NEW FOREST BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 09 December 1948 vol 159 cc905-45

4.9 p.m.

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

My Lords, in moving the Second Reading of this Bill, may I ask the indulgence of your Lordships' House to accept me once again as a substitute for my noble friend Lord Huntingdon, who, unfortunately, is still indisposed? At the same time, may I convey to my noble Leader, Viscount Addison, my thanks and my great sense of privilege in moving that this Bill be read a second time, as I think by doing so I shall enjoy the rare distinction of moving in your Lordships' House legislation which is based upon the Report of an independent Committee of which I had the honour to be a member.

This Bill might be called the modern counterpart of many Bills by which Parliaments since the days of Canute have sought to bring the laws governing the New Forest more into line with the ruling conditions and, at the same time, to resolve the age-old quarrel between the commoners and the Crown. They did not succeed in doing either, and in 1946 His Majesty's Government appointed an independent Committee to inquire into the state of the New Forest under these terms of reference: To investigate the state and condition of the New Forest and, having due regard to existing rights and interests, to recommend such measures as they consider desirable and necessary for adjusting the Forest to modern requirements. That Committee reported in 1947, and the Report was published in November of that year. It was followed immediately by an Inter-departmental Committee which considered what legislative action would be necessary to put the major recommendations of that Committee into effect; and it is upon the views of that Committee that this Bill is based.

I think I should take this opportunity, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, of expressing to the right honourable Harold Baker, who was Chairman of the New Forest Committee, their grateful thanks for the distinguished service which he rendered in that capacity. There have also been consultations with the principal local interests and some measure of agreement has been achieved—not so much as had been hoped for, but perhaps more than we had a right to expect, taking into consideration the turbulent history of the New Forest. Indeed, I think the Report of the New Forest Committee summed the matter up very concisely when it said: It may be thought too optimistic to hope that the age-long quarrel can be thus composed, and we admit that, after grievances have been remedied, the sense of grievance may still remain. Indeed from the attitude of some of our witnesses we are almost forced to conclude that if it were to be otherwise, life in the Forest would be deprived of one of its amenities. That does not prevent my paying tribute to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, who, in his capacity as acting Chairman of the Forestry Commission, did so much to try and reconcile conflicting interests. He could not altogether succeed, in spite of the fact that (I believe I am right in saying) he is the largest owner of common rights in the New Forest.

In dealing with this matter we are dealing with a great national heritage. It has been said by expert authorities that the New Forest is a miraculous survival of pre-Norman England. But conditions demand that the national interest, as opposed to the purely local interest, must now be taken into consideration. The time has arrived when the legislation governing the New Forest must be brought up to modern standards, and we must appeal to all interests, national and local, to see that the Forest—a vast tract of 93,000 acres, covering some of the most beautiful of our countryside—is in future more productive of the things that everybody wants. I do not think I can do better than quote words other than mine. When the New Forest Committee's Report was debated in your Lordships' House in February last, the noble Lord, Lord Robinson, speaking with all the authority of the Chairman of the Forestry Commission, used these words: I believe that under reformed or better management it would be possible to get for most of the people and most of the interests more of those things which they desire than they are getting to-day. There is room for more and better grazing, for more timber production, for more and better amenity and for more public recreation. But there is one proviso in the getting of all those things, and it is that there shall be a greater spirit of compromise than has yet reigned in that par- ticular domain since the days of William the Conqueror. I would ask those who have special interests in the Forest to consider for once that their interest is not necessarily the sole or the most important interest. Let them raise their eyes a little from the daily task and survey the general scene. So, perhaps, we may get a better system established. I do not think the present position could be placed before your Lordships in better words.

This Bill seeks to give effect to that ideal. It seeks to give more of what all the interests require, and at the same time to increase and protect those interests. It is true that the commoners of the New Forest want more and better grazing. At the present time the New Forest is under-grazed: there are somewhere in the region of 2,000 head of cattle grazing 40,000 acres of open forest—giving about 20 acres per beast. During the war the number of cattle grazing in the Forest increased to 4,000, and the availability of grazing diminished, through Service encroachment, by 9,000 acres. Yet the Forest was so under-grazed that the Forestry Commission had to burn annually 4,000 acres of open forest in order to secure good grazing for such cattle as there were. The next requirement of the commoners is more and healthier cattle. The New Forest is famous as a cattle-rearing area, but unless it is grazed far more than it is to-day, farmers will never be able to rear that number of cattle which it is possible to rear. In point of fact, if all the provisions of this Bill are implemented, the 30,000 acres of grazing that will be left will, according to expert opinion, take 8,000 head of cattle comfortably. The next requirement of the New Forest commoners is money. In that they are not unique. The governing body, the Verderers of the New Forest, have been practically bankrupt since 1877. They have been saved from complete insolvency only by windfalls, the strict legality of which I do not think would bear too close a scrutiny. Those windfalls have come mainly from payment of compensation by Service Departments for their encroachments during the war.

Apart from the local interest of the commoners, the public interest demands that there shall be greater timber production (a subject which has been debated in your Lordships' House many times) but under the Act of 1877 only 18,000 acres out of that vast expanse can be enclosed for timber production, and no more than 16,000 acres at any one time. During the war of 1914–18, 8,000,000 cubic feet of timber came out of the New Forest. During the last war 12,500,000 cubic feet of timber came out of the Forest, saving this country nearly 500,000 tons of valuable shipping space. That is the contribution which the New Forest made to timber production. In expert evidence before the Baker Committee it was stated that another 10,000 acres of the New Forest could be put under timber without any loss of grazing facilities for the commoners' animals, and without any loss of amenity to the public. There is, as I have said, a great need for this national heritage to be enjoyed by the people of this country—the 47,000,000 of them whose heritage it really is—and that calls for greater public amenity. This Bill seeks to do all this in a manner which, I think your Lordships will agree when I have finished, shows wisdom and consideration to the extreme for every interest concerned.

Clause 1 of the Bill deals with the governing body. Under the 1877 Act—the legislation which covers the New Forest to-day—the Court of Verderers was brought into a more up-to-date form. This Bill does not seek to destroy the ancient title but it does seek to put this governing body on a sounder basis by having not only elective verderers, elected by a democratic vote of the commoners themselves, but also appointed representatives, one by the Minister of Agriculture, one by the Forestry Commission, one by the local authority and one by a body which the Minister thinks best suited to represent those who are interested in the preservation of the countryside. The chairman would be nominated by the Crown.

I would ask your Lordships to bear in mind that on the reconstituted Court of Verderers—the governing body of the New Forest—the elective verderers, being elected by the commoners themselves, will have a majority. At the present time the qualification for an elective verderer is the ownership of seventy-five acres of land in the New Forest carrying with it common rights. To-day, in effect that means that out of approximately 2,000 commoners there are only sixteen people of both sexes who are eligible to stand for election to the Court of Verderers. This the Bill seeks to alter, under Clause 2. But it would be proper for me to give notice to your Lordships that Clause 2 has had further and detailed consideration by His Majesty's Government who, at an appropriate stage in the proceedings of your Lordships' House, will move an Amendment to reduce the five-acre qualification to one acre, bringing it more in line with the qualification of an elector. At the present time, the electors are based on the Parliamentary franchise and the Bill will bring in all those, numbering approximately 2,000, who enjoy the rights of a commoner. I would point out that, with both the elective verderer and the elector, the qualification is now based upon the occupancy, and not the ownership, of the land.

Clause 4 gives the Forestry Commission the power to prepare a register of all the commoners, which is sadly lacking at the present time. Clauses 5 and 6 simply deal with the procedure for holding elections. Clause 7 reconstitutes the Court of Swainmote and Attachment. To those of your Lordships who are not versed in the antiquities of the New Forest, that term means the judicial court of the Court of Verderers, which is set up to administer the by-laws which the verderers can make for the proper regulation of the New Forest. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor is empowered under this clause to appoint four of the Court of Verderers to this office, of whom three shall be elective verderers. Once again, I would point out to your Lordships that the elected representatives of the commoners have a majority upon the Court of Swainmote and Attachment.

