heritage and not merely a county heritage. I believe, too, that the fencing is a matter of urgency and it is because of these two reasons that I would not vote against the Bill.

However, I now want to raise something which is, in my opinion, a very grave matter. At present the New Forest commoners have ancient rights and the Bill does not disturb them. I believe that a Bill which safeguards, preserves and assumes the rights of some commoners ought not to take away other commoners' rights. But Clause 1 does so. The promoters say that it will be convenient, tidy and safer for man and beast if the New Forest is trimmed up a little, if we add to the forest some nice grazing land and if we very generously take out of the forest some bad grazing land.

But when they do so, they are bringing into the forest land whose owners have common rights quite distinct from the rights of the New Forest commoners, rights which they regard as being as precious as the rights of the foresters. They are not in the New Forest and do not wish to go in. These men include those who petitioned the Select Committee in another place from Furzley, Half Moon, Penn, Plaitford, West Wellow Commons and Black Hill.

Throughout the long time that the Bill has been in the process of gestation, some of these men have been coming to see me. They have urged me to do what I can to protect their rights. This is what I seek to do tonight. Their common lands have never been within the perambulation of the New Forest. They have the right to de-pasture cattle and ponies and to turn out pigs in the extra forest commons without payment. They have had this right for very many years. One old gentleman who comes to see me speaks of his grandfather and his great grandfather having had this right as far back as this old man can remember.

If they are brought into the forest perambulation, they will have to pay £1 a year marking fee for every animal they have. Some of them are dairy farmers. This might mean £25 to £50 a year if they have 25 to 50 cattle. They are responsible men. Even the opponents of these commoners—I shall speak of the opponents later—giving evidence before the Select Committee of another place, had to admit that these men have their own honorary agisters; they have volunteers among themselves to do the work that professional agisters do inside the forest looking after straying or diseased animals. They are not against the fencing of the forest. They have said from the start that they do not mind paying a cash sum for some fencing. They object, however, to any tampering with their ancient rights as commoners.

The hon. Gentleman argues that these commoners will gain from joining the larger group. These, on the other hand, believe that they have nothing to gain, but are, indeed, in danger of losing something, because for the maintenance of their common rights as they come in they will have to apply to the Verderers' Court, which will adjudicate on whether their common rights are really tenable. I shall have something to say about that later.

So they urge that they be taken out of the Bill. I believe that a Bill which is based on the right of New Forest commoners and which perpetuates this right ought not to deprive these men of similar rights by giving the Verderers' Court, a private court, the power to tax them.

It is a singular irony that the commons of some of the commoners for whom I plead were bequeathed in the will of the grandfather of the promoter of the Bill. I believe that, if he were here, he would be fighting for the men using the commons rights which he bequeathed some 80 or 90 years ago. They have never had the right to graze on the New Forest. If they graze on the New Forest they apparently pay for it, but the New Forest itself has claimed the right of vicinage, or neighbourhood—neighbourhood rights to graze on the common lands outside. At any rate, the verderers claim that this queer anomaly is so, although counsel in the Select Committee in another place argued that this queer anomaly might not be right. Indeed, one suspects that it is because the New Forest commoners would lose this right of vicinage, of going over the border into the common land outside their present New Forest if the fences were built, that they are so very anxious to get that common land within the fence, so that they would not lose their right of vicinage.

Moreover, if the Forest is fenced at its present perambulation and these commons are left outside, it is estimated that this would cost about £2,500. At any rate one factor working in the minds of the commoners of the Forest is that they would have to meet one-tenth of that £2,500—£250. So they have a vested interest, apart from the noble picture presented by the promoter of the Bill in adding this little bit to the forest to bring these commons within the perambulation of the forest.

In the Select Committee of another place attempts were made to suggest that these men did not really know what they wanted. I call attention to the remarks of Mr. Pasmore, the Secretary of the New Forest Commoners' Defence Association. He gave the picture of his attempt to find out the views of these commoners, and in question 131, on page 20 of the Report, he was asked: How many of these did you interview personally? The answer was "27". In question 132 he was asked: What were the results of those interviews? He answered: Twenty, I think, were in favour unreservedly, four were in favour subject to a certain concession, two could not have cared less, and one was against. Yet when in question 133 he was asked: How many of those whom you personally interviewed have now signed the Petition against the Bill? his answer was "Nineteen". The suggestion was that they did not know their own minds.

Further evidence before the Select Committee makes quite clear—and I can vouch for it because these men have been coming to me during the last few years—that they do not want to lose their common rights. Their view has been consistent throughout. They do not want to be taken into the forest and they do not want to be subject to the Verderers' Court.

