HL Deb 28 April 1949 vol 162 cc117-26

3.5 p.m.

Amendments reported (according to Order).

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after Clause 9, to insert the following new clause:

Agisters to have powers of special constables.

" . Agisters employed by the verderers shall be granted the powers of special constables within the perambulation of the Forest:

Provided that the agisters to whom these powers are granted shall first be approved by the Chief Constable of the County of Southampton."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had some discussion upon this point in this House during the Committee stage of the Bill. It is a fact that in the New Forest the foresters—that is to say, the employees of the Forestry Commission—are automatically sworn in as special constables. As I understand it, they are sworn in annually before a local petty sessional court, and when so sworn they have all the powers of a special constable.

I am fortified in moving this Amendment by what was said in the Report to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, was a party. I hope that members of the Government will pay some attention to the views of one of their number. The Report, at page 22, under the heading "Agisters," says: The Keepers under the Forestry Commission are all enrolled as Special Constables. We think it most desirable that the Agisters employed by the Verderers should be given the same status. Without such powers they lack the authority to prevent misbehaviour on the part of the general public and to exercise due vigilance in the case of unlawful interference with the Commoners' animals or in the rarer but not unknown event of cattle stealing. They are more mobile than the Keepers and the two staffs could be of greater assistance to one another. The Police have no power to enforce the By-laws within the bounds of the Forest, and a larger force is needed than the Keepers alone can provide. The need will be more obvious when, as we expect, there will be more animals on the Forest than at present, and it will not suffice to employ more Agisters unless they are given powers to carry out their duties in a proper manner. That is the recommendation of this authoritative Committee who have given us the Report on the New Forest, and on whose Report largely the present Bill is based.

Your Lordships will note that in my Amendment I am merely carrying out their suggestion, but with an essential proviso, which I think is only right, making my proposal even more modest than the excellent one to which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, set his hand. I include in my Amendment the proviso that in every case they should be personally approved also by the Chief Constable of the county of Southampton, in whose jurisdiction as a Chief Constable the New Forest lies. This is a simple, straightforward Amendment, and I do not see that any harm can be done to anybody by having this enabling power to allow these agisters to be made special constables. The only people who would be against it, one would think, would be possible miscreants in the New Forest, who may find some satisfaction in driving off somebody's pony without so much chance of being detained or arrested in the act. Nothing would induce me to put the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, into that category of people and, therefore, I hope he will see fit to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 9, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Llewellin.)

LORD O'HAGAN

My Lords, before the noble Earl replies, I would like to reinforce what my noble friend Lord Llewellin has said. This is a matter which intimately concerns those engaged with their cattle in the Forest, and so forth. The whole object of the Amendment is to ensure that misdemeanours shall not be committed in regard to the occupation of the Forest by these cattle and animals in a way which will destroy part of the hoped-for improvement in the number of cattle to be placed in the Forest. It is perfectly clear to anybody who knows the Forest, or to anybody like those responsible for the Report, that more special constables in this area are highly desirable, both in the interests of the adequate protection of the Forest and the protection of the property of the Commoners and others in it. Therefore they earnestly hope that the representations from those with a real intimate knowledge of the Forest, will be accepted, and that a number of special constables will be appointed, in the way indicated by my noble friend. Speaking not only for myself but for a great many others directly concerned with the Forest, I hope the noble Earl will see his way to accept this Amendment.

THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE AND FISHERIES (THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON)

My Lords, during the earlier stages of this Bill we had considerable discussion on the question of whether the agisters of the New Forest should be enrolled as special constables. On the Committee stage of the Bill, I undertook to look very carefully into this matter, and to consult with the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, about it. Together we have looked into this, and although there are many arguments on the side of the noble Lord, I think there are very good reasons why we should resist this particular Amendment.

The first thing to bear in mind is the responsibility of the agisters compared with the responsibility of the keepers of the Forestry Commission. It is true to say that the agisters have authority only in regard to animals, and in fact if we look at the by-laws under Section 25 of the New Forest Act, 1877, the verderers are empowered to make by-laws only in regard to specific matters. First, there is the prevention of the spread of contagious or infectious disease in the Forest by excluding or removing from the Forest any animal infected with, or suspected of being infected with, an infectious or contagious disease. The second provision relates to the time, opportunity, and otherwise under which stallions, bulls and other male entire animals are to be allowed to roam at large in the Forest. Thirdly, they can enforce the removal from the Forest of cattle and animals belonging to persons not being commoners in the Forest. Fourthly, they can regulate the rights of the common by the commoners.

