HL Deb 24 March 1949 vol 161 cc731-48

5.5 p.m.

Order of the Day read for the House to be put into Committee on recommitment of the Bill.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DROGHEDA in the Chair]

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES

As your Lordships will have seen from the Order Paper, this is a recommitted Bill. It has been before a Select Committee upstairs, and they have made a number of Amendments which appear in the Bill as it is now before your Lordships. Unless your Lordships have any objection, I propose to follow the usual procedure in these hybrid Bills and move that the Amendments made by the Select Committee be agreed to en bloc.

Moved, That the Amendments proposed by the Select Committee be made.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.

Clause 5 [Procedure for holding elections]:

LORD O'HAGAN

had given notice to move, after subsection (1), to insert the following new subsections: ( ) Regulations under this section shall provide for the setting up of five electoral districts, the limits of which shall be determined by the Minister after consultation with the verderers. ( ) Each electoral district shall elect one verderer. The noble Lord said: Since putting my Amendment on the Order Paper, I have noticed an Amendment put down by the noble Earl on behalf of His Majesty's Government. So far as I can see, the ground is covered which I sought to cover in my Amendment. I think the Amendment suggested by the noble Earl is much better than that which stands in my name and, therefore, I will not move my Amendment.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 agreed to.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, after Clause 6, to insert the following new clause:

Constitution of electoral districts

".—(1) The verderers may, at any time whether before or after the date appointed under subsection (4) of the last foregoing section, submit to the Minister a scheme for the division into five electoral districts of the aggregate of the lands to which are attached rights of common over the Forest, and for securing that each elective verderer will hold office as verderer for one of those districts.

(2) The Minister shall consider any scheme submitted to him under this section and may, if he thinks fit, by order make such provision as appears to him requisite for giving effect to the scheme either as submitted to him or subject to such modifications as, after consultation with the verderers, the Minister may determine.

(3) If it appears to the Minister expedient so to do before deciding whether or not to give effect to a scheme submitted to him under this section, the Minister may cause a local inquiry to be held.

(4) An order giving effect to a scheme under this section may contain such incidental, consequential and transitional provisions (including modifications or adaptations of Section three of this Act, of the last foregoing section and of the First Schedule to this Act) as appear to the Minister, after consultation with the verderers, requisite for the purposes of the order.

(5) Any scheme or order under this section may be varied or revoked by a subsequent scheme thereunder taking effect or made in like manner and subject to the like provisions.

(6) Notwithstanding anything in the foregoing provisions of this section a scheme or order thereunder shall not take effect before the date appointed under subsection (4) of the last foregoing section."

The noble Earl said: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, for allowing the Government Amendment to come forward after Clause 6. During an earlier stage of the Bill it was suggested that there should be various electoral districts in the New Forest. This was not suggested by the Baker Committee, and inquiries have shown that this might be a very impractical suggestion. However, it is impossible finally to decide without first seeing the electoral register. Therefore, the Government thought that it would be better to put powers in the Bill, so that if a scheme were eventually produced by the verderers, the Minister would have power to consider it and, if necessary, make an order in respect of it. I hope noble Lords will agree to this course. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 6, insert the said new clause.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clauses 7 and 8 agreed to.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved, after Clause 8, 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: This is a short and simple Amendment which really speaks for itself. At the present moment the foresters in the New Forest—who are, I understand, the employees of the Forestry Commission—are all made special constables in order to enable them the better to do their work. My suggestion in this Amendment is that agisters also should be made special constables, so long as they are approved as individuals by the chief constable of the county concerned.

What have these two different types of people to do? The answer is that the foresters have, amongst other duties—the duties in which they would use their special constable status—that of preventing people from cutting down young trees, or selling timber, or anything which conies within the purview of the Forestry Commission. The agisters' main task is looking after the livestock in the Forest, and, I suppose, if the occasion should arise, preventing a pony or calf or cow being stolen and removed from the Forest. It has always been a bigger offence in our law to steal cattle or to steal sheep than to do damage to timber or steal a piece of wood. It seems to me, therefore, that it is right that these people should be personally approved by the chief constable, and that the agisters employed by the verderers should equally be made special constables, in the same way as the foresters. It would help them to carry out their duties in the Forest and would make it much easier for them, in the event of anyone offending against the law, to do something quickly themselves rather than have to find one of the foresters who happened to be a special constable, or one of the local police. I should have thought the sensible thing would be to make these men special constables. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— After Clause 8, insert the said new clause.—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

The noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, has moved this Amendment with great clarity and eloquence and, on the face of it, it would seem a very reasonable case; but I am afraid we shall have to resist the Amendment, because it raises complications which will be seen when the question is considered more closely. In the first place, as the noble Lord has said, the keepers employed by the Forestry Commission are enrolled as special constables. But I understand that the police authorities are reluctant to give powers to two different bodies. In this instance, we should have the special constables of the Forestry Commission and also the agisters under the verderers. It is possible that there might be conflicting orders; one man might tell someone to get off the land; another, acting under a completely different authority, might allow him to stay. That is one complication. Moreover the police are most reluctant to give powers to a body over whom they have no control, so that even if they approved of a particular man—and their approval would have to be obtained—they would still not control what that man did.

There are further and perhaps more weighty considerations. I am informed that even if these agisters were enrolled as special constables they would not have the power to prosecute under the by-laws of the Forest. It is only the Forestry Commission keepers who have the legal power to prosecute in that case. When one considers that the duty of the Forestry Commission is that of looking after the Forest and woods, and that that of the agisters is only the looking after the animals—

LORD LLEWELLIN

Are the Forestry Commission the right people to prosecute in a case, for instance, of the theft of a pony?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

No: that would be done by the local police. It is a little difficult to say, in particular circumstances, what the agisters would do. They might find someone stealing cattle or a pony, but after all, they would have the same power as any farmer who might find someone coming on his land and stealing his cattle. To give this power would, I think, raise so many complications from the legal point of view that it would be wiser not to insist on this Amendment.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I must say, with great respect, that I think the noble Earl's reasons for resisting this Amendment seem to me to be completely nonsensical. In previous discussions we have throughout emphasised the point that the Forestry Commission have been given a statutory obligation to look after the open forest, and the verderers and the agisters have been told that their responsibility would be the cattle. They must, surely, therefore, have more power to look after those cattle. The forestry keepers are not interested in the commoners' cattle. I have heard many times in my area people complaining of their cattle having been stolen, yet the agisters are unable to do anything about it. The agisters are responsible for looking after the commoners' cattle, and it is completely wrong to say that they are like farmers. Here we have four people looking after hundreds of people's cattle they are responsible for other people's cattle and not, like the farmer, for their own. It is very difficult for these men to do their duty if they have not power to enforce the laws. I strongly hope that this Amendment will be accepted.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

If I may interrupt, may I say—though not in my capacity as former Chairman of the Select Committee—that I was a little puzzled by what the noble Earl said about dual responsibility. He said that the special constables would be responsible either to the Forestry Commission or to the court of verderers. Surely the answer is that neither group is responsible to either of those bodies. In their capacity as special constables they are surely responsible to the chief constable of the county. I speak subject to correction, but I cannot see how they could be answerable to either of these other bodies. I should have thought that the top of the pyramid in each case was the chief of police and not these two separate bodies, the Forestry Commissioners and the verderers.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I should like to point out that in the New Forest Report the Committee strongly recommend that agisters should be enrolled as special constables with the same powers as the keepers. They also said: 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. That was the recommendation in the Report.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I know that it was in the Report, but we thought that perhaps the Committee had not examined that particular aspect to the fullest possible extent. I hesitate to cross swords with the noble Marquess upon this point, for he has a greater legal knowledge than I can ever hope to obtain, but I refer to a situation such as this. Keepers are controlled, employed and paid by the Forestry Commission. Ultimately their legal powers would come from the police, but they would receive their day-to-day instructions from the Forestry Commission and not from the chief constable, although their power would come from the chief constable of the district. On the other hand, the agisters would receive their instructions from the verderers. It is possible, I submit, that a case might arise where those instructions might be completely opposed to each other. I do not pretend to be learned on the legal and technical side, but I fear it would work out like that. My main point is that there is a great reluctance on the part of those controlling the police to give their responsibility, which is a very considerable responsibility, to more people than they can help. However, if there is a strong feeling in the House, I will look into the question, which is really a Home Office matter rather than mine, between now and the next stage of the Bill. Perhaps, therefore, the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am obliged to the noble Earl for his last few remarks. I would not lightly turn down the Report seeing who are the signatories to it. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who adorns the Front Bench, himself signed this Report, which says at page 22: The Keepers under the Forestry Commission ere all enrolled as Special Constables. We think it most desirable that the Agisters employed by the Verderers should be given the same state. 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. That was the recommendation in the Baker Report. I must say that I take the same view as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, that in their duties as special constables they would not be acting under the instructions of their particular employers. They would be acting under the general instructions given to all police, whether regular police or special constables, to enable them to enforce the law. That is the position that they would be given. It is only a question of giving these extra four men the status which is normally given to the foresters.