Anyone who reads what has happened during the months can see what has taken place and what is their view. The Ringwood branch of the N.F.U. is against the Bill. That branch of the union, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, is the most concerned with the Bill. It consists largely of farmers in the forest. I quote from the report of the branch meeting. Captain Moore said the commoners felt very strongly about this matter. They had a freehold right when they bought their properties to turn out on these commons. The verderers had no jurisdiction over these commons and it was their wish that the commons should be administered by Commons Committee. They had already got two honorary agisters. They did not oppose the Bill, it was a matter of taking away from them their freehold rights. Here is a letter from Mr. F. E. Reynolds: I write on behalf of the commoners of Bramshaw, Plaitford, Cadnam and West Wellow to ask for your help when the New Forest Bill is before the House of Commons on Friday next. As you no doubt know, if this Bill proceeds in its present form we shall lose our free common rights, rights that have existed for hundreds of years. Not one commoner who uses these free rights would object to paying to a gridding and fencing scheme, in spite of the fact that some say we want something for nothing. I can assure you that is not so. We would ask you to object to this Bill on our behalf so that we do not lose our free rights". This is a letter from Bramshaw. The writer states: Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre's Bill is being presented to the House of Lords this week and we hope you would read the Bill, as we would like you to object to paragraph 15"— as it was then —which is bringing in the National Trust Commons with the New Forest, as the commoners do not want to come in under the bye-laws of the verderers. Section 3 of the Act.

We are not objecting to anything to do with the New Forest fencing, etc., only the Bramshaw and Plaitford Commons I admit that I am pleading for about 3,000 acres and a handful of men, against about 70,000 acres and 700 men, not all of whom, however, use their common rights. Indeed, the men who are concerned most by the common rights are quite rich people. But each group has the same kind of rights—either all, or none at all. I am against the big fellow who, to quote one of them before the Select Committee, would "fight jealously" for his right of vicinage but who would object to the little man fighting equally jealously for rights that are either as good as or as bad as his.

The National Trust is supposed to protect commoners. I want to register a profound protest at what is revealed in the evidence before the Select Committee in another place, which shows clearly that the National Trust sacked the local commoners' committee because it did not give in and consent to the commons coming inside.

Referring to a meeting of the Management Committee, we read in the answer to Question 417: 'After a general discussion it was decided that an approach be made to Mr. Pasmore'"— the gentleman who found so many people unanimously in favour of the Bill, although 19 later petitioned against it— 'Sir Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre and Sir Dawson Bates to inform them that it was the wish of the commoners to withdraw from the scheme to fence the commons within New Forest boundaries.… Members of the Committee expressed willingness to make down payments towards the cost of the fencing and gridding but not to pay marking fees and be subject to the Verderers' by-laws.' In Question 418, Sir Dawson Bates, the agent for the National Trust was asked: And, upon that view being expressed to you, Sir Dawson, you took the line that the Management Committee was now no longer supporting the National Trust in their support of this Bill and, therefore, should be given the sack?—That is broadly speaking the position, yes. There are still traces of the old squirearchy in this England, and some of it in the New Forest. One might understand the verderers behaving in this tyrannical way in their private court to people coming before them, but when the National Trust, whose aim is to protect commons, acts in this way, one can only recall John Hampden and take the side of these commoners against a petty little Charles I. If I had any doubts as to which side I would take in this issue, they were resolved when I read those two paragraphs.

I said earlier that the question of these commoners' rights, when they come inside, will have to be vetted by the Verdeters Court. Counsel on their behalf very rightly said, before the Select Committee: As I say, your Lordships, in the shoes of the commoners, could well think that they are not likely to get much shrift from the National Trust when the Bill gives that body the duty of looking after the affairs of the commoners in the way I have indicated. The same speaker also said, and he is a lawyer, and lawyers are temperate in their language: … I have never come across an attitude adopted by a responsible body equal to that of the National Trust in this matter. That is a Trust that sacked members of the Management Committee merely because they were carrying out the real purposes of the National Trust.

I know that after the Bill's passage through the Select Committee in another place its promoter put in a concession that commoners will not be charged a marking fee in the first five years, half price in the next five years, and the full charge thereafter. But when John Hampden refused to pay ship money he had a demand to pay only £1. Of that, Burke has said: Would twenty shillings have ruined Mr. Hampden's fortune? No! but the payment of half twenty shillings, on the principle it was demanded, would have made him a slave. Right through the story, these commoners have refused to compromise, and I honour them for sticking to their principles.

