Schmallenberg Virus

Lord Clark of Windermere Excerpts

Thursday 1st November 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

I agree with my noble friend. Generally speaking, midges are very widespread across the country and I think that the application of a spray would have minimal impact.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, in view of the emergence of a worrying number of animal and plant diseases, which may or may not be connected with the nuances of climate change, will the Minister give us an assurance that none of the drastic cuts being made by the Government in their own research facilities will hinder the evolution of vaccines to counter things such as bovine TB, the Schmallenberg virus and Ash dieback?

[Lord De Mauley]

If I may, I shall restrict my response to the Schmallenberg virus for these purposes. I assure noble Lords that the necessary funding has been made available particularly to carry out the testing which is so critical in this case.

Bovine Tuberculosis

Lord Clark of Windermere Excerpts

Tuesday 23rd October 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the point about mice, rats and indeed deer is that there is no restriction on culling them.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, I agree entirely with the Minister, as indeed would most people in the country, when he says that this is the most pressing animal health issue facing the country. In the light of that, I welcome the announcement today because I think that it exposes how shambolic the Government’s proposals have been in trying to tackle this real problem. As scientists said last week, the policy was little more than a costly diversion and we will end up with more cases of TB in four or nine years’ time than we have at the moment. The four-year pilots have now, with the stroke of a pen today, become five-year pilots. I believe that we ought to follow the recommendations of the European Union representatives and, although it will not be easy, continue to seek political consensus so that we can move on to vaccination and increase the amount of money that we are spending on research in this field, especially in the form of cattle vaccination.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, the area in which I disagree with the noble Lord is clearly that of pursuing the cull, which I have said we are planning to do. The area in which I agree with him is that of vaccination, which is another tool in the box that we must find, and I assure noble Lords that we are continuing to work on that.

Environment: Leafleting

Lord Clark of Windermere Excerpts

Monday 9th July 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I cannot agree with the noble Earl. This is up to local communities to decide. They can determine the balance between propagandising events and social activities and their own interest in trying to prevent litter and, to some extent, being bothered by people handing out leaflets.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, has the Minister seen the increase of small posters advertising functions dotting our roadside, which many of us regard as litter, and has he had any consultations with the police as to the road safety aspects of these many small posters?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No, I have not but fly-posting is a problem dealt with by the Localism Act that we passed last year. The noble Lord makes an interesting point, but election posters spring to mind as being the most obvious things that one sees on lamp posts.

Rio+20 Conference

Lord Clark of Windermere Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

The noble Lord has a great deal of knowledge in this area and I am very sorry that his indisposition meant that he could not chair one of the key committees at the conference. I agree that some of the outcomes are not as strong as we might have hoped. However, we must view this agreement in context. More than 190 countries have signed up to a political declaration and it is on the foundation of that declaration that the detailed work will then go forward. This country went to Rio+20 with a number of proposals that were welcomed by that conference.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, in view of the fact that one of the greatest single sources of global emissions is deforestation, and yet timber is one of the few tangible assets of some poor countries, will the Minister tell the House what specific agreement we made at Rio to try to tackle this very important issue?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I agree with the noble Lord that this is important. We wanted to impress on the conference that GDP was a rather inadequate measure of the resources of a country, and that we want to develop indicators of natural and social capital to complement GDP and agreement to incorporate these into national accounts. All nations at Rio+20 recognise the importance of a broader measure of progress to complement GDP in order to inform decision-making. Forestry is a key element of natural capital, and the UN Statistical Commission will take this work forward.

Agriculture: Schmallenberg Virus

Lord Clark of Windermere Excerpts

Wednesday 7th March 2012 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

My Lords, good collaborative networks operate in Europe with our European colleagues. We are working with them and the Commission to develop an investigatory research programme to answer questions as to the disease’s origin, transmission and future prognosis. We have strength in depth in vector research at Pirbright and virus characteristics at the Animal Health and Veterinary Laboratory Agency at Weybridge, which will play a key role in this.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, has the Minister received any assessment—

[Baroness Trumpington]

My Lords, sorry, am I competing with somebody else? Forgive my ignorance but I do not know how this virus gets around. Is it through biting the animals, laying eggs or what? Families are involved in the birth of lambs. Are they—particularly the young women of the families—at risk of catching this terrible bug?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

