HL Deb 03 November 1970 vol 312 cc312-30

4.5 p.m.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is the proposed composition and terms of reference of the New Forest Consultative Committee recently announced by the Forestry Commission. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should first of all say that I made a slight mistake in my Question, in that I believe that the official title is the New Forest Consultative Panel. Over the past years there have been many debates on the New Forest in your Lordships' House. I am sure Peers in all parts of the House will agree that the New Forest is probably one of the most unique areas of unspoilt countryside which exists to-day in England, and probably in the whole world. It is perhaps typically English that we continue to call one of our most precious heritages "new" when it is in fact over 1,000 years old. Although in most ways it has retained its original character, it was unfortunately founded on discord, and this unhappy state has continued to this present time. In mediaeval days, harsh legislation to prevent the poaching of deer alienated the local population, and later, as the royal desire to kill deer decreased. so the need for pasturage for the commoners increased, and so the dissensions grew between Crown and people.

In fact, the modern history of the New Forest started with the Deer Removal Act 1851, when the price paid for a promise by Queen Victoria to surrender her hunting rights and agree to a reduction in the deer population was large-scale enclosures for the growing of timber. Thus started the long, running battle between the commoners and what is now called the Forestry Commission, whose clear duty it is to grow timber for the country's needs. Enclosures, however necessary for trees, are in many ways contrary to the requirements of those who live in the New Forest and those who are trying to preserve as much of the indigenous character as possible. Unfortunately, this running sore from time to time swells up and releases poisonous and disruptive forces, particularly when some area comes under what is known as "forestry conservation". I think it would be fair to say that, over the years, under successive deputy surveyors, the balance has been fairly held between the Forestry Commission and the local people. However, recently the whole problem has been greatly aggravated by the ever-increasing impact of tourism and everything it brings in its wake. This has occurred at a time when the increasing necessity for the Forestry Commission to take a hard, commercial view of its operations has once again brought old conflicts to the forefront.

The most recent plan of operation which is visualised by the Forestry Commission not only deals with normal forestry operations but also suggests methods of rehabilitation for some of the ancient and ornamental woods, which are held sacred not only by expert naturalists but by everyone who lives in the Forest. Over the past year there have been acrimonious public discussions and angry letters to the Press. Consequently, in September of this year the Forestry Commission announced, through the means of a Press release, with some surprise to local people, that it had been decided to set up a Consultative Panel with whom they could exchange views about the common problems that face the Forest. I have no doubt that the motives behind this announcement were entirely laudable. It was, however, particularly unfortunate that the announcement was made during the Parliamentary Recess, giving the Government no chance to explain the aims and objects of the Panel. Thus one of my main purposes this afternoon in raising this matter is to give the Government the opportunity to fill in the background about the functions of this Panel, not only with regard to its composition but also with regard to its terms of reference.

I am sure that the Forestry Commission had fondly hoped that the setting up of such a Panel would do much to allay the fears of local people, and would in future serve to lower the temperature. The Forestry Commissioners could certainly have optimistically expected their announcement to have been received with enthusiasm by all concerned. However, this was not so, mainly because the original Press release issued by the Forestry Commission announced that consultations would take place with those interested with regard to the composition of the Panel. However, the announcement itself immediately produced a stream of requests from every type of organisation interested in or living in the Forest to be represented. Most of them were accepted. In this democratic age it is desirable that everyone should have a voice; but we are now faced with a consultative Panel of over 50 people and it is widely felt that the Panel has got to such a size as perhaps to render it completely ineffective from the day it meets.

The New Forest Association, a major interested party, on whose council is represented the majority of New Forest interests, has refused to co-operate. I am personally disappointed with this decision and particularly deplore the fact that it may have been influenced by a personal vendetta against the present Deputy Surveyor. In spite of trying to spread the net as wide as possible there are still a large number of people not yet invited who think they should be invited, and whose activities affect the Forest in a more significant way than the local women's institutes which are already included. Knowing the New Forest societies as I do, I think it is doubtful in any case whether they will all agree. Therefore I hope the Government will see that it is essential to elect from this main Panel an executive committee of manageable size who will be responsible for the day-to-day contact with the Forestry Commission. Perhaps this size can be restricted to the size of the Chairman's dining room table. Further, I think it would be sensible to have a meeting of the main Panel in public on about four occasions a year. This would be sufficient not only to give the representatives an opportunity to express their views but also to allow members of the general public to come forward and raise matters which they feel are important.

