Animal Welfare

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 12th December 2017 Westminster Hall

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dr Thérèse Coffey)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) on securing the debate. He covered a wide range of issues in the first 20 minutes, and as a consequence I am afraid I will not be able to take any interventions.

I reiterate that the Government share my hon. Friend’s and the public’s high regard for the welfare of animals. We extend that regard to animals whether they are companion animals, farm animals or wild animals. I reaffirm the principles on which the Government’s policies on animal welfare are based: our recognition that animals are sentient beings, contrary to the fake news spread recently by certain media outlets. That is certainly true of this Government and of predecessor Governments. In fact, back in 1822, this Parliament was the first ever legislature to implement laws to protect animals, with the Act to Prevent the Cruel and Improper Treatment of Cattle. The Government believe that the direct effect of the principle of sentience is recognised throughout the statute book, but for the avoidance of doubt, I am sure that hon. Members will join me in celebrating this morning’s announcement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of a new Bill that will not only increase the maximum penalties for animal cruelty, from six months’ imprisonment to five years imprisonment, but enshrine animal sentience in law.

The draft Bill will embed the principle that animals are sentient beings, capable of feeling pain and pleasure, more clearly than ever before in domestic law. There was never any doubt or question that our policies on animal welfare are driven by the fact that animals are sentient beings. The Government are committed to raising animal welfare standards and to ensuring that animals will not lose any recognitions or protections when we leave the EU. The draft Bill makes our recognition of animal sentience clear. It contains an obligation, directed towards Government, to pay regard to the welfare needs of animals when formulating and implementing government policy. That provision does not apply to Ministers in the devolved Governments of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, but we will work closely with the devolved Administrations on that important matter.

That will build on the long list of legislation that Parliament has passed to protect animals. The first significant general legislation was the Protection of Animals Act 1911, which introduced the offence of causing unnecessary suffering to an animal. That Act stood the test of time and was used every year by the RSPCA to successfully prosecute about 1,000 people a year for animal cruelty. It was eventually replaced by the Animal Welfare Act 2006, which introduced the added offence of failing to provide for the welfare needs of an animal. That offence had been present in on-farm legislation, but its inclusion in that Act meant that it applied to all kept animals.

I could read out a very long list of Acts of Parliament, but it would take too long; however, it is an indication of how much animal welfare means to Parliament and the public, and I will mention one or two in particular. The Performing Animals (Regulation) Act 1925 regulates circuses and other acts involving animals; it is still in force, although the Government are in the process of replacing it. The Cockfighting Act 1952, as the name suggests, made it an offence to organise a cockfight. The Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 stepped up provision for wildlife, including banning methods of killing certain animals—for example, wild birds—to avoid bodily injury in a particular way. The Zoo Licensing Act 1981 imposed strict welfare and conservation standards on our zoos.

We have also introduced regulations through EU law, and we will bring into UK law any that are not already in place through powers granted by the European Union (Withdrawal) Bill. Those include the Welfare of Farmed Animals (England) Regulations 2007, which implemented EU legislation on minimum standards of welfare for different species of farmed animals, and the Welfare of Animals (Transport) (England) Order 2006, which implemented EU legislation on the welfare standards for animals in transit. As I indicated, the Government intend to go further on improving the welfare of all animals, be they wild, companion or farmed.

The UK has been at the forefront of driving global efforts to safeguard the world’s most vulnerable species and we remain absolutely committed to protecting global wildlife for generations to come. As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park pointed out, that is why we are taking action to preserve elephants and are now consulting on our proposed ban of the sale of ivory in the UK that contributes directly or indirectly to the poaching of elephants. The proposals, on which we are consulting, are designed to put the UK front and centre of global efforts to end the insidious trade in elephant ivory.

Historically, the United Kingdom has been ahead of international trends on trap humaneness, outlawing leg-hold traps and establishing an approval system for spring traps in the 1950s. We propose to consult next month on UK-wide implementation of the agreement on international humane trapping standards. That agreement between the EU, Canada and the Russian Federation puts in place humaneness standards to improve the welfare of wild animals commonly caught in traps for their pelts. Under the agreement, we are required to prohibit traps and trapping methods that do not meet the standards for a list of species, five of which are currently present in the wild in the UK: stoat, badger, pine marten, otter and the European beaver. I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in them. When the UK legislation comes into force, only traps and trapping methods that meet the standards for species covered by the agreement will be permitted under licence.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Will the Minister give way?

[Dr Coffey]

I am afraid I cannot at the moment, but if I have time at the end, I will.

We will tighten the rules regarding dog breeding, pet shops, animal boarding, performing animals and riding stables. Irresponsible dog breeders and dealers are a stain on our national conscience and such people who exploit that trade must be stopped. We will introduce new regulations on the welfare of dogs in dog breeding establishments. We will ensure that more breeders need to be licensed. Statutory minimum welfare standards will be applied to licensed breeders and will be enforced by local authority inspectors. Detailed guidance will be provided to inspectors to assist them with the new regulations.

All pet vendors will also have to provide information to new owners to educate them about their new pet. It will be made clear that any business selling pet animals online will also need to be licensed. We continue to work closely with the Pet Advertising Advisory Group on minimum standards for such sellers. We are enormously grateful for the input from local authorities and other organisations on drafting the new regulations. I hope that they will be in place by the end of next year.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park highlighted regarding farm animals, to improve welfare of animals at slaughter and to deliver our manifesto commitment, we recently carried out a public consultation on our proposals to require CCTV in every slaughterhouse in England. The consultation closed in September. There was strong support: of the nearly 4,000 responses, more than 99% were in favour, which is an overwhelming endorsement of the policy. We published the Government’s response to the consultation last month and will follow that up by laying secondary legislation before Parliament early in 2018.

In particular, my hon. Friend raised the issue of the live export of animals, which is of significant concern to hon. Members. Compared with 20 years ago, there has been a dramatic fall in the trade in live animals going directly for slaughter. Nearly 2 million animals were exported every year, but in 2016, 50,000 sheep were exported, with 5,000 going directly for slaughter from Great Britain. Sheep are the main livestock species to be exported for those purposes, and I know the issue still causes considerable concern.

