Protection of Ancient Woodland and Trees

Cheryl Gillan Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank my shrewd hon. Friend for his intervention, although I think he must have been looking over my shoulder, because I am coming to that point—he has hit the nail absolutely on the head. Unlike many other precious habitats, ancient woodland is not a statutory designation and therefore suffers from a lack of protection.

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that if we are going to build large infrastructure projects it is essential that we observe the national designations given to areas of land that include ancient woodland, such as the AONB in the Chilterns to which she referred? It makes a mockery of any environmental credentials or policy if we do not protect the nationally designated areas while going ahead with the project.

[Rebecca Pow]

My right hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I will address in a moment. She is right; if we cannot stand by the designations, we might ask what the point of having them is. I put that to the Minister.

I thought that the Minister responsible for forestry would reply to the debate, but I am pleased to see the Minister of State with responsibility for farming in his place. The whole of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is especially committed to trees and woodland, but the Forestry Minister admitted in the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs—I was at the inquiry meeting at which he said this—that

“ancient woodland, as a category, is not a protected category”.

I am now coming on to what many of my hon. Friends are referring to—everything is about paragraph 118 of the national planning policy framework, which allows for the destruction or loss of

“ancient woodland and…aged or veteran trees”

if

“the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss”.

As a result of that loophole, as I would describe it, hundreds of ancient woodlands and trees are being lost or threatened in the planning system every single year. Since the national planning policy framework was introduced in March 2012, more than 40 ancient woods have suffered from loss or damage.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Turner, and to follow the hon. Member for Falkirk (John Mc Nally). I looked up his biography, as he is a new Member of the House, and I understand that he was a barber in a former life, so he will probably well know that his predecessors had their instruments forged from charcoal that came from our ancient woodland. In a way, his calling is linked to the woodlands that he has been speaking so eloquently about. I am also so glad that he has learnt about his constituency. I can honestly say that it does not matter how long he is here in the House, he will never stop learning—I learn something new every week about my constituency.

What a pleasure it is to have my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) be successful in securing the debate. I congratulate her not only on securing it, but on the way in which she introduced the subject. She is, of course, a new Member of the House. She has worked with the National Farmers Union for a while and is a trustee of the Somerset Wildlife Trust. However, she also brought her skills as a journalist to her powerful descriptions, as she walked us through the wonderlands of her childhood. She reminded me of my childhood in Wales, when I used to be taken for holidays to my uncle’s farm near Usk and I would play in the woodlands, which were charmingly called the Dingle. I used to think that I could get lost in those woods, and that nobody could find me—but the Dingle was a pretty small standing of trees, so I reckon that if someone had been really looking for me, they would have been able to find me.

I am grateful for the way in which my hon. Friend introduced the subject, because I seem to have been in touch with the Woodland Trust, which we are all so proud of, for at least 22 of my 23 years in the House. I need to declare an interest in that under her chairmanship, I am a vice-chair of the all-party group on ancient woodland and veteran trees, and I am pleased to be so.

I first came across the Woodland Trust some 22 years ago, when a substantial woodland in my constituency, Penn wood, came under threat. A six-year battle commenced when planning permission was granted for a golf club. Many of the people who lived in and around the area got very hot under the collar about that use of that precious area of woodland, which is so distinctive of the Chilterns and the Chiltern hills. After all, much of our industry and business used to come from the woodlands and the beech woods that surround the area, which is famous for its furniture-making.

Over the six years, the Woodland Trust had to have a national appeal to raise the phenomenal sum of £1.2 million that was needed to secure the whole wood. It was finally successful in doing so in 1999. The funding came from all sorts of sources, but particularly important at the time was the grant made by the Heritage Lottery Fund of £288,000, which was one of the largest. Local residents raised over £200,000 to help the trust finally to purchase the wood. Interestingly enough, five gifts were left in people’s wills. So important were the woods to people in the Chilterns that they were willing to put those specific legacies into their wills to ensure that the woods would be there, in perpetuity, for our children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

In securing the whole 436-acre site, we have been able to ensure that the wood is now a powerful part of local recreation and local facilities, which are available not just to people who live around the woods, but to people who come out to the Chilterns for recreation, particularly Londoners. They take the Metropolitan line out to Metro-land, then nip off it and go out into the Chiltern hills and the area of outstanding natural beauty.