The Report goes on to say: The Police have no power to enforce the By-laws within the bounds of the Forest. So it is just as well to have somebody there who can enforce those by-laws. They would reinforce the forest keepers and would not conflict with them, and, particularly in the case of enforcement, they would not act under the directions of the Forestry Commission or the Court of Verderers but as special constables who have to see that the regulations and the law are enforced. I am obliged to the noble Earl for saying that he will look into this matter between now and Report stage. In the meantime, because we have a good backing for the necessity of trying to get this point into the measure, perhaps we can have a consultation to see whether in any event my words are the right ones. I am not in the least wedded to them, although in principle I think we should adopt this Amendment. However, in view of the noble Earl's undertaking to look at it again, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clauses 9 and 10 agreed to.

Clause 11 [Enclosures for growth of timber]:

On Question, Whether the clause shall stand part of the Bill?

LORD O'HAGAN

Before we pass Clause 11, I should like to make a strong appeal to the noble Earl to consider whether, in view of the trouble taken to secure the information that is now before the House and from studying the Report of the Committee of my noble friend Lord Reading, it would not be desirable before the Report stage to withdraw this clause altogether. We are dealing with what is acknowledged to be a unique place in this country—unique in many respects. The case made for this clause by the noble Lord, Lord Robinson, recorded in the verbatim Report of that Committee, should impress upon your Lordships the necessity for consideration of my suggestion. I make an appeal to the noble Earl to reconsider whether, in view of the New Forest being the New Forest, it would not be in the best interests of the nation that this clause should be withdrawn. If your Lordships will look at the evidence that was given before that Committee, you will observe that the noble Lord, Lord Robinson—I am glad to see that he is present and so can hear what I am saying—was pressed as to where the enclosures were to be put, and he proposed that the Forestry Commission should embark upon that.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

Did the noble Lord say Clause 11?

LORD O'HAGAN

Yes, Clause 11.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

I beg the noble Lord's pardon; it was formerly Clause 10.

LORD O'HAGAN

I am glad to be more up to date than the noble Lord.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

The Bill has not reached the Report stage.

LORD O'HAGAN

If I may continue those remarks, they were to the effect that, if we look at the evidence given by the noble Lord, Lord Robinson, we find that he said, and said quite frankly, that there was no plan so far as these enclosures were concerned; that in effect the matter had not been thought out at all in detail; and that all which was sought was this wide, undefined and roving power to enclose more open forest if and when the Forestry Commission felt disposed so to do. From the public point of view—I am not dealing with the local point of view or the commoners' point of view—by reason of the unique character of this area in the country and the great number of people who enjoy the amenities that are afforded by the open Forest, whether these people come locally from the large populations of Southampton and Bournemouth or whether they are the innumerable visitors who come from overseas and other parts of the country, I doubt whether it is worth while, in the pursuit of a policy of afforestation, that this reservation should be made from the open Forest. On those grounds, I appeal most earnestly to the noble Earl to look into this matter from a wide angle. The noble Earl was not put to the trouble of going step by step, in detail, into what went on during his regrettable absence from the House. He comes back to us with a fresh mind, and I appeal to that fresh mind to say that this fault, from the national aspect, will be remedied.

LORD ROBINSON

The noble Lord referred to some remarks that I made in evidence before the Committee that perhaps led your Lordships to think that there was no plan whatever in the minds of the Forestry Commission with regard to the possible situation of these 5,000 acres. Let me say at once that there is no question as to the availability of 5,000 acres, 10,000 acres or 20,000 acres of extremely poor grazing land in the New Forest. I did not think it my duty on the occasion of giving evidence before the Committee to go armed with maps showing where such areas could be selected, the fact being that there was a selectivity of something like four to one. It really was not necessary at that time to go into the details. Let me say that it is of the utmost importance that further large areas should be afforested in various parts of this country, and on all counts the New Forest should provide its quota, because of the poverty of the soil over large areas; because of its proximity to the South; because of the need of having timber reserves in that part of Britain, and for other reasons which I could name. I therefore trust that this clause will find favour in your Lordships' eyes.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

