Regulatory Reform (Forestry) Order 2006

I thank the noble Baroness for introducing the draft regulatory order which I have read with great care and, given the length of the previous debates, several times. I do not disagree with anything specifically but I wish to ask the Minister a couple of questions. Is there any limit on the proposal to enable the commission to give grants to other people? I believe that it has to be agreed with the Treasury so as to protect the public purse, but I am not sure whether there is a limit. I would be grateful for an answer from the noble Baroness on that. I believe that paragraph 14 of the eighth report refers to new burdens and proportionality. Apart from what the Minister explained to us today, how do the Government envisage any new burdens being reduced, thereby saving money? I realise that they are freeing up the commission to work in a more flexible way and I do not have any complaint about that. However, is there anything else in the order that I have not spotted? I should be grateful for clarification. I appreciate that the commission will not be required first to secure a conviction for unlawful felling before it may serve a restocking notice. That is all well and good provided there is a safety back-up. Presumably the relevant person will not have a chance to appeal at that stage. I wonder what appeal system is in place. Paragraph 24 refers to an independent court. As legal proceedings may not take place, will that independent court still exist or will it no longer be necessary? The independent court would have to assess the commissioners’ view on whether the relevant person had acted unlawfully. I believe that in the past consideration was given to whether the landowner had been at fault as regards the unlawful felling of trees. But these days it is not always the landowner who does the damage. Will the Minister clarify that point? As regards the whole question of the commerciality of the Forestry Commission, some members of our party have felt that the commission has been involved in matters which it should not necessarily undertake; that is, running holiday homes, visitor centres and so on. Clearly the Government take a different view on that. I should be grateful if the Minister would comment on that. Unless I misunderstood her, the Minister also spoke briefly about the research that will continue. It is very important that it does; we all welcome that. However, I understand that in paragraph 29 of the eighth report, which is obviously more detailed than the latter report, the commission will be able to generate new income from its research that should not conflict with the delivery of public benefits from the research. My question is: will those research findings be available in the public domain; or will anyone wanting to tap into those research findings have to pay a fee to do so? Again, that is a balance between the use of public money that will go to the Forestry Commission and its broader responsibilities. My next point goes back to the NERC Bill that we are in the throes of at the moment. Does the Minister see any problem with the Forestry Commission working as an arm’s-length partner to Natural England rather than being directly involved in Natural England, which was the original suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Haskins? I know that we had quite a long debate about that in Committee. I was concerned that Natural England might take a slightly different view from that of the Forestry Commission. Again, I should like clarification on that. Lastly, as Members of the Committee will know, I lost the vote on grey squirrels concerning the difficulty that they are causing in some of our most important woodland areas, especially the threat that they cause to red squirrels. Who will decide how control of grey squirrels will continue and how red squirrels will be protected? Is that definitely a Forestry Commission role or is it something in which Natural England will also have an interest? As I said, the orders are not party-controversial at all but I hope that I have raised one or two practical problems on which we should be grateful for some clarification.