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered, That the Proceedings on or relating to the New Forest Bill [Lords] may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

Dr. King

I read very carefully the whole of the Select Committee's Report and I pay tribute to Mr. Hugh Forbes, who argued the case of the commoners far more lucidly and eloquently than I can do. There are, of course, good reasons for doing what the Bill does to a handful of British citizens. Most wrongs are committed, at first at any rate, for good reasons. But despite the plausible reasons, and some of them even suspect reasons, the commoners whose case I am pleading are being wronged if they are made to pay what since ancient times has been free in order to save the New Forest commoners about £250 for fencing.

The Chairman of the Plaitford Parish Council, voicing the views of this little unit of democracy, writes to me: I am one of those on the local National Trust Committee who were sacked because we dared to represent the only people who looked like bring hurt if the Bill became law as it stood. You may well ask where I stand in this. I have nothing to gain whatever happens, but after all I am Parish Council Chairman and as far as I can I feel it my duty to represent my parishioners, majority and minority. I am interested in this district, its customs and history due to the fact that my family came here with the Normans and lived around the district ever since. Therefore, I hate to see old landmarks, buildings, etc., destroyed and also the destruction of less tangible things. After all, for six years did we not fight halfway round the world to preserve this sort of thing? It is because I believe in "this sort of thing" that I urge those who will examine the Bill in Committee to see that the commoners north of the New Forest are not deprived of their rights by the Bill. It can be done without damaging a single feature of the purpose of this otherwise worthy Bill. I hope that what I have said may persuade the House and the Committee which it appoints to give due justice to a handful of commoners who will be wronged if the Bill goes through in its present form.

10.3 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Scott-Hopkins)

I intervene at this stage to express the Government's attitude towards the Bill. I should also like to join with hon. Members in saying how sorry I am that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the New Forest (Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre) is not here, and that he has been prevented from moving the Second Reading of a Bill to which he devoted so much time and energy, as was kindly said by the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King).

I also take the opportunity of congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) on his skill as an understudy, a task which I gather he undertook at extremely short notice, and on the exhaustive way in which he went through the Bill and presented it to the House in great detail.

An extremely important feature of the Bill, which was introduced in another place, is the inclusion of various adjacent commons within the revised perimeter of the New Forest. As the House will know, my right hon. Friend has a quasi-judicial function in relation to proposals affecting common land. We therefore had to study this point, and as the Bill went through another place a number of commoners, as the hon. Member for Itchen has said, laid a petition. The hon. Member quoted several large passages from the evidence given as a result of that petition. The question was carefully considered by a Select Committee in another place, as I am sure the House agrees, and as a result the promoters of the Bill accepted Amendments and offered concessions. I say this in the plural and not in the singular, as the hon. Member for Itchen was inclined to put it.

I should, therefore, like to say that the Government are in sympathy with the general objectives of the Bill. Indeed, I am sure that the whole House will join in applauding the primary purpose of the Bill which is to make the roads of the New Forest safer for man and beast. I do not think that there has been a single dissident voice on either side of the House on this point. Although the Bill does not give the Forestry Commission a material increase in its powers, in so far as it does affect the Commission the provisions of the Bill are all workable and would help the Commission in its administration of the Forest.

As I have said, the Amendments and concessions that have been made appear to safeguard the commoners' interests. The Government will consider carefully the comments that have already been made in this debate and any comments which may be made later. We may, indeed, have views on points of detail which could be considered at a later stage, but I suggest that it would be reasonable to give the Bill a Second Reading so that it can go forward for detailed scrutiny by a Select Committee under the procedure of the House of Commons, this procedure being specially designed for a Bill of this sort.

I hope that such a course will be acceptable to the House.

10.7 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

When Lord Crathorne was introducing this Bill in another place on the occasion of its Second Reading, he suggested that his fellow peers would be curious to know why a North Countryman should be introducing such a Bill. Likewise I imagine hon. Members in this House will be curious to know why a Welshman should intervene in a debate concerning the New Forest. Suffice it to say, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) has adverted to it, that there are considerable minority interests concerned, and I have been approached by people who object in principle to this Bill just as Lord Crathorne had been approached by the promoters of the Bill in another place.

I have not the advantage of any detailed knowledge of the New Forest. I know it, but I do not know it well, and I do not pretend to be able to speak about it with the same authority as my hon. Friend the Member for Itchen, or, indeed, the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden).

I am going to concentrate very shortly on the objections in principle to this Bill. First, I think I am right in saying that there is a centuries-old practice which has grown up with regard to the affairs of the New Forest, that before any changes take place in its administration or in the status of those who have rights there, they have always been preceded by a committee or a commission of inquiry held in public.