Clause 8 is very important, because it gives the Court of Verderers the right to alter marking fees which, at the present time, owing to the Act of 1877, are limited to half-a-crown per head of cattle grazing in the New Forest. The Crown tenants, as they were known—but to-day I fear we must call them the tenants of the Minister, since by the 1945 Act the New Forest ceased to be a Crown forest and became a State forest—did not pay any marking fees, as did not the owners of the cattle which came on to the Forest from the adjoining commons. This clause gives the Court of Verderers the right to increase the marking fees to the extent they think applicable, and to vary the marking fees between one class of commoner and another, and enables them to make other alterations for the benefit of their finances and of the Forest.

I now come to Clause 10, which deals with the proposal in the Bill to allow another 5,000 acres of the New Forest to be put under timber. I would ask your Lordships to direct your attention to the wording of every one of these clauses. This clause is entirely permissive: it commences: "the verderers may." The verderers may grant to the Forestry Commission the right to enclose a further 5,000 acres of open forest for the purpose of timber production, for which compensation will be paid at an amount to be agreed.

Clause 11 deals with one of the crowning glories of the New Forest, and that is the ancient parts which, owing to the bad drafting of the 1877 Act, have gone into decay. Expert evidence before the Baker Committee showed that, unless something was done, then within fifty years the ancient parts of the New Forest would be no more. I think your Lordships will agree with me that there is no more pitiful sight than a decaying forest, and yet there is no power to enclose any part of the Forest for the purposes of regeneration. Natural regeneration of the open Forest, as your Lordships may well know, is entirely out of the question, because the grazing animals destroy all the natural regeneration. But here again, this clause is purely permissive. The verderers may give permission for certain areas, not exceeding twenty acres at any one time, to be enclosed for the purpose of the regeneration of the old forest.

Clause 12 also is entirely permissive. The verderers may give permission for 3,000 acres to be enclosed for agricultural purposes. It is within the powers of the verderers to say "Yea" or "Nay." Again, in Clause 13, the verderers may enclose a part of the New Forest on an outbreak of disease. At the present time I would remind your Lordships that under the law of levancy and couchancy—which refers to animals being kept where they rise up and lie down—it would be an absolute impossibility, as it has been in the past, for any standstill order under the Foot and Mouth Disease Regulations to be operated in the New Forest, because the cattle cannot be taken in. This Bill instead will give the verderers permission to make temporary enclosures, such as corrals.

Clause 14, which deals with trunk roads, is another purely permissive clause. Incidentally, it may stagger some of your Lordships to know that the fate of one section of the road system of this country, a great trunk road which it is proposed to build between Cadnam and Ringwood, is solely in the hands of the verderers of the New Forest—on which the elected representatives of the commoners have a majority.

Under Clause 16, the Bill seeks to put right something that has been done illegally for years. Under the 1877 Act, any enclosure of the New Forest is illegal. No lease can be granted; no power can be given by the Minister or the Forestry Commission to any village cricket club in the New Forest to lease its ground so that the club may obtain a grant from the National Playing Fields Association. I will not enter upon a discussion as to whether the better cricket is played on village greens in the New Forest or at Lords and the Oval; but any of your Lordships who has travelled through the New Forest on a Saturday afternoon cannot but have been delighted by the standard of this village cricket, whether at Lyndhurst, Brockenhurst or Beaulieu. Yet not one of these clubs is allowed to have a lease or in any way to enclose its cricket ground against animals.

LORD O'HAGAN

Did the noble Lord say Beaulieu?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I am sorry. I meant Balmer Lawn. I confused the names. This clause, therefore, seeks to give the Minister power to grant leases up to sixty years, so that the village cricket clubs may enclose their grounds.

I do not think I need trouble your Lordships with the other provisions, which are of a minor character. But I would again draw your attention to the fact that every clause in this Bill is permissive; and if there is to be any criticism of the Bill it must surely be against His Majesty's Government for granting such wide powers to an authority governing practically the whole of the New Forest. This Bill gives to the commoners of the New Forest something they have never had before in their history. Nobody could say that a court of verderers, selected from only sixteen privileged persons who own seventy-five acres, could be regarded as democratically elected representatives of 2,000 commoners. The Bill gives to the commoners of the New Forest the right to control—and this has been done deliberately, because His Majesty's Government take the view that if age-old quarrels are to be resolved, responsibility must be firmly placed upon the commoner. The Government believe that if that is done, we shall at least stand a chance of getting the new outlook which is so much to be desired.

There are only two other points which I think I should make. It has been stated for years, perhaps for hundreds of years, that the open part of the New Forest belongs to the commoners. That is not right. The land has never belonged to the commoners, and it does not belong to the commoners now. The common right is only to that which the commoners can take from the land of the New Forest through the mouths of their animals. If there is under-grazing, or anything of that sort, the New Forest may revert to the scrub it was a hundred years ago.

LORD O'HAGAN

A hundred years ago?

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

A hundred years or hundreds of years ago. As one who had the privileged position of being a member, of the Committee of Inquiry, I can inform the noble Lord that we had before us ancient maps which showed that in former times the New Forest was covered with scrub. It has never been a forest in the popular sense of being covered with trees.

There is no statutory obligation upon the Forestry Commission to burn one acre of open forest for the improvement of grazing; neither is there any statutory compulsion upon the Commission to lay one yard of drain, or to pull up one errant seedling pine. But during the last twelve months the Forestry Commission have spent out of the Forestry Fund just over £2,000 in ex gratia work on behalf of the commoners in the New Forest. A sum of £914 was spent on burning and £300 on building culverts and bridges. But, as I have said, there is no statutory obligation on the Forestry Commissioners to do these things. It was a generous action on the part of the Commission which they hope to be able to continue. My Lords, I hope that what I have said will convince your Lordships that this is a necessary Bill. I repeat that it is entirely permissive. It places the control of the open forest in the hands of the commoners, and enables them to build, not only in the interests of themselves but also in the interests of the people of this country. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2^a—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)

4.40 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, I think all of us in this House are sorry that the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, is still not able to be with us. We would send him our best wishes and the expression of our hope that when we resume in January he will be able to take his seat here once again. We have had the advantage in his absence of having the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, to introduce this Bill. The noble Lord, as we know, was a member of the Committee set up to inquire into what should be done about the New Forest. I think your Lordships will agree that we in this House are very fortunate in that, whatever subject we discuss, we always seem to have amongst us some noble Lords who know all about it.

Apart from Lord Lucas, I believe that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack has recently visited the New Forest, and there are other noble Lords, some of whom are to speak in this debate, who also have a good knowledge of the subject. One was mentioned by Lord Lucas—namely, the noble Earl, Lord Radnor. Then there is the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. I think I may say (if it is appropriate to say it of noble Lords) that these are the two biggest commoners in the New Forest. My noble friends Lord Teynham and Lord O'Hagan live there, and I myself pass through it very often, as I live only twelve miles away on the other side. Therefore, we are fortunate that to-day we have noble Lords present who, as is usual in your Lordships' debates, know about the subject on which they speak.

We heard a good deal from the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in regard to Clause 1. I should have said that, taken as a whole, the words which he read out were hardly in line with modern conditions. Of course, what the clause does is to decrease the number of elective verderers from six to five, and to provide for four new appointed verderers—one appointed by the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries, one by the Forestry Commissioners, one by the local planning authority and one by such body of persons as may be designated by the Minister as being specially concerned with the preservation of the amenity of the countryside. With the appointed chairman of the verderers, that will make five appointed verderers. I suppose, as is usual with a body having a chairman, that if there is an equality of voting the chairman will have the casting vote, as well as his own original vote. Therefore, I was rather perplexed when the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that the elected verderers would have a majority because, as it seems to me, there are five appointed, five elected, and one of the five appointed is the person who has the casting vote. Therefore, in certain circumstances that could mean six to five, and in effect the appointed men have a majority in this new body.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Will the noble Lord permit me to interrupt? I was, of course, assuming—perhaps wrongly—that in the majority of cases the chairman, who is to be appointed by the Crown, would assume a neutral attitude.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I do not know whether that would be so or not, but I understand now how the noble Lord made the point that he did. I see no reason why the chairman should assume any more neutral attitude than the man appointed, for instance, by the Ministry of Agriculture.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

But is there any reason why the noble Lord should assume that he would not be neutral?

LORD LLEWELLIN

At any rate, the elected verderers are in fact to be five in number. For some, unknown reason, they are reduced from six to five. I understood that the reason was that there would be this equality, presumably with the chairman having the casting vote. If that is not the reason, perhaps the noble Lord will tell us why the number has been reduced from six to five.

