IN the words of my father Viscount Bledisloe QC, I write, at the eleventh hour, "as one whose family have lived on the very edge of the Forest of Dean for nearly 300 years, whose grandfather and great-grandfather and more remote ancestors were all Verderers of the Forest".... prompted by a passionate community uniquely threatened by the Government's Public Bodies Bill, to speak out against an alarming blanket power likely to threaten the Forest in perpetuity.

As one whose children picnic, cycle, ride, walk through magical sculpture trails, enjoy the spectacle of sheep roaming free, and as one who recognises the precious majesty of an ancient woodland protected as a whole and living entity, I write to join a protesting community of all ages, prepared to brave sub zero temperatures on last Monday's Bank Holiday in their thousands, angry and frightened that their unique bond between living community and Crown forest, and their hard won customary privileges and special permissions, honoured by the Forestry Commission, are about to be swept away.

(Excellent coverage of this and the whole campaign can be found on http://www.handsoffourforest.org">www.handsoffourforest.org

Is it any wonder that we who love our stunning home of ancient woodlands, and are concerned for the future of our forests and the communities that live within them, should view with disquiet legislation which endangers those forest woodlands? Legislation introduced without consultation and promoted by a minister who acknowledges that the Government wishes "to proceed with...very substantial disposal of public forest estate, which could go to the extent of all of it." Legislation which is intended to provide additional powers to facilitate sales of forestry land beyond the levels of sales traditionally undertaken: Dame Helen Ghosh addressing the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on the 16th November.

The legislation is needed to meet Defra's budgetary commitments, but it has little regard for the wellbeing of the communities that live within the forest woodlands.

The Public Bodies Bill will empower the Minister to repeal all or part of the Forestry Act 1967, as amended. At present that Act gives the Minister the power to dispose of forestry land but with one singular exception. She may not dispose of land which is suitable for afforestation or for purposes connected with forestry within the Forest of Dean (Section 39(2A)).

This hard won exemption, supported by all parties in both the Lords and the Commons in 1981, is therefore threatened by the Bill. In fact, the additional powers referred to by Dame Helen Ghosh would seem to be aimed at repealing Section 39(2A) and the protection it affords the Forest of Dean.

When in 1981 the then Government proposed to sell forest woodlands, the late Lord McNair observed, "We believe that the Forest of Dean is a special case. We believe that the people who live in the Forest of Dean are uniquely disadvantaged and therefore uniquely endangered by the (Forestry) Bill as it stands, because for various historical reasons they have no legal rights of common or of access. Instead they have customary privileges, which are fully recognised by the Forestry Commission, and it is difficult to see how these de facto privileges could possibly be safeguarded if any part of the Forest of Dean were to pass into private hands". (HL Deb 09 June 1981 vol 421).

My father, the late Lord Bledisloe QC described the uniqueness of the Forest in the following way: "The Forest of Dean is wholly different. It is an historic Crown forest in which an entire community has developed, using and enjoying the land in many ways which are not protected by legal rights. It is also an area in which nowadays visitors come from all over the country, and indeed from elsewhere, to picnic, to camp, and to do other things, which do not exist as legal rights". He went on to say that "It is those privileges which can be wholly lost if this land is sold to private persons". (HL Deb 11 May 1981 vol 420).

It is, therefore, only by virtue of the Forestry Commission's respect for these customary privileges that the inhabitants of the Forest and visitors are able to enjoy, for example, walking, cycling, horse riding, picnicking, following scenic trails and the running of sheep.

There are insurmountable difficulties in protecting these privileges on a sale. When in 1981 Baroness Jeger proposed that any sale of Forestry land be subject to a condition that existing public access and amenity provisions be maintained, Lord Mansfield, a barrister and Government Minister promoting the Bill in the Lords, advised that:

"There are some major legal difficulties (to Baroness Jeger's proposal). If the purchaser were required to maintain, for instance, access and amenity provisions, that would be a duty for the benefit of the public at large and not to any one person. That really does not fit into our conveyancing system in this country...

"The next difficulty would be the enforcement of the covenant by the public. Any action to do so would have to be taken by the relevant Minister because he would be the vendor; but by then he would have relinquished his interest and, since he would not have suffered any damage, it is difficult to see what form of redress would be available against the purchaser. The next point is that covenants of this type cannot be framed to bind successors in title to the original purchaser. In other words, whatever one might wish to achieve so far as what I might call the first generation is concerned, it certainly would not bind successors in title.

"Apart from problems with the legal difficulties, I do not believe it is right to require someone to allow the public on to his land as a matter of legal right without any form of control; although as I have said, if there are rights of way then this legislation will make no difference to them. It would be an extremely odd and very difficult statutory requirement, for instance, to make a purchaser legally responsible for maintaining such facilities as picnic sites or way-marked trails. The Forestry Commission can, of course, vary its facilities and the way in which it makes them available according to its by-laws; that is very useful for the Forestry Commission, but those provisions would not be available to the purchaser. One control which is exercised by the Forestry Commission is that to prohibit the lighting of fires which, particularly in the case of young woodland, can be very dangerous indeed; no such control would be made available to the purchaser". (HL Deb 11 May 1981 vol 420).

The position remains largely unchanged today. The privileges the Foresters and visitors to the Forest enjoy cannot be protected; they rely on the goodwill of the Forestry Commission and by no conveyancing device can successor owners be bound to honour them. This holds true on a sale to a charitable trust, as is urged on us by our MP, Mark Harper, and on any future sale should the trust fail.

Supporters of the Public Bodies Bill say that the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 will protect these privileges and traditions. The Act gives no such protection; it is concerned with rights of way and the right to roam and these rights fall short of what the Forestry Commission has traditionally permitted within the Forest of Dean.

For example, the Act imposes no obligation on landowners to repair and maintain ways and paths (which are now maintained by the Forestry Commission), it does not provide for cycle tracks (as are presently provided by the Commission), it says nothing of the running of sheep (an essential Forest tradition), it will not safeguard the Forest's flora and fauna, it will not sustain what is an immensely important educational asset.

At report stage in the debate on The Forestry Bill 1981 Lord Mansfield, speaking on behalf of the Conservative Government, accepted that "The Forest of Dean is a special case and it has a unique history. But, rather more importantly than that, it has an absence of established common rights which means that, to an extent, the inhabitants are, so to speak, rather vulnerable". (HL Deb 09 June 1981 vol 421).

Accordingly, he adopted and moved Lord McNair's amendment and it was thus a Conservative Minister who secured for the Forest the exemption from sale which is now threatened by the Government's Bill. If the Bill is enacted this vulnerable forest community and its customs and traditions, which have survived for a thousand years, will be put in jeopardy. Whatever the White Paper says it is the Bill, once enacted, that will determine the future of the Forest of Dean. The Government itself can change its policy; the White Paper is not binding on any future government. In these circumstances is it little wonder that our fears for our customs and traditions and the future prosperity of our community engender vehement opposition to the Bill.

Rupert Bathurst

Viscount Bledisloe