The 15th anniversary of Penn wood showed the many things that can be done with woodlands, with some tremendous activities including children’s environmental games, woodland art and fire-lighting. More excitingly, the Woodland Trust was able to show the removal of trees with heavy horses, which is something we have long lost, but which is still being retained in heritage works locally. It is rather wonderful for children to see how woodland was managed long before we had those terrible machines that make a lot of noise and chew logs and wood up into tiny little bits to be used on gardens or pathways.

There are more ongoing plans for the wood, and the investment that the Woodland Trust has made in it has really paid dividends. In fact, I was in the woods recently with the Woodland Trust; we were looking at the first stage of a £200,000 investment in Penn and Common woods in Buckinghamshire which is helping to make the woods more accessible. I looked at some of the new surfaced pathways, the existing surface tracks and the link that had been introduced. That is really exciting, because it is making the woods accessible to people who are disabled and people using wheelchairs. That is a very important move, because it means that the woods are accessible to all.

Once again, the Heritage Lottery Fund, which deserves a great deal of praise in this area, has come up with £68,800. The Veolia Environmental Trust has put a considerable sum of nearly £35,000 towards the improvements that are being made to the wood. With grants from the Forestry Commission, which are really important, it has been possible to continue the programme of improvement, including improving the signage, including in various places an interpretation of the woods for people visiting them. That makes it a tremendous experience for anybody coming out to see Penn wood.

There is a lot more work to be done on Penn wood. I think it is important that work is done on the history of the woods, and I know that the Woodland Trust has plans to look more into the historical usage of the woods. However, that takes me from the large wood that has been saved by raising a large amount of money and which will be an ongoing project, hopefully in perpetuity, to one of the latest little projects on woodland in my constituency. I had the pleasure of visiting it the other day—it is called the Little Chalfont nature park.

The Little Chalfont nature park is a small area of land that lies between some houses and the Little Chalfont library and which has been bought by the community. I had a terrific visit there, with the chair of trustees of the Little Chalfont Charitable Trust, Roger Funk, and three of his compatriots, Gill Roberts, Rob Rolls and Mandy Rooke. Mandy has been a key member of the team that is saving this piece of land for the community and contributing to the design. The area is only small, but it means that a nature park is being created actually in the heart of the village of Little Chalfont. It is being done partly from original, preserved natural grassland, but it also contains a beautiful, small piece of woodland, which is being gradually restored and made accessible to people in Little Chalfont and any visitors who want to come.

The nature park is not open yet, but it will be in 2016. Once it is fully opened, I hope that everybody will be able to enjoy it as much as I enjoyed my visit. We can all help, of course, by going on to the website for the Little Chalfont nature park and making a contribution, because nothing comes free in this day and age. If people can help to support that, we will have, in the heart of a small village in the Chilterns, yet another piece of preserved woodland together with a nature park that had me spellbound when visiting, because it contains such a wide variety of fungi, flowers and features. On the edge are the old clay pits, from which the brickworks excavated the clay to make bricks locally. There is a tiny bit of the cherry orchard that used to belong to the original Snells farm. There are the amazing mounds that were the edges of the wood, which have all been revealed by some heavy-duty work by volunteers, who are also cataloguing exactly what is contained in the heart of the village. I think that it will be a very good addition.

Our woodlands are not just places to visit. I also have in my constituency some 72 acres of woodland that is now the GreenAcres woodland burials site. It is a living, active woodland in which burials are taking place and where people can appreciate the peace, quiet, tranquillity and elements of nature that contribute to the end-of-life experience for their loved ones, which I think makes it a very special place. We must remember that we are talking not about fossilised bits of land or areas that we are protecting just out of stubbornness, but about living woods that right up to this day provide a service to the community.