However, although I said that this was not quite in line with modern conditions, perhaps, on second thoughts, it is rather in accord with our trend to-day, because previously we have had elected directors of the coal mines, railways and electricity undertakings; and now we have Government appointed officials. Whether or not it is in trend with the times, it certainly cannot be called a step in the democratic direction. The noble Lord has, quite rightly, pointed out to the House that many of the powers given in this Bill are permissive. As the noble Lord pointed out, Clause 8 of the Bill gives the verderers new powers to alter and make by-laws. The most important of these powers is, of course, that contained in Clause 8 (1) (d), which allows them to vary the old marking fees, of which the noble Lord himself quoted one. Those fees are: 2s. 6d. for every head of cattle (including horses, donkeys and mules), 1s. for the marking of every sheep, 6d. for every 1,000 turves, and 1s. for every pig turned out in pannage time. We had some discussion yesterday about the difference in the value of money to-day, as compared with former times. It is quite clear that in the year 1877, half-a-crown went a great deal further than it will go to-day. Obviously, the cost of the staff that the verderers have out on the land is far in excess of anything that was paid in 1877. Indeed, seventy years ago the pound sterling could look any currency in the world straight in the face, in a way that I am afraid it cannot do at the present time. Therefore, it is obviously right that the verderers should be given power to alter the charges which were laid down in the Schedule to the Act of 1877.

Similarly, it is quite right, in these days of shortage of paper and so on, that they should not have to publish the whole of their accounts in a local paper. That is a clause with which the noble Lord did not deal. It is not of very great importance, but it is obviously right that they should have to give notice of where the accounts can be inspected, without having the extra expense and trouble of publishing the whole of the accounts in a local newspaper. Those are the extra advantages conferred upon the verderers by this measure. They are not very exceptional benefits. They are the kind of benefit which Parliament would obviously have granted to the verderers had they introduced a Private Bill of their own to bring the law in those respects up to date. But to secure these additional concessions, to what do they have to submit? The numbers of the elective verderers will be equalled by the appointed ones, and I wonder why these extra verderers are to be appointed in this way.

The Forestry Commission—it is true that this is permissive—are, with the consent of the verderers, to be allowed to enclose up to another 5,000 acres for the purpose of growing trees. In the old days, most of the trees that were grown in the New Forest were oaks, planted in order that there should be oak in this country to build the ships of the Royal Navy. It is true that Captain Hardy, Lord Nelson's Captain, went round planting a large number of oaks, of which there were a great many in the South of England, in order that the Fleet should not be short of oak; but by the time those trees had grown sufficiently large to yield timber for this purpose the Royal Navy had gone over to steel. However, in those days the main planting of the New Forest was oak. Oak is a far better tree to have wherever possible in a place like the New Forest than are the conifers, because under oak cattle can still get some feed. Certainly the pigs can get very good acorn feeds in the few weeks when the acorns have dropped in the autumn months of the year. So there is always less opposition to planting with oak than to planting a large number of straight lines of conifers, under which nothing can grow and the pine needles of which tend to sour the ground for any other planting immediately afterwards.

The point about both Clause 10 and Clause 12, which allow the extra 5,000 acres for timber and the additional 3,000 acres for agriculture—although I rather doubt if you will find 3,000 acres that will grow crops in the New Forest; and I rather wonder what the present agricultural patches have cost the local agricultural committee, and whether it has been worth while—is that they completely reopen the whole basis of the 1877 Act. The main principle of the 1877 Act was that there should be no more enclosures. That was the basic principle, decided at a time when the Crown had successively tried to enclose more and more of the Forest and the commoners were always resisting the attempt. I quite agree with Lord Lucas that the soil of the New Forest does not belong to the commoners; but, of course, the more that is enclosed, the less area there is for them to exercise their ancient rights of grazing their cattle, or putting out their pigs or, indeed, in some cases, cutting their turves as well. This Bill completely reopens that question of how much of the New Forest should be enclosed. If the Bill passes in its present form, it will be possible for another 8,000 acres of the Forest to be enclosed, and that will have to be taken from the remaining 39,000 acres, which is the only open part left out of the total area of 92,000 acres. That is the problem.

While we are reopening some of the provisions of the 1877 Act, I think it is worth considering whether they should not all be looked at anew. We all know—and the noble Lord has referred to it—that the verderers of the New Forest have been on the verge of insolvency for a long period. I do not know whether any noble Lords were at a meeting of the Empire Parliamentary Association, where a delegate from Malta said that although Malta was as much in favour of peace as any other part of the British Commonwealth and Empire, we must all realise that Malta lived only on wars and rumours of war. Certainly the New Forest verderers have once or twice been saved by wars and by land being taken by Service Departments—I would not, as the noble Lord indicated, say "illegally," because it was perfectly legal to take it under the Defence Regulation which, in those respects at any rate, overrode the Statute of 1877. We all agree that the verderers of the New Forest should have enough funds to enable them to carry out their work properly.

Therefore, while we are reopening these provisions, I suggest that the whole matter should be reopened and, apart from paying a rent for the new land they take, the Forestry Commission might be persuaded to agree to pay the 2s. 6d. an acre on the 15,745 acres which they already hold. That would amount to a sum of about £2,000 to be paid to the verderers. If there is added the amount to be paid in respect of the additional 5,000 acres, the further marking fees that may come in and the sum payable by the railway company for traversing the Forest, the new Court of Verderers should be enabled to pay their way. Everybody wants to see this new body able to "make a do" of it. They cannot continue to keep the necessary number of wardens needed to attend to the marking and to see that the Forest is properly kept, unless they have more funds than the verderers have at their disposal at present. When the verderers feel that there is a piece of land that they ought still to keep because it is good grazing land, and the Forestry Commission rightly think it is also the best area on which to grow good timber, I do not think the wretched verderers should be put in the position of either "going broke" or letting the best grazing land for commoners go to the Forestry Commission.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

The noble Lord has kindly given way. I would not like that to go out as a completely accurate statement. The expert advice given us is that the land that would be used for forestry would be useless for any other purpose, including grazing.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am talking about years ago now, and it has been one of the contentions of the commoners in the past that some of their best grazing lands have been taken. It was not then taken by the Forestry Commission. Their claim is that that land has now gone out of their purview from the point of view of grazing their cattle, their pigs or their sheep. All I am saying is that, although revenue will be built up in the way proposed in the Bill through the extra rent paid for the new areas taken over, the verderers will still be placed in the position of either letting the land go or of "going broke." If my very modest suggestion were considered, as I hope it will be, more seriously than the noble Lord seems to treat it at the moment (because we are reopening the 1877 Act, and we may as well reopen it fully if we reopen it at all) and if this small extra amount were paid by the Forestry Commission to the verderers, the cost of keeping this, which is our best national park at the present moment, would be far less than the amounts required to finance any of the new national parks which are shortly to be established. I doubt whether it will be possible to finance any of them with a grant of only £2,000 or £3,000 a year from the Exchequer, from which I suppose the funds of the Forestry Commission are derived.

Before I sit down I want to say a word about the trunk road from Cadnam to Ringwood, because it is a road I know extremely well. It may well be that in time it will be necessary to double the width of that road, but I can assure the noble Lord—he does not, usually, travel quite so far as that, but he knows the other road very well—that much the least congested part of the 105 miles from this House to my home is that particular stretch from Cadnam to Ringwood. It is a stretch on which there is practically no traffic. You find when you get upon it that you have got away from the lorries that ply between Southampton and London; they have either by-passed Winchester and continued on to Southampton, or have turned off at Cadnam. It will be some time before that road will need to be doubled. Let us, in the meantime, deal with the question of the Staines by-pass, to relieve what is certainly the biggest bottleneck on this road.

I hope that, whatever is done, no one will be persuaded that fences ought to be put along both sides of the road of which I am speaking. It is quite unnecessary. Extremely few accidents occur in the Forest by reason of cars running into ponies or other animals, and from the point of view of the ordinary, careful car driver, a great deal of harm will be done to the amenities of the Forest if the road is fenced in for its whole length along both sides. Any motor car driver ought to be prepared to spend a few seconds longer on the run—for that is all it amounts to—and to put on his brakes and slow up if a cow or a pig or a pony should appear on the road.

