New Forest Notes: An explanation on the substitution of subsidies on the Forest
New subsidies for old
I am told that nobody should refer to the money paid to New Forest farming as subsidies. It appears that the word is not regarded by some people as politically correct. Reference should instead be to “support payments” or other euphemistic alternative words. Why such sensitivity should exist is not clear to me. Subsidies are exactly what the payments are. If in doubt, ask Google for the dictionary definitions – as I did. I also benefitted from these subsidies in my latter years of depasturing stock on the Forest.
The Forest is at the moment, or more accurately at the several years, of transition from one set of confusing subsidies to an even larger group of still more complex successors, all referred to by incomprehensible acronyms. Until recently, qualified commoners have received large sums per head of stock actually or supposedly depastured on the Forest and for which marking fees (annual payments) have been made. Thus, the more animals one paid for, the more subsidy could be secured, irrespective of the theoretical rights possessed.
Now this rather problematical system has been consolidated into annually-decreasing lump sums which will disappear altogether in 2027. It is a similar phasing out of payments to that being experienced by farmers throughout England in respect of their ordinary fields. However, that is not the only subsidy New Forest commoners receive. The other one, also largely a headage payment (but capped) is made by the verderers using government money. It is designed to promote the depasturing of pure-bred native stock and has, perhaps, more justification than the mindless payments under the dying BPS (Basic Payment Scheme). Between the two pay-out schemes, some of the larger Forest farmers have made a lot of money, but as usual it is the small operator who has come off worst. Now the verderers’ scheme, called HLS (Higher Level Stewardship) is also likely to be nearing its end, and the two reductions could leave a big hole in the income of local farmers.
Exactly what will replace either of both subsidy streams is extremely uncertain, as is the authority or group of farmers which will administer the very large amounts of government money which are likely to be available. Learned consultants have been employed to advise the verderers on the options available and the way in which that money should be managed.
At the court’s meeting in July, the experts attended to give the verderers an outline of their work so far and their plans for further study over the coming months. It was a most interesting, if rather confusing, session. My problem with experts is that they so thoroughly understand their subject that they dive straight into the complex details (which interest them) without explaining the basic principles of what is on offer. Some members of their audience – and particularly this one – are quickly left behind. Without an understanding of the basics, the more abstruse questions are unlikely to mean very much.
There are, it seems, several possible financial systems by which Forest farming could be supported over different periods and in different ways. They go under such obscure titles as the Landscape Recovery Scheme, but all would be designed to support continued grazing of the Forest’s common land in one way or another. This is an entirely legitimate and indeed essential objective, provided it is tailored to protect threatened elements of the Forest’s landscape.
Elsewhere in the country the support system is likely to be fairly straightforward. It will be directed towards benefitting those who possess common rights, recorded in local authority registers, and (importantly) in proportion to the actual extent of those rights. No such convenient arrangement is possible in the New Forest. Here there is the appalling prospect of a reversion to the full-blown headage based system, which would renew the explosion of livestock numbers in the Forest. Stocking levels, although marginally down on their peak of a few years ago, are still at an unsustainable level so far as many aspects and geographical areas of the Forest are concerned. The ancient woodlands are in a dire state because virtually no young trees can become established. They are eaten off as soon as they appear. I know that 40 or 50 years ago more sustainable levels of grazing pressure allowed valuable regeneration to take place, but that ceased decades ago. Next there is the destruction of heather-covered heathland from the same cause. It is being replaced by grassland because of the high levels of grazing and dunging. This is particularly so on the National Trust lands in the north-east of the Forest.
The challenge is therefore to devise a system which provides the commoners with a sound level of financial support, without that money being used to boost or maintain already damaging levels of grazing pressure. So far as I could understand from the experts, this essential requirement has hardly been considered. All the sensible and non-damaging categories of support seem not to fit within the straightjacket of government subsidies. They include money for vehicles, farm machinery, farm maintenance and perhaps less immediately obvious benefits such as land purchase and even housing. These would be of immense value to small commoners and particularly the younger ones, without any damage to the Forest.