My hon. Friend will be aware of the restrictions we have now within the EU, but we have always been clear that the Government would prefer to see animals slaughtered as near as possible to their point of production. We believe that a trade in meat is preferable to a trade based on the transport of live animals, particularly when journeys may result in livestock travelling long distances across Europe. As we move towards a new relationship with the EU and the rest of the world, we have a unique opportunity to shape future animal welfare policy to ensure the highest standards in every area. Our manifesto commitment made it clear that we would take early steps to control the export of live farm animals for slaughter once we leave the EU. We are currently considering options, but the issue is rather complex and any future proposals would have to consider trade between the UK and Ireland, whether that is with Northern Ireland or across the Republic of Ireland.

On farm codes, as well as laying new statutory welfare codes for cats, dogs and horses before Parliament shortly, we are also raising standards on farms by modernising the farm animal codes, a move that has been welcomed by industry. A new code for meat chickens will be laid before Parliament shortly and we will consult on new codes for laying hens and pigs in the new year. The updated codes of practice for England will provide clear guidance to producers on how to comply. We continue to work closely with DEFRA’s delivery bodies, including the Animal and Plant Health Agency, on the enforcement of animal welfare standards.

My hon. Friend raised a wide variety of issues. The Government and the farm sectors, such as the meat chicken industry, have taken significant strides on reducing the amount of antibiotics used, although I recognise that that may still not be enough for him. He also mentioned trophy hunting, and I think he would find it worthwhile to read Professor Macdonald’s report, which DEFRA commissioned, about the balance of conservation and hunting for commercial purposes in that way. The restriction that he referred to, which President Trump was considering removing, has put a pause to that—it was specifically from Zimbabwe. I believe that the US does allow other elements still to be imported, but that is done on a conservation basis.

The measures that I have set out clearly demonstrate the Government’s intention to avoid animal suffering and show we are taking steps to strengthen standards. In future, when we are outside the EU, we intend to take full account of the scope for the UK to set the very highest standards in animal welfare and to encourage action on a global level.

I have 30 seconds left, so I will take a brief intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk).

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

In considering the welfare of wild animals, does the Minister welcome the plans approved by the Government to release beavers into the Forest of Dean for the first time in 400 years? Does she agree that that should be the beginning of a longer process of reintroducing, when practical, species that were previously wiped out by human activity?

[Dr Coffey]

Beavers have not really been present for 400 years on this island, although my hon. Friend will be aware of the releases that have happened in Scotland. I am aware of the River Otter trial, and further trials are to come. It matters that our approach is based on science and rigour, which is what this Government will ensure.

Question put and agreed to.

UK Bee Population

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2017 Westminster Hall

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

We come to an important hour-long debate on the UK bee population.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the UK bee population.

Thank you for calling me, Mr Hollobone. It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. I know that the House and indeed the country is engaged on the great issue of Brexit, an issue on which of course everyone has a great deal to say. I called for this debate because, now more than ever, we need to have a public conversation about the kind of country we want to build for the future. What does the Britain of 20 years hence look like? Does it have stronger environmental protections or weaker ones? We need to lift our eyes beyond the latest parliamentary skirmish and say a little about that.

Before I turn to the specific issue of bees, I want to say a little about the wider environmental narrative. There are many on the Government Benches who make a direct link between conservatism and conservation. I believe, as I know many of my colleagues do, that generational justice must be about more than simply leaving a strong economic legacy to our children. It must be about a strong environmental legacy, too: a birthright that is richer, more diverse and more sustainable. As the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said, we have “not a freehold” on our planet but “a full repairing lease”.

Although there are many aspects to that responsibility, from improving air quality to cutting the use of plastic and limiting greenhouse gas emissions, a key priority must be to improve the diversity and sustainability of native animals, from the largest mammal to the smallest invertebrate. We have seen great progress on that score, with the important announcement on ivory sales that was part of a package of measures that led a leading charity to declare in October

“a fortnight of incredible news for animal welfare in the UK”.

To turn to bees, well, what a difference a week makes. When I originally applied for the debate, it was in a bid to urge the Government to listen to the latest scientific evidence, put the welfare of bees first and ban neonicotinoids. Then, lo and behold, the Government have done precisely that. On 9 November, just a few days ago, the Secretary of State indicated that he supports further restrictions on the use of neonicotinoids due to their effects on bees and other pollinators. That was a bold and clear decision. In doing so—if I may be impish for a moment—he has shown that rigorous scientific evidence will underpin the Government’s approach to the environment. While some might have had enough of experts in 2016, I am delighted that, in 2017, they are back with a vengeance.

Why do bees matter? First, they are exceptional animals in their own right. Although there are over 250 species of bee, including 25 species of bumblebee, they have some remarkable characteristics in common. For example, a bee can navigate in an astonishingly sophisticated way by a combination of using the angle of the sun, counting landmarks and exploiting electrical fields. Remarkably, they can exchange information with other bees about the precise location of the perfect flower. Some evidence suggests they do so using movements known as a “waggle dance.”

Beyond their own intrinsic value, bees play a vital role in the broader environment. That role was summarised beautifully by the poet Kahlil Gibran:

“To the bee, a flower is the fountain of life.

And to the flower, the bee is a messenger of love.”

[Margaret Greenwood (Wirral West) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate. I apologise that I will not be able to stay for the duration of it. As he is saying, bees are massively important for the production of crops and for the health of our ecosystems. In my constituency, there is a real interest in beekeeping. We have Wirral honey on sale in West Kirby farmers’ market and we have Flourish, a community environmental initiative based at Ford Way, Upton. Does he agree that such initiatives should be supported, promoted and indeed celebrated?

[Alex Chalk]

I agree and am grateful to the hon. Lady for that helpful contribution.

The point being got at, whether by a poet or a scientist, is that of the 100 crop species that provide 90% of food worldwide, 70 are pollinated by bees. Bees, as we know, transfer pollen from anthers to stigmas, frequently over long distances. Seeds are produced, but, crucially, genetic diversity, so vital to the health of many plant species, is promoted. That service, which perhaps we take too much for granted, is worth in the order of £600 million a year through increased crop yield in oilseed rape and the quality of various fruit and vegetables.

[John Howell (Henley) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for giving way on an important point. He has spoken about the ban on neonicotinoids. I wonder how we will ensure that whatever replaces them is equally safe. My farmers have already made the point that what may follow may not be any safer.

[Alex Chalk]

As always, my hon. Friend makes a critical point. The issue is this. The Government have put a line in the sand, which is that anything that is to go on our crops must pass the test of rigorous academic and expert scrutiny. That applies to neonicotinoids, so it must apply to anything that comes next. Nothing should go on our crops unless it can be shown to be safe. That must be the rule of thumb that we apply.

[Sir Hugo Swire (East Devon) (Con)]

I declare an interest as a beekeeper. We should bank this move, which is a good thing, but it does not answer all of the problems for our bee population. My hon. Friend will be aware that the National Bee Unit has identified the Asian hornet in Devon. It poses a real threat to some of our colonies. Does he agree that the Government should do more to support the National Bee Unit in countering that scourge?

[Alex Chalk]

My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point first to pay tribute to the National Bee Unit and to raise the issue of the Asian hornet. The landscape is not entirely clear for bees just because neonicotinoids are off the horizon. We should never let down our guard, such is their importance to our environment. I entirely endorse the point.

[Victoria Prentis (Banbury) (Con)]

I should also declare my interest both as a beekeeper and as the daughter of a farmer of oilseed rape. Is it not always important to remember that farmers do need to control pests on their crops? The Government must look carefully, as my hon. Friend said earlier, at the evidence available at the time. Can we not elide the debate, for example, about glyphosate with that about neonics?

[Alex Chalk]

Of course. This is not a zero sum game. It is not the case that a product that is bad for bees is therefore good for farmers or the other way around. It is not beyond the wit of our scientists to come up with products and pesticides—by the way, pesticide is not an evil word—that can be sprayed on to our crops without causing the collateral damage that we want to avoid.

It is the points made already that lie behind an apocalyptic quote attributed to Albert Einstein—of course, it may well be entirely apocryphal. He is alleged to have said:

“If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years left to live.”

That may be a little apocalyptic, but it does make the point that bees play a crucial role in our food supply.

[Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a very good speech. I would like to go back to the point about the alternatives. I wonder whether he saw the observation by the excellent Bumblebee Conservation Trust, which said that

“many other non-neonicotinoid pesticides can and do cause harm to bumblebees and other pollinators, and we must ensure that neonicotinoids are not simply replaced by equally-problematic equivalents.”

Does he agree that there is a danger of a switch back to dangerous pyrethroid-based pesticides and that we equally need to guard against that?

[Alex Chalk]

We must not move from the frying pan into the fire. It seems that the Government have been absolutely robust in showing that it is only those products that can show they do not cause that collateral damage that will get through the net. That principle must be maintained, because pollinators are in decline worldwide.

This is not purely a UK situation or indeed a European one. The trend is not uniform, but an independent review of the evidence on the status and value of pollinators published by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs back in 2014 drew attention to the large losses caused by the varroa mite in the early 1990s. Since then, there has been, as has been said, the Asian hornet. Indeed, the loss of flower-rich habitat is another important cause of the recorded decline in diversity of wild bees and other pollinating insects. If I may be parochial just for a moment, that is just one of the reasons why I am so delighted that Cheltenham Borough Council was persuaded to rethink its plans to rip up the vibrant and diverse floral displays that nourish local pollinators in the town.

[Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con)]

I thank my hon. Friend for securing the debate. There are a lot of bee-friendly crops that we can grow, which can help to enhance the bee population. That must be done. I also say to our farming Minister that it is important to have the means to grow the crops. When we no longer use neonicotinoids, we must ensure that we have alternatives that are safer and that we can safely grow those crops. It is absolutely essential that we have both bees and good, bee-friendly crops.

[Alex Chalk]

I agree with that. It is also vital that we have happy farmers, because farmers are crucial custodians of the countryside. It seems perfectly possible to have a thriving farming community and a thriving community of bees and pollinators too.

In the vanguard of the fight to support bees and pollinators are our nation’s beekeepers; I am pleased to say that their numbers are growing. In 2013, according to the National Bee Unit’s database, there were over 29,000 beekeepers in England, managing around 126,000 colonies. That is nearly double compared with 2008. I pay tribute to the Gloucestershire Beekeepers Association in Uckington near Cheltenham, which does such excellent work.

I am proud too of the Government’s role in this field. It is good news that the Government have spent between £1.5 million and £2 million on protecting honey bees in each of the last five years. That has included tackling disease outbreaks and monitoring for exotic pests such as the Asian hornet. An enormous amount of good work is being done via the national pollinator strategy, launched in 2014, which is a 10-year plan to

“improve the state of our bees and other pollinating insects”.

That includes working with farmers and the public to expand availability of food and habitat resources and so on.

In the time available, I will turn to the neonicotinoid debate, which has been a difficult one. In December 2013 the EU restricted the use of three neonicotinoids on a number of crops attractive to bees, including oilseed rape, following concerns that queen bees exposed to the pesticide were 26% less likely to be able to start a new colony. However, at that stage the science was rudimentary at best and the UK did not follow suit. Since then, the evidence base has grown dramatically. A pan-European study in June 2017, which covered a crop area equivalent to 3,000 football pitches in the UK, Germany and Hungary, found that increasing levels of neonicotinoid residues in the nests of wild bee species were linked with lower reproductive success, and that exposure to treated crops reduced the overwintering success of honey bee colonies.

When, earlier this year, the European Commission proposed further restricting the use of those pesticides to plants that spend their entire life cycle in permanent greenhouses, the expert advisory committee backed its decision. As I have already indicated, it is important to take account of the impact on farmers. I was pleased to note that, in the first year without access to these seed treatments, UK oilseed rape yield increased by 6.9%, according to Friends of the Earth.