I believe that it is absolutely unnecessary to fence the road. Whatever pressure there may be from any interested bodies—I happen to be the president of one of them, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—I maintain that the fencing of the road is quite unnecessary. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, well knows, the road goes practically through the centre of the Forest. If you fence it the whole way along—even though you make crossings—the cattle will be segregated into two different parts of the Forest, and matters will be made very much more difficult for the commoners. A great deal of the concern felt by the commoners will be dissipated if no intention is shown to carry out an idea which would have the effect of dividing the Forest almost into two. I hope that among the improvements which this House may make in this Bill will be a provision to ensure by Statute that the road will not be fenced. I would say that the fencing of certain other places, such as cricket pitches, which are referred to, is obviously necessary.

We all want the verderers to have sufficient powers properly to maintain and keep one of the great beauty spots of this country. We all want to see that they have sufficient funds—it is not as though we were dealing here in millions; only £2,000 or £3,000 is involved—to be able to carry out their work unhampered by the thought that for lack of money they may not be able to afford to police the Forest properly for the collection of revenue, or carry out drainage or similar work that may be required. I suggest, therefore, that the Forestry Commission should pay normal rent for all the land they occupy, whether it is pre-1877 Act enclosure land or post-this-Bill enclosure land. If an arrangement is come to on those lines, I think we shall be able to ensure that this measure, by putting the verderers on a sound financial basis, will bring peace and good government to the New Forest for another seventy years at least—that is, as long as the previous Act has lasted.

I am afraid, however, that if we do not do something to provide that extra money to enable these people properly to carry out their job, this Bill will not be the concluding Act in a series, but within a few years at most we shall have to pass an amending Act to enable this great beauty spot to be preserved and maintained, not only for the benefit of the commoners but so that it may provide its contribution, however small or large, towards meeting the food needs and the timber needs of our country. I beg the Government so to arrange matters that these people, under the constitution provided in this Bill, will be given a good chance of becoming financially independent, and thereby enabled adequately to carry out their work.

5.7 p.m.

LORD RENNELL

My Lords, I would like to welcome the appearance of this Bill. It is, I believe, the outcome of a very interesting White Paper which was published some time ago, and which formed the subject of a debate in your Lordships' House. The White Paper was the work of a Committee of which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was a distinguished member, and it is pleasing to find the noble Lord here, sitting on the side of the House on which he does sit, as a protagonist of the preservation of feudal land tenure and feudal customs, which, of course, we on this side of the House very much wish to see preserved. I think that the Bill certainly does preserve those customs, and I am sure that your Lordships will join with me in congratulating Lord Lucas on that achievement, in so far as it goes. But I am not clear as to the relation which the Bill now presented is intended to bear to the recommendations which appeared in the White Paper. Indeed, I can see very few resemblances, even in those parts which are common to both; and I notice that a large number of recommendations in the White Paper are omitted from the Bill.

In the first place (and I should be glad if the noble and learned Viscount when he replies could give me an answer upon this point, as it is a matter which has caused me some difficulty), if I read aright the recommendations in the White Paper, the Committee recommended that certain modifications should be made, both with regard to the powers of the Court of Verderers—it is now more a council of verderers—and in amplifying and extending somewhat the judicial powers of the Court of Swainmote. I see no reference in this Bill to modifications in that sense, either in regard to the Court of Verderers or in regard to the Court of Swainmote. I may be wrong, of course. I know there is the difference in the constitution of the Court of Verderers to which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, referred, but I do not see that the powers of the court under the Bill will be substantially different from what they were under the Act of 1877.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Would the noble Lord like me to help him at this point? By this Act, as opposed to the Act of 1877, the verderers have wide powers of varying the marking fees, which were limited, as the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, indicated when he read from the Act. I invite the noble Lord to look closely at Clause 8. I can assure him that the powers provided there extend beyond those contained in the Act of 1877.

LORD RENNELL

I see that that is so, notably under the powers conferred by the subsection of Clause 8 to which Lord Llewellin referred. Nevertheless, I do not think they go so far as the recommendations in the White Paper; nor, for that matter, are the recommendations in regard to the Court of Swainmote carried into effect in the Bill.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Perhaps I did not make myself sufficiently clear in my opening remarks. I did not pretend that all the recommendations of the New Forest Committee have been implemented. When the Report went to the Inter-departmental Committee which I mentioned, that Committee made recommendations on which powers would require legislative action. A number of the recommendations can be put into operation administratively without having definite legislative powers. I do not know if this applies specifically to the Court of Swainmote, but it certainly applies to a number of the recommendations.

LORD RENNELL

The Committee suggest, certainly by implication (on page 22 of the White Paper), that the powers of the Court of Swainmote should be extended. The Bill does not specifically say anything about that, and I should be surprised if the Court's powers could be extended administratively except under this Bill; but I may be wrong. There are also a number of recommendations—to my mind, most important recommendations—which were made in the White Paper which do not figure in the Bill at all. First and foremost are the recommendations in regard to what the New Forest is, and what it is to be. There is a "flat-footed" recommendation in the conclusion, on page 78, that there should be a new single administrative authority. There is no reference to that in the Bill and, consequently, local government arrangements are to continue, in spite of the recommendations made in the White Paper.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

That matter is being considered by the Boundary Commission.

LORD RENNELL

That is precisely the answer I expected to have from the noble Lord, but it is not what he said in introducing the Bill. I am glad he has admitted this particular point, because at the present rate of progress of the Boundary Commission's work we shall see no outcome of the recommendation made by the Committee on which the noble Lord sat. That is one of the principal (and I thought most helpful) recommendations, and it has been sterilised by the procedure to which the noble Lord has referred. The change recommended will not take place within a measurable time, unless the noble Lord is able to tell us that the work of the Boundary Commission is a great deal more advanced than we think it is.

Then there is the very famous recommendation in the White Paper to which the noble Lord put his signature on the matter of dealing with the gipsies. Here, if your Lordships will recollect, some very interesting comments are made on page 66, to the effect that the standard of living of the gipsies of the New Forest had scarcely left the standard of the Stone Age. I do not know whether they were referring to the palæolithic or neolithic Stone Age men, but the language was somewhat outspoken on the subject. I do not say that I do not agree with the Committee, but as the language was so outspoken I am a little surprised to find no reference in the Bill to any method of dealing with the gipsies. I shall be glad to learn from the noble Lord, or from the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack, whether the recommendations made in the White Paper can be carried out by administrative action without any further powers than those already possessed either by the rural district councils or by the Court of Verderers or the Court of Swainmote. If no further powers are required by any of these three bodies, why have the powers which they already possess not been utilised to remedy the state of affairs to which the Report refers as nothing short of disgraceful? Either powers ought to be taken to deal with this nuisance, or powers already exist—in which case I must inquire: Why have these powers not been used? Perhaps the noble Viscount on the Woolsack will be able to answer that point.

My final difficulty is in a matter of the wording of Clauses 10, 11 and 12, about which there has been already a considerable amount of discussion. These are the clauses dealing with the permissive rights of the Forestry Commission and the Ministry of Agriculture to enclose areas for re-forestation, for the protection of ornamental woods and the improvement of grazing. From what the noble Lord said, it seems that the intention was that in these cases the enclosures should be temporary—that is to say, areas enclosed for a certain time and for certain purposes. In particular, Clause 11 (2) provides that: Any enclosure made by virtue of this section shall be laid open so soon as the verderers with the agreement of the Forestry Commissioners determine that to do so will not prejudice the purpose for which the enclosure was made"— presumably to protect ornamental trees. I would have presumed, going back to Clause 10, that an enclosure made for the purpose of re-forestation, or to protect young trees, would be terminated when the trees no longer needed protection. Yet there is no provision in Clause 10 analogous to the provision in Clause 11 for the release of areas that had been enclosed for plantation.

Turning to Clause 12, where, with the consent of the verderers, the Minister of Agriculture may make enclosures for improving grazing, it is suggested that at a certain time to be agreed these enclosures are again to be laid open. Clause 12 (2) says: The Minister shall make arrangements…that the land is so cultivated that after the growing over such period as he may determine of other crops the land will be left as permanent pasture and dealt with in accordance with subsection (4).… To me, this wording is very obscure. I think the clause means, in effect, that with the consent of the verderers the Minister will enclose certain lands to improve grazing, and that after the grazing is improved he will lay it open again to pasture. The wording, however, is substantially different in Clause 12 from that of Clause 11 and Clause 10, and I would like to know the reason for this distinction. In each case there is exactly the same proposal—namely, to make temporary enclosures for certain purposes.

