Pollinators and Pesticides

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Thursday 6th June 2013 Commons Chamber

[Joan Walley]

I am very pleased to see the Minister nodding. I refer him to our recommendation 13: “Defra must”—I stress “must”—

“introduce a national monitoring programme to generate and monitor population data on a broad range of wild insect pollinator species to inform policy making.”

We felt that that is the bottom line and the starting point of what now needs to be done. As we went through our deliberations and came to reach our decisions, we endeavoured to find as much common ground among members of the Committee as we could before we turned to the issue of neonicotinoids.

Let me move on to the question of why insect populations might be declining. I want to make it clear at the outset that the health of insect pollinators is defined by a range of factors, including not only pesticides but urbanisation, loss of habitat, agricultural intensification and climate change; obviously, weather patterns affect things as well.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend will know that the Government intend to issue—shortly, I believe—planning guidance on biodiversity. Does she agree that councils need to be encouraged and given the impetus to protect and restore bee-friendly habitats in their own neighbourhoods, which would make a real contribution to addressing the point she is making?

[Joan Walley]

I thank my right hon. Friend; she makes exactly the right point, and I absolutely agree. We need safe havens for wildlife, especially in urban areas, although it is not just about urban areas. The planning system underpins the whole issue of our natural capital and biodiversity. If we do not have guidance on how we protect and enhance our natural environment, the bees do not stand a chance.

Throughout our inquiry, the Environmental Audit Committee acknowledged the importance of sustaining agricultural yields, controlling pests effectively and maintaining food security. Indeed, those concerns were reflected in our final report. Equally, we were mindful of the value of insect pollinators as an ecosystem service to UK agriculture. I think that Members will be aware of the various estimates of the agricultural value of insect pollination, ranging from £500 million to £1.9 billion, depending on whether one takes into account the cost of replacement hand pollination. We felt that those issues ought to be given a value and taken into account.

In case anyone thinks that our report is just about a moratorium on certain neonicotinoids, I hope they will have a chance to read it in full and make themselves aware of the cross-cutting nature of our work and the importance that we give to using the common agricultural policy control to help British farming move as quickly as possible to integrated pest management.

As I have said, the Committee considered a range of factors that affect insect pollinators, but we were driven to scrutinise the effects of one family of insecticides—neonicotinoids—by the weight of peer-reviewed scientific evidence. For Members who are not familiar with neonicotinoids, I should say that they are a class of insecticide derived from nicotine. Following their introduction in the mid-’90s, they have been widely used in the UK on oilseed rape, cereals, maize, sugar beet and crops grown in glass houses. The body of evidence indicating that neonicotinoids cause acute harm to bees grew appreciably in the course of our inquiry, as new studies were published in heavyweight journals such as Science and Nature. In this case, harm to bees includes increased susceptibility to disease and reduced foraging and reproduction. If Members are interested in the particular scientific studies, I refer them to the Henry, Whitehorn and Gill experiments.

We heard that 94% of published peer-reviewed experiments on the effects of neonicotinoids on bees found evidence of acute harm. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the agri-chemical industry argued throughout our inquiry that the dosage used in those laboratory experiments was too high. In response it is worth pointing out that those studies used dosages derived from the best available data on the concentrations of neonicotinoids that bees encounter in the field.

The agri-chemical industry also likes to cite its own tests as proof that neonicotinoids cannot harm bees. However, the industry studies by which neonicotinoids were licensed for use in the European Union were not peer reviewed and are not open to scrutiny due to the supposed commercial sensitivity of the data. Furthermore, we found evidence in relation to the licensing of imidacloprid which calls into question altogether the rigour of the testing regime.

Against that background, we went on to consider the precautionary principle. By definition, insecticides kill insects. The precautionary question is whether neonicotinoid insecticides have an unsustainable impact on insect pollinators. The 1992 United Nations Rio declaration on environment and development states:

“Where there are threats of serious and irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.”

That internationally agreed definition of the precautionary principle was later enshrined in the Lisbon treaty and it underpins much of the work that has been done on sustainable development, including when the work of the Rio conference was built on at Rio+20 only last year in Brazil.

Throughout our inquiry, DEFRA used what it identified as a lack of full scientific certainty as an excuse for inaction. For example, at one stage the Department stated that it would require unequivocal evidence of harm before acting on neonicotinoids.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Carmichael (Stroud) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to speak in the debate, not least because I am a member of the Environmental Audit Committee. I thank our Chair for the excellent leadership she has provided with this report and others. She is right on the importance of establishing a broad agreement, which the Committee did in its report—we have always achieved such agreement in previous reports, too. That is a good illustration of the Committee’s effectiveness, which I hope will continue, because we will do important work on investment in the green economy, which will result in a thought-provoking and important report.

I am a former farmer, so I am familiar with the pesticides argument. I was principally a livestock farmer, but I could not escape other types of farming. I fully support the report’s recommendations. It is important that we recognise that bees are essential to our environment and to successful farming. That is well illustrated by my constituency—Stroud is recognised as world bee place. We have done a huge amount of work to promote the protection of bees, including wild bees, which are also at risk. I am extraordinarily proud of my constituency’s bee protection reputation.

It is important to recognise that there are more threats to bees than pesticides. We have heard about bee starvation and bee diseases such as varroa—I hope I pronounced that correctly; as a Northumbrian, I sometimes get my vowels slightly mixed up. We also know of a variety of other threats to bees. We should recognise that the Government see the problem and are taking action with the bee protection plan. I hope the Minister outlines how extensive that plan is, because we need to demonstrate that the coalition Government are determined to protect bees.

It was disappointing that the UK did not vote in favour of the moratorium on neonicotinoids, but the moratorium is in place. As our Committee Chair correctly noted, that reflects the concerns and interest the Committee has spelt out. We had a lengthy debate on the seeds supply chain, and recognised that, for any moratorium to be effective, it would have to start later than we envisaged, which is right. It is good that Europe noticed that as well. The changes our Chair outlined are extremely welcome. It is good that the Government, through the field studies we have heard about, are determined to recognise the importance of the impact of neonicotinoids.

Transparency is critical. As my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) noted, there are too many occasