I am grateful to the Minister for introducing amendment No. 150, on which my own eye had alighted. I want to ask him several questions about it, because of the choice of phraseology, although I am in no way against the principle of what it seeks to do.

First, I am concerned about the use of the word ''solely'' in proposed subsection 15(1)(a) to the National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949, which states:

''land managed solely for a conservation purpose'', although proposed subsection (1)(b) refers to

''land managed not only for a conservation purpose but also for a recreational purpose''.

My concern is that if a nature reserve is not classified as having a recreational purpose—a point to which I shall return—no other use of the land is consistent with being part of a nature reserve. What about agriculture? Grazing cattle or certain primitive breeds of sheep is often part of managing nature reserves. The chalklands alongside the Devil's dyke, the old Anglo-Saxon earthwork that runs from north to south through my constituency, are all grazed by primitive breeds of sheep in order to keep the flora and the banks in the condition that we want.