I do not wish these comments to be regarded necessarily as criticisms of the Bill, but only as an expression of some regret that perhaps the Bill does not go so far as the recommendations made in the quite admirable Report of the New Forest Committee. This Report still stands as a monument to what a Report of that sort should be, both in its text and in its manner of presentation. May I say here that the admirable principle of providing maps in a Report like this—which was a singular omission in the Boundary Commission Report—might well be followed in carrying out the provisions of Clause 4 of the Bill, where the plans are to be prepared showing the lands to which common rights are attached? Those maps, I suggest, should not only be filed, as is provided for in Clause 4—one copy with the Forestry Commission and one copy, I think, with the Court of Verderers—but they should be published and made available for the public to buy, so that the public generally can see, at the same sort of price as they would pay for an ordnance map, the whole position. If that principle were followed as the outcome of this admirable Report, it would have the best possible effect on local public opinion, and would set the same example that the Report of the New Forest Committee has set to those who may have hereafter to undertake work of this sort.

5.21 p.m.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

My Lords, I rise to address your Lordships this afternoon not only as one of the largest owners of common rights in the New Forest, but also as one with great family connections with former legislation dealing with this subject. It was my grandfather who presented a report to a Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1876, and on that report was based the 1887 Act which was then considered, and has been ever since, to be the Charter of the New Forest. This Charter is now being amended, and it is my great regret that this action has aroused such deep opposition in the New Forest. I admit that this opposition is in some ways traditional, but it is based on conflicting interests over a great many years and also deep suspicion bred by partisan action on the part of Governments since 1851. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said that there had been conflicting interests since the days of William the Conquerer. That is not true. It is only since 1851 that real conflict between the Crown and the commoners has existed.

I wish to protest strongly at the rushing of this Bill. Its draft clauses may well have been considered carefully by various committees, but the commoners of the New Forest, as a whole, have not had an opportunity during the last two weeks (since the Bill was read a first time) to examine this measure, which will have so much effect on their future. The rest of the country has little knowledge about it. It is fairly generally understood, however, that this was to be an agreed measure. I do not think that the suspicions that have arisen on this matter will be in any way relieved by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who to-day announced from the Government Front Bench further Amendments which are going to open many dangerous loop-holes. May I remind the Government that this is a Bill which is going greatly to affect the future of the New Forest? I blame the Government entirely for stirring up any local opposition that may exist at the moment, not only in the New Forest but throughout the whole county.

However, I would like to welcome many provisions of the Bill, which are not only up-to-date but will also be beneficial to the Forest. But I would like to reinforce strongly the assertion of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that the Bill is entirely inadequate to fulfil the main task for which it has been introduced—namely, to put the verderers' finances in order. I would especially like to examine the proposition of the Ministry of Agriculture to enclose a further 3,000 acres for agricultural purposes, from the revenue of which the verderers are supposedly going to benefit by the sum of £375 per year. First, I maintain that the Ministry of Agriculture could not find this acreage to cultivate; secondly, their experience of such cultivation must be clear proof to them that, not only is such work not profitable, but also that it does not permanently improve the grazing. Those who nowadays have to wrestle with forest land enclosed in private areas can tell you that it is only after centuries of reclamation and continuous cultivation that forest land can be made to produce fine crops. As an example, my own land at Beaulieu has been cultivated for 700 years, and if for five years any land is left uncultivated it will turn to open forest. It would be of interest to see the accounts of the Ministry of Agriculture in respect of this experiment.

However, to be constructive, I would like to suggest three ways in which the Ministry of Agriculture and the Forestry Commission could help the Forest. First of all, the Ministry of Agriculture could use the money which they would waste on such cultivation on improving the drainage of the Forest and thus improving the pasture. Secondly, the Forestry Commission could cut all the sapling firs which have blown over the conifer enclosures and are spreading all over the Forest, thus spoiling the pastures. Thirdly, I would suggest that the Ministry of Agriculture would be well advised to buy some cattle for themselves and exercise common rights. It would benefit the verderers by the increase of the marking fees, and it would also improve the pasture, which is under-grazed. I do not think that this would be an unprofitable proposition.

I would now like to turn to Lord Llewellin's suggestion that the Forestry Commission should pay rent for those acres which they enclosed after 1851. I can anticipate the Government's answer: that those acres were taken as compensation for their loss of the right to keep deer in the Forest. In 1868 a Select Committee of this House was appointed to inquire into the defects of the 1851 Act. That Select Committee reported that the commoners in the Forest had in no way benefited from the removal of the deer, for two main reasons: first, the deer used to eat the scrub and the bad pasture of the Forest—incidentally, one hundred years ago the Forest was better pastured than it is now for that reason; secondly, the Crown used to drain the pasture for the deer, which benefited the commoners and the Crown alike. Since 1851 this drainage has not taken place. I hope your Lordships will forgive this brief historical survey, but I wanted to remind your Lordships of the facts in order to reinforce the argument that the Forest as a whole has never gained the benefits from the removal of the deer which the Crown either expected or which the Crown itself received. It would be only reasonable, therefore, for the Govern- ment to give careful consideration to this proposition for paying some rent for those acres which they enclosed at that time, and from which during the past 100 years the Crown must have benefited by drawing great profits from the timber.

While on the subject of deer, I am sure the Forest would be only too willing to consider a proposal that the Crown should, if they wish, take back their right to hunt deer. I can imagine the response the Minister of Agriculture would get from his colleagues when he invited them to join him in chasing such a provocatively named animal as a "red deer." I can assure your Lordships that the commoners would rush to the assistance of any Minister who got bogged down; and he would be charged salvage money, strictly according to rank. I cannot, however, guarantee to the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, that such respect would be shown to members of the Forestry Commission who found themselves in a like plight. With reference to the remark of the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, regarding feudal rights, may I just point out that these are feudal rights in converse? The feudal rights of the past centuries were rights and privileges which the Crown exacted from the commoners. The rights of the New Forest commoners are all rights which they exact from the Crown. It is an interesting thought in these days, when the Government have so much claim on the rights of the individual, that the individual still has some claim on the Government.

In conclusion, I would like to repeat my main suggestions as to the methods by which the verderers' yearly income can be both raised and stabilised, without their being subjected to what amounts to blackmail. For unless they give permission for these areas to be enclosed—and who knows that in future other areas will not be suggested?—they will be even more bankrupt than they are at the present time. So much for the talk about this permissive business—it really amounts to pure blackmail. I would urge the Select Committee to consider these suggestions: that the Forestry Commission pay rent for those areas which they have held since 1851; that the Ministry of Agriculture should drain the Forest, put out cattle in the Forest and spend money generally in improving the pasture; and that the Forestry Commission should help to cut down these, sapling trees which are causing a tremendous amount of trouble. I sincerely hope that this Bill will return to this House on Report stage improved and enlightened by common sense and justice.

5.32 p.m.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

My Lords, as has already been indicated, I have two interests in the New Forest Bill. One is that I am a large common right owner—indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, tells me that I am the largest and he is the second largest—and the other is that I am a Forestry Commissioner. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has said, during the past four months I have been acting as Chairman of that body in the absence abroad of Lord Robinson. While I have been acting in that capacity it has been part of my duty to endeavour to reconcile the varying elements in the New Forest to the terms of this Bill, a task, I regret to say, in which I have been conspicuously unsuccessful.

The various elements in the New Forest have joined together and have agreed that they are in opposition to the Bill. I would say to my noble friend Lord Montagu that it is all very well to talk of this being rushed on the commoners of the New Forest. Every endeavour has been made, so far as Parliamentary practice will allow, to acquaint those in the New Forest with the proposed terms of the new Bill. But as noble Lords well know, Parliament is jealous of its own rights; it does not like a Bill to be made public to the people of this country before the Members of Parliament and the members of this House, have seen it. We stretched Parliamentary practice as far as we could, and consultations have taken place—though, as I have indicated, they were not very successful. Indeed, it is no use denying that there is a very considerable opposition on the part of the commoners to this Bill—although I am not quite certain that the opposition is directed to this Bill particularly. I am inclined to think that one meets the same opposition to almost any Bill that is brought forward. And the fundamental reason for the opposition is partly temperamental. I do not mean that in any derogatory sense, but the temperament of the people in the New Forest is to oppose; and they enjoy a good fight as much as anybody else. They look upon this as a golden opportunity for a grand fight.