When talking about the New Forest, one is speaking of a district which is completely different from anywhere else in England, and in regard to open forest we have to be extremely careful about the putting down of enclosures. Although we may enclose only 100 acres, and it would seem a very small percentage of the remainder, it may amount to a very large area of important grazing. Therefore, the main reason why the commoners resist this further enclosure is, not so much the fact that they do not want to see timber production increased, but that the grazing in the New Forest is not the same the whole forest over. Some of the Forest is bogs and some of it is very bad; but wherever the enclosures are made—and they could not be made in bogs—there is going to be a much larger area inaccessible to grazing.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

I think two factors have been neglected in the arguments on this point. The first is that this is a permissive power, permission for which rests in the hands of the verderers. The other point arises out of the wholly admirable work done by the Select Committee, of which the noble Marquess. Lord Reading, was chairman. If I understand the effect of the alterations that we have now agreed should be put into the Bill, it is this: that with the new powers that they have and the limitation of their responsibilities, the verderers ought in fact to be able to make themselves solvent and pay their own way without any necessity to agree to any such enclosure as this. They need only agree to it if they want to increase their powers or increase their operations above those which at present seem necessary. I know that may seem to be somewhat contrary to the argument of my noble friend, Lord Robinson, who was also my Chairman in the Forestry Commission, but, so far as I see them, those are the facts of the situation. As I see it, under the Bill as it stands now, the verderers should be able to pay their way without making use of this power, and the use of the power to enclose lies entirely in the hands of the verderers.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

As has been pointed out, this proposal in the Bill did not get unanimous approval on Second Reading, but since then the Bill has been before a Select Committee who have examined it very thoroughly. They took evidence on behalf of my Minister and of the petitioners, and I think they have presented a much improved Bill. As the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, has just said (I think he put the case extremely clearly) this clause is entirely permissive. There is now a Court of Verderers who can only be asked by the Forestry Commission for permission to enclose a certain area. If they do not agree there is no obligation upon them; there is no pressure on them to agree to any additional planting. In any case, the area that can be given, even by the verderers, is strictly limited, and although personally I do not pretend to have any direct knowledge of the New Forest, it does seem to me, from what I have heard here and from reading the Reports, that, as Lord Robinson has pointed out, it would be not only to the national advantage to have additional timber which may well be vital to us, but it might be of very great advantage to the New Forest.

I think that the idea that most of the forest is going to be enclosed for timber is wrong. The area involved is comparatively small, and there are only two possibilities arising. One, I understand, is for the growing of timber by the Forestry Commission; the other is for the regeneration of old woods which are dying off in an appalling fashion. The real point is that this is only a permissive power, and if the verderers do not agree there is nothing that can force them. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord to reconsider his point and, in view of the general approval which has been given in this matter, ask him whether he will not accept the clause and not press for its deletion.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

. I do not know whether it would be of any comfort to the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan—perhaps not—if I called attention to what happened on this point in the Committee, where in putting the views of the Committee to Sir Walter Monckton, I said: … we might have been inclined to suggest the extent of the acreage, both under Clause 10 and Clause 12,"— that is, the old Clause 10 and Clause 12— both the 5,000 acres"— to which he is now referring— and the 3,000 acres, should be reduced, but if the alteration can be made in the constitution of the Verderers, that is, if the representative concerned is debarred from voting on this question,"— that has now been done by the Amendment your Lordships have accepted this afternoon— we think that there again the importance of the Verderers being unfettered in the exercise of their responsibilities is sufficient to protect the Forest in that respect.

LORD O'HAGAN

I would still urge my plea on the noble Earl. I did not move the deletion of the clause; I merely asked him to consider it, basing my claim on what I now understand from Lord Robinson was why he deliberately did not explain the circumstances so fully as he has explained them this afternoon.

LORD ROBINSON

I think I had a reason for not attempting to locate areas. It would have to be done in agreement with the verderers, and one did not want to forestall that particular obligation to consult.

Clause 11 agreed to.

Clauses 12 to 14 agreed to.

Clause 15:

Trunk roads

(5) At any time after such date as the Minister of Transport may by order appoint he shall, notwithstanding anything in the Act of 1877 or any right of the commoners have power to enclose the existing trunk road and any land transferred to him under this section, whether it was transferred before or after the said date:

Provided that—

5.38 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN moved to add to the proviso in subsection (5): (c) the said Minister or the highway authority shall be empowered, after consultation with the verderers and the said local planning authority, to construct grids or other similar structures to prevent ingress or egress of animals to or from the Forest along the roads leading into or out of the Forest. The noble Lord said: It has been suggested to me that this Amendment is wrongly worded and is in the wrong place; but apart from those two defects, which I had better admit from the start, I think it is a matter which the Committee might like to consider in principle.