As we prepare to leave the EU, I believe that now is not the time to roll back measures to protect our bees. Instead, we should enhance them. As I have already indicated, there is already a strong platform to build on, but we must go further. The national pollinator strategy, which currently supports pollinators through the mandatory and incentivised common agricultural policy measures, can be made to operate more widely still. Farmers and growers across pastoral, mixed and arable farmland are ideally placed to improve the quantity and quality of flower-rich habitats. Let us use our new freedoms to make full use of that potential. Agri-environment schemes such as buffer strips, hay meadows and wild flowers can and should make a huge difference.

As we look to the future, we must create a country that cherishes and promotes biodiversity. We must recognise that quality of life is measured not purely in pounds, shillings and pence but in the quality of our environment and the richness of the plants and animals we encounter on a walk down the Honeybourne railway line in my constituency or high up on the Cotswold escarpment. Let us continue to do everything we can to reverse the decline of our pollinators. If we carry on with that vital work, we can ensure that the broad, sunlit uplands that we all want future generations to inherit will echo to the sound of the bumblebee.

[Mr Philip Hollobone (in the Chair)]

The debate runs until 5.30 pm. I have to call the Front-Benchers at 5.07 pm, and the recommended speech limits are five minutes for the Scottish National party spokesman, five minutes for the Opposition spokesman and 10 minutes for the Minister. Then we will hear from Mr Chalk for three minutes summing up at the end. That means we have 22 minutes and four speakers; if I impose a time limit of five and a half minutes, you should all get in.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Chalk]

This has been an excellent debate. From Strangford in Northern Ireland, to Falkirk in Scotland and to Bexhill and Battle in the south of England, I think there has been a joint position across this House. Everyone has spoken with authority and eloquence. There are three key points I wish to draw out. First, bees and pollinators are not just nice to have, but a vital part of our food chain. Secondly, science and nothing else must underpin our approach to the environment. Thirdly, if we maintain the interest and energy that has been shown here today, I am convinced that the tide can be turned and the future for our bees can be bright.

Microbead Ban

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 8th March 2017 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Pow (Taunton Deane) (Con)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the proposed ban on microbeads.

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Sir David. Those Members may decide, because of etiquette, that they will not come to the debate at all, but thank you for your kind words, which are much appreciated.

This morning, hon. Friends and Members will have used a plethora of cosmetics and personal care products in our ablutions, including shower gels, shampoos, face washes, toothpastes and so on. Perhaps unwittingly, we will have washed millions of teeny-weeny plastic microbeads, which are a key ingredient in many of those products, down the drain, and they will eventually find their way through our water systems into the rivers and seas. “How can that be?” I hear you ask, Sir David. The truth is that we have become a plastic society, and unbeknown to us, plastics infiltrate our lives through an enormous range of products that we use every day. It is increasingly coming to light that many of these plastics are in fact causing damage to our environment, in particular our marine environment, which is now heavily polluted with plastics as a direct result of the actions of mankind.

Plastics have become an inextricable part of our lives, with ever increasing quantities being used. In the UK alone, we increased our production of plastics by 38% between 2004 and 2014. No one denies that plastics are extremely useful, but with their increased use has come, sadly, increased pollution of our seas.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Plastics are ubiquitous, but does she agree that there are alternatives to their use? We have to get manufacturers using alternatives to microbeads, such as sugar and nut derivatives, to ensure that our precious oceans are not polluted at all.

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend makes a really good point, which I will address later. He is absolutely right; there are alternatives, and many manufacturers are looking to convert to them. Ground coconut husk and apricot kernels are other examples of things that could replace microbeads in cosmetics and personal care products.

There is lots of visible plastic pollution and rubbish. Plastic bags, bottles and fishing detritus such as discarded ropes and lines are all polluting our oceans and seas, but it is the less obvious tiny particles—microbeads of less than 5 mm—that present a real danger to shellfish and fish, which often ingest them mistaking them for food. It is estimated that a total of 15 trillion to 51 trillion microplastic particles have accumulated in the oceans. This debate is about plastic microbeads, and in particular their use in cosmetic and personal care products.

Recent studies suggest that these minuscule dots of plastic, when washed into the ocean, could represent a threat to humans as a result of eating fish. One study revealed that in 2009, microplastics were found in 36.5% of fish caught by trawlers in the English channel. Sir David, I do not know if you are a fancier of oysters, but for every six oysters consumed, one might consume 50 microbeads.

Microbeads are tiny balls of polyethylene and other plastics derived from petrochemicals, including polypropylene and polystyrene. They are used in a wide range of cosmetic products, including exfoliators, shower gels, whitening toothpaste and face washes, as well as in many abrasive cleaning products. Interestingly, though we are not talking about this today, fleeces also contain plastic microfibers, and when one puts on one’s car brakes, the tyres fray, which is another way that microfibres find their way into the watercourses.

How do microbeads get into the sea? If they could be removed once they had been washed down the drain, there would not be a problem, but in evidence on the environmental impact of microbeads taken by the Environmental Audit Committee, on which I was delighted to sit, it became apparent that removing them is a very tricky process and few water companies have the sophisticated filtration systems needed to do it. As a result, many of these products, complete with their microplastics, are flushed down the drain during our daily ablutions and end up in the watercourses and ultimately the sea.

Scientists have demonstrated that fish exposed to microplastics during their development can show stunted growth and increased mortality rates, as well as changed behaviour that could endanger their survival—especially reduced hatching rates. An article was published in Science relating to that. Estimating the toxicity of microplastics is complex and the full dangers to human health are not fully quantified yet, but studies have revealed that these plastics are entering the food chain, although the full impact is hard to measure. Microplastics can release and adsorb toxic chemicals and may act as a vector for them, transferring contaminants to organisms that ingest microplastics. I am heartened that Government sources have stated that the chief scientific adviser will review the effects on human health in future.