The reason for the objection is also, of course, partly historical. I need not go into that, because the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, have both pointed out how there have been differences of opinion between the Crown and the commoners over a great number of years, and they have given a good many reasons. It is true that the commoners in the New Forest look upon the 1877 Act as their Charter. They look upon the proposals of this Bill as inroads on their Charter and, like all good commoners all over England, they see in the proposals of this Bill the thin end of the wedge, not only for the possible enclosure of 8,000 acres, but even for further enclosures later. Quite rightly, in their own interest, they object strongly. Nevertheless, I think they are wrong. I think one must understand the main purpose of the Bill which is now before your Lordships. Its main purpose is to put the verderers' finances on a sound footing (they are not on a sound footing now), the verderers being the representatives of the commoners and charged with the duty of looking after the commoners' interests.

I will not go through all the proposals of the Bill, but the three main proposals, which are designed to assist the verderers with their finances, are, first of all, to grant them power to increase the marking fees; secondly, to allow the Forestry Commission to enclose additional land, and to pay for it; and, thirdly, to allow the Ministry of Agriculture to enclose land, and pay for it. Incidentally, may I say a word in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, who queried the wording of Clauses 10, 11 and 12? I will leave out Clause 12 if I may, because that deals with agriculture. So far as Clause 10 is concerned, that deals with enclosures for commercial forestry. There is no point in opening those for grazing, because in proper commercial forestry there is no grazing under the trees. Clause 11 deals simply and solely with the ancient and ornamental works, and the proposals in the Bill are to enable the Forestry Commission, with the consent of the verderers, to regenerate those woods in the interests of the public, so that they do not continue, as at present, to die on their feet. Those trees are getting very old, and there is no means of regenerating them unless they are enclosed.

LORD RENNELL

Does that mean that areas enclosed under Clause 10 will be lost for ever, so far as the Forest is concerned? Those under Clause 11 will not be lost for ever; nor, presumably, will those under Clause 12.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I think those under Clause 10 will be lost for good—or at least for the period of one or two forestry rotations. It will be a matter of one hundred to two hundred years, so we need not be very much concerned with it at the moment. Those three clauses are designed to assist the verderers in putting their finances in proper order, and I would particularly emphasise to your Lordships that they are permissive. I will deal in a moment or two with the arguments which have been raised already, that they are blackmail.

The Baker Report suggested that an estimate of the verderers' expenses would be of the order of £1,800 a year. I think that that is probably an underestimate of what it will amount to, but not very much an underestimate. The marking fees to-day are 2s. 6d., as a maximum, per animal. In 1947 there were 3,938 animals which were marked and for which a marking fee was paid. Over and above that, there are estimated to be approximately 300 animals belonging to Crown tenants in the Forest—that is, a total of 4,200-odd animals. I have been told that in the New Forest they consider that the absolute maximum at which marking fees can be put is 7s. 6d.; and I should say that that is not unreasonable. But I do not believe it should be considered as an absolute maximum. I have inquired what the charges are in two other places, somewhat comparable—Exmoor and Dartmoor. I will not quote the figures to your Lordships, because I do not want to get involved in detailed discussions as to what should and what should not be included; but there is no doubt at all that the charge that is levied on Exmoor for beasts which are summered—summered only—is four or five times at least the 7s. 6d. maximum which is considered possible in the New Forest. It is true that the grazing on Exmoor is better. On Dartmoor the figure charged is more than the 7s. 6d.—and the grazing on Dartmoor is certainly no better and the exposure far worse than in the New Forest.

I do not think, therefore, that the verderers ought to be too afraid of putting up the marking fee, because it is obvious that in other parts of the country there are owners of cattle who are prepared to pay more than the verderers at the present moment think that the commoners are prepared to pay in the New Forest. But even at 7s. 6d. I think the number of animals would provide the figure of £1,588 per annum. If the verderers were to charge as much as 10s. it would produce perhaps £2,000 or rather more, which is more than the estimate of the Baker Committee for the verderers' requirements. Alternatively, they could by one means or another encourage the keeping of a greater number of animals in the Forest. This would be very desirable from the point of view of grazing, since the beasts would graze the rubbish down and keep the Forest in order. I do not think, therefore, that it is entirely true to call it blackmail for the verderers to agree to any presentment by the Forestry Commission or the Ministry of Agriculture, when they have possible alternatives in the way of encouraging the keeping of more beasts or of charging higher marking fees for the animals in the Forest.

I would remind your Lordships that there is a paragraph in the Baker Report which suggests that a free grant should be paid to the verderers to cover that part of their expenditure which is for the benefit of the general public. I would include in that demand for a free grant the ingenious suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, for if the Forestry Commission were to pay for land that they now have under trees, the verderers would be relieved of all financial responsibility, and so would the commoners. They would be better off than they are now. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has already given us figures which show that the Forestry Commission is to-day spending on the open forest out of public funds something of the order of £2,000 per year. That is largely for the benefit of the commoners—and also to some extent, of course, for the benefit of the public, because the well-being of the New Forest is for the benefit of the public. In that connection we have had from the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, a very familiar complaint that we are not disposing of the seedling pines which spread themselves so freely all over the New Forest. But it must be realised that the Forestry Commission in 1937 undertook certain responsibilities, which they need not have undertaken, to keep in repair 187 bridges, to keep in order approximately half of the drains in the open forest, to keep down seedling pines, and also to make certain improvements in the existing enclosures. That agreement was reached in 1937; but an event occurred in 1939 which was of a somewhat prolonged nature and which made it very difficult for the Forestry Commission to catch up. Indeed, owing to military occupation and the like the damage done to bridges and such things was very material, and there has not been time yet to make good the arrears. These complaints against the Forestry Commission, therefore, are quite unjustified.

It has been argued that the provisions to enable the verderers as representatives of the commoners to set their financial house in order are not adequate. As I have said, there is a demand for a free grant. That demand may well continue, and to-day the Forestry Commission has the power, with Treasury sanction, to make a free grant if it should prove necessary. But the Forestry Commission—like the Treasury and, I think, like the Government—are unwilling to make a free grant until those who inhabit and benefit from the New Forest have made an effort themselves to make good their finances. Therefore, I suggest that that particular demand should remain in abeyance until the provisions of this Bill, when it becomes law, can be seen at work. If they prove inadequate, as is contended, then we may be able to think again on the matter—and to think to some effect.

The Forestry Commission favour this Bill. They fathered the Baker Committee and they believe that this Bill will do a great deal to help to get the New Forest into proper working order again. They favour it, first of all, because they believe it to be for the benefit of the New Forest. They are not supporting the Bill primarily because they want to get an extra 5,000 acres of land under trees. It is quite true that we want land on which to plant trees for the benefit of the nation; but primarily this Bill is for the benefit of the New Forest, and not for the benefit of the Forestry Commission. It is quite clear from the evidence of the Baker Report that 5,000 acres more could be put under trees without destroying in any way the grazing for the animals which belong to the commoners. I think it is right that I should make one further observation. Under existing legislation the owner of land and the occupier of land is under a virtually statutory obligation to make the best use of the land which he controls, and, if he does not, he stands in danger of losing his land and his livelihood. That is an aspect of the question which the commoners seem entirely to neglect. There is much land in the New Forest which could be put to better use. There is much land there which ought to be put to better use. Through this Bill, it is hoped that that improvement will be achieved.

5.51 p.m.

LORD O'HAGAN

My Lords, the ground has been so thoroughly covered by the speeches we have already heard this evening that there is not much left for me to do, except to emphasise one or two of the points that have been made. I do not pretend to have that intimate knowledge of the New Forest that my noble friends Lord Montagu and Lord Radnor have, but, as a resident there, I am conscious of the grave disquiet that is felt all round that district and which, in my opinion, should be made quite clear to your Lordships' House in dealing with this Bill. For my own part, I am clear that a Bill was called for, for the sake of both the New Forest and the commoners, in order to place the administration on a sound financial basis. But I am not convinced that the proposals included in the Bill will of themselves really achieve the object that is sought. I do not like differing from my noble friend Lord Radnor, but I think there is a great deal in the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I feel that that aspect of the matter needs to be gone into very fully indeed, and I hope that when the Bill proceeds to Committee, the question of finance, which is all-important, will be thoroughly explored.