I turn now to the question of the Chairman. This is the cause of some controversy at the moment. In my opinion it is absolutely right and proper that the appointment should be made by the Forestry Commission and that he should be independent. I feel that the present Deputy Surveyor's suggestion to his Chairman of the appointment of Sir Dudley Forwood is an excellent one. Sir Dudley is a man who has lived in the Forest all his life and whose interest and concern for the Forest is well known. I have complete faith in his impartiality and in his ability to enter into meaningful discussions with all interested parties. Whether or not in the future, when Sir Dudley's successor is appointed, there should be consultations with the Panel is a matter for the Commission to decide; but I feel that the appointment must in the future be the responsibility of the Commission. This is going to be a difficult job, and knowing the many different currents running through the Forest I do not think this is a post suitable to be filled by election.

My Lords, I turn now to the terms of reference. In the words of the Press Release, this Panel was set up: to serve as a sounding board for local public opinion on the factors which need to be taken into account in their management of the Forest.

I am sure that the Government will confirm that it is not their intention to set up the Panel merely as a public relations front. We all hope that it is intended to be a vital body whose advice will be listened to and who can have a close relationship with the management. Indeed, the setting up of this Panel may be of particular significance, as in the middle of the 20th century perhaps the time has come to take a new look at this area. No longer can it be considered only as an area suitable for the growing of hardwoods and softwoods. It is, with its 6 million visitors a year, one of the major playgrounds of Southern England. Indeed. its indigenous woodlands are priceless, so far as the flora and fauna are concerned; and bearing in mind that even the ancient and ornamental woodlands need proper management (as, unfortunately, even old oak trees eventually die), it would seem sensible that the ancient and ornamental woodlands should be treated on purely heritage principles for the long-term benefit of the nation.

In dealing with these areas, the most expert advice from other disciplines should be called upon. Management should continue under the Forestry Commission but with expert advice given further weight through the necessity of consulting the verderers, as is now the case. The fact is that the New Forest can be considered the first National Park ever to be created in this country. All that it lacks is official status and administration. I believe I am right in saying that there are some 12,000 acres of conifers under cultivation at the moment. Their management must continue to be the sole responsibility of the Commission.

However, with regard to the 7,500 acres of ancient and ornamental woodlands, I am sure that everyone in the Forest is delighted to hear that the new Minister of Agriculture has put a public moratorium on the future treatment of these woodlands for 18 months and on other broadleaf enclosures until he visits the Forest on the 23rd of this month. Many feel that these other woodlands should also be designated with the new category of ancient and ornamental woodlands to be managed on heritage principles. However, let it be said that there has been, after all, considerable achievement under the last Government, with the Ponies Bill and the New Forest Bill, both of which are now Acts of Parliament. All that now seems necessary is to decide on policy, not only towards the ancient and ornamental and broadleaf woodlands but also to protect the Forest as a whole from the ever-growing impact of the public and tourism.

One of the sorest points in the Forest at the moment is the fact that the not inconsiderable sum of money which results from camping, caravan and other tourist fees goes back to the Forestry Commission and thus disappears into the Treasury. There is no comparative spending in the Forest on urgent matters which are vital to protect it from the full impact of tourism. There is a desperate need for money to be spent on well-designed and well-sited toilets, screened car parks, the fencing off of fragile areas and on giving help to the pony breeding societies whose pasture is being yearly eroded and fouled by holidaymakers. By all means let the Forestry Commission cash in on tourism; but let the Forest have the cash back in benefits.

My Lords, I raise this matter to-day because of the disappointment felt by many in the Forest that a genuine effort by the Commission to bridge the gap between itself and the local public seems to have got off on the wrong foot. Perhaps the Minister can now reconsider the whole matter not only with regard to the composition of the Panel but also as to exactly how the Panel is going to function most efficiently. At the moment I cannot but foresee the inevitability of a clash between the Panel and the Com-mission in the early days of its life. The question will arise: who will have the last word? Perhaps the Minister could reassure everybody by appointing himself as a final arbitrator.

I am sure that everyone in the Forest appreciates that without the Forestry Commissioners' devoted employees many aspects of the Forest life would be in a considerably worse state than they are at the moment. They feel, however, that, expert as the Forestry Commission are in growing trees, they are not perhaps the best people to initiate and implement policies to combat the leisure boom in order to retain the character of the Forest. There also seems to be the danger that the historical Verderers' Court, members of which are elected by democratic processes, is in danger of losing its identity unless it, too, is given more powers and finance to implement ideas on non-Forestry matters which will inevitably flow from the Panel and other interested parties. I am delighted to see that the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, will be speaking later. I am sure that we are all looking forward to hearing what he has to say. There is no doubt that there is a clear need for a separate department to be set up under the Forestry Commission, staffed with experts not in trees but in tourism.

As I have already said, I have raised this matter this afternoon to give the Government an opportunity to give some further background information about their intentions. Due to the fact that the original Press announcement came in the Recess, there has been two months of ever-growing gossip and mistrust in the Forest at a time when there is a great need for unity. There are, after all, five main interested parties: first, the commoners, with their ancient rights of pasturage; the Forestry Commission with their great responsibility for timber growing; the local residents, whose home it is; the tourists who come by the millions; and, last but not least, the naturalists, to whom the New Forest is a very precious area of research.

I welcome the decision on behalf of the Commission to set up the Panel, but urge them to delay no longer in explaining their long-term policy to the people of the New Forest. For unless they can gain the confidence of the Panel, and the Panel can be seen to be working for the interests of the Forest as a whole, the very existence of the Panel may only fan the flames of dissension rather than produce the harmony which the Forestry Commission and everyone else desire. Finally, my Lords, I hope that the Government will join me in appealing to all in the Forest for calm consideration of an idea which, in the long-term, can serve only to benefit the New Forest.

4.20 p.m.

THE EARL OF HUNTINGDON

My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, for having raised this question, especially those who live in or near the New Forest. I have had the privilege of living on the edge of it for quite a few years, and as a result I appreciate fully the tremendous heritage which we have in the New Forest, and the tremendous national asset which it is, from many points of view, and which we should be most reluctant to see decline or worsen.

As the noble Lord said, the chief responsibility for the New Forest lies in the Forestry Commission. I do not wish to say anything in criticism against the Commission: they have had plenty of that. In fact, I should like to praise the Commission on one ground: that they have done a very rare thing in that, having made mistakes, they have learned from them and altered their policy. That is a very encouraging sign, as it is a difficult thing to do.

The Commission have a difficult problem, because under the Act under which they were set up their main duty is that of growing timber for the use of the country, and doing so efficiently so as to make profits. At the same time, the Commission are bound to consider amenity and the scenic results of their work. The whole question is one of balance, how much is allowed to amenity and how much to hard-headed commercial growing of timber. It is there, I think, that criticism has arisen, with a certain amount of reason in that in the past too much attention has been given to the commercial side, to the profitability side, and amenity and the aesthetic appearance have been often disregarded. It is unfortunate that this has happened not only on the bare hills of Wales but, much worse, in the National Parks and, above all, in the New Forest, which is a unique area. My Lords, we want to see the ornamental woodlands about which we have heard preserved as much as possible and replanted with deciduous trees. Though they are profitable, none of us likes to see these barren areas of conifers under which nothing lives or grows and which, though not on the whole unsightly, are dull to look at, when we should have the beauties of the oaks and beeches and the real English hardwood trees.

Apart from the amenity grounds there are two other aspects that we should never forget. One is the wild life and the claims of the naturalist on the Forest. I think we are beginning to realise the importance of what is known as the balance of Nature by which the whole of the wild life, animal and vegetable, plays its part in our world. If we sacrifice that not only will the wild life lose out but we shall, too. This is one of the very important questions.

The second important point, one that is sometimes forgotten. is the great effect which the broad leaf trees have on the climate, not only in respect of rainfall, about which we have known for a long time, but also with regard to the purification of the atmosphere. This is something in which they play a big part, and surely it is one of the things that we in this country increasingly need. I should like to urge that in any future plans the Commission will consider replanting, and so far as possible preserving up to a certain age, the hardwood trees and that they should not be ruthless in going ahead with the cheaper and quicker-growing, and more profitable, conifers.

My Lords, there is one matter which I think indicates a certain shortage of Forestry Commission staff. One sees in parts of the Forest a tremendous overgrowth of ivy which has not been trimmed for years. This indicates a lack of facilities. Another thing (it is a little off the point but I cannot refrain from mentioning it) is the question of hedgerows. I was sorry that grants were given to farmers to destroy their hedges. Except to a very limited extent that is a dangerous thing to do, both from the wild life and from the climatic point of view, as well as in respect of its effect on appearance.