The proposition that I am putting forward is that we should get the highway authorities to erect these grids, grids that a pony or a cow will not walk across—though I do not know why: if they see a gap underneath the animals always hesitate to walk across. I think it would be a good thing to have similar modern grids at the points where roads lead in and out of the Forest. I have often driven down these roads and found some of the ponies in Ringwood itself. They have wandered out over the road, have wandered far away from where they ought to be. They do most of this wandering at night, and it would be a very good thing if it could be stopped. Secondly, as might well happen, if there is a case of foot and mouth disease in these parts, it would be rather a good thing to know that the cattle in the Forest are segregated by the existence of these grids. They do not cost a great deal to make. I hope that in this the Government will support us, and will say that although they do not like my wording (I shall not take any exception to that) and do not like the place where I have put down the Amendment (and I shall not take any exception to that either) they like the Amendment in principle. If they do that, we shall be very happy.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 26, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Llewellin.)

THE EARL OF RADNOR

May I draw my noble friend's attention to one difficulty that would arise out of the Amendment? I speak as an owner of common rights who lives outside the forest. These common rights touch land outside the Forest. Perhaps the noble Lord can tell me, if we have across the road the grids which the noble Lord has proposed and I want to pasture cattle in the Forest, how I can get them there.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am sorry I did not deal with that particular point.

THE EARL OF RADNOR

Nor does your Amendment.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I drew attention to the fact that I was not at all wedded to the wording of the Amendment. This is a matter which would be dealt with as it would be in the case of any private land through which a carriage-way goes—someone's drive for instance. In such circumstances, just beside the carriageway there would be a gate which the noble Lord's herdsman could open in order to drive his beasts into the Forest and which would be kept shut once the beasts are in, so that should they feel homesick and wish to return while he still wanted them to graze in the Forest, they would have to stay where they were.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I strongly support this Amendment. I see that the Government have put down an Amendment which will apply only to the main trunk road—A.31. The principle we are keen to have accepted is that roads other than these trunk roads shall be able to have these grids. It is not a long time since other roads in the Forest used to have gates which were shut every night. In fact, until quite recently practically all the land round my home had gates on the main roads which were shut every night. When the Select Committee sat, hope was expressed that the Forest might be turned into a T.T. area. If this is to be done, the grids would greatly help.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I have a great deal of sympathy with the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin. I am glad to hear him say that he is not wedded to the wording of his Amendment and does not maintain that his Amendment is put down in the right place. Actually Clause 15 deals entirely with trunk roads. Therefore the Amendment would not completely carry out his intention as regards other main roads. The difficulty which I think the noble Lord envisages is connected with this question of grids, and whether or not they can be put on highways. The Government have an Amendment on Clause 15 which will give the Minister the right to put grids on the main trunk road through the Forest, but in regard to the other roads it is rather important to bear in mind that the whole Forest is not enclosed. Whether or not it is advisable that it should be I do not wish to say now. What I would like to point out—and in so doing explain why the Amendment is not necessary—is that the Minister of Transport intends to promote general legislation to confer on highway authorities the power to lay grids whenever necessary. I think if that legislation goes through, and the power is given to highway authorities, it would be much better than bringing the matter into the restricted provisions of this Bill.

LORD LLEWELLIN

Is that legislation imminent, or is it something that is being thought out—some new highway measure which is to be introduced at some time in the distant future? During this Parliament we have already had a Trunk Roads Bill and a Special Roads Bill, and it may not be the Ministry of Transport's turn to bring in another Bill for some time. How soon are we likely to have the legislation to which the noble Earl refers?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

I am afraid I cannot tell the Committee that. With regard to the trunk road, it will be a good many years before that comes into being, or indeed before anything can be enclosed, or additional steps taken with regard to other roads. I only express the hope that the legislation will come on in good time.