One fifth of microbeads are used in the cosmetics and personal care industry, and some 680 tonnes of plastic microbeads are used in cosmetic products in the UK every year. This is an important industry, worth £10 billion in the UK in 2016, and we have the second largest cosmetics market in Europe. It makes a significant contribution to our economy, not to mention the fact that it keeps us clean and beautiful, and I am the first to say that I enjoy using make-up and all these products. It is very important that we do not damage the industry, but surely the industry does not want to have on its conscience any associated link with damage the environment. With the right science behind it, the industry could turn to alternatives, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Alex Chalk) said. Indeed, many companies are doing that.

Seagulls

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Tuesday 7th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Oliver Colvile]

I would most certainly advise my constituents to ensure they do not seek to break the law.

There are a number of things that the Government can do to make the position much better. Will the Minister consider amending the 1981 Act so that it is easier to control the gull population when such attacks are happening? I also firmly believe that we need greater flexibility in protecting very different species. If population growth occurs, especially to the detriment of another species, it should be made easier to change the list of protected species, but very much on a regional basis.

Just before the last general election, the former Chancellor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr Osborne), earmarked £250,000 for a study into the life cycle of the urban seagull. Unfortunately, that was scrapped three months later by DEFRA. I would be extremely grateful if the Minister could speak to the Treasury to try to get the money for that study back. I know that many Members who represent coastal towns and cities would be delighted if there were some movement on this, as many of our constituents’ lives are being blighted on a daily basis by seagulls.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Of course, this does not only affect coastal towns and cities; towns such as mine and the quality of my constituents’ lives are seriously affected. Given that we managed to clear pigeons from Trafalgar Square in a humane way, does my hon. Friend agree that it ought not to be beyond the wit of man to do the same for seagulls, which are such a menace to my constituents?

[Oliver Colvile]

My hon. Friend makes a fair point. When I was a child, I always believed that if there was a bad storm at sea, the birds had a tendency to come inland. I do not know whether that is still the case.

Studies show that between 2000 and 2015, the number of urban gull colonies in the UK and Ireland doubled from 239 to 473. Indeed, the number of gulls could have quadrupled in that time, as colonies are now larger than they were 17 years ago. The £250,000 study could mitigate our knowledge gap when it comes to gulls.

As you may know, Mr Streeter, I am the chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for excellence in the built environment. I therefore take a deep interest in how we can use our buildings to combat the scourge of angry seagulls. I believe we can use our built environment to tackle this problem. Commercial buildings should be proofed or built differently when redeveloped. Indeed, there are a number of bird deterrent systems. Bird nets are an effective deterrent system, providing a discreet and impenetrable barrier that protects premises without harming birds. Nets are one of the most effective and long-lasting ways of bird proofing, particularly for large open roofs, and can be used for commercial and industrial buildings such as warehouses.

Alternatively, a pin and wire system could be used to prevent perching without damaging the aesthetics or construction of the building. That system is almost invisible and is widely used across the UK for that reason. By preventing perching, the system makes it much more difficult for a gull to nest and eventually lay eggs.

The most well-known deterrent is spikes, which are used to deter not only gulls but pigeons and other birds. In built-up urban areas such as Plymouth, spikes would be helpful because they would make it very difficult for the birds to land, particularly in high-infestation areas. It has also been suggested to me that councils could paint eggs red, so that gulls think they are on fire and will not sit on top of them to incubate them. From what I understand, gulls see in black and white and not in colour—perhaps because they bought the wrong TV licence.

In terms of what can be done on the ground, there is an element of social responsibility, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight) said. Takeaways must take much more responsibility to keep their local environment clean, as overflowing bins and fish and chip wrappers are extremely attractive to gulls. Local authorities also need to be more proactive in keeping their streets clean and ensuring that litter bins are free from takeaway boxes and polystyrene containers. Those simple steps could help to take away one of the best sources of food for these birds.

In the 1970s, Restormel Council in Cornwall encouraged residents to leave out their black plastic bags, which were then picked at by the gulls in the local area. Residents would put blankets over the top of the bags to hide them from the gulls. I urge local authorities to use bins with secure lids, so that it is much more difficult for gulls to get into the bins and pick at the bags. I also encourage local authorities to continue their weekly bin collection, especially over the breeding season. I must confess, however, that my own local authority has just proposed a change to fortnightly bin collections.

Another form of contraception could be to replace eggs with dummy or fake eggs. Studies show that gulls welcome dummy eggs into the nest and will try to incubate them. I think that my own local authority in Plymouth used that method for a little while.

I am pleased that we have the opportunity to debate such an important issue, which transcends constituencies and affects hundreds and thousands of people across our coastal towns and cities. I hope that the Minister will listen to not only my concerns, but those of many of my constituents and many other Members of Parliament and their constituents. This is an important matter, and I hope that the Government will act before someone is really hurt yet again by an aggressive seagull. As you know, Mr Streeter, I represent a naval constituency, so in that great tradition we should pay tribute to the words of Horatio Nelson: we need action this day.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock (Barrow and Furness) (Lab/Co-op)]

May I, too, say what a pleasure it is to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Streeter? It is also a pleasure to be able to contribute to this timely and essential debate—passions have already been stirred by the opening contribution from the hon. Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Oliver Colvile). I agree with so much of what he said. I will just add a few thoughts from the perspective of the blighted and besieged people of Barrow and Furness, who have dealt with this threat for many years. I mentioned in my intervention the example of a pensioner, 72-year-old Brian Griffin, who was attacked on the way to the library in Walney and ended up having to be hospitalised.

There is a rather gruesome video on the North West Evening Mail website—I do not recommend that you click on it, Mr Streeter. It shows a very large herring gull feasting on a pigeon. There is another example of a gull popping into Greggs on Dalton Road to help itself to the produce. I have with me a photo that I took on my walk to the office a couple of weeks ago. You have rightly reminded me that it cannot be used as a prop, Mr Streeter, but let me take a moment to describe it. It shows, in one of the back alleys in central Barrow, a wheelie bin whose lid has clearly been left ajar, and the rubbish bags that are on show have become a feasting site for—well, I will not count them now, because that would not be a valuable use of time, but there are at least a dozen seagulls there. This is not just an inconvenience for people; it is a proper health and safety risk to our citizens.