No, I can reassure my noble friend that the family of viruses from which this infection comes poses no direct threat to human health. As for how the infection occurs, it is midge-transmitted: the midge infects the sheep or cattle. We know now that that occurred in the summer or early autumn of last year. Indeed, we know that the last possible date on which it might have occurred was 13 November. We know that from the weather prediction and patterns that we have studied to find out more about how this infection arrived in the country.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, I know when to be gallant. In view of the Minister’s assurance that there does not appear to be any risk to human health, and in view of experiences over recent decades, will he ask the Food Standards Agency and the Health Protection Agency to monitor the disease particularly closely?

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

I can assure the noble Lord that we have already done that. We have had risk assessments by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control and the UK Health Protection Agency, both concluding that there is a very low likelihood of any risk from this disease to human health.

Environment: Cockle Beds

Lord Clark of Windermere Excerpts

Thursday 10th November 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Taylor of Holbeach]

We are indeed entirely supportive of the Gangmasters Licensing Authority, which plays a very important role in preventing the exploitation of workers. In this instance, the authority has not been particularly involved—there is no evidence of gangs working the fishery—but I am pleased to give the noble Lord the assurance he seeks.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is deep confusion in the north-west of England, in Cumbria and around Morecambe Bay, about the present situation? Although, rightly, most attention has been paid to the saving of human lives, the natural environment is very fragile. Can the Minister assure us that Defra is monitoring that situation to ensure that irreparable damage is not done to the cockle beds and to other related species?

Oak Processionary Moth

Lord Clark of Windermere Excerpts

Wednesday 27th April 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for all she has said. She is quite right in, first, underlining the public health issues and, secondly, underlining the fact that some oak woodland areas might have to be removed from public access, as has happened in other parts of the EU, although we hope that it will not happen here.

The reason we have moved from eradication to containment is based on scientific advice that eradication within the five boroughs in south-west London that the noble Baroness is aware of is not possible. We managed to eradicate the outbreaks in Leeds and Sheffield but we got on to those much earlier. We did not get on to this outbreak, which started in the summer of 2006, early enough and therefore it will be very difficult to get rid of it. However, we are very grateful for all the work being done by Forest Research, Fera and by Kew Gardens, which also has an interest as it is right in the middle of the area.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, will the Minister confirm that this moth affects other trees as well as oak? In view of the fact that Defra has required the Forestry Commission and Forest Research to reduce their budgets by 25 per cent, with a similar reduction in their staff, is the noble Lord absolutely confident that we have the resources available to tackle this tree-related disease plus the many others that are coming in from overseas at this time?

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, the first point to make is that we do not know that this disease has come from overseas; we do not know where it has come from. Secondly, my advice is that it affects oaks, but I will write to the noble Lord if it affects other trees as well. Thirdly, there is no question of budgetary constraints affecting the fight against this particular menace. I have spoken to the Forestry Commission today and it was perfectly happy to assure me that they had all the resources it needed to fight the problems of the processionary moth. The simple problem is that there are an awful lot of them in a confined area and there are an awful lot of oaks around, and finding all the eggs, larvae and so on is very difficult indeed. Money is not in question.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Clark of Windermere Excerpts

Wednesday 23rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

[Lord Newton of Braintree]

My Lords, perhaps I may chip in as a mere layman, and a former MP for a constituency that looked as though it was rural, just to support the previous two speeches. In passing, I may say that I really would not want to accept the noble Baroness’s description of my Front-Bench colleagues as stubborn, obdurate and wanting to settle old scores in relation to the amendment. That might turn out to be true in relation to others, but I am not sure that I would regard it as such in relation to this amendment.

As I said, I was a Member of Parliament in an area that looked as though it was rural. It had a lot of farmers 36 years ago—I was elected in 1974. Even then, although the numbers would have been down, a lot of people worked on farms. By the time I left, very few people worked on farms, certainly in eastern England, where it is heavily arable and a lot of people do not have or want animals. What one had were vast, Rolls-Royce-type pieces of equipment that needed highly skilled, trained people, as my noble friend pointed out, to operate them. Frankly, in a part of the country such as that, with modern farming—it is probably different in some other parts of the country—this whole thing has an antique feel about it compared with the circumstances in which the boards were set up. So I have some sympathy with my noble friends.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, I intervene briefly in opposition to the three previous speakers and in support of my noble friend’s amendment. I, too, send my good wishes to the noble Lord, Lord Greaves, who intended to initiate this debate.

We had a long and interesting debate on this issue on 1 December, and I was struck by how it divided the House in a way that I had not seen previously. I saw coming from the Benches opposite the perspective of the owners of farms and the employers of farm workers. I make no observation except to say that that is a statement of fact. I do not for one moment suggest that noble Members opposite were not considerate, not kind and not informed—they were and they are—but they see things from a different perspective than do farm employees.

The Agricultural Wages Board represents roughly 150,000 people. When I heard the argument that agricultural workers are quite well paid—we have heard it touched upon today—I was not so sure that any of the 150,000 people who were affected by it would agree with that statement. That makes my point about the difference in perspective when looking at these issues. I emphasise that this is not only about those 150,000 people; the Agricultural Wages Board lays down a benchmark for many other rural and agriculturally related activities, and as we move into the contracting business in agriculture, which is inevitable, it is even more important.

The argument used for the creation of the Agricultural Wages Board was that there was no method of collective negotiations to achieve what was considered to be a fair wage, and so the state had to intervene to determine what that fair wage was. I still believe—it came out in our previous debate—that, in the absence of collective bargaining, the relationship between one employer and two or three employees can be very difficult; it can be embarrassing for both sides in many cases. The Agricultural Wages Board assisted in that respect.

The Government have been very active. Mr Paice wrote to Mr David Hill, the chair of the Agricultural Wages Committee for Cumbria, Northumbria and Tyne and Wear on 22 July and made the point, on which we can all agree, that it is a key government priority to support British farming. He said that he wanted to ensure that the agricultural industry can adopt flexible and modern agricultural practices. I agree with that as well—I hope we all do. However, I worry that the price we might have to pay for this is a reduction in the wages of agricultural employees.

I accept the argument that the Agricultural Wages Board and the industry employ very skilled personnel. The noble Lord, Lord Newton, has made that very clear and was very perceptive. As a result, various grades are covered by the board, and only a small minority are at the very basic level. I understand that. Therefore I was even more concerned to read another letter from Mr Jim Paice, the Minister in the other place, to Mr David Hill, dated 8 September, in which he says:

“the six different grades of worker”,

under the Agricultural Wages Board,

“will not be retained”.

They are going to abolish the various grades of skill that are now covered and recognised under the board. It is on that that I base my submission that, in a relative sense, wages will fall back and that the rewards that are currently given for skill, which is vital to that modern agricultural industry, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has said, to produce more food depends upon the use of machinery and the skill of the workforce to use that.

It is imperative that we recognise those skills. I happen to believe that the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board and Mr Jim Paice’s proposal to abolish the grading of skills will actually lead to a less efficient agricultural industry, which is not what I want and, I hope, not what the other side wants. I feel very strongly that this will be seen in the countryside as another attempt by this Government to make life more difficult for people who work in the countryside.

Forestry Commission

Lord Clark of Windermere Excerpts

Thursday 3rd March 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved By

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

To call attention to Her Majesty’s Government’s plans to dispose of the Forestry Commission estate; and to move for papers.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, I spent a great deal of my political life being involved in forestry, and I made my maiden speech in the other place 41 years ago on the subject. I introduced the Private Member’s Bill that required the Forestry Commission to move from simply producing timber to multipurpose forestry, and I served for eight years as chair of the Forestry Commission. Given that, I was not exactly happy with the Government’s proposals, which I regarded as ill judged, to sell off the Forestry Commission estate. However, I was thrilled and amazed by the response of the British people. I did not expect them to share the appreciation of trees and woodland as fully as I did. The fact that over half a million individuals have signed a petition against the Government’s proposal—the petition is still there; lapsed, but growing each day—was symptomatic of the feeling of the British people. I was quite frankly staggered that I ended up addressing meetings of thousands of people, deep in our forests, who were objecting to the Government’s proposals.

However, that is in the past. The Government, thankfully, saw the light, and they retreated. We are all grateful for that retreat, because it gives us an opportunity now, in a calmer atmosphere, to debate the long-term future of a long-term business. As the House knows, we are talking about an industry that thinks in terms of decades, as a minimum, and occasionally in terms of centuries. It is right to take stock and see where we are.

Over a number of years, we in Britain have had a healthy partnership between the public sector and the private sector in forestry. Twenty per cent is owned by the state and the remainder by the private sector. I think that this is about the right balance, and both sectors receive support from the public finances. This balance is right because the state can do some things more easily than the private sector can. On access, for example, I remind noble Lords that the Forestry Commission estate is the largest single provider of countryside access, with 40 million day visitors per year. I remind the House that under the CROW Act almost all the freehold land is legally open for access on foot, and that on almost all the land there is de facto access on cycles for mountain biking and general recreation. Access is given wherever possible for horses as well. This is much easier to provide where the land is being supported by the general public through taxation than it might be for a private owner. I concede that straightaway, and it is one of my arguments for why we need to retain a sizeable public sector ownership of our forestry.

The issue is not only access. In terms of biodiversity, 26 per cent of the forestry estate is designated as SSSI; and of those sites, 98 per cent are designated as either favourable or at an advanced stage of recovery. Forty-five per cent of the estate is within national parks or areas of outstanding natural beauty. There are constraints on the production of timber, yet the Forestry Commission estate still produces 60 per cent of all the timber produced from woods and forests in this country. In addition to that, there is the storage of CO₂ as well.

As for timber supply, although I have long argued for multi purpose forestry, it is also still very important to produce timber. What has not come out in debate on the Government’s proposal to sell off the Forestry Commission is how opposed most of the big users of timber were to it. Modern timber-using industry needs a high level of capital investment and, usually, a great deal of labour. It is imperative that those users of timber are guaranteed a supply 365 days a year, every year. The private sector, quite understandably, will not give those guarantees of supply. When timber prices fall—and it is a highly volatile market—the private sector simply withdraws timber from the market. That makes sense to the private timber owner but not to the timber user in a highly capital-intensive, labour-intensive industry.

I accept that one cannot stand still. As chair of the commission, I was for ever pushing the commission to see if we could find better ways of meeting more public benefits and of doing so in a better way. That was an obligation that I felt we had to the taxpayer and to our customers as wood users. I was pleased, for example, to persuade Parliament to agree to a regulatory reform order that allowed the Forestry Commission, as a government department, to do all sorts of adventurous initiatives. We were allowed to form joint ventures with the private sector, and we have done so with effect. There is much more opportunity for us to continue with that as we progress. While I am open about the way in which we go forward and how we manage and utilise our assets in the state sector, I hope that the Government will be as open as they look ahead with their proposals.

We were all pleased—certainly on this side of the House, along with the overwhelming majority of the British people, including 82 per cent of the Government’s own supporters—that the Secretary of State announced on 17 February that they were dropping their wilder proposals to sell off 85 per cent of the Forestry Commission estate. That was a vast amount, but there still remains the question of the 15 per cent. I hope that the Minister can give us some reassurance about that 15 per cent today. Is it still the Government’s firm intention, after they receive the report from the committee of experts, to sell off that 15 per cent? Before the Government throw back at me the fact that we did that I should say, yes, we did. It makes sense to reshape your estate. But we sold about 2 per cent of the forest estate, a net sale, over 13 years. The Government are proposing to sell 15 per cent over four years. The effect will be dramatic in many parts of the country and it is clearly not what the British people wish.

I say this to the Minister. The Government may feel that the protests and the protesters have gone away, but they have not—they are still there. The forests campaign network is having regular meetings because it wants to hold the Government to account on this issue, and it does not want the sale of the forestry estate asset.

I shall conclude my remarks by asking the Minister a number of straightforward questions. The Government intend to set up the panel of experts, which we appreciate will be widely drawn. Will he give us an assurance that it will meet in public, that its records will be public and that its members will be drawn from throughout the regions of the country?

On an organisational matter, the Forestry Commission is currently being pressurised by Defra to reorganise its administrative structure. This would encompass huge areas, stretching from the north-east of England right through to the east coast. I firmly believed that the way forward for the Forestry Commission was to move to regional and local bases. I thought that the Government shared that idea, with the big society. Will the Minister look at this and suggest to Defra that it work with the Forestry Commission so that the reorganisation is put on hold until we have the report?

Defra has also put proposals to the Forestry Commission that it should come up with a new vision. I have seen a copy of that vision and, frankly, it is disturbing. It mentions all sorts of proposals for the commission that I agree with, but at no stage does it mention any role for the Forestry Commission estate. Will the Minister have a word with his Defra officials on that issue?

This is a very short and rushed debate, in time allocated to the Opposition. There is sufficient interest in this topic within this House, where there is a great deal of knowledge, and I ask the Government to give us some time in government time so that the House can debate this issue and play its part in the forestry debate.

[Lord De Mauley]

My Lords, I respectfully remind noble Lords that Back-Bench contributions in this debate are limited to two minutes and that those two minutes are already up when it says two minutes on the clock. If any noble Lord exceeds that, he risks restricting my noble friend’s ability to respond to your Lordships.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, this has been a first-class debate that just emphasises the need for a further, longer, debate. I have been so impressed by noble Lords for the way in which, in such a short period, they have been able to make their cases so clearly and succinctly, and I am full of admiration. I thank the Minister and every Member who has contributed for their efforts and time. I beg leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion withdrawn.

Public Bodies Bill [HL]

Lord Clark of Windermere Excerpts

Monday 28th February 2011 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

47: Schedule 1, page 17, line 11, leave out “Regional advisory committees established under section 37(1)(b) of the Forestry Act 1967.”

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

I believe that with Amendment 47 we are also discussing a series of other amendments which relate to forestry issues. I shall carry on in the spirit of bonhomie which has engulfed the Benches in the House today but I must also say that I could not have foreseen such a situation arising a couple of weeks ago. The Government have made it very easy for us to be very positive because they have listened to what we have been trying to say—or at least I would like to think that they have been listening. The Minister has certainly been listening. I am not sure whether it was my arguments that persuaded him to move his position or whether it might have been the half-million people who signed the 38 Degrees referendum, or the 82 per cent of their own supporters who opposed their initiative, or the 86 per cent of the general public who opposed the Government’s proposals. If was not my arguments or any of those other possibilities perhaps it was the mass meetings.

What has been really encouraging over the past few months is the fact that the British people have spoken in a way that I cannot remember them speaking before. Across the country we have found protest groups—people—getting organised to fight the Government on this issue. Sometimes it has been just small groups of people with one local forest. In other cases—such as the Forest of Dean, the Lake District or Chopwell in the north-east—there have been very big demonstrations involving thousands of people, often in quite remote forests.

I think that the Government got the message, but I must say that they have caused a lot of trouble, offence and concern. Many workers in the Forestry Commission, whom I regard as some of the finest workers in this country, have been offended by some of the comments made by Mr Cameron. I am sure that he did not mean what he said, but he has caused great offence to them. The struggle in which we have been involved of late was justified in one of our local newspapers. The Cumberland News had a piece this weekend in which it held vox pops asking people what they thought about the Government's proposal for forestry. A woman said, “I am so relieved. My husband works in the forest. We have been worried sick. We have hardly slept. What a relief it is now”. It is that sort of hardship, that sort of worry, which could have been avoided if the Government had consulted instead of just rushing ahead with the proposals.

However, they have sat back and reassessed the position; and on 17 February, the Secretary of State honestly and openly announced three major retractions. I see that one name added to my amendment today is that of the Minister, and I am very grateful that he has added his weight to mine. I hope that, between us, we will carry the day. In the other place, the Secretary of State said that her announcement,

“will allow for more measured and rational debate”.—[Official Report, Commons, 17/2/11; col. 1155.]

That implies that the government proposals had not been measured and had not been rational. They had not. As I said, the Government have now said that they were wrong, and I accept their words.

