Member

The proposals seem to lose the confidence of land managers and the potential for better co-operation. They certainly seem to add to the difficulties for fire and rescue, and they fail this cost benefit reality check. They bypass the agronomic value and the effects of a change in vegetation. The noble Earl referred to the use of machinery. I shudder at that in terms of surface damage, soil compaction and the amount of hydrocarbons burned in order to achieve this saving on what would otherwise be a properly managed fire. The transition implications for visual appeal to the general public are a point here. The unpredictability of timing, location, and cause and effect is a matter for concern.