What I wanted chiefly to say this afternoon, however, is how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, about the influx of tourism in the New Forest. I presume that in the early days a few hundred visitors came every year. Now it is a question of millions, as we have been told. Someone told me that about half-a-million camping permits are issued every year, and the number of people who go through the Forest each year is enormous. I think it would be justifiable to predict that the numbers will go up and up. How are we to encourage people to enjoy the Forest without spoiling what they have come to see? This problem does not arise only with the New Forest: it arises constantly in respect of every National Park in this country, and indeed all over Europe. Some journalist writes up a wonderful place, describing it as isolated and urging people to come to see the natural beauty; and within two years large hotels are built, sites with "hot dog" stands and God-knows-what, so that the very thing the people have been encouraged to see has disappeared.

My Lords, we do not want to see the New Forest, which is such an asset, spoilt in any way or the natural life driven out; and for this reason I agree with the noble Lord. I think that the Forestry Commission ought to have some planning department that would deal with the question of tourism. I motor through the Forest constantly on fine week-ends during the summer, and wherever I go I see caravans. One is only too happy to see people enjoying the surroundings, but there is the problem of the resultant litter, and the difficult question of providing latrines, and things which may prove detrimental. I do not know about the Panel which has been set up. One hopes that it will be a sort of "sounding board" for local opinion, which is very upset about the whole matter of the Forest. Whether the Panel is too big, as has been suggested, or whether it could be formed in a different way I do not know; but I urge the Government to try to persuade the Commission to look into this problem of the inundation of the Forest by visitors, a problem which is going to get worse and worse and which may possibly completely spoil the Forest. If what we have said this afternoon causes a little thought this debate will have been well worth while.

4.30 p.m.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

My Lords, I much appreciate the Question put down by the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, and I must quickly dcelare my interest as the Official Verderer of the New Forest. This Question seems to have turned itself almost into a detailed debate, but I shall try to stick more to the terms of the Question. I think that among the people of the New Forest there is a very strong feeling which comes from a great emotion and a great love for the Forest. There are so many interests in the Forest, starting with the commoners, who regard themselves as representing one of the oldest forms of farming in this country; and we must never forget that they are trying to earn their living from raising and grazing animals. They have had a hard time from the public, who regard it as their right to come to the Forest for recreation. This was all right until the advent of the motor car.

The point I wish to make is that I think the formation of this Panel is premature. The verderers, who like to work closely with the Forestry Commission, were never consulted about this large Panel, which I must confess astonishes me. We were consulted earlier in the year about a much smaller panel, and this seems to us much more like sense. Of the Court of Verderers, five are appointed and five are elected. The five elected verderers are elected by the commoners of the Forest, but many of the people who have common rights to elect a vorderer are residents and do not have animals out in the Forest, so that the elected verderers represent quite a large proportion of people who live in the Forest.

The Court was set up under the 1949 New Forest Act, so it is quite a modern body. Of the five appointed verderers, one is appointed by the Forestry Commission, another by the Minister of Agriculture, two by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, one of whom is the amenity verderer appointed by the Countryside Commission and the last is the planning verderer, appointed by the local planning authority, which is the Hampshire County Council.

It astonishes me that the Forestry Commission, who should work closely with the verderers, as laid down by Statute, should not have consulted us. Naturally, I have been approached by a good many people most of whom say that this Panel is so large that it is really not a sounding board. Sir Dudley Forwood, who is listening now, will be a good Chairman, but he will have a very difficult task. I have written to him on this point and he has written back, agreeing with me.

As the noble Earl, Lord Huntingdon, has said, the Court of Verderers is a sounding board in the New Forest and the public are allowed to come and make their presentments. The Forestry Commission attend, so that they can hear, too, and the Commission deal with some of the presentments directly. I think-that it would be much wiser, if there is to be a Panel, to have a much smaller Panel. But I would advocate that the whole question of a Panel should be postponed. I have three reasons for saying that. First, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, the Minister is coming down to the Forest shortly. Arrangements are being made for him to meet many people with varied interests so that he will hear what they have to say. I am going to meet him and I have several suggestions to make to him, with which I will not bore your Lordships just now but which I think would help him and would probably take the heat out of this Panel question. And I would remind your Lordships that the New Forest is vested in the Minister of Agriculture and not in the Ministry of Agriculture—a point that is often forgotten. The Forestry Commission are his agents and they have certain powers which they can execute only with the approval of the verderers. I say all this because I think that it is important in a debate of this kind to remind your Lordships of what the machinery is.