My specific amendment is about the regional advisory committees—not in themselves a great part of the scheme of things, but a useful part. I could never understand why the Government were so opposed to regional advisory committees. We looked at that when I was chair of the Forestry Commission. We examined everything, because I was determined to sweat the assets of the Forestry Commission. They belong to the public, so we must get value for money from those lands and those trees. We looked at everything, including the regional advisory committees, but at the end of the day, when we added it all up, we found that their net worth to the commission was far greater than the cost.

There are nine committees. The idea is that they allow the commissioners to have an entrée into thinking on a regional basis. We had devolved a lot of our policies from the national, England level down to the regions. In some cases, we had given money to the regions and said, “You may want to spend it differently in the north-east as opposed to the south-west”. In performing those functions, we really needed the regional advisory committees. I suggest that strategy of trying to engage with local people was the right thing to do and one reason why there was so much opposition to the government proposals of a few weeks ago. We got that right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

Decisions will be made as appropriate. The point is that the previous Government—I will mention the figures again—sold something of the order of 25,000 acres without any protection. I accept that they bought some back, but they did not buy back as much as 25,000 acres. One has to recognise the fact that not all the land that the Forestry Commission owns is appropriate to belong in the public estate. That is why the previous Government, among whom the noble Lord was such a wonderful ornament, sold off land, or instructed the noble Lord, Lord Clark, who is about to intervene, to sell it off, as he did.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

I agree with the Minister that there come occasions when it is appropriate to sell a small part of the estate. However, the difference between us and the present Government is that, under us, all the moneys received from the sale of any forest land either was used to buy new forest land—sometimes at a greater cost, because it was in the urban areas—or went back into forestry. As I understand it, with this 15 per cent sell-off, the Government are using money from forestry for the Treasury or for Defra’s general budget.

[Lord Henley]

No decisions have been made about any of that whatever, but I remind the noble Lord that, although it might have been said that land was sold off purely to buy back other land, some of the proceeds were used to top up the running costs of the Forestry Commission. I am not sure that that is the right way to go about these things.

I want to get back to the 15 per cent, which was the last point made by the noble Lord. The Forestry Act requires that there should be a substantial forestry estate. The noble Lord will be familiar with the 1967 Act and all the previous Acts. That estate should be placed at the disposal of the Forestry Commission to manage. I will not go into all the legal advice that we have received from lawyers, as is the convention that the noble Lord will be fully aware of, but we do not consider that the sale of 15 per cent would undermine that statutory regime. That is where we are on that matter. I hope that I have explained where we are. I am grateful—

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

My Lords, I appreciate that the Minister has been very generous with his time with me. However, in order to expedite matters later, I raise one point that he did not answer, which is quite critical. Is the 15 per cent cumulative, so to speak? When the 15 per cent has been got rid of, can this stand for 15 per cent on the next 100 per cent?

[Lord Henley]

That would depend on legal advice on one’s interpretation of the Forestry Act 1967. The noble Lord will be more familiar with that Act, and all previous legislation, than even I am. He will know that it imposes a duty that there should be a substantial forestry estate at the disposal of the Forestry Commission. It is a matter for interpretation as to what size that should be.

--- Later in debate ---

[Lord Henley]

My Lords, that is not the case. I am not sure that the advice which the noble Lord has received was necessarily—dare I put it this way—as accurate as it might have been. Anyway, the simple fact is that the Forestry Commission, along with others, will have to take its cut because of what we inherited.

I hope that I have dealt with all the points that have been put to me in the course of the debate. I appreciate the strength of feeling that had been held, and I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Clark, will now press his amendment. As I said, we will support it. I hope that the rest of the House will support it and that we can move on to other matters in the Bill.

[Lord Clark of Windermere]

I rise very briefly just to say that it is a very unusual experience to find that one of my co-signatories to an amendment is a government Minister and that I look forward to it happening more and more in the future. I say that in the spirit in which the amendment has been moved.

Both right reverend Prelates and all the other contributors to this debate have made the point that the general public’s feeling towards the forest has been quite uncanny. The general public really do not discriminate between 85 and 15 per cent and the Government will have to think very carefully about how the 15 per cent is handled. However, that is a matter for another day. We are talking now specifically about Amendment 47—so we are talking about the big society, localism and the regional and advisory committees.

Amendment 47 agreed.