Your Lordships will see from those items that the entire responsibility of these agisters is concerned with animals, and not at all with people or with the land. Under Section 2 of the Forest Act, 1927, that responsibility is given to the Forestry Commissioners, who have their keepers who look after the New Forest. Therefore I think it could be argued, and argued reasonably, that as these agisters have authority only in regard to animals, there is no point in giving them extra powers as special constables which they would need to use only in regard to criminal offences. I think there is a common misconception outside your Lordships' House as to the duty of a policeman or special constable. I believe I am right in saying that an ordinary citizen who is neither a policeman nor a special constable has every right, and in fact the duty, to arrest any person committing a felony or a crime. The policeman, of course, has the power and the duty to arrest a person on suspicion that he might be committing a crime. As regards crime in the New Forest, that would be dealt with by the local police who have complete control in that matter. Another point is that even if the agisters were sworn in as special constables, they would not have power to prosecute under the Forestry by-laws.

Considering all these factors I would suggest that, instead of actually swearing these men in as special constables, they should be given uniforms. If the verderers would subscribe enough money to provide uniforms the agisters would, I feel sure, acquire a certain additional responsibility, and moral force. If, for example, one were walking through a park, and an individual in ordinary dress were to come up and tell one to keep off the grass, one might resent it; whereas if a park keeper, having an official uniform, were to come up and say "You must not walk across the grass," or something of that sort, one would feel that the man was doing his duty, and would not be conscious of any resentment. If these agisters were to be in uniform they would, I think, have this sort of moral force.

Apart from this, I do not see why the agisters should be given any such power such as that of arresting people. If someone tried to steal a New Forest pony or something of the kind, it would obviously be a matter for the local police. At the same time, we must look a little more deeply into the motives of the chief constables, who are extremely reluctant—I think noble Lords will all bear me out in this to give extra powers to individuals over whom they do not have proper control. Although the chief constables would have to give powers to these agisters once they were enrolled as special constables, vet there would be no control by the chief constable over their activities. Moreover, under our law it is impossible to enrol a man as a special constable and give him powers exclusively in a particular area; when a man becomes a special constable he has general power wherever he may be. The powers he has are powers which we wish, so far as possible, to keep in the hands of the police and we do not wish to place any further restrictions on the liberties of the subject.

In considering this matter, therefore, One would say that there is at first sight a good case for making these persons special constables; and the excellent Report of the Committee on the New Forest might, on the face of it, support that view. Yet I suggest to your Lordships that it would be an unwise step—and incidentally it would make little real difference to the position. In view of these considerations, I hope the noble Lord may see fit to withdraw his Amendment.

LORD SALTOUN

My Lords, perhaps may be allowed to say that my limited experience of forests abroad has led me to believe that powers of this kind are almost universally granted to all forest guards in successful forests. I suggest that other people's experience might perhaps be taken into account in this matter.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, I did riot, of course, put forward this Amendment suggesting that an agister would have any more power over the animals of the New Forest if he wore a special constable's band round his arm! The matter seems to me to be quite simple. Here we have a large tract of land—not, I am glad to say, very much policed, for there is not a great deal of work for policemen to do—where it might be extremely helpful to the chief constable in the maintenance of law and order if he had a few further respectable citizens (I have no reason to suppose that these agisters are not respectable citizens) to help him in the enforcement of the law and the Forest by-laws by being enrolled, as the foresters are, as special constables. The noble Earl said that the agisters might be more effective if they had uniforms, because that would suggest a greater authority than in fact they would possess. But I am informed that the agisters always have had uniforms, and that it was only in the difficult time of war that these uniforms were not replaced. The difficulty was one of coupons, and I believe that that was the only reason why the uniforms were not replaced.

I am sorry that the noble Earl does not see at to accept this Amendment, especially as he said that at first sight one might think that the paragraph I read from the Report supported the view I have put forward. As a matter of fact I have read the paragraph two or three times, and every time I read it I felt more and more strongly that it supported my views. As far as I am concerned, therefore, the matter is not one of first-sight impressions. However, this is not a very great matter, and I do not think it is one that we should press to a Division. I would, however, suggest to the noble Earl that the Minister of Agriculture might ask the chief constables to consider that where there were suitable men amongst those living in the district, that those men might well be kept in mind when the chief constable is considering the making of special constables in that area. Perhaps the noble Earl will consider whether that could be done.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

My Lords, I am very interested in what the noble Lord says. I think his suggestion is a very practical one, and it would not interfere with the substance of the Bill. I see no reason why the chief constables should not be consulted in the way that the noble Lord suggests, and certainly I will give him an assurance that I will discuss this matter with my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture. And although, of course, I cannot commit myself at the moment, I must say that I think that this excellent idea might go a long way to resolve the problems with which we are faced.

There is another point, which I do not think has been referred to, and that is the question of the responsibility of the local authority for the actions of the special constables. That is always a difficult matter, just as it is in the case of ordinary police officers. Suppose that an ordinary police officer acts in some way beyond his duties and causes injury to an individual—perhaps wrongful arrest, for example. The position in such a case, as I understand it, is that the ultimate legal sanction (though I speak with great diffidence in the presence of so many legal minds) is an action by the person against that police officer; and there is, of course, the sanction against the police officer that he can be dismissed by the chief constable. But I think I am right in saying that the chief constable himself could not be proceeded against in any way for the action of his subordinate. That is one particular aspect of our English law as an institution.