That is why I feel so passionate about the woodlands that are being affected by HS2. My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane referred to HS2, and I would not speak in a debate such as this without referring to HS2. It is predictable, but that does not make it any the less important. The Government really need to listen to the issues being raised about the destruction of woodland through the development of infrastructure. None of us here is a philistine. We want infrastructure to be built. We want this country to progress. We want a solid and firm economy. However, that must not be at the price of some of our most fragile and precious landscapes, which is what is happening with HS2.

Having said that, I have some praise, not particularly for the Government but certainly for the HS2 hybrid Bill Committee, because it has granted yet another extension to the Chilterns tunnel. The Minister should know that that extension means that Mantle’s wood, Sibley’s coppice and Farthings wood have all been saved from the bulldozer. Sitting in the middle of Mantle’s wood, I shed a tear when I thought that HS2 was going to devastate and demolish most of that wood, which people have been walking in for centuries. However, the area of outstanding natural beauty that is most of my constituency is still exposed to HS2. Jones’ Hill wood, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr Lidington), will lose about 0.7 hectares. Although the impact has been reduced by the plans currently on the drawing board, it will still be affected. Other ancient woodlands in the AONB will be indirectly affected by the works or are directly adjacent to the construction boundary and will be damaged. I am referring to Jenkins wood, Havenfield wood, Stockings wood and Oaken corner.

A Government who have been rightly trumpeting their environmental credentials should now step up to the plate and ensure that they go the whole mile and protect the whole of the AONB and those ancient woodlands against HS2. That may cost a little more, but the costs are in doubt and arguable. It is possible from an engineering standpoint and certainly desirable to tunnel the whole of HS2 under the AONB and come out without damaging the AONB, as will be the case with the current plans.

I have some amazing constituents who have been working on the issue of HS2. It is always an unequal battle, because whereas the Government have access to taxpayers’ money and have already spent some £14.5 million on legal fees alone—paying lawyers—on HS2, my constituents, who after all are only fighting to protect their homes, land and businesses and the environment of the Chiltern hills, have to raise every penny voluntarily. There is no Heritage Lottery Fund for them. There are no grants coming from any esteemed bodies. They have to raise every single penny and pay out of their back pockets not only for the luxury of being heard at the petition stage in the hybrid Bill Committee—they all have to pay £20 to put their piece of paper in—but to get the advice that they need.

One of my constituents is a tremendous landscape historian. Alison Doggett has studied a 500-year-old map and revealed that the Misbourne valley, across which HS2 will slash a swathe, has barely changed since medieval times. She described her work in an article called “A Lost Valley?” in the May 2014 edition of the BBC’s Countryfile magazine, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane, from her previous life, is familiar with. The ancient map was drawn up in 1620 for Dame Mary Wolley, who owned the Chequers estate, which in those days included the northern part of the Misbourne valley. Nowadays, as everyone knows, Chequers is the Prime Minister’s rural retreat. It is vastly diminished. The current boundaries of the estate do not encompass the original, historical boundaries of the older Chequers estate.

Alison’s comparison of the field boundaries, woodlands, lanes and farmsteads as depicted in 1620 has shown that in many cases very little has changed. Thanks to the good stewardship of the people who have lived in the area and worked the land, and its status as part of a nationally protected landscape—the AONB—since 1965, any visitor today will find the valley very little changed from 1620. Unfortunately, the merits of good stewardship and national protection through the AONB have been ignored by the HS2 project. I therefore ask that the Minister and his Department, which is crucial to the protection of our environment, ask the Department for Transport to step up to the plate, protect that AONB and go for the long tunnel, which will protect the ancient woodlands to which I have referred so that they are still a valuable part of the landscape.