In the four years since I was able locally to bring people together for the Barrow and Furness seagull summit and we instituted a three-point plan to deal with seagulls, there has been some effect. The measures that we all agreed to back then were pursuing contraception for seagulls where that was possible; removing the space where seagulls unfortunately too often congregate and nest in our town; and clearing out waste. There has been some sporadic progress.

[Alex Chalk]

I commend the hon. Gentleman for his summit and for trying to achieve solutions locally, but does he agree that there is an opportunity for central Government to try to co-ordinate what might be best practice, potentially underpinned by a study, so that we are not having to reinvent the wheel in every location to work out what best practice is? We should know that from the centre.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Woodcock]

Indeed, but let me explain what I strongly believe the provisions of that licence say. Perhaps the Minister will be able to clarify this. I can share with her the terms of the licence if her staff do not have this information and that would be helpful. I am not sure that it requires an elderly person to do the deed themselves. I think that they may be able to employ someone else to do it. Let us hope that there clearly is a role for local authorities. There is a long established role in vermin control. Someone can bring in people to help if they have a rat or mouse infestation. I think that there clearly is a role for local authorities, but where either the local authority or the Government could really make the difference would be in enabling citizens to know what their rights are in these situations.

[Alex Chalk]

Two things: first, citizens need to know what their rights are; secondly, we need to enable citizens to know what is most effective. All of us— individuals and local authorities—have limited resources and limited time. We need to target resources effectively.

[John Woodcock]

Absolutely. People need to know they can take action. Yes, they need a licence to take action against herring gulls, but they can obtain the licence by going on the internet and printing it out for themselves. Does the Minister agree that there could be a case for, as I like to put it, mobile licensing awareness points around coastal towns? We would simply need desks with printers and bits of information to tell people what their rights are and to empower them to take back their communities against the blight of seagulls, which so often spoil our towns.

Domestic Ivory Market

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Monday 6th February 2017 Westminster Hall

[Pauline Latham]

I agree and this debate shows that this is a truly cross-party issue. This is not about politics, but about saving elephants and we do have to take that lead.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I accept that banning the domestic trade of antiques in the UK may make some difference at the margin, but does my hon. Friend agree that this must not distract us from the most pressing concern of all—the devastating poaching in Africa? Should we not use our foreign aid to help African Governments to protect wildlife as well as alleviate human suffering?

[Pauline Latham]

I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. From sitting on the Select Committee on International Development, I would like to see more money put into Africa. After all, if it loses all its elephants and other endangered species, will it have a tourist trade anymore? It will not. This is important to give other countries a business they can capitalise on so that people can have a lot of fun going and seeing the animals in the wild. I have done that several times and I have taken my eldest granddaughter; she has actually seen elephants in the wild, although the others may not.

It takes only one step, smaller than the stride of an elephant, to make a difference. Since Roman times, humans have reduced Africa’s elephant population by perhaps 99%. We have a chance to protect that final, precious 1% today and I urge the Minister to seize it. We humans may not have the memory of an elephant, but the world will remember if we do not.

Tree Planting

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Wednesday 7th December 2016 Westminster Hall

[Chris Davies]

Even in The Guardian.

The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has recognised the role of trees in mitigating flooding as part of natural flood management, and the EFRA Secretary of State recently announced a £19 million fund to plant trees, because of their contribution to locking up carbon. There are therefore many reasons why we should plant trees. Most importantly, perhaps, our constituents are overwhelmingly in favour of more trees being planted.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is about trees in not only in rural areas, but urban areas? Many people enjoy the presence of trees in towns, and they also act as green lungs—things that are physically beautiful, but also contribute to a better environment for all.

[Chris Davies]

I represent a rural seat, so I am looking from the perspective of the rural economy—and, indeed, of how trees enhance rurality—but I fully agree with my hon. Friend. I chose my little shoebox of a flat in London because it is close to an open square, so that I look out over a little patch of green grass and trees, which reminds me of home. My hon. Friend makes an important point: that certainly puts a spring in my step as I come into this great place every morning.

There are many reasons to plant trees, not least the wishes of our constituents, so I now come to the second question that I asked. Are we planting enough trees in the UK? The answer, as people will not be surprised to learn, sadly, is no. Planting rates in England are at a modern low and have been described as woeful.

The forestry industry in the UK supports at least 79,000 low-carbon jobs and is worth nearly £2 billion annually to our economy. Industry body Confor, the Confederation of Forest Industries, believes that such figures could be significant underestimates. Most available statistics from our countries are out of date, although a recent study in Scotland pointed the way, showing that the sector there had grown by 50% between 2008 and 2014, during challenging economic times in the UK. Well done to Scotland!

In the UK as a whole, we are benefiting from relatively high levels of tree planting in the decades after the end of the second world war. Trees planted in the 1970s and ’80s are now available for harvesting, which is contributing directly to a boom in the forestry and wood-processing industries. Unfortunately, new planting rates in the UK fell dramatically at the end of the 1980s. There has been an increase in Scotland in recent years, but other countries of the UK have largely followed a downward trend.

Organisations such as Confor and the Woodland Trust have been warning about this downturn in planting and the effect that it will have over a number of years. The language used has, perhaps understandably, become more and more extreme. Confor highlights the threat to future supplies of wood to support businesses in the UK, while the Woodland Trust has wondered whether England has experienced annual deforestation in recent years. The situation is simply not acceptable.

I come to my final point, which is a simple question: how can the UK change our approach to tree planting and ensure that we plant more trees? There is some good news—and it is back to Scotland. My colleagues from Scotland will no doubt talk about it in more detail; several of them have put in to speak. It looks as though the Scottish Government, not Wales, Northern Ireland or Westminster, are leading the way. They have the most ambitious targets among the home nations and are taking steps to speed up their processes for approving larger planting schemes.

The application process that farmers and landowners are required to go through to access funding for planting is complex and costly. It can and does put people off. When public money is involved, it is right and proper that comprehensive safeguards are in place to ensure value for money and that high standards are followed, particularly for forestry. However, the relevant bodies across the UK should be able to approve larger schemes that fully meet UK forestry standard requirements within six months in most cases and a year in all cases, not the current two years-plus. That would provide reassurance to farmers and landowners that their applications will not get bogged down with continually rising costs.