From the point of view both of the general public and of those interested perhaps more directly—as I am—in the Forest, I think this question of a trunk road needs a great deal more examination. In my view, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, on that head pretty well cover the ground. I am not at all convinced that a trunk road in this particular part of the country is necessary. Above all, from the amenity point of view, so large a severance of one part of the Forest from the other cannot be said to improve the Forest. I take it that those who are promoting this Bill—the Government—are anxious to improve both the amenities and the productivity of the Forest. On the question of the importance of the production of food to the country, I should be among the very last to question the suggestion that 3,000 acres should be given over to agriculture. I cannot pretend to know much about the soil, or about the disposition of different parts of the Forest, but I should be very surprised if it could be shown that an enclosure of that nature for that purpose would really be of benefit from the point of view of food production—although, of course, I may be quite wrong. At any rate, that is an opinion which is not only my own; it is shared by a great many other people with a far more intimate knowledge of the ground of the New Forest than I have.

I appreciate that, from the Forestry Commission point of view, a further enclosure by the Commission for forestry purposes may be desirable. I have no doubt that they would not have recommended it or supported the suggestion unless they thought it was desirable. But after all, in these days the interest in and the importance and utility of the New Forest are not confined merely to the benefit of the commoners or the people living in that district. As I view it, the Forest is a national asset, and we should not do anything to diminish those amenities in which we in this country are none too rich. For my own part, I was brought up in the eastern part of the county of Lancashire, and I know how easy it is for a lovely part of the country to be ruined by the hand of man. A mistake in judgment in dealing with a place like the New Forest may well cause a great deal of harm. On the short view, it is true, such steps as are proposed may benefit a relatively small number of people; but on the long view they may do more harm than good. With regard to the question of the further increase of afforestation, I think that consideration should be particularly borne in mind.

I am not going to deal with the question of finances, or how the money is to be obtained. But when I notice in this Bill that a number of public Ministries are to be directly represented on the governing body, I cannot help feeling that it would not be unreasonable or illogical to ask that the Treasury, either through the Forestry Commission or through some other body, should contribute a proportion of what is necessary to enable this great national asset to be treated and conditioned in the way that I am quite sure we all desire. My noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth served on the Committee which produced this remarkable Report, and I am sure that both he and his colleagues want to do all they can to help the New Forest. In our history, however, we have not had a good record of beneficial effects of legislation passed by the Houses of Parliament, so let us see to it that in this case we do not make more mistakes than we can help by taking too short a view of the ultimate interests, not only of the Forest as such but also of the asset that that Forest represents to the nation.

5.59 p.m.

LORD TEYNHAM

My Lords, before drawing your Lordships' attention to certain points in the Bill, perhaps I should make it clear to the House that I am an interested party, in so far as I live on the borders of the New Forest. After what has been said this evening, I need hardly stress the point that this Bill is of great moment to those who are in any way associated with the New Forest, the last of the open forests in this country. We have debated a great number of technical details of control of the New Forest. I do not propose to go into them fully this evening. The New Forest has been called a miraculous survival of pre-Norman England, and it is undoubtedly a great national heritage. That point has been stressed by a number of noble Lords this evening. I feel sure that none of your Lordships would wish to impair this heritage in any way.

Perhaps one of the Forest's greatest claims to fame, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is the fact that up to the middle of the nineteenth century it was one of the main sources of supply of oak timbers for the building and keeping in condition of the ships of the Royal Navy. Although its value in that direction has long ago passed away, it has of course very great and very many amenities which now perhaps are more than ever appreciated in this over-populated island, and I maintain that we must do our utmost to preserve those amenities. I would like to call your Lordships' attention to the words which appear on page 57, paragraph 1, of the Report of the New Forest Committee. A principle is laid down there which should govern all action in the Forest—namely, not to avoid change, for that is continuous and inevitable, but to ensure that there is no violent interruption of a national traditional course of development; and I am sure most, if not all, of your Lordships would subscribe to that policy.

The Bill embodies a large number of the recommendations set out in the Report of the New Forest Committee, but, as was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Rennell, it does not contain everything, and there are a certain number of omissions. Many of the recommendations are no doubt admirable, but I think they would all fall to the ground if the question of finance were not properly faced. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has stated that in fact the verderers have been almost bankrupt since 1877. I think that is partly true, but he did not really point out how their revenue is to be secured in the future. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has already emphasised the matter of finance very strongly, and I would suggest that one of the primary objects of the Bill should be to ensure that the Court of Verderers shall have sufficient revenue in the future to carry out their duties. The noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has given his support to that point of view, but he also, I think, has not put forward any view as to how revenue other than that set out in the Bill is to be secured, except to mention a possible free grant.

Those of your Lordships who have studied the section on finance in the Report will realise the great difficulties which have confronted the Court of Verderers in the past, and are confronting them at the present time. I maintain that this Bill, as drawn, cannot ensure that the Court of Verderers will have sufficient funds and revenue to carry out their duties. The facts, as I see them, appear to be comparatively simple. I understand that the outgoings of the Court of Verderers cannot be less than about £2,500 per annum, and their present income, which is derived from the marking of animals, fines, licences and compensation, is quite inadequate to meet that obligation. I do not think it will be disputed that marking fees for animals could not be raised above the present rate of 2s. 6d. per head to much more than the figure of 7s. 6d., otherwise fewer animals might be turned out in the Forest and the increase would defeat its own object. I think the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, agrees with this approximate maximum figure.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Not necessarily.

LORD TEYNHAM

During the war, the Fighting Services enclosed over 8,000 acres for various purposes, and compensation from this source was paid. Of course, it was a great windfall to the verderers, but it is a non-recurring asset. Under the Bill, it is proposed that 5,000 acres should be enclosed by the Forestry Commission, and that they should pay, by way of compensation, 2s. 6d. per acre—

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

That is not in the Bill, is it? It is a sum to be agreed.

LORD TEYNHAM

I beg your pardon. In addition, there was to be 3,000 acres which would be enclosed by the Ministry of Agriculture, for which certain payments would be made. On that point alone, I would suggest that the proposed enclosure of 3,000 acres for agricultural purposes is an extremely optimistic figure, because I believe that the war agricultural committee had the greatest difficulty in finding even 1,000 acres. I think that point was stressed by Lord Montagu and also Lord O'Hagan. By a process of comparatively simple arithmetic, it is not difficult to show that, in spite of a possible rise in marking fees to 7s. 6d., the payment by the Forestry Commission for the 5,000 acres (which I know is to be agreed, but it cannot be more than 2s. 6d.) and payment for the agricultural land, the revenue of the Court of Verderers would not exceed £2,000 per annum, which would leave an annual deficit of some £500. Surely it is in the interests of His Majesty's Government to make adequate provision in this Bill for the proper revenue of the Court of Verderers.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

May I interrupt? The noble Lord is assuming that the number of animals will remain static. As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has pointed out, the better the grazing, the greater the number of animals which can be grazed, and the optimum number of animals would be about 8,000.

LORD TEYNHAM

The point I am trying to make is that although the marking fee must be increased in order to obtain revenue, if the increase is too great it would defeat its own object, because fewer animals would be put out to graze. I would like to support the suggestion that the Forestry Commission should be called upon to pay perhaps even the small sum of 1s. per acre by way of rent for the enclosures already in their hands, which I think amount to about 16,000 acres. The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, put forward this proposal and the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, made a very good point that the commoners did not benefit from the bargain about the deer. That, I think, is quite true. I would suggest that such payment of 1s. would go a very long way to meet the financial commitments of the verderers. Another point is that under Clause 16 of the Bill, the Minister of Agriculture is empowered to grant licences for the use and enclosure of land for recreational purposes and other matters. I would suggest that payment of fees for such easements should be made to the Court of Verderers and not to the Minister of Agriculture. Surely that is more equitable, as the easements must affect the commoners more than the Minister of Agriculture.

Although there are, of course, many good points in the Bill, my main objection to it is that, in spite of the able and thorough Report of the New Forest Committee, it will not ensure that proper provision in regard to revenue will be made for the Court of Verderers, so that they can carry out their time-honoured and necessary duties. I would like to make one mention of the commoners. The commoners are very much concerned with the re-constitution of the Court of Verderers. They feel that they are surrendering their present powers of control. I will not go into the point because it was well put by the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. On the other hand, if the Bill had included and had shown an adequate and dependable reserve of revenue, I think the commoners would not have raised much objection. I hope the noble and learned Viscount who is going to reply for the Government will be able to throw a little more light on the financial aspect of the Bill, and perhaps give due consideration to the suggestions which I have put forward.