I think I am right in saying that this is the first time that it has been sought to deal with the affairs of the New Forest by means of a hybrid Bill. Previously Crown proceedings have always been brought following upon a public inquiry. I know that the Liberal Association in the New Forest wrote to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in June last year and sent a memorandum with a petition asking for a public inquiry to be held on the lines of the famous Baker Committee inquiry in 1947. This was before any Private Bill had been introduced. The Minister of Agriculture turned down this request. I should like to know why. There are very important reasons why there should have been a public inquiry, why interests, both large and small, and individuals should have been heard by a detached tribunal of inquiry, and why a report should have been before this House and another place when a Bill such as this was to be considered.

We should not forget that the Baker Committee in 1947 said: There are three interests which from time to time clash—the Forestry Commission, the commoners and the general public. The only hope for the future lies in the formation of a new body which shall be representative of all interests. To be efficient, it must not only have an altered constitution but enlarged powers. We recommend the constituting of a new Court of Verders, with a Chief Verderer, four elected representatives of the commoners, and six others: two representatives of the Forestry Commission, two rural district council representatives and one each representing the Ministry of Agriculture and the Council for the Preservation of Rural England. That was what the Baker Committee recommended but, in fact, when the Bill was introduced in 1949, although the Court was reconstituted, it was reconstituted in such a way that the commoners virtually still had a majority, together with the appointed verderer, and the local authorities had no representation.

The second reason why I oppose the principle of the Bill is this. In fact, the Court of Verderers is an archaic body which has been reformed to a certain extent but which, nevertheless, represents only some interests. As the hon. Member for Itchen pointed out, although the Bill is not mandatory with regard to public expenditure, it is permissive. It permits quite considerable expenditure, and the public are asked to pay for it, either as ratepayers or as taxpayers.

What representation have members of the public in the Court of Verderers? There is really no representation at all. I much enjoyed the courteous and lucid speech of the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West in introducing the Bill, but I should like him to deal with this point. What representation does he think the public ought to have? Is this expenditure to be allowed without representatives of the public authorities having a say in it or having control over the development of the New Forest? Without doubt, the Bill gives the Court of Verderers considerably enlarged powers. For example, it allows the face of the New Forest to be changed. The unique feature of the Forest, surely, is the open access from roads and so on. It is a major development that fencing is to be allowed which will change this unique "open front" character of the New Forest.

I am told that in the hand-out issued at the initial Press conference, there was a reference to the further financial burden upon the Crown which alone makes this Bill possible". The "further financial burden upon the Crown" means, virtually, that the ratepayers and the taxpayers will] be asked to pay.

During the Second Reading debate in another place, Lord Dowding, after giving various calculations with reference to the total cost of fencing, said: So the job of protecting animals by fencing the roads would ultimately cost something in the neighbourhood of £400,000 of public money."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 30th January, 1964; Vol. 254, c. 1329.] This includes not only the money which is authorised or permitted to be spent under this Bill but also the money which has previously been spent and, of course, there is contemplated the fencing of B highways as well as the trunk roads. Nevertheless, this is a very large sum of public money.

The case which in principle I put against the Bill is this. When a large sum of public money like this is permitted to be spent by virtue of the Bill, when there are living in the area, not only commoners, but non-commoners who are ratepayers or taxpayers, when we consider the enormous amenity which the New Forest is to the public in the country as a whole and that one of its great attractions and charms is that it is an open forest where one can stop at the roadside and simply walk into it, a considerable case can be advanced for reservations as opposed to fencing of this kind and for saying that there should have been a public inquiry and a full report made to members of this House and of the other place so that they could consider it. A vital principle is involved. When taxpayers and ratepayers are asked to finance large public expenditure, there should be a very considerable element of public control over it.

There is an overwhelming case for complete reconstruction of the composition of the Court of Verderers. I should like to know—and I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary spoke before I did—whether the Ministry of Agriculture thinks that the Court, as at present constituted, represents the public interest as well as the interest of the commoners. I should also like to know why the Ministry of Agriculture turned down the application for a public inquiry.

10.16 p.m.

Sir Barnett Janner (Leicester, North-West)

I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, West (Sir J. Eden) for the clear and concise manner in which he introduced the Bill and to the hon. and gallant Member for New Forest (Sir O. Crosthwaite-Eyre), who, I hope, will shortly be with us again, for the way in which he dealt with the Bill in its preliminary stages.

