| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 pm
Mr. Robert Key (Salisbury): I shall speak to amendment No. 306. I fear that, inadvertently, the Bill will extinguish the rights of the villagers of Great Wishford in my constituency and remove their ancient privileges.
Prior to the Commons Registration Act 1965, there was considerable doubt over what land was subject to rights of common, and what rights of common existed over common land. In order to ascertain exactly what common land existed and to provide for the management and improvement of common land, the Commons Registration Act 1965 introduced a scheme for registering common rights that were claimed to be in existence. I know that the Minister for the Environment referred to that in Committee.
Under the 1965 Act, among other things, common land and rights over common land were registrable. After July 1970, no land could be deemed common land unless it was registered under the Act, and no rights of common were exercisable over any land unless they were registered under that Act or had been previously registered under the Land Registration Acts 1925 and 1936.
Examples of rights of common are the right of piscary--the right to catch and take away fish; auceptary--fowling; turbary--the right to take peat or turf for use as fuel; and estovers--the right to take wood from the land of another for a specific purpose.
On 29 May each year--this year was no exception--the villagers of Great Wishford celebrate Oak Apple day. It was during the Whit recess this year, so fortunately I was able to enjoy it. I did not get up at dawn to exercise the right with the villagers to go into the forest to gather wood. In a very ancient ceremony probably going back to the 14th century, the boughs of oak that have been gathered are taken into Salisbury cathedral, a dance is performed in front of the altar, and the villagers shout, "Grovely, Grovely, Grovely and all Grovely", and go back for a jolly good feast.
That is history and reality and, for the souls of Great Wishford, a treasured part of their heritage. The Wilton estate, and the Earl of Pembroke in particular, fully support and welcome the continuation of those rights. That is not in question. No one is suggesting that those rights should not exist--on the contrary, we want to preserve those rights and privileges for the villagers of Great Wishford. Everyone recognises them as an essential part of the character of the life of Great Wishford.
There has been great uncertainty, however, on the part of that estate and the Oak Apple club, which was formed almost two centuries ago to ensure the perpetuation of those ancient rights, about what the rights comprise. That was fully investigated a couple of years ago, and everyone in the parish received a letter jointly from the parish council, the Oak Apple club and the estate to clarify the position.
The rights have existed since time out of mind, and they were recorded in a charter of the forest court of Grovely in 1603. All but one of those rights were abolished under an
Enclosure Act of 1809 in return for a grant of allotment land outside the wood. The only right not abolished was the right of estovers--the right to collect dead wood. That is now registered as a legal right under the Commons Registration Act 1965. The other ancient custom that has been resurrected is the collecting of green oak or hazel boughs on 29 May each year, and that continues.The right of estovers is defined under the Commons Registration Act 1965 as
- the gathering and bringing away of dead snapping wood boughs and sticks
That is all agreed. As far as I am aware, no one in the village disputes it. The management of Grovely wood is undertaken half by the Wilton estate and half by the Forestry Commission. They are involved in the responsible and far-sighted management of that land. The policy of the estate is to welcome and support public access, as far as is reasonable, within the constraints of other management considerations. In addition to the right of estovers, there is a network of bridle paths. Indeed, there are permissive bridlepaths in addition to the public rights-of-way network, an increase in the amount of way-marking and the placing of maps at the main entrances to the wood to show the extent of public access. That is all clear. However, it seems that the Bill, which has many good points, will give any member of the public the right to enter and remain on any common land for the purposes of open-air recreation, subject to his observing various restrictions. Access will also be allowed with a dog, subject to certain restrictions.
The effect of the Bill would be to allow the general public unlimited access to about 2,000 acres of woodland which previously was subject to only very limited rights of access for a very limited group of people--the villagers of Great Wishford.
The landowner may be able to restrict access for up to a maximum of 28 days in any year, but I am sure that the Minister will understand the implications of the matter. Grovely wood has never been common land in the loose sense of the term. A particular common land right--the right of estovers--was formalised in 1970, but it was never the intention of anybody, landowners or villagers, that the whole of this important woodland should become common land in the way that that is implied under the Bill. I am sure that there are many similar cases throughout the country--
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): Is my hon. Friend aware that on 28 March, in Committee, I asked the
Minister for the Environment whether under the Commons Registration Act 1965
- certain commons are registered that give rights in common to certain restricted groups of people? It seems that the Bill will give a general right of access to such common lands. If so, it will widen the definition--
- of common land.
- My immediate reaction, without receiving advice, is that the Bill is intended to have that effect. If I am wrong, I shall ensure that the Committee is informed of the fact.--[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 28 March 2000; c. 25-26.].
Mr. Key: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was aware that he had assiduously taken part in the proceedings in Committee. I have referred to a speech that the Minister made in Committee. My hon. Friend has done us all a favour by pointing out that the Minister has not replied. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has now taken advice. I wrote to him on 15 May, and I look forward to receiving a reply.
Mr. Nicholas Soames (Mid-Sussex): So do we all.
Mr. Key: So do we all, as my hon. Friend says. I know that he knows Grovely wood very well, and understands the importance to the people of Great Wishford of what I am saying.
My desire is to set out clearly the definition of common land in the Bill to make it clear that common land means registered common land to which the public have a general right of access, and that the Bill does not seek to extinguish rights of common and common land registered under the Commons Registration Act 1965, or land that had previously been registered under the Land Registrations Acts of 1925 and 1936.
It is a simple matter of trying to preserve ancient rights and privileges for the people of the parish of Great Wishford. I hope that the Minister will respond positively. If he has not had time to receive advice, I understand that. However, I hope that he will take the matter on board, possibly even in another place. It is an issue that must be addressed. The people of Great Wishford will not take it kindly if a Government who purport to be extending people's rights to access to the countryside effectively extinguish their own ancient rights.
Mr. David Heath (Somerton and Frome): It is a delight to be back with the Bill. I was feeling withdrawal symptoms after a few weeks of not having my weekly fill of discussing access issues and rights of way.
The amendments are all pertinent in their way. However, I fear that I cannot personally support them and that I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to support them. That is a shame, because we worked closely together in Committee, and we found common positions with the Conservative Opposition on many issues. I feel that the amendments are misdirected, and I shall try to explain why.
Amendment No. 101 addresses the important issue of a de minimis provision, which we discussed in Committee. As I said then, I have some sympathy for the position taken by the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Green)--which is that there should be some kind of de minimis provision. Where I fall out with him is over the fact that he is trying to make that a fixed figure. Ten hectares or 25 acres may seem an appropriate arbitrary figure, but in particular circumstances, it may seem entirely inappropriate to a point on the map. What is proposed is an unqualified de minimis figure, which means simply that land that falls within this category is excluded from access land.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |