---

Forestry Commission (Northumberland)

I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend, and I am just coming on to the specific proposals. I do not think there is any real suggestion that somebody would have to come up from the other end of the country. Only last Friday, the commission closed its consultation with its staff on proposals for restructuring and reducing the size of the organisation in such a way that it can manage the public estate and deliver the wider forestry service. One proposal in the consultation document was to reduce the number of forest districts that manage the public forest estate from 12 to six, and the units that manage grants and regulations from nine to five. An inevitable consequence of that proposal would be a reduction in the number of offices needed, and as my right hon. Friend said, regrettably, one of the offices that has been identified as potentially surplus to future requirements is Rothbury. However, the nearby office at Bellingham would remain, and high priority is being given to retaining front-line staff. The Forestry Commission will aim to minimise the negative impact on its staff and will use compulsory redundancies only as a last resort. My right hon. Friend rightly referred to the options for sharing offices, and I can assure him that the potential for office sharing with other delivery bodies is being considered. That is not unique to the Forestry Commission, because DEFRA is pressurising all its arm's length bodies to work much more closely together. That applies to Natural England and the Environment Agency, and, as he rightly said, to the national park authorities where relevant. We are encouraging much closer working, not just the sharing of office space, in the interests of efficiency as well as of resource saving. As my right hon. Friend knows, I cannot speculate on the outcome of the consultation to which I referred and the decisions that the Forestry Commission needs to make, but I can outline the next steps that it has planned. By the end of April, the responses to the consultation will be shared with staff and by the end of May, the proposals for structures and staffing will be presented to the Forestry Commission's staff council and to wider staff. That will be followed by an implementation plan, which is expected to be delivered progressively to 2014-15. Unfortunately, as we all know, the financial position in which we find ourselves means that Forestry Commissioners cannot delay starting the changes until after the panel advising on the future direction of forestry and woodland policy in England has reported. The way in which the Forestry Commission moves forward to 2014-15 is also likely to be influenced by the outcome of the panel's report, and any decisions we make in response to its advice. My right hon. Friend rightly said that perhaps the outcome will be more work for the Forestry Commission. All I can say is that we will have to cross that bridge if and when we come to it. We cannot afford to wait because the savings have to be made. However, the overall aim is to ensure that we have an organisation that is fit for purpose and can deliver our key objectives for forestry in England. None of us willingly enters into action that will cause other people to lose their jobs. As somebody born and bred in the countryside, I feel passionately about it and fully understand that, as my right hon. Friend said, very small numbers can be significant in our more rural areas. None of us entertains such action lightly. However, getting the country's structural deficit back under control should not be taken lightly, either. That is why we have to make tough decisions, although the detail is clearly a matter for the Forestry Commission. The Department and the Government feel strongly that forestry is a vital part of our rural communities. It is now in the hands of the panel to advise us on the form that it takes—the ownership, management and so on—but we are convinced that it has a long-term future as part of the rural economy and of providing biodiversity, energy, a carbon sink and the multiple benefits that we all, as a community, get from our forests. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for raising the subject and I hope that I have been able to answer at least some of his concerns. Question put and agreed to.