LORD O'HAGAN

This is a very practical question, and the sooner it is dealt with the better from every point of view—that, of course, includes the points of view of people like the noble Earl, Lord Radnor, and the people inside the Forest. I wonder whether it would be possible for the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, and Lord Llewellin to put their heads together between now and the Report stage to see whether something can be done about this.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

If the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, is agreeable, I shall be very pleased to have consultations with him between now and the Report stage.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I am much obliged to the noble Earl, and I shall be glad to accept his invitation. It seems to me rather absurd that if we do not do something about this we shall have taken powers to make the New Forest an enclosed place with regard to trunk roads, but have left a gap with regard to these side roads. If the Forest is to be made a T.T. area for cattle something must be done about the side roads. I can see no reason whatever why the highways authority should not be empowered under this Bill with similar authority in this connection to that which is given to the Minister in regard to the trunk road. I cannot see anything in principle against that. My suggestion is that we should give them power in regard to other roads just as in this Bill we are giving the Minister power in respect of the trunk road. I should certainly like to talk to the noble Earl about this matter between now and the Report stage, with a view to finding a form of words more appropriate than those in my Amendment, which I now beg leave to withdraw.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON moved, after subsection (5) to insert: ( ) The said Minister shall in carrying out the enclosure authorised by the last foregoing subsection take such steps as appear to him, after consultation with the verderers and the said local planning authority, reasonably practicable for securing that after the completion of the enclosure animals will be prevented from entering and leaving the Forest along the road: Provided that in complying with this subsection the said Minister shall provide reasonable facilities for the passage of driven animals on to and off the Forest. The noble Earl said: This Amendment refers to the trunk road. It is intended eventually to enclose this road by means of "Ha ha's" or something of that kind so as to allow traffic to proceed rapidly across the Forest. If we do that we shall have to devise some measures to let beasts across the road and, at the same time, prevent them wandering along it and out of the Forest. This Amendment will allow grids to be put down. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 26, at end insert the said new subsection.—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

LORD LLEWELLIN

May I just make one comment? As I confessed to the unsatisfactory wording of my Amendment, I think I may refer the wording of the noble Earl's Amendment. As I see it, the Amendment is designed only to prevent cattle from entering and leaving the Forest along the road. If there are to be crossings of the road, we do not want to have animals wandering right up this trunk road and remaining on it. We need crossings at appropriate parts of this road, with grids to keep the animals on the crossings. It would be very undesirable to have these animals—if once this road is enclosed—wandering along up a sort of cul-de-sac to the end where the grids are placed. I suggest to the noble Earl that he should look at the wording of this Amendment between now and the Report stage. I have every sympathy with what he wants to do, but the worst thing in the world would be to allow cattle to come into the road, perhaps in the middle, and walk along to the far end of it and then have nowhere to get out because they come across one of the grids.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

Crossings are dealt with in the Bill and this Amendment does not lay down exactly what the plans are to be. No plan has yet been made. It will be some years before the road is constructed, and the Amendment is designed merely to give powers to plan.

THE MARQUESS OF READING

This Amendment has been put down in response to a request from the Select Committee who, right at the end of their deliberations, said they would like to be sure that, under the clause as it stands, the Minister is prepared not only to deal with crossings inside the Forest but also to prevent animals coming in or going out of the Forest along the through road at the point where the road enters and leaves the Forest. So far as the Amendment is designed to implement the undertaking received, I should like to express on behalf of the Select Committee our appreciation to the Minister concerned.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

On Question, Whether Clause 15, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

May I be permitted, by leave of the House, to make a short statement? Some doubt was expressed by various scientific bodies as to whether the interests of wild life were sufficiently protected by the word "amenity." The Committee, I understand, were not in favour of inserting an Amendment in the Bill about this matter, but I am glad to give an assurance to the House. A Nature Conservancy Committee has recently been set up by the Lord President of the Council, and this will be consulted on all matters connected with the preservation of flora and fauna in the New Forest. We should also have no hesitation in consulting with other scientific bodies who might have a legitimate interest in this respect.

LORD O'HAGAN

I should like to thank the noble Earl for that reassur- ance. Although it is not a matter of concern to a vast number of people, it is to a considerable number, and in this respect the New Forest is in a unique position in the country.

Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.

5.53 p.m.

Clause 16 [Roads other than trunk roads]:

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 9, leave out ("As from the commencement of this Act").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

This Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 10, after ("applied") insert ("as from the commencement of this Act").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

This again is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 11, line 35, after ("or") insert ("by").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 17 [Power of Minister to grant licences]:

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

This is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 27, leave out ("the last foregoing subsection") and insert ("subsection (1) of this section").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

This Amendment is also drafting. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 35, leave out ("the last foregoing subsection") and insert ("subsection (2) of this section").—(The Earl of Huntingdon.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses and Schedules agreed to.

House resumed.