My hon. Friends and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) have touched on points of detail which will have to be considered. I welcome the Bill because of what is said in the Explanatory Memorandum, which states: One of the main purposes of the Bill is to reduce the number of accidents in and adjacent to the New Forest involving animals and motor vehicles by providing such fences and cattle-grids as may be necessary to contain animals within the New Forest. Whatever argument may be raised about cost, the important question is whether lives, either of animals or human beings, will be saved. A proper approach to the number of injuries and deaths which are caused by straying animals is long overdue, and whatever measure is introduced to this end is to be welcomed.

One fact is certain: that the Government, for the first time as far as I can see, have been prepared to back a Bill which deals with the damage being done by straying animals. That does not mean that I am at all satisfied with what they have done. On the contrary, I hope that they realise that in permitting themselves to sponsor a Private Bill for this purpose, they have at long last done something towards remedying a widespread serious position. Straying animals are a menace to life and limb. A Government who allow the position, not only in the area with which the Bill is concerned, but throughout the country as a whole, to remain in the present most unsatisfactory state are doing a great disservice to the community.

Perhaps I should declare my interest. It is a public one. Some time ago, I presented a Private Member's Bill, which I hope that the Government, having seen the error of their ways up to this stage, will now sponsor. That Bill deals with the matter on a wider scale. I presented a petition to the appropriate Minister. It was not a formal petition which could be presented to the House, because, unhappily, it did not possess the necessary exact technical features. It contained 700 names, however, many of them from my constituency, concerning the position of a landowner who was immune from proceedings for loss or injury caused by horses or animals straying on the highway and calling upon the Minister to introduce legislation to impose liability for fencing the land.

I wrote to the Attorney-General asking what he proposed to do. His reply concerning straying animals was as follows: Thank you for your letter of 3rd March enclosing petitions in support of your Highways (Straying Animals) Bill"——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Robert Grimston)

Order. If the hon. Member is referring to a petition in connection with another Bill, it is out of order for him to refer to it except in passing on the Second Reading of the present Bill.

Sir B. Janner

I do not propose, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, to go into detail about it. I propose to show that my support of the Bill today is based on the fact that it is the thin end of the wedge in something which is of extreme importance. I quote my illustration because, up to this point, the Government have not taken the view that they can sponsor a Measure to deal with injuries which are caused in the manner referred to in the Explanatory Memorandum of the Bill. Today's Bill touches the same point, although the other Bill relates to a larger area, but I take the larger area to point the position concerning the New Forest Bill.

Mr. Anthony Kershaw (Stroud)

If the hon. Member is making the point that all fences should be made so that no beasts get out on to the road, and that all commons should be fenced, the rural communities will realise that the Labour Party is entirely against the interests of all people living in the rural areas.

Sir B. Janner

I am not suggesting that all places should be enclosed.

Mr. Kershaw

Battersea Park is all right.

Sir B. Janner

We are talking not about Battersea Park, but about the New Forest. I assume that the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) is in favour of the Bill. He has not expressed himself against it. I did not understand his intervention. If he is against the Bill, let him say so. This is precisely why it is essential, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, for me to explain the position to an hon. Member who does not understand it.

Mr. Kershaw

I understand it very well.

Sir B. Janner

The Bill is desirable because it relates to the important matter of preventing serious injury to life and limb.

Mr. Kershaw

I fully understand the hon. Gentleman, who makes himself very clear. In his eyes, this is the thin end of the wedge to make all farmers responsible for whatever their stock may do if it gets out on the road, or off common land. This is a very serious and far-reaching matter on which the hon. Gentleman should expand a little further.

Sir B. Janner

I am much obliged, and if you will allow me to expand the matter, Mr. Deputy-Speaker——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member can make the point, as he has made it, that he approves the Bill because it may lead to something further, but that is about as far as he can go on a Bill which deals only with the New Forest.

Sir B. Janner

I appreciate that, but I cannot make my points sufficiently clear unless I deal with cognate matters, because they reflect on the New Forest situation. The hon. Member's intervention indicates quite clearly how important it is that one should bring to bear upon it the arguments relating to this aspect of the subject.

We are dealing with an attempt to reduce the number of accidents, but we cannot discuss that in relation to the New Forest in a vacuum. We must consider why the New Forest should be distinguished, if it is to be distinguished, from other parts of the country in this respect. I asked that the matter should be dealt with on a national basis, but I was told that the subject was highly controversial and tha it seemed unlikely that agreement could he reached on a solution acceptable to all the interests concerned.