Assuming that the nature of future subsidies can be satisfactorily resolved, who will administer such a scheme? The potential candidates are the landowner (Forestry England), a committee of commoners, the national park or the verderers. There are political and probably legal difficulties with all or some of these. Forestry England is largely uninterested in the agricultural use of the Forest. A commoners’ committee would seem to have a dubious legal basis, and the national park, while doubtless welcoming a new dominant role in the management of the Forest, would be very unpopular with many local people. That leaves only the verderers. Their legal position, too, is at least questionable. They have specific statutory powers and how far they can stray beyond them is uncertain. At the moment they administer the Higher-Level Stewardship scheme, apparently on the basis that the chair of the court is regarded as the “farmer of the Forest” and that seems to me rather thin. Still, if the legalities can be sorted out, I have no doubt that they are best placed to manage the scheme. They already control the health and welfare of Forest livestock. They know, more or less, what animals are actually on the Forest and who owns them, and they have an experienced field and office staff. Half the court’s membership is elected by the commoners. None of the other candidates has these advantages. Finally, and this seems hardly to have been considered, they are the tax-collectors of the Forest in that they receive fees for each animal depastured. That, combined with subsidy control, would give them a unique ability to regulate livestock numbers if the various authorities could agree on appropriate levels.
Gypsy compound at Devils Den
The death through disuse of old Forest placenames is very sad and has resulted from the decline in the numbers of long-serving workers, both in the field and in the administrative offices in Lyndhurst. Devils Den is a good example. It was applied to the area of holly woodland adjoining the large 1960s gypsy compound at Thorney Hill and the name had existed at least since the 18th century. The compound simply acquired the name of the Thorney Hill Camp, and that was far less interesting.
Over my years on the Verderers’ Court, I have seen some rather strange applications brought forward by Forestry England for the court’s consideration, but nothing so bizarre as an anonymous application to dig holes in the former camp at Thorney Hill, under the rather grandiose title of Romani Community Archaeology Project. This was on the agenda last month. Since this local authority housing site was closed down well within my time (1977) it is difficult to see what such disturbance could possibly achieve unless it is to stir up some Quatermass-like underground devils. The paper presented to the verderers from the un-named source suggests that the national park is somehow involved and perhaps, as the Americans might say, that figures. Not only was the Deputy Surveyor unable to enlighten us as to the name of the applicant, but there was no indication as to how the excavator might be qualified for this hole-digging exercise on what is, in effect, a modern rubbish dump. Every year I visit an excavation on the Forest near Brockenhurst conducted by an eminent retired professor of archaeology, and there can be no doubt about the validity of his work or the importance of the information he is recording. The Devils Den enterprise seems very far from this.
The gypsy compound was, for many years, a source of immense problems for the Forest, the commoners and the local population. Huge amounts of refuse and broken glass were spread about over the Forest. The commoners’ animals were chased about by camp dogs while the verderers, who at that time still had minor judicial powers, were constantly at war with the camp inmates over repeated offences against the byelaws. It was altogether far from the romantic staged Victorian photographs of such establishments.
The hole-digging exercise seems to be concentrated on the county council-built rehabilitation complex dating from 1964 and finally closed down in 1977. No doubt precise records of the camp survive in the council’s files, so it is difficult to see what digging might achieve beyond uncovering broken glass and brick rubble. The applicant says the site was established in 1920, but this date is not explained. The first verderers’ records of the site are in 1932 when a force of police, agisters and keepers was sent to investigate reports of dogs molesting Forest cattle within the compound. Thereafter, for 40 years, complaints of damage and disturbance were incessant.
In 1947 the Ministry of Agriculture’s New Forest Committee (otherwise the Baker Committee) wrote of the gypsy camps that “a group is allowed to live in the Forest which has hardly reached the standard of the Stone Age” and “we have visited their camps and we should hesitate to describe them in detail”. That well summed up the feelings of many local people as reported to the court over and over again.
After years of constant friction, in 1963 the county council applied for the granting of land for the erection of 12 huts and the employment of a full-time warden. The land was to be returned to the Forest within 12 years. After lengthy negotiations, the application was approved. The next year it was amended to substitute 14 prefabricated bungalows – apparently the investigation target of the present applicant. Then in 1977 the verderers were informed that the last remaining gypsies had been re-housed and that the site could be restored, but it was a long time before most of the rubbish was cleared.