My third reason for suggesting that the formation of a Panel should be postponed is that at the end of the month the New Forest Study is to be published. I have had a preview of some of it and it looks to me as though the Study will produce some good policies for the future running of the Forest. The Committee who have produced this Study consisted of a verderer, a representative of the Forestry Commission, a representative of the Nature Conservancy and professional planners. They were an able body, not too numerous; each member went off and did his own consultations— I think that is important—and then came together for joint discussions. I would, if I may, advise the Minister to postpone any decision about this large Panel until he has come down to the New Forest and until the New Forest Study has been produced.

4.37 p.m.

LORD SHACKLETON

My Lords, I think that this must be about the twentieth debate on the subject of the New Forest in which I have taken part. It is important that your Lordships should appreciate not only that the New Forest is a unique area but that the people in the Forest are immensely conscious of its uniqueness and are inclined to think that the rest of the world does not appreciate the nature of the New Forest and the problems of those who live in it, commoners and others. They have some justification for this belief. It has been my experience that every single Minister of Agriculture in turn has had to be educated on the subject of the New Forest. Sometimes it has been a painful experience. I remember that my old friend, Tom Williams, latterly

Lord Williams of Barnburgh, introduced a New Forest Bill in 1949. He got the Cabinet to agree to put it in the programme because he considered that it was non-controversial and would go through without difficulty. It led to interminable discussions and heavy expenditure, and the final solution was due entirely to the wisdom of your Lordships, who came up with a happy solution to the problem of the relations between the Forestry Commission and the commoners and others.

I am just a little unhappy about this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, put the case very fairly. I was not surprised that he paid a good deal of attention to tourism, because he more than any other person is responsible for increasing the number of people who come to the New Forest. I do not know whether his seat is the first or the second in the list of great houses so far as the number of visitors is concerned. The reason I am unhappy—and I say this seriously to the noble Lord, Lord Denham, who is going to reply—is that although Lord Denham knows the New Forest no doubt he is unaware of the dark rumbles that are going on there. We are doing our best to inform him so that he can inform his right honourable friend. It is perhaps a little unfortunate that there is talk about a vendetta against the Deputy Surveyor. The truth of the matter, as my noble friend Lord Huntingdon made clear, is that there are strong feelings in the Forest and a real conflict of interests. For the same reason, I am bound to say that the position of the appointee for Chairman, Sir Dudley Forwood, has been made more difficult. I am a little doubtful whether in the present atmosphere he will be able to carry out his duties. Let me hasten to add that I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu. I have known Sir Dudley Forwood rather longer than has the noble Lord, in that I have known him for 57 of the 59 years of my life. He is a man of integrity who I am sure will do his utmost for the New Forest.

But, as the noble Earl, Lord Malmesbury, made clear, the fact is that this proposal is not going to work. The Minister will have to drink carefully about it. No doubt the people who live in the Forest are a suspicious lot. There are ancient enmities between the King's woodsmen and the Forestry Commission, who are dedicated to growing trees. Controversy has been going on certainly all our lives, and for much longer. There is no doubt that the present Deputy Surveyor is a highly able and very dedicated forester. But the interests do conflict. It is going to be difficult to resolve this matter unless a good deal more tact is shown. I do not think that we should attribute ill motives to the people concerned, but the fact is that feelings are running very high.

It is unfortunate how the composition of this Committee was announced. I am a little shocked to hear the noble Earl say that the verderers were not consulted. He is in a special position as the Official Verderer, and it would seem to me to be only common sense, in a situation so fraught with difficulty, that the noble Earl and others should be consulted. I apologise to noble Lords who may be wondering what war I am talking about, but those of us who live in or near the New Forest are very familiar with it. I think that the first rule is to consult.

What we have to do now is to suggest to the Minister how he should deal with the situation. I am certain that in its particular form the Panel is unsuitable as a consultative body: 56 people, ranging from the representatives of the New Forest Beagles (and I make no reflection on them: I am told that the master of the foxhounds was rather surprised to be invited to send a representative) to the 20 or 30 parish councils. This is not a suitable body. Whether it could be turned into a consultative body which could recommend people, I do not know; but I attach great importance to the visit of the Minister. It is clear to me that again he must take a hand.

I make no reflection on the Forestry Commission—my noble friend Lord Taylor of Gryfe is somebody whom we all deeply respect in your Lordships' House—but this is unusual. The more efficient the Deputy Surveyor is, the more, in a way, he is likely to run into trouble. And, of course, the Forestry Commission have their problems: they are under great pressure, because they are expected to increase their return. It is a very difficult issue. On the one hand, Mr. Mithen has his instructions; on the other hand, he has to do things which may cause difficulties locally. Somehow this problem has to be resolved.

Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Denham (I do not think I have yet had an occasion to congratulate him on his position as a Lord in Waiting) that noble Lords on this side of the House are well aware of the difficulties that confront a Lord in Waiting replying to a debate when he is supplied with a brief which has not fully taken into account what has been said in the debate. While I would not suggest that the noble Lord should tear up his brief, I would ask him to say that he will report fully and personally to the Minister. He may have a job in getting the Minister to take this seriously. But I am glad that the Minister is following the undertaking which his predecessor, Mr. Cledwyn Hughes, gave to visit the New Forest. I hope that he will succeed in solving this problem, because at the moment feelings are running high. The New Forest Association will not at present co-operate in this Panel. It may well be that they can be persuaded to co-operate, but someone must iron these things out.

I hope therefore that in giving his reply —and again I appreciate the difficulties— the noble Lord will make clear that the further information that has been given in the course of this debate will be fully taken into account by the Minister, in consultation with the Forestry Commission. When I talk about educating Ministers of Agriculture, may I say that on occasions we have had to educate chairmen of the Forestry Commission on this. Noble Lords may think that we are a curious, specialised and egotistical lot, but if we are not to have a sort of civil war something must be done about it.

4.47 p.m.

LORD DENHAM

My Lords, the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has explained to your Lordships, as probably you already knew, the great difficulty in answering an Unstarred Question, not only in that one has shot at one questions that one is not prepared for in one's brief, but also because almost invariably the Question on the Order Paper has already been answered about five times during the course of the debate by other speakers. In spite of these difficulties, however, I hope to be able to give an answer which, if it is not entirely satisfactory to your Lordships, may not be entirely unsatisfactory. I am aware that there has been a good deal of controversy about the Forestry Commission's plans for treating the ancient and ornamental woodlands of the New Forest in order to conserve them in accordance with their obligations under the special legislation for the New Forest. There has also been a good deal of criticism of the felling which the Commission have undertaken in the timber enclosures.

As your Lordships have heard, my right honourable friend will be visiting the New Forest shortly in order to assess the situation for himself, and it would therefore be wrong to come to any premature conclusions about the future management of the New Forest woodlands. But whatever that may be, there is a clear need for close consultation with the public and with various local interests in the Forest. It is for this reason that, with the consent of my right honourable friend, the Forestry Commission recently announced their intention of setting up a Consultative Panel—widely representative of local interests—with the following terms of reference: To consider and make known to the Forestry Commission local opinion on various factors which need to be taken into account in their management of the New Forest. The Commission have invited all the principal organisations in the New Forest to nominate representatives. These organisations include the New Forest Association, the Commoners' Defence Association, the New Forest Pony and Cattle Breeders' Association, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Ramblers' Association and the Hampshire Field Club. The rural district councils have also been invited, and the Countryside Commission are being kept closely in touch.

LORD SHACKLETON

If I may interrupt the noble Lord, could he say whether the Countryside Commission were directly consulted on this? The Countryside Commission have played quite an important part in financing the Verderers, and I wonder whether they were directly consulted by the Forestry Commission on what was proposed.

LORD DENHAM

My Lords, I understand that the plan is that the Countryside Commission will be kept informed at all stages and will be kept in touch with regard to anything that the Panel advises. The views of the New Forest Verderers—who are given, as your Lord- ships know, great leadership by my noble friend Lord Malmesbury—are directly available to the Commission by virtue of their statutory relationship, and they have been invited to attend as observers. I am extremely sorry to hear that my noble friend feels that the Verderers have not been consulted as much as they should have been.

LORD SHACKLETON

He does not "feel"—they were not consulted at all.

