Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Wednesday 19th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Judd (Lab)]

At earlier stages of the Bill, I drew attention to the widespread and spontaneous concern—quite unprecedented in some ways—that had come from people right across the country about the precious and special nature of our forests. I think, therefore, that among a lot of people, there will be a great sense of relief at the amendment that the Government have introduced. Credit should be paid to them for the very commendable way in which they listened to the argument, went away and came back and responded to what the House said.

As for my noble friend’s amendment, I totally see the logic and importance of it. If we have just said that the other amendment is essential because of the very special nature of the forests—let us not be afraid of these phrases: the atmospheric nature of the forests, the spiritual nature of the forests, the physical and recreational nature of the forests—it really is important that intrusions, by carelessness or deliberate action, which spoil that special nature should be dealt with in a way that preserves the special characteristics of the forest. The two amendments go completely together. I hope that the Government will be able to take very seriously what my noble friend has argued and accommodate it.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

I congratulate the Minister on listening to the points that a lot of us in this House made. As a rider to what has been said, a very important part of forestry—speaking as someone who has some—are those strips of land where you can extract timber to cut it up and prepare it to go to the timber mill or wherever it is going. This area that we talk of as waste is vital. To people in the country, it is not unlike those elements that you get at the sides of fields that are often put to set-aside or for biodiversity. The amendment makes a very good point and I am sure that the Minister will reassure us on it.

[Baroness Kramer]

My Lords, I think that we are all at the same place on this. My argument against the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, is that they are unnecessary, because the issue is entirely covered in the language that I hope we will be bringing into the Bill through amendment, if your Lordships agree. The amendments prevent the transfer of any land held by the Secretary of State that has been acquired—remember, this is government-owned land—or is treated as having been acquired under Section 39 of the Forestry Act 1967. As I said earlier, that covers all land that is under the management of the forestry commissioners at any given time—whether by freehold or leasehold—and includes any land that is not being used for afforestation but is still under the management of the forestry commissioners or is not being used for purposes connected with forestry.

The provision is widely drawn. Not only does it include forest waste, it includes the kind of ancillary facilities that many noble Lords have pointed out are necessary. Indeed, there is not even a necessary test: it simply has to be under the management of the Forestry Commissioners. I am sure that that is exactly what the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, and the various campaigners were attempting to achieve.

We think that we have done this rather effectively because one of the challenges of writing legislation is to make sure that we do not include another unintended loophole. We think that this approach is rather effective. I hope that noble Lords will understand why I will resist the amendment because I believe that its principle is well incorporated into the amendments that we introduced.

This may be the last time that I have the opportunity to speak in the House on this phase of the Bill before it goes to the other place. The last group of amendments will be led from the Government’s perspective by my noble friend Lady Verma. I want to say that, in a sense, this last discussion reflects what has been an extraordinary quality of this Bill, for which I thank the whole House. So many Members of the House have taken responsibility for raising issues of concern, strengthening the Bill, looking for ways to make it more effective and recognising the underlying purpose and intent. The collaborative attitude of so many Members of this House—I include the Opposition in that—has led us to a Bill that will serve its purpose even better than the Bill that we originally drafted.

At the same time, I want to thank the most extraordinary Bill team who have facilitated and made all of that possible, and the staff from the many departments that have contributed to the Bill. They have shown an exemplary service in making sure the legislation reflects the genuine intent of this House. I thank the House for allowing me to proceed with this as well. The last group of amendments will be led by my noble friend Lady Verma.

Infrastructure Bill [HL]

Lord Berkeley of Knighton Excerpts

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Lords Chamber

[Lord Jenkin of Roding]

My Lords, I will be brief because I sense that the House wants to reach a decision. In my former constituency of Wanstead and Woodford was quite a large part of Epping Forest. I entirely share the views that have been expressed around the House, by the right reverend Prelate and others, about the extent to which this forms an enormously valuable part of people’s lives and, indeed, is part of their being.

When Winston Churchill fell ill, went into hospital and lost his job—of course, he had a job and therefore had to give up his seat—he ended that chapter of his biography:

“And so I found myself without an office, without a seat … and without an appendix. I came to rest amid the cool glades of Epping Forest”.

Of course, he became the Member for Epping; I inherited part of that constituency.