We all know that the UK will have to look again at support for the countryside after the country leaves the European Union. We do not yet know what the level of support will be or what it will look like. That will be determined by not just the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, but the devolved Administrations in Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. We surely must grasp the opportunity in front of us to ensure that forestry has parity of esteem with farming and fisheries as post-Brexit countryside policy develops.

For too long, forestry has been the forgotten F-word in rural policy and a poor relation in land use policy discussions. If we grow and process more of the wood we need in the UK, jobs will stay in this country, rather than being exported overseas. Using wood grown in Britain is clearly a priority for this Government, and I firmly support that. Leaving the EU means that we can look again at public procurement rules. States in countries such as Canada and Australia have timber-first public procurement policies. Using more sustainable UK-grown timber will stimulate business growth and ensure that more of our woodlands are well managed.

--- Later in debate ---

[Chris Davies]

I understand that this debate is not particularly about Wales and NRW, and the Minister will probably keep off that subject, but I could not agree with my hon. Friend more. As a Welsh MP and someone who was involved in Forestry Commission Wales, I have been a great supporter of it in years gone by. Forestry has virtually disappeared into NRW. In my opinion—in hers too, I am sure—that is a tremendous mistake. Forestry Commission Wales was a beacon to look up to; now, as she says, forestry is the missing F-word. That is a great shame indeed.

[Alex Chalk]

Does my hon. Friend agree that in this debate we need to look at quality as well as quantity? We ought to look to preserve the diversity and richness of domestic deciduous species, not just rush to plant any old evergreen species.

[Chris Davies]

I agree that this country needs more trees. We have to be sensible and look at the end product. We encourage farmers and landowners to plant trees, and they have to look at the return. The Government have to ensure that there is the right return and help for planting, processing and managing. We have to look at the evergreens—the softwoods—that can produce a reasonable return in 40 to 50 years; hardwood trees produce a return in 80 to 100 years.

There must be a place for both kinds of trees, but the sawmills in my constituency, which I have mentioned many times, require softwood. They employ 150 people—that will go up to 180 in the next 12 months—and they process softwood. We require a great deal of softwood in this country. As I have already stated, all the wood that we produce, the majority of which is softwood, is consumed in this country, and we import even more. We have to look at not just what makes the countryside pretty and what looks after its ecology but what our subsidiary industries require. So I agree in part.

I hope that all the devolved Governments and the Westminster Government will work closely to plant more trees, which would make such a difference to our economy, our environment and our communities. Significant new tree planting would provide solutions to a whole range of 21st-century problems. It would deliver jobs and investment to our rural areas, help to reduce the impact of climate change and flooding, create habitats for wildlife and wonderful places for people to enjoy, and provide the raw material to build the new homes that this country needs.

[Mike Weir (Angus) (SNP)]

It is nice to appear under your chairmanship, Mr Bone. I congratulate the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies) on securing this important debate and on his excellent opening speech. Unusually, most of us probably agree with most of what he said—especially his congratulations to the Scottish National party Government in Scotland for their record on tree planting.

Much of the hon. Gentleman’s speech was about the economics of forestry, and I will talk a little about that, but I also note the importance of tree planting for all of us—it is not just about economics. Woods and forests are magical places that give joy to millions and have deep roots in our culture and folklore, yet the UK’s woodland resources have declined since the middle ages, and by the early years of the last century had reached an all-time low of just 5% of land area. There was a real crisis during the first world war, when so much timber was needed for the war effort that trees were chopped down almost indiscriminately, with potentially disastrous effects.

Members who have read Lewis Grassic Gibbon’s classic “Sunset Song” may recall the reaction of the small farmer Chae to his wife when he returned from the trenches and found that the woods around Kinraddie had been cut down.

He said:

“Hadn’t she got eyes in her head, the fool, not telling him before that wood was cut? It would lay the whole Knapp open to the North East now and the fair end of a living here.”

That is the important thing about trees, as others have said: they are good not only for the soil but for shelter belts for farming. Anyone who has been on the north-east coast of Scotland on a windy day will appreciate the need for trees around that area.

Trees have played a vital part in small farming for generations, and now they also play an important part in flood prevention along many of our rivers. The creation of the Forestry Commission in 1999 was a reaction to falling wooded areas and a real attempt to reverse that.

As the hon. Gentleman noted, Scotland has the highest percentage of woodland cover in the UK at 18% of our land area. That is predominantly—74%—softwood, which as he rightly said is productive, with the remainder being principally native woods. There have been attempts, notably by the Cairngorms national park, to plant trees to regenerate and extend the remnants of the ancient Caledonian forest that at one point covered the whole of Scotland. Those trees provide a haven for much of our native wildlife. Those who drive around my constituency can see red squirrels—our trees are one of the last redoubts of that magnificent creature. In other areas, forests provide habitat for the endangered native Scottish wildcat. Tree planting helps the environment and the conservation of species, and that should not be overlooked.

[Alex Chalk]

Does the hon. Gentleman therefore agree that while one must always look at economic issues, our environmental and cultural heritage and what we can do to preserve the diversity of our wildlife must also be core priorities in the debate?

Oral Answers to Questions

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 17th December 2015 Commons Chamber

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (George Eustice)]

The hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Through our rural development programme, we are supporting farm businesses that want to diversify and start retailing their own produce.

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

T8. Trees are a vital and precious feature of our natural environment, nowhere more so than in areas like Cheltenham, where they act as the town’s green lungs. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on how many trees the Government plan to plant over the course of this Parliament?

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Rory Stewart)]

The Government have committed to planting 11 million more trees over the course of this Parliament. We hope we may even be able to exceed that target. We are particularly proud of a scheme we are developing with the Woodland Trust to plant trees and to educate primary schoolchildren about them.

Protection of Ancient Woodland and Trees

Alex Chalk Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend makes a good point, which I will come on to later with reference to the idea of natural capital and how much value we put on the natural world versus development. The Woodland Trust is dealing with an incredible 560 threats to ancient woods; November saw the biggest escalation ever of the number of threats being registered—14 in one month, which is shocking. Threats can come from mineral extraction, installation of electricity or gas pipelines, housing, leisure proposals, roads, golf courses or even sites for war-gaming and paintballing.

