Tree Pests and Diseases

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Thursday 13th February 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I would like to add my compliments to the noble Earl, Lord Kinnoull, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hope, for securing the debate and for its excellent introduction. I declare myself the owner of a forestry among farming operations, as set out in the register. After almost 20 speeches, there is probably not much left to be said, so my speech is considerably shorter than it was, particularly as I am not an expert on tree diseases. However, I feel strongly that the system of controls and intervention where disease is known is not working in the area I know, which is Scotland. I appreciate that it falls within the area of the devolved Administration, but there is a lesson here.

We are being encouraged to plant more trees both in our towns and in the countryside for amenity and for commerce. Self-sufficiency in commercial timber is good and sound. Help from the Woodland Trust and through tax reliefs is welcome and probably essential if the private sector, many voluntary organisations are others are to continue their good work. However, costs are rising. Planting the trees, fencing, road building for commercial forestry, attempts at immunisation of new tree whips—which is hugely controversial—and fighting tree diseases and pests by treating every single tree are terribly expensive. Harvesting costs are rising; there are weight restrictions on roads for haulage from remote locations. Of course, a commercial forestry sells the timber and prices rise too, but—as we have already heard today—a glut can happen quickly and unexpectedly, and market fluctuations affect the price of the timber. Many of the costs do not go down.

My point—the one I want us in England to learn from —is really one of fairness. One of the main diseases in Scotland is phytophthora ramorum, which affects the European larch population. From the helpful Library briefing I discovered that it is not native but has become naturalised; that is my claim to refer to it. There was little briefing or explanation before the dramatic enforcement controls were introduced to take on and try to prevent the spread of phytophthora. The enforcing authority was Forestry Commission Scotland. It had legal powers to enforce felling, together with unaffected trees, with limited compensation. Yet some two years ago—in Galloway, I believe—a large Forestry Commission Scotland block of affected larch was exempted. I never received a satisfactory explanation for this. I tried; I spoke to the Forestry Commission.

That exclusion block is the entry point of the prevailing south-westerly winds into Scotland. This seems inexplicable to me, as phytophthora is recognised as probably an airborne disease. The Forestry Commission has the ability to instigate criminal proceedings, yet exempts itself. Is this fair? Is this how a government agency should behave? The Forestry Commission must spend hundreds of thousands of pounds flying helicopters to identify single trees to thereafter issue enforcement notices, yet it bypasses its own large block of infected trees. Those I know and the countless others similarly affected deserve an explanation and more help. Surely in this case it would be more productive if the policing authority worked with the private sector in a dialogue, together addressing the challenges, towards a solution.

I am not taking part in this debate to moan but asking for fairness. I hope the mistakes there can be avoided here in England. There should be more financial help to off-set the cost of compliance, with measures to control the spread of the terrible diseases we have heard about. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, said, financial support for nurseries is an excellent idea, to continue to grow and develop our own home-sourced stock and reduce the dependence on imported young trees.

Finally, I ask the Minister for an assurance that co-operation between all stakeholders in this area will occur as the nation addresses solutions to the growing list of tree diseases—not a repeat of the heavy-handed approach in the north that I have described.

Fisheries: EU Landing Obligation (European Union Committee Report)

Lord Thurlow Excerpts

Thursday 23rd January 2020 Lords Chamber

[Lord Thurlow (CB)]

My Lords, I add my welcome to our new Minister. His environmental credentials are of course a welcome addition to this House. I had the privilege of listening to Sir David Attenborough last night in the Royal Gallery, and anyone else who was there will know that we hardly need reminding of the importance of a debate like this at present.

It is seven years since the landing obligation was agreed by the EU. Although there is a timetable, which really only sharpened its teeth last year, voluntary compliance does not seem to be working. As the noble Lord, Lord Teverson, said, the regulators do not have the resources and it is not working. There is no effective means of policing agreed and the fisheries protection fleet needs beefing up; as the noble Lord, Lord West of Spithead, said earlier, the Royal Navy is unlikely to come to its assistance as it too is short of ships. The only real motivation for the fishing fleets, ours and the continental ones, are from the personal conservation interest of the skippers and the desire to obey the law. However, I am sure there is no motivation for foreign boats in UK waters, particularly in the present circumstances.

After leaving the EU, we have a great opportunity for our fisheries. We must use it; it is hugely valuable, and it is ours. It is not a cheap bargaining chip to be used in wider trade negotiations without a great deal of care. Our rivals in those negotiations will play down the importance to their fleets, but let us not be fooled: it is a negotiation, it is critical to them and they want as much of the share of our waters as they can have. The price for sharing our seas must be very high. Their boats and their gear, such as the remote monitoring that we have heard about, must all meet UK standards. I ask the Minister to ensure that these are introduced, particularly with regard to remote monitoring, as soon as possible.

Of course we surrendered our waters as a condition of joining the EU, and it was a very expensive surrender. The continental fleet has gorged on it. I have even heard that the EU centrally funded some of the fishing fleet of our continental neighbours. I have not heard that the UK fleet enjoyed such privilege. I would love to be told that I was wrong.

What of the impact of EU membership on our fleet? A gradual but steady reduction in size. Happily, strong pockets remain, but many have been squeezed out. Once a fishery has shrunk below critical mass, that fishing community slowly collapses. Landing facilities, storage, processing, ice, markets and distribution all wither. It becomes uneconomic and the fishery dies. What of the social cost? The noble Lord, Lord Cameron of Dillington, referred to the social cost to communities: the existence of fewer boats, fewer skippers and crews, chandlery and gear suppliers and so on leads to a high human cost. Seafaring families who have supplied generations of skippers look elsewhere for jobs. When that chain is broken, where will future crews come from?

When the Government put out their White Paper, Sustainable Fisheries for Future Generations, a year or two ago, they used what I thought was the most extraordinary phrase: “hollowed-out communities”. That is the Government’s own phrase. The solution must be to help those hollowed-out communities to rebuild and retrain, assist in re-establishing and updating facilities and support boat building. What plans do the Government have to do that?

Give them back their fishing grounds. Do not roll over in negotiating the trade deal. All that is in the gift of this Government.