LORD DENHAM

My Lords, I understand that the Verderers were consulted in the early stages about the appointment of the Panel.

THE EARL OF MALMESBURY

Would your Lordships like me to clear up this point? We were consulted earlier in the year about this matter. We were thinking of something similar to the Consultative Panel before the war which had six members. It has not met since the war, because I understand that there is only one living member left. It was suggested that a Panel on similar lines should be formed. I think it was probably going to have wider duties and, therefore, that the numbers might be increased a little. Certainly I never visualised—nor did the Court—anything beyond ten. We are now approaching 50 or 60.

LORD DENHAM

There may be a certain amount of misunderstanding about exactly what was intended and what was not intended. I know that the Forestry Commission would be extremely upset if the Verderers felt that they have not been taken properly into consultation. I should like to stress here that the Forestry Commission are especially concerned to ensure that the existence of the Panel will not in any way prejudice the Verderers' statutory functions. I am aware that some organisations have criticised the Commission's proposal on the grounds that the size of the Panel will make it too unwieldy to function effectively. This has been mentioned several times during the course of the debate. There has also been criticism of the terms of reference; indeed, the right of the Commission to set up the Panel at all has been questioned.

My Lords, I feel that these criticisms are premature. If local opinion feels that there has not been enough consultation about the Panel, I can only stress that the terms of reference are still open to discussion and suggest that the proper time and place for this discussion will be when the Panel meets for the first time. There will then be an opportunity for all the interests represented to put forward and exchange views. The membership of the Panel is, admittedly, wide and varied, but I feel that if this is a fault it is a fault on the right side. I am glad that my noble friend Lord Montagu recognises that it was proper that the Commission should appoint the Panel. I think it must be recognised that the Commission have a direct responsibility, under my right honourable friend, which they are entitled to fulfil to the best of their ability, as I think they have done on this occasion.

As your Lordships have heard, the Commission have invited Sir Dudley Forwood to serve as the Panel's independent Chairman. My noble friend has congratulated the Commission on his choice, and I am glad to say that Sir Dudley has been able to accept. The Panel will devise its own method of working. It is essential that it should represent the widest possible cross-section of interests, but for practical purposes I doubt whether it will do all its business in, as it were, plenary session. This, as several noble Lords have pointed out, would be very difficult owing to the size of the Panel. No doubt it will appoint within itself smaller working parties for different purposes. My right honourable friend has warmly approved the Commission's initiative in setting up this Panel and I think we all hope that it will be given a chance to show its value. I hope that any organisation which, in all sincerity, has not been able to support the Panel so far will reconsider its decision in the light of our assurances that our minds are not closed.

The view has been taken by some interests in the New Forest (and my noble friend Lord Malmesbury I think was referring to this) that a revival of the late Advisory Committee, with a much smaller membership, would have been preferable. This Committee has not met for many years, and even if its terms of reference, which were distinctly limited, were revised, it would lack the much wider representation that is necessary to-day in the light of the many and varied pressures which the Forest has to bear.

The problems of the New Forest are complex, and it is very much a question, in deciding how it should be managed, of striking a reasonable balance between a range of interests which tend quite often to be in apparent conflict with each other. A great deal of mutual understanding and tolerance is needed if the complementary needs of the commoners, of conservation, of recreation and of forestry are to be reconciled. The setting up of the Consultative Panel will be an important step forward in this direction. The Forestry Commission will certainly not close their minds to any acceptable changes in the Panel's constitution and terms of reference which might emerge in the light of experience of its working. But the important thing is that it should be given a fair chance to prove its worth.

Those of your Lordships who have taken part in this debate may feel that I have not been able to dispel your worries to a great extent this evening, but the chief value of a debate like this is not what I can tell your Lordships, but the experience, information and advice that will come from it and be available to my right honourable friend. I can assure your Lordships that, as the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition asked, my right honourable friend will study very carefully indeed the Report of this debate. It will be an appreciable time before the Panel meets. The mechanics of setting it up are by no means complete. Thus my right honourable friend will have every opportunity for reviewing, with the Forestry Commission, the constitution of the Panel.

My Lords, these problems may seem of a rather local and special nature, but they are only a reflection of the sort of problem which has often to be solved in the field of agriculture, forestry, amenity and conservation in the country at large; and I hope the spirit in which we set out to solve them in the New Forest will be a model for their solution elsewhere.