I will give Alison Doggett the last word, because her article concludes:

“Landscapes are granted protected status for characteristics that make them unique. The protection ensures we tread lightly so that we may share the landscapes with future generations, just as past generations shared them with us. We need to ask why protections on historical landscapes are being overturned. Is this trampling of our rural inheritance part of a bigger picture: a calculated indifference to the value of countryside in the name of progress?”

I hope that the answer to that question is no and that the Minister’s Department will go and champion the area of outstanding natural beauty and our ancient woodlands in the Chilterns.

--- Later in debate ---

[Alex Cunningham (Stockton North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to be in Westminster Hall for a third time this week, and to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Walker. I apologise for leaving the room; my cough got the better of me.

I am pleased to see the Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) yet again; I had expected to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) back to his place after a challenging few days in his home county of Cumbria, devastated by recent floods. I visited on Monday to see what the Cumbrian people were facing. Although we will continue to challenge the Government on their response to and funding for flooding, we will also work with them in the best interests of the affected communities.

The issues that have been raised today are of considerable importance to our natural environment and the biodiversity it supports. That is not to mention the public interest in these issues, with more than 60,000 people responding to the Woodland Trust’s Enough is Enough campaign to urge the Prime Minister to shore up protection for ancient woodland.

Before I offer my thoughts, I, too, would like to congratulate the hon. Members for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow) and for Falkirk (John Mc Nally) on securing the debate and on giving us the opportunity to discuss these matters fully. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Calum Kerr) for his summary of the debate and for reminding me yet again of my Scottish heritage. He remarked that this has been a consensual debate, and that is not going to change in the next 10 minutes.

Several Members eloquently told us of their favourite, treasured woodlands and of the need to save them. I think I will be looking at the Hansard record of our debate and planning my walking itinerary for the next two or three years, having been provided with such excellent suggestions. However, the hon. Member for Falkirk reminded me of the ancient woodlands and glens not so far from where I spent my childhood, so perhaps that will be well up the list of the places on my tour.

[Mrs Gillan]

The hon. Gentleman would be very welcome to visit some of our woods in the Chilterns, but he needs to hurry. If the construction of HS2 starts as planned in 2017, they will not be there much longer.

[Alex Cunningham]

Given that I return to the homeland regularly, I will perhaps need to take up the right hon. Lady’s invitation a bit earlier than I might have planned.

The hon. Member for Taunton Deane tempted me into a false sense of relaxation. That was not because her speech was 28 minutes long, but because she took us on that walk through the wood to Enid Blyton’s faraway tree. Then, of course, she brought me back to reality very quickly. Given that the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs confirmed to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee just weeks ago that

“ancient woodland, as a category, is not a protected category”,

today’s debate could not be more timely. This is the second debate in two days in which we will reach consensus—perhaps because we are working off some of the same briefing notes.

That ancient woodland is not a statutory designation in law sets it apart from many other precious habitats, and means that it is liable to suffer from a lack of protection. The hon. Member for Falkirk quoted paragraph 118 of the national planning policy framework, and it is worth quoting it again, because it actually allows for the loss or destruction, in England, of ancient woodland and aged or veteran trees in cases where

“the need for, and benefits of, the development in that location clearly outweigh the loss”—

a sad business.

It is important to be clear from the outset that if we lose the ancient woodlands we have left, they are gone forever, as others have said. Our varied climate and geology have gifted us a diversity of ancient woodland forms, whose composition is a product of environmental conditions and historical management that will simply not occur again. Our ancient woodlands cannot, therefore, by definition, be recreated.

As we have heard, the Woodland Trust has identified that, as a result of the planning loophole I mentioned, hundreds of ancient trees and woods are being lost or threatened in the planning system every year. To put that into context, more than 40 ancient woods have suffered loss or damage from development since the framework was introduced just three years ago, in March 2012. As others have mentioned, the Woodland Trust is dealing with more than 600 ancient woods that are under threat. That is the highest number in the trust’s history, and it is increasing all the time.

The situation is not markedly better elsewhere in the UK. Scottish policy, for instance, recognises only somewhat loosely that the value of ancient woods should be considered in planning decisions, while Welsh policy affirms that ancient woods should be protected from development that would result in significant damage.

It is interesting to note that the Minister with responsibility for forests in the previous coalition Administration revealed in an answer to a parliamentary question that the Government do not collect data about the loss of trees and woods. A complete and precise picture of the scale of losses in any given year is therefore impossible, and the task of protection is made markedly more complicated. With areas of ancient woodland having originally been mapped to act as a proxy for areas of high biodiversity, rather than for their inherent value, it is difficult to conclusively identify and value ancient woodland. Although the modest protections currently available are undoubtedly well-intentioned, such inherent difficulties in conclusively identifying and valuing ancient woodlands make those safeguards almost impossible to implement coherently.

That highlights an important point. Although organisations such as the Woodland Trust are well attuned to up-to-date threats and to the latest developments, the Government are, sadly, lagging behind. Not only is there no central database of ancient woodlands, but no recent analysis has been undertaken of the amount of ancient woodland lost year on year to development, infrastructure projects and other causes, such as unapproved felling.

I therefore hope to hear the Minister confirm that his Department has a plan to take immediate steps to rectify these information gaps. I would be interested to hear what consideration he has given to compiling such figures—possibly as part of his Department’s 25-year plan. Addressing that information gap is of central importance if we are to protect our ancient woodlands and the rich biodiversity they support, not to mention the valuable environmental and social wellbeing they provide.

On that point, it is worth while highlighting the distinctive communities of plants and animals that populate many ancient woodlands, some of which, such as the lichen in some ancient Scottish pinewoods, are of international importance. At the same time, the soils in many ancient woodlands are relatively undisturbed and may preserve distinct species communities and natural ecological processes, such as decomposition and nutrient cycling, all of which it is important to protect.

For reasons such as those, the Communities and Local Government Committee called 12 months ago for ancient woodland to be awarded the same protection as designated heritage assets in the built environment. That proposal would have seen the national planning policy framework amended to require any loss of ancient woodland to be wholly exceptional. The Committee also called for work to be undertaken to increase the number of ancient woodlands with statutory designations, such as site of special scientific interest designation, to further boost the protection of these important habitats. However, in response to the Committee’s report, the Government rejected any change to the framework’s wording, giving the opinion that the protections already in place for ancient woodlands under the framework are strong and make it clear that development should be avoided in such areas.

When the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs gave evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, he suggested that “an enormous amount” of ancient woodland in the UK is

“already protected within our national parks and within AONBs”,

with much covered by Natura sites under European legislation and even more falling under regulations that protect sites of special scientific interest. However, in response to a parliamentary question just last month, he confirmed that evaluations from Natural England estimated that only 15% of ancient woodland is located in national parks, and 30% in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Despite statutory designation offering the strongest legal protection from loss and deterioration in condition, only 20% of ancient woods in the UK are designated as sites of special scientific interest. In addition, there is no equivalent for woods deemed to be culturally important, potentially leaving sites with high historic—but low ecological—value with less protection. Furthermore, within national parks, only 29% of woodland has site of special scientific interest status, although even that compares favourably with the 13% of woodland in areas of outstanding natural beauty that is similarly designated.

With those figures in mind, I hope that the Minister will look again at the Communities and Local Government Committee recommendation to designate more ancient woodlands as sites of special scientific interest and that he will support such action to strengthen the legal protection of ancient woodland. Doing so is important, not least because the evidence highlights that even those ancient woodlands located in a national park or an area of outstanding natural beauty are not wholly protected against the threat of being impacted by, or lost to, development.