6.10 p.m.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

My Lords, this Bill gives a good illustration of what has been called "the inevitability of gradualness." For my part I confess that that gradualness is much too obvious in regard to this Bill; but there it is. I want to say one or two words in general about the whole problem as I see it to-day. I have always been interested in commons. I strongly support the right of the people to go over commons. I am also interested in natural history, and, for that reason, I, myself, enjoy going over them. But as I go about over England, Scotland and Wales to-day I find many illustrations of commons being absolutely neglected—so shockingly neglected that nobody is making any effective use of the land or is able to make any effective use of it. I have in mind a common adjoining a plantation of the Forestry Commission where the bracken is up to one's armpits. No one could possibly walk about there. As your Lordships are probably well aware, if bracken grows on land it is one of the best indications that trees will grow there. But if one talks about doing anything to this land there is an outcry: "This is common land, and the people have a right to walk over it." Well, as I say, they cannot walk over it. Though I fully agree that we have to protect the amenities of the land for the benefit of the people—and we have not too much land for amenities—we must try to secure that proper use is made of the land; and the two aims do not always, and, indeed, do not generally, conflict.

Take the case of the New Forest, for instance. I spent a week there a little while ago (I cannot remember whether it was at Whitsun or at Easter but I think it was at Whitsun), and I had the privilege of meeting the noble Lord, Lord Montagu, there. The weather was lovely, and forest fires, I need hardly say, were raging on all sides. I myself got stuck in a car and no one came to my rescue. But I really was depressed by what I saw—I refer to the condition of the land, and to the number of animals it can support. The condition of the grazing is deplorable. I was with the Forestry Commission and it so happened that there was working in that area a professor from Aberystwyth University who is a great expert on grass. He had a class of students with him. I talked to him for some time about the possibilities of improving the grazing. "I quite agree" he said, "that you can obviously improve the grazing, but it all depends on how much you are prepared to spend on it. To improve the grazing to a considerable extent would cost a great deal of money. One way in which I believe you could improve it, without spending a great deal of money, would be to have more cattle on the land—to graze the land more."

The test of ownership of land in Roman Law was that you had the right to use or abuse it. That is not the test in our law, and in this small country we cannot afford not to use every acre of land to the best advantage. If we can grow food, then let us grow food. If we cannot grow food, then let us grow trees. And here I would humbly point out to the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that in talking about the comparative merits of hardwood and softwood one must bear in mind that something depends on the nature of the land on which trees are to be grown. If trees are to be grown on the sort of land which I anticipate the Forestry Commission will take in the New Forest, if they obtain the consent of the verderers—the 5,000 acres—it would be utter folly to grow hardwood trees there. It is a case of growing softwood trees or no trees. When you get better land—and there are many instances of better land in the New Forest—then by all means grow hardwood trees upon it. But if it is that barren soil, with an ironstone pan, sometimes six inches and sometimes a foot deep, which would certainly have to be broken up and ploughed, quite obviously it is a case of growing softwoods there.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Will the noble and learned Viscount forgive me for interrupting him? I was not suggesting for one moment that oak should be grown on that land. We have had experience of similar property in Dorset and we know that that is quite impossible.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

Yes, it is quite impossible. I did not want to enter into the old controversy as to the respective merits of hardwood and softwood trees.

I come now to a matter upon which I must take some of your Lordships seriously to task. Of course you are perfectly entitled to say: "Let us have a grant from the Treasury, because we are poor, and let the verderers have a share." That is what everyone is saying and there is no harm in saying it. Everyone is trying for the same thing. You ask for a grant; you say that you want it badly; and you "come clean." That I do not mind. That, at any rate, is becoming common form. But for Lord Llewellin to try to justify that by enunciating some proposition that the Forestry Commission ought to pay for the land which they already occupy is something which I regret very much. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu followed Lord Llewellin, and Lord Teynham was also corrupted. What a monstrous doctrine it is! What are the facts? In the year 1851, after a great deal of agitation an Act of Parliament was passed—at the instance of the verderers and commoners. The New Forest was then a Crown Forest, and one of the rights which the Crown had was to keep deer in the Forest. The commoners maintained that the existence of those deer was spoiling their right of pasturage. They wanted to try to induce the Crown to remove the deer. The Crown were most reluctant to do so. However the pressure became so strong, and the Crown yielded so much to the pressure, that finally a bargain was made.

And the bargain made was to this effect. The Crown said: "We will remove the deer, as you wish us to do, and you will give us the right to enclose 10,000 acres." That was the bargain. In fact, in this, as in many matters, the commoners were quite wrong, because the removal of the deer—as had previously been pointed out to them would be the case—not only did no good but actually did harm; the ground was even less grazed than before. But the Crown lost its right to pasture the deer and keep them there. It is a new doctrine to me that when you have received a somewhat reluctant assent to an agreement for which you have pressed (though all the drawbacks have been clearly pointed out to you), and the agreement is signed, sealed and delivered, and then things happen in exactly the way you were warned they would happen, you can turn round and say: "This has not turned out in the way that I thought it would. I want you to pay me so much for every acre of the land which you have enclosed by virtue of that agreement." That really is such a monstrous doctrine that I deeply regret that I should have heard it enunciated from such respectable lips. Whatever else we do, I hope that we shall not, when we get to the Committee stage, give any colour whatever to any such evil practice.

The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, wanted to know something about the trunk road. I agree that there is a trunk road at the present time. But whether it is or is not desirable to fence it I cannot say. I do not feel at all strongly on this matter. It seems to me that it might well be debated at the Committee stage. It may be that the noble Lord is right and that the power to fence should be taken away. I express no opinion; I should like to hear the arguments.

Lord Rennell asked me about gipsies. The real difficulty about gipsies lies not in the inadequacy of legal powers, but in the awful problem of where they are to be placed. There had been a scheme at an earlier stage whereby the gipsies were to be transferred to open areas of the Forest. If that could have been done, we would have done it and made by-laws regulating their behaviour and so on, but the Baker Committee did not recommend that, and as we had no recommendations, we have not dealt with gipsies in this Bill. There is power, of course, to deal with the matter by by-law, but unless and until we have found some method of housing these people and some place to send them to, it is very difficult to see what we can do. What is lacking is not power, but a practical scheme. It is fair to say that these gipsies, too, have been in the Forest for centuries and they have nowhere else to go. We cannot tell them, like a policeman, to "Move along, please." There is nowhere for them to go.

The noble Lord, Lord Rennell, also asked about a difference in wording in Clauses 10, 11 and 12. I think the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, gave the answer. Of course, it is wrong to say that even under Clause 10 there is an enclosure for all time; but in that it is to remain for one or possibly two rotations, it will last out Lord Rennell and me, and therefore I do not think we can take a very keen interest in it.

I am grateful to your Lordships for the consideration you have given to this Bill and for your criticism. I cannot say whether the Minister of Agriculture will or will not enter into an agreement with the verderers with regard to 3,000 acres and make that fine and fertile land. It can be done, but it can be done only at a price. Speaking for myself, I should be very sorry to undertake such a proposition. Whether the Minister of Agriculture would think it wise, or whether the Ministry might discover some way of doing it, I do not know. It does not follow that because we have passed this Bill, the Minister will enter into such an agreement. The Bill merely gives him the right to do so, and the verderers the right to enter into an agreement with him, if they are so minded. No doubt this land can most profitably be used for growing trees. That is the most effective use to which this poorer land can be put.

Although I agree with the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, that we ought to grow food wherever we can reasonably do so, I hope he will agree with me that where we cannot profitably grow food we ought to grow trees—always subject to this: we must try to see that the amenities of the people and their ancient rights and privileges are not unduly interfered with. It is to try and harmonise all these interests that we have introduced this Bill. It is, I understand, in the nature of a hybrid Bill. It will therefore receive very careful consideration in the Committee stage, and will come down to us again, I have no doubt, altered, and possibly improved in some respects, but not, I trust, in the particular respect which the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has indicated.

On Question, Bill read 2^a.