Other ancient woodland areas are under threat from local area plans, which are falling through the net and we hardly know anything about. I have one such near me at Ash Priors, where houses were built on ancient woodland because the local plan could not really stand up for it. We do not know exactly how many ancient woods there are, let alone how many are threatened, because we rely on the dear old Woodland Trust to gather such data. I ask the Minister for a proper database to collate all such information, because then we would be on stronger ground.

Interestingly, the motion we are debating has not been far from the thoughts and considerations of others in this place. Only one year ago, in December 2014, the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government called for ancient woodland to be awarded the same level of protection as designated heritage assets in the built environment, which include scheduled monuments, wreck sites, battlefields, and grade I and II listed buildings—my own house is grade II and, small and humble as it is, I cannot knock it down to build a road. Do my hon. Friends agree that the CLG Committee proposal seems eminently sensible?

[Alex Chalk (Cheltenham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on how she is presenting her powerful case. Ancient woodland exists not only in rural constituencies, but in urban areas such as Cheltenham and, as such, can be particularly precious to local communities. Does she agree that there is a powerful case for providing strong and explicit planning protection for ancient woodland, particularly in towns?

[Rebecca Pow]

My hon. Friend makes another excellent point. Some trees have preservation orders on them, but by no means all do. Trees in the urban environment, as I am sure the Minister will say, are important for things such as controlling rainwater and flooding, taking carbon dioxide out of the air and the feelgood factor of seeing a lovely tree as we walk past.

According to the Communities and Local Government Committee, the national planning policy framework ought to be amended. The Select Committee stated that any loss of ancient woodland should be termed as “wholly exceptional”—that is, it cannot be got rid of unless that is absolutely and utterly essential. I will be grateful to hear the Minister’s view of such a change, because ancient woods are national treasures. Scotland has a similar planning framework, but a slightly softer approach to trees and development. I will be pleased to hear about that later from the Scottish Members present.

The CLG Committee also called for an increase in the number of SSSIs covering ancient woodland, because that would surely help. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that proposal as well. In addition, we must not forget that we ought to thank many landowners for managing the SSSIs and to ensure that they have adequate funding to keep the woodland as it should be kept for the nation. The success of such woodland depends on that management. There is also real concern about the march of awful diseases such as chalara, or ash dieback, in ancient woods, which could present us with another threat to them in future.

I do not want to sound too much like a stick-in-the-mud, because I understand that we need a balance. On the one hand, we want to protect the environment and on the other we want a thriving economy, which the Government are pursuing positively and with great effect. However, I remind the Minister of the green infrastructure commitment in our manifesto in which we said that we would try to make our roads and developments more environmentally friendly. We need to start doing that somehow.

My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Victoria Prentis) wanted to raise the issue of planning in particular, but she cannot be here. If we have to steamroller through a piece of ancient woodland because it is unavoidable, often the suggestion is to ameliorate the situation by planting trees elsewhere. She says that that is fine, but we need to take real care about how that is done. At Mixbury, HS2 will plough through some woodland, so it has been recommended that new trees are planted. However, guess where that will be? On a patch of ancient pasture! It is ridiculous that more thought was not put into that decision. I call for a much more sensible approach and for caution.

The spin-off of woods’ biodiversity value is their glorious, natural benefits, which we call natural capital. Should we put a value on our woods? We need to start thinking about that. They reward us in spades through making us feel good—by raising our spirits and inspiring us, as well as through their biodiversity. I know that the Government are thinking about that and that the Natural Capital Committee, which will report back shortly, is looking at setting an economic value on nature. That is tricky—no one says that is easy—but should we not apply that concept right now to ancient and veteran tree cover? That is a prime example of where it could be applied.

Natural capital is not an idea that Rebecca Pow has come up with; it is really being talked about. In January the Natural Capital Committee said that ancient trees are “priceless”. That is there in writing and that is the root of my debate.

The all-party group on ancient woodland was formed recently and I am pleased to be its chairman. Since its formation, I have been contacted by so many people who are at their wits’ end and want to know what to do about an area of threatened woodland near them. They are usually really passionate about these places. Whole communities will be campaigning to try to keep them, but they do not have the teeth to do it. These places are threatened by quarrying, roads and other such things, but as my hon. Friends the Members for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) and for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) asked, can we not try to work such thoughts into our development plans so that somehow we can have both?

I will give a few examples of threatened areas. Just last month, a proposal to destroy part of the beautiful and ancient Bluebell wood near Maidstone went through, with permission granted for housing without any recognition of the loss to nature, despite a huge local campaign. I have mentioned HS2 already and I think we might hear more examples about that. In the south-west, a pipeline in Torridge in Devon will go right through the Buck’s Valley wood. Mineral extraction in Dorset is going though Honeycomb and Downshay woods and ancient woodland between junctions 5 and 6 of the M42 near Solihull in the west midlands is threatened by an application for an extension to a service station—the list goes on and on.

I have raised a number of issues that I would like the Minister to consider. In particular, it would be great to get a database going. Will he also look at updating the standing advice for ancient woodland? Developers need to look at that advice to see whether what they are doing tallies up with Natural England’s instructions, but that barely covers matters. It needs to be updated for English planning authorities to include veteran trees and historic wood pasture, because sadly many developers are exploiting the advice.

I cannot stress strongly enough that once this glorious natural wonder is gone, it is gone—we cannot recreate it. Trees, as we all know, cannot speak for themselves—unless they are Ents in “The Lord of the Rings”, which I love—so I am speaking for them. At the rate we are going, soon none of this precious woodland will be left. Only 2% is left, which is so minuscule. How quickly could all that be whittled away?

I urge the Minister to consider my suggestions for ensuring that we do not get rid of all this woodland. We must give it some chance of surviving for hundreds more years. We need to deal with this root and branch. I urge him to give more consideration to the protection of our glorious, awe-inspiring ancient woodlands.