I listened to the noble Baroness with great interest because I, too, had read the Statement made by my noble friend and published in Hansard on 4 November, and I took comfort from it. However, I have to say to my noble friend that this is what worries me: a Statement, however formally issued, is not the same as an Act of Parliament. The example quoted by the noble Baroness about the particular part of the Forest of Dean, which I had not heard before, has raised doubts in my mind. Whether this or another amendment is necessary to place the intention of the Statement firmly on the statute book, it seems to me that this amendment has a good deal to say for it. I shall listen to my noble friend’s response to this debate with considerable interest.

[Lord Berkeley of Knighton (CB)]

My Lords, I missed the opening of this debate because I was upstairs at a meeting of the APPG on arts and health, at which a series of experts in mental health said how important people’s surroundings—whether they were in the East End or the countryside—were to their good health and the well oiled working of society. As someone who has the privilege of living a lot of the time in the country and working with foresters, I feel that the transcending quality that people feel the countryside, and forestry in particular, affords them is not something with which we should play fast and loose.

The noble Lord, Lord Clark of Windermere, made some very fair points in recognising what the Government probably want to do here, but I do not think that this is an area where we can take any risks. From what many Members of the House have said, it seems that there is a huge risk attached to the Bill as presently framed, and therefore I would like to support the amendment.

[Lord Greaves (LD)]

My Lords, I apologise for not having spoken previously on the Bill; at the time, I was out of action as far as the House of Lords is concerned for various reasons. I should remind the House of my registered interests in the areas of local government and countryside recreation.

I was involved in what became the Public Bodies Act, to which I will refer in a minute because there is something about it that is important here. I was very pleased that I tabled the amendments that removed on the forestry commissioners’ clauses from the then Bill. Since then, the Independent Panel on Forestry—to which the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, referred—has made its recommendations and the Government have accepted the recommendation for a new body to look after the forestry estate. That was taken forward within Defra. In particular, my honourable friend David Heath, when he was a Minister there, played an important role in ensuring that happened. It has not been taken forward in legislation in this Parliament, and I think people can come to their own conclusions about why that is the case and the priorities of one of the parties—the Conservative Party—within the coalition. All I can say is that the Liberal Democrat manifesto at the coming election will include a commitment to such a body. I am not saying that is a 100% guarantee that it will happen but if other parties did the same, it would be very helpful.

At Second Reading my noble friend Lady Kramer said that these powers,

“will not be used by bodies such as the Forestry Commission”.—[Official Report, 18/06/2014; col. 840.]

The question is whether it is “will” or “can”? If it is “can”, someone else perhaps could in the future, and people out there certainly think that is a problem. I want to refer to the forestry commissioners. In the then Public Bodies Bill, the forestry commissioners were treated very differently from all the other public bodies mentioned. Those who remember with pleasure debating that Bill three or four years ago will remember that there were pages and pages of schedules that were lists of organisations. The forestry commissioners were not there. They had to have their three separate clauses and be treated differently. If you look at the Forestry Commission website, it says:

“The Forestry Commission is both a Government Department and a statutory body with a board of Commissioners”.

So that sounds as though it is the same. It goes on:

“The board consists of a Chair and up to 10 other Forestry Commissioners”—

I think there are about half a dozen—

“who are appointed by the Queen on the recommendation of Ministers”.

It was very clear that the commissioners were there by some kind of royal appointment or charter, and were different from other public bodies. My question, which I ask the Minister in all honesty and seriousness, is: does this Bill apply to the forestry commissioners or not? When we dealt with the Public Bodies Bill, we were told that they were different and they had to have these separate clauses, so does this apply to them or not? If the Government can say that it does not apply to them, we can all go home.

Finally, why have the Government got themselves into this silly political mess? We, the Government and the Opposition are all saying that we do not want the land that comes under the forestry commissioners—the forestry estate—to be dealt with in this way as a means of transferring it to the Homes and Communities Agency. Everyone is saying that they do not want to do it, so why have the Government got into this? All Governments get into this silly political mess where they write something in legislation and then cannot make simple compromises in the face of opposition when it comes. I think it is institutional stupidity on the part of this Government. It affects all Governments in this way, in that they cannot back down and say they have got something wrong or that they have to clarify it. We all actually agree, so we should put something in the legislation that says what we all agree on and then we can all go home happy.