To take HS2 as an example—and we have heard plenty about it today—phase 1 of that significant project, as it is currently planned, directly threatens 39 ancient woods, with a further 23 at risk of secondary effects such as disturbance, noise and pollution, including woods within the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty. We might perhaps also consider the hydroelectric scheme proposed at Fairy Glen in north Wales, which threatens ancient woodland within Snowdonia national park. The Cairngorms national park local development plan expressly backs potential development sites that could cause damage to ancient woodland, including at An Camas Mòr, Carrbridge and Nethy Bridge. Indeed, I understand the installation of a micro-hydroelectric turbine within the Cairngorms, for which approval was granted in 2014, will damage ancient woodland, while neither Snowdonia national park authority nor Natural Resources Wales highlighted concerns about the impact on ancient woodland of the Fairy Glen scheme.

As I mentioned at the outset, the risk of allowing such damage is that if we lose the ancient woodlands that we have left they are gone forever. They cannot be replaced. However, that is not to say that we cannot do more to protect vulnerable ancient woodlands and wildlife by creating new woodland and other habitats around the remaining fragments of ancient woodland, thereby shielding them from the effects of neighbouring land use. Members have already mentioned that small ancient woods are particularly vulnerable to impacts from surrounding land uses—chemical pollutants from development, agriculture and the like. Research shows us that fertiliser from cropland can alter the soil chemistry, plant species presence and plant growth as much as 100 metres into an adjacent ancient wood. I would be interested to hear what thought the Minister has given to the potential for utilising such buffer zones around ancient woodlands to help mitigate any such damage, and whether his Department intends to look into that option further to determine its viability.

A number of organisations do important work in restoring, managing and conserving ancient woodland to help it survive, but that work will ultimately prove futile while those habitats remain insufficiently protected in the planning system. I am sure that the recommendations of the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government were appropriately considered, but I would welcome hearing from the Minister what steps the Government are willing to take so that the loss of ancient woodland becomes wholly exceptional. In the light of this week’s events, we should not forget that the loss of tree and plant coverage, along with changes in land use in rural and urban areas, has been a significant contributing factor in the increased risk of flooding, particularly in rural areas.

I know that I am asking the Minister to do more with fewer resources, particularly after the comprehensive spending review made further huge cuts to DEFRA’s budgets, but I would be pleased to hear that his Department will work alongside DCLG colleagues to bolster the protection available to ancient woodland as part of the planning framework and ensure that planning departments are required to protect existing woodland while working with developers to include trees as part of sustainable urban drainage proposals.

--- Later in debate ---

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend makes a very good point. I certainly hope that schoolchildren learn about ancient woodlands because, as a number of hon. Members have said, those trees have seen major chapters of our history during their lifetime.

I will also point out that when it comes to the rural development programme, we are doing some direct work on ancient woodlands. More than 4,200 hectares of planted ancient woodland sites owned by the private sector were restored on ancient semi-natural woodlands between 2011 and 2014, and more than 6,500 hectares of plantations on ancient woodland sites have been worked on since April 2011 on the public forest estate.

I turn now to some of the points made by hon. Members in their contributions. The hon. Member for Taunton Deane talked about the importance of urban trees, and I agree. They are very important, and the Natural Capital Committee has noted that in its own report. It is also important to recognise that the NPPF covers both urban and rural areas, so the same protections apply whether trees are in rural or urban areas.

My hon. Friend and a number of other hon. Members talked about databases. We are interested in databases, so I would be interested to see the evidence about how one defines a “threat”, if one is identifying trees that might be under threat. We also recognise that local planning authorities, which ultimately take these decisions, do not report or collate data on ancient woodlands. As far as we are aware, there is no reporting or collating of information, and the shadow Minister raised that issue, too. We are certainly happy to look at it.

Of course, we have the ancient woodland inventory, which was developed in the 1980s. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase pointed out, we also have the Tree Register, a registered charity that updates a register on notable trees. That is very important, providing information on the size and growth of trees, as well as details of historical, rare or unusually significant trees. It, too, makes an important contribution.

My hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane and others also mentioned sites of special scientific interest and asked whether there could be designations of ancient woodlands as “triple SIs”. As a number of Members have already noted, many of our ancient woodlands are already designated as SSSIs, and Natural England is constantly looking for additional areas that should be so designated. Its work at the moment includes looking at additional ancient woodlands to be designated as SSSIs.

One point to note is that although designating an area as an SSSI is a stronger form of protection, in that there is a statutory role for Natural England if there is to be any development on those sites, the test is still quite similar: if the benefits of development outweigh any damage they can be considered. The test itself is broadly the same, but I accept that the level of protection is higher.

My hon. Friend also talked about strengthening the presumption to “wholly exceptional” when development is considered. I know that the Government have considered the issue before; they have taken the view that that change is not necessary because the existing protections are adequate. Nevertheless, I take on board the points she has made today and I am sure my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will read a transcript of this debate. He may want to look further at the arguments that she has so forcefully made about that issue.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane that we should accept that although planting new trees is important, and we will plant 11 million new trees during the course of this Parliament, it does not fully mitigate the loss of trees. In fact, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) pointed out, even though we are doing lots of planting and mitigation work—that work is important, particularly when it comes to High Speed 2—it cannot replace our ancient woodlands, which are irreplaceable. I accept that.

I move on to the comments made by my right hon. Friend. I know that she has been a tireless campaigner on the issue of HS2 and has many deep concerns about its impact on her constituency. I am pleased that some of the woodlands that she mentioned, such as Mantles wood, have been protected as a result of the decision to put a tunnel underneath the woodlands rather than through them. However, she has made a point today about the areas of outstanding natural beauty sites and other sites affected by that tunnel. I will take her concerns back to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and we will raise those concerns with colleagues in other Departments, notably the Department for Transport, which is making these decisions. We will write to her with our feedback on that process.

[Mrs Gillan]

The Minister may not be the woodland Minister, but given the position that he occupies in the Department, I am very grateful that he will discuss that matter with his colleague and take it up with the DFT. It is not as if I am asking for the world; I am just asking to save a little bit of it, which is so important.

[George Eustice]

I am sure—and it is the little bit of it in my right hon. Friend’s constituency that is especially important, as all hon. Members will understand all too well. Of course, my right hon. Friend will be aware that a hybrid Bill is also going through Parliament at the moment in a very long-drawn-out process, as is often the case with such Bills. A number of these matters will be considered by that Bill Committee.

On HS2, I will summarise by saying that the company has stated that it will plant 7 million trees, as a mixture of landscaping and screening and to compensate for the loss of some trees. There has also been a survey. Natural England reviewed the ancient woodland inventory last spring and determined that 16 woodland sites along the phase 1 route of the proposed rail scheme should be added to the inventory. Although they are small sites—there are 10 woods of less than 2 hectares—they have been added to the inventory in order to address some of the concerns that exist. That is a good example of where the Government continue to look sensitively and carefully at these issues, to make sure that we get a decision right.

Finally, a number of hon. Members mentioned the issue of pests and disease, which is a challenge we take very seriously. The Animal and Plant Health Agency monitors diseases such as ash dieback, or chalara, which is of particular concern at the moment. It is true that older trees can often survive infection for a number of years; in some cases older trees are more resilient to disease, particularly when it comes to diseases such as ash dieback.

Fighting disease is a very important part of what the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs does. We have committed more than £21 million to tree health research, which includes £3.5 million for studies that are being undertaken to identify what can make trees tolerant to ash dieback, for instance.

In conclusion, we are continually striving to improve things in this area, but we acknowledge that this issue is complex. The challenge for us today is totally different from the challenges of the 1920s. That is why we need to balance forestry interests with our global responsibilities and our wider needs on UK land use. The Government consider that the existing protection for ancient woodland in the NPPF is strong and is protecting our ancient woodlands and veteran trees, but as I said earlier, Members have made some powerful points today. I am sure that my colleague, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, will read the transcript of the debate carefully, and I will relay some of the concerns expressed and proposals made in that spirit.