What is most important in the Bill is the idea of preventing the straying of animals on to the roads where they cause serious loss of life. The New Forest Society for the Prevention of Straying Animals supplied me with the police figures that 69 motorists were injured, 23 seriously, in such accidents last year, and tha they were unable to claim damages against owners of the animals because of the present state of the law. Also 506 animals were killed or injured during that period. The injuries to animals are dreadful, particularly as many motorists, not daring to be faced with having to redress the owner of the animal, drive on, leaving the injured, perhaps dying, creature in agony on the road. In this age, that is an indictment of our community's neglect to take the necessary steps to prevent injury to man and beast. We are all very deeply concerned about this.

I therefore repeat that because an attempt is being made here to deal with this position, those of us who are concerned with the question of seeing that this type of provision prevails throughout the country are hopeful that this will be the commencement of something which will extend very much further.

Mr. Hooson

Is the hon. Member concerned to see that all the land in the country should be fenced, and that owners of straying animals should be held legally liable for any damage done by those animals?

Sir B. Janner

Am I allowed to answer that question, Mr. Deputy-Speaker?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The hon. Member can answer it in relation to the Bill which is now before us.

Sir B. Janner

From what you have said, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, it is clear that it would not be in order to give the answer that I would like to give. I merely say, in passing, that I think it is important that this should be done in his area, and the hon. and learned Member can draw his own conclusions as to what my view is in respect of other parts of the country.

There are features of the Bill which will have to be very carefully scanned and dealt with in the course of further stages. The points made by my hon. Friend are extremely important from the point of view of local residents. Everyone is hopeful that the ultimate result, when the Bill becomes an Act, will be a saving of life and limb in the area. In those circumstances, I give my support to the Measure, subject to the Amendments indicated by my hon. Friend.

10.32 p.m.

Sir J. Eden

With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I will briefly reply to some of the points that have been raised. I am grateful to hon. Members who have taken part in this short debate, especially to the hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Dr. King) and the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson). Hon. Members have made a number of points. I cannot answer them all, as I am sure they will appreciate, but these matters will be subject to discussion at later stages of the Bill.

I can tell the hon. Member for Itchen that the answer to his point about the reference to the existence in the printed Bill of Clause 17(3), which states that Nothing in this Act shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds is to be found at the top of page 1 of the Bill, above the Title, where it is said: The Words marked by a black line in the margin were inserted by the Lords to avoid questions of Privilege. The words in Clause 17 were inserted in order to ensure that their Lordships were in order in discussing the Bill. At a later stage subsection (3) will probably be struck out.

Dr. King

That makes it worse. This is a real legal fiction. It is not in order for the other place to talk of finance without a great deal of euphemism and circumlocution. The other place can do nothing about money. We took that power from them a long time ago. I suggest that the black line is by the side of something that is not true.

Sir J. Eden

I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am afraid that neither he nor I can alter the procedure of Parliament and that the explanation for the existence of that subsection is, I believe, as I have given it.

The two major points of substance raised in the speech of the hon. Gentleman and in that of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery concerned the representation of commoners and the taking away of their rights. There was a third point which I hope to touch upon, and that is the question of the payment of the costs of the operations as set out in the Clauses of the Bill.

I can say that the promoters are prepared to give the most favourable possible consideration to requests for representation. In fact, they have already indicated this fact and I am told that discussions are under way as to how this can best be achieved. There is no desire on the part of the promoters to exclude from representation, not as members of the Verderers' Court but in some form of association with the Verderers' Court, those interests now contained in other areas.

How exactly this representation is to be achieved is a matter for discussion and negotiation, which are taking place at the present time, but there is the intention on the part of the promoters to try and meet this point.

Dr. King

The hon. Gentleman must needs say more than he has said so far. If they take in the common lying outside, not even the present Verderers' Court could take away their right somehow to be represented on the court.

Sir J. Eden

That is quite right. That is a later point which the hon. Gentleman made, and which, I suspect, he has now contradicted.

Mr. Hooson

Can the hon. Gentleman give the grounds on which the promoters of the Bill would object to the Verderers' Court being extended to include representatives of the public?

Sir J. Eden

I am coming on to the question of the make-up of the Verderers' Court, but the first point that I wanted to get clear was as to the actual representation of the interests now becoming added to the New Forest. If there is no way in which those interests shall be represented, the promoters are prepared to discuss with them how this should be done.

Perhaps this would be a convenient point at which to come on to the question of the 'Verderers' Court. The makeup of the court, as was indicated, was set out in Section 1 of the 1949 Act. This provided for 10 verderers—the official verderer, five elected verderers and four appointed verderers. For reasons of brevity I did not earlier go into details, but in view of the discussion I think that it might be worth while to point out that the four appointed verderers are appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, the Forestry Commissioners and the local planning authority and that the fourth person is one designated by the Minister as being specially concerned with the preservation of the natural beauties of the countryside.

