The death of Nigel Lawson gives cause to reflect on the enduring lessons which he taught those of us who were lucky enough to know him.

My first ‘government’ job was in 1986 when I was appointed as a Parliamentary Private Secretary at the Treasury while Nigel was Chancellor of the Exchequer.

He instilled in me the importance of questioning and challenging information provided by officials and of Ministers taking responsibility for policy development while being receptive to new ideas.

Nigel is remembered for having achieved increased revenue from income tax by reducing the top tax rate from 60p to 40p in the Pound.

He showed that the Laffer curve works in practice. Nigel would never have tolerated the unfunded and uncosted introduction of policies which threaten long-term economic stability.

A prime current example is the folly of having a self-imposed net zero target without knowing how to deliver it or its economic cost.

One Government target which affects us locally and which should bring unalloyed joy is that of planting 400 million more trees by 2050 across 250 hectares of land.

Yet the Forestry Commission, under Government control, is operating a parallel policy locally which is totally contradictory, with a programme to chop down 734,400 trees in the New Forest in the next 10 years without replacing any of them.

Similar policies are being adopted at St Catherine’s Hill, Avon Heath and further west in Dorset.

My calculation of 1,600 trees per hectare being lost was accepted by both the Minister and Sir William Worsley, chairman of the Forestry Commission, when, as a member of the Environment Audit Committee, I questioned them on March 29.

I asked them why Forestry Commission data shows that less than 7% of the New Forest has ‘woodland creation opportunity’.

Sir William’s ‘Yes Minister’ textbook response was: ‘There is certain land on which trees have been planted that is inappropriate to replant… Areas have been put under trees that should not have been’.

So I enquired, ‘Did William Rufus get it all wrong when he started planting trees in the New Forest?’.

Sir William, ‘as a tree lover’, thought that William Rufus ‘was doing a great job’.

But he then confirmed my suspicion that there is no intention to re-establish the New Forest as a forest by referencing the ‘UK Forestry Standard which is to get the right trees planted in the right places’.

To the allegation that naturally growing trees are being destroyed wantonly, he said: “Chopping down trees for the sake of it and not re-establishing them is not what we are about.”

He promised to write to me and I look forward to sharing his response with you.