Another reason why it might be wise not to make these agisters into special constables is the fact that, if they did act in some way which exceeded their duties and caused damage, it would be an extremely awkward matter to decide who should pay for that. Presumably, an action would be brought against them by the damaged party. Would the verderers be prepared to back financially any costs of this action? From what one has read in the Report, I think it would be doubtful whether the verderers would be willing to commit themselves to any such responsibility. I mention that only as a further aspect to be considered, and I put it forward as a further argument against making these agisters special constables. I gratefully recognise the way the noble Lord has gone to meet us on the particular point. I will certainly consider carefully his suggestion, and I will have a discussion on it with my right honourable friend.

VISCOUNT MAUGHAM

My Lords, may I add this to what has been said by my noble friend? I have acted as a special constable on a large number of occasions. I have had opportunities for discussing whether there were any risks attaching to my so acting. Although I have no complaint to make about the way in which the law has been stated, I think I may say with complete confidence that, in the first place, only in the very rarest cases are constables accused of going beyond their duty. It is my impression that a special constable, appointed in the way that is suggested to keep order in the New Forest, would be even less likely to do anything which would expose him to any legal risk. I would invite the noble Earl not to pay very great attention to a risk which, in my opinion, is so remote as to be almost non-existent.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Earl for saying that he will consult with his right honourable friend the Minister, and will probably be able to make this suggestion to the Chief Constable of Southampton. In view of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

3.33 p.m.

Clause 19 [Exchanges of Land in the Forest]:

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after subsection (2) to insert: (3) A highway authority shall be empowered to construct grids or other similar structures to prevent uncontrolled ingress or egress of animals to or from the Forest along the roads leading into or out of the Forest: Provided that where such a grid or other similar structure is made across a road, alternative access shall be made available by the provision of a gate or gates alongside the said road. The noble Lord said: My Lords, most of you are familiar with the grids which people put across their drives when they cross an open field. The cattle do not like to see a pit two or three feet deep under the bars on which they put their feet, and apparently such grids are effective in keeping cattle from straying out of a particular field. Eventually, I believe that we shall want to do that in the case of the New Forest.

We march on in days of agricultural research and good agriculture, and I hope that some day we may be able to see an area like the New Forest become a tuberculin-tested area for cattle. If ever that comes about, we shall have to have some means of preventing those beasts getting out of the Forest. But, for the present, what one finds, as many noble Lords probably know, is that cattle stray out of the Forest along the roads. I myself have met them there at night. That is most undesirable, first from the point of view of road accidents, and secondly, from the point of view of the commoners themselves, because sometimes these cattle are found straying outside, are taken off the roads by the police or some other authority and then have to be "bailed out" before the commoner can have his beasts back. So, from all points of view, it would be a very good thing if we could have these grids across the roads in and out of the New Forest.

However, from talks that I have been able to have with the noble Earl opposite, I understand that much of what the ordinary person like myself thinks is part of the New Forest is really part of a common attaching to it and not part of the Forest itself. Therefore there would be great difficulty in knowing exactly where to put these grids, because the local inhabitants want their cattle to be on the common, as well as within the perambulation of the New Forest proper. If that be so, as I think it is, then it may be that I am a little premature with my Amendment, and that what I seek cannot be done in a Bill which deals exclusively with the New Forest. Perhaps the noble Earl could tell me (a) whether that is the case, and (b) whether there is any likelihood of the new measure, which the Ministry of Transport say they are going to introduce—indeed, which I think they must introduce, because many authorities have already put grids across roads, whether with powers or not one does not know—appearing shortly. If there is, then perhaps that will be the appropriate place to deal with a matter of this kind, not only for the New Forest but for the country as a whole. I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 21, at end insert said new subsection.—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

My Lords, again I would like to pay a tribute to the reasonable way in which the noble Lord opposite has moved this Amendment. As he said, there are two objections to what is fundamentally an excellent idea. The first objection is that there is common land all round parts of the New Forest and as it is impossible, without a fundamental alteration in our legislation, to enclose common land, it would in practice be impossible to enclose or fence those parts of the New Forest. Therefore, as the noble Lord has suggested, I think it would be better to postpone this excellent idea until the Ministry of Transport introduce their Bill which, as we know, will give general powers for grids to be placed on roads. When that measure comes along, we can consider this matter again and see whether anything can be done, in regard to the New Forest, to make it an enclosed area. I am glad that the noble Lord recognises the merit of this suggestion, and I should be grateful if he would withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, in view of the talks that we have had, I do not think that my Amendment is practicable at this stay. Therefore, I de not press it and beg leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Back to