As to the five elected verderers—and it was on this point that the hon. Gentlemen were primarily exercised—it is open to anybody to stand for election to the Verderers' Court provided he is a commoner with common rights. I think that this is fair enough. It is not tied, as it was, I believe, in an earlier part of our history, to a minimum acreage of land. It can be the small landowner as well as the big landowner, and it is merely a matter of standing for election and securing election in a very democratic way in order to enable a person to be elected as one of the members of the Verderers' Court.

The hon. Member for Itchen referred to the "taking away" of rights. I hesitated a moment on the use of the words" taking away" but I accept the fact that what is being taken away is the freedom to pasture animals on the common without having to pay anything for that right, and under this Bill the right to pasture animals will carry with it a marking fee.

It is not the case, as the hon. Member claimed, that these people will have to go to the Verderers' Court to see if their rights are really tenable. I understand that it is not so. This is the point of amending Clause 1 (4). That subsection now reads: …the lands which are designated…as lands to which are attached rights of common of pasture or a privilege of pasture over any part of the added areas shall be treated as lands to which are attached rights of common of pasture within the perambulation of the New Forest as altered by this Act. The addition of the words "privilege of pasture" means, as far as the verderers are concerned, that those who have rights, or deem themselves to have rights, will be regarded as having rights when the new perambulation comes into force and when they are included within it.

Perhaps what the hon. Member had in mind was Clause 2, which concerns the powers of the Forestry Commission. This I described as the machinery Clause, giving power to the Commission to bring up to date what is known locally as the "atlas". In the atlas are marked those lands which carry with them rights of common of pasture.

It is in the negotiations or discussions as to whether or not lands shall be included within the atlas as so marked as having these rights that perhaps the hon. Member's point will arise. It is not vis-à-vis the verderers, however, that his correspondents should be directed but vis-à-vis the Forestry Commission in bringing the atlas up to date.

In Clause 2, provision is made for this, because the Clause allows for the appropriate consultation and also confers rights to object to the additional plans when they have been prepared and, as I have pointed out, these rights are exactly the same as those rights conferred by the 1949 Act. I think that, thereby, the points raised by the hon. Member are taken care of.

Then the hon. Member went on to talk about the National Trust. He quoted certain questions which were asked during the course of the Select Committee proceedings in another place. But I think it fair to point out—and I have no brief to defend the National Trust one way or another—the answers to Questions 420 and 423, in which the witness said that the objective of the Management Committee was to manage the common in the interests of the National Trust.

Probably, if the National Trust considered that the Committee was not managing the common in the interest of the Trust, it would be perfectly all right for the Trust to appoint another Committee. It is the owner of the land in question. It is in the ownership of the land that the common rights exist and it is the Trust's responsibility to determine what is in the best interests of the administration of the land for which it is responsible and of which it is the owner.

Dr. King

I, too, do not hold a brief for anyone. One of the duties of the National Trust is to protect the common right of the commons themselves, as well as the commoners. This is where the National Trust failed. The members of the Management Committee were doing the job of the National Trust. It was the National Trust which was betraying its trust in sacking those members.

Sir J. Eden

I slightly disagree. I do not mean to labour this point, but it is not the responsibility of the National Trust to protect the interests of the commoner. The National Trust is responsible to the country for the administration of the commons and, in the context of the Bill, the National Trust was convinced—and this is how I have interpreted the evidence before the Select Committee of another place—that the interests of the common would be best served by the inclusion of that common within the perambulation of the New Forest.

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery expressed concern because, he said, there had been no inquiry before the Bill. It is only fairly recently that an exhaustive inquiry, carried out by the Baker Committee, was made in 1946 and 1947. The 1949 Act gave legislative provision to many of the recommendations made as a result of that inquiry. This Bill seeks to give legislative approval to further recommendations of that same inquiry. It is reasonable to say that the 1946–47 inquiry is pertinent indeed.

The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery then commented on the fact that this was a hybrid Bill, but so were the Acts of 1877 and 1879, although I acknowledge that the Act of 1949 was a public Measure. I believe that in this case this procedure is right and that the Bill is, in a sense, public more than private. That has been recognised because the Government, in their generosity, have enabled us to have time to debate it. We have also had the Second Reading debate on the Floor of the House tonight.

I was asked who pays. I cannot give an answer to that, but I can express the hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has heard what has been said. Although I appreciate that my hon. Friend has been careful not to commit himself in this regard, I hope that some provision may be made out of funds available to his Department to assist the financing of these works where they are designed to improve the Forest and safeguard the interests of those who live in and pass through it.

Among the number of important points raised by the hon. Member for lichen, he stressed what I recognise is the perfectly justifiable view of those who are now outside the perambulation of the New Forest and who have common rights. They have indicated that they do not mind coming into the New Forest, but they do not want to be subject to the Verderers' Court or byelaws.

Dr. King

They do not want to come in.

Sir J. Eden

The hon. Gentleman was fair to emphasise that he was speaking for a minority. I think that he was possibly speaking for a minority within a minority. It is certainly a very small section of the people concerned with common rights who are upset by the inclusion within the perambulation of the New Forest.

The chief concern of those people is over the extension of the byelaws of the Verderers' Court. The chief difficulty over the extension of these byelaws, and one of the main reasons why these areas should be included within the perambulation of the Forest, is to maintain the highest possible standard of health and breeding among the animals which roam the area.

The right of vicinage has been mentioned, and it is a fact that the Forest commoners have the right to depasture their animals on the adjacent common. If this is not regulated, and if the animals on the adjacent commons are not controlled in any way, then, as was shown in the evidence of a veterinary witness before the Select Committee, the danger of the spread of disease, particularly contagious abortion, is very real. For those reasons, it is important that the animals on the pasture on the adjacent lands, associated so closely as they are, and will be, with the Forest, should be subject to fairly stringent standards in order to protect the general health of all the animals concerned.

The hon. Member for Leicester, North-West (Sir B. Janner), in what at any other time might have been a most engaging diversion in one or two respects, while supporting the general principles of the Bill referred to the dangers caused by straying animals, and that is a matter we have very much in mind. As all hon. Members know, and particularly those who know the Forest intimately—the Forest would not be the same without the animals—in fact, it could not exist without them. There are some people who regard all animals as a menace and a nuisance, but without the animals the Forest would quickly become a wilderness, and be of no value, either aesthetically or otherwise, to any of us.

Sir B. Janner

The hon. Member will realise that I had no intention of suggesting that what he has said is incorrect, but I wanted to stress that the precautions to which I referred were highly important and necessary.

Sir J. Eden

I will not seek further to develop a point that the hon. Gentleman has already developed.

I apologise to the House for the inadequacy of my reply to some of the points made, but I assure hon. Members that if these matters are to be pursued later, the promoters of the Bill will give every consideration to them, and seek to help——

Mr. Hooson

Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether the promoters themselves have any objection to the local authority having representation on the Verderers' Court? As taxpayers' money is involved, and as the Baker Committee recommended that two representatives of the rural district council should sit on that court, have the promoters any objection to it?

Sir J. Eden

I cannot say what are the limitations on the number of verderers, whether one should seek to amend Section 1 of the 1949 Act, which laid down that there shall be 10 verderers, or whether the Section can be altered so as to change the composition of the verderers, but I should have thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman had some satisfaction from the fact that the appointed verderers, of whom there are four, included one appointed by the local planning authority. That ensures that, through them, the local planning authority is kept closely informed. In addition, the Minister of Agriculture himself appoints two of the appointed verderers, so that, in that way also, contact is maintained with official circles. However, that goes rather outside the actual provisions of the Bill—there is no Clause that seeks to amend Section 1 of the 1949 Act.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Ordered, That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee of Eight Members, Four to be nominated by the House and Four by the Committee of Selection:

Ordered, That there shall stand referred to the Select Committee—

1. (a) any Petition against the Bill presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office at any time not later than the fourteenth day after this day, and
2. (b) any Petition which has been presented by being deposited in the Private Bill Office and in which the Petitioners complain of any amendment as proposed in the filled-up Bill or of any matter which has arisen during the progress of the Bill before the said Committee.

being a Petition in which the Petitioners pray to be heard by themselves, their Counsel or Agents:

Ordered, That if no such Petition as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) above is presented, or if all such Petitions are withdrawn before the meeting of the Committee the Order for the committal of the Bill to a Select Committee shall be discharged and the Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House:

Ordered, That any Petitioner whose Petition stands referred to the Select Committee shall, subject to the Rules and Orders of the House and to the Prayer of his Petition, be entitled to be heard by himself, his Counsel or Agents upon his Petition provided that it is prepared and signed in conformity with the Rules and Orders of the House, and the Member in charge of the Bill shall be entitled to be heard by his Counsel or Agents in favour of the Bill against that Petition:

Ordered, That the Committee have power to report from day to day the Minutes of the Evidence taken before them:

Ordered, That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Sir John Eden.]

c1604
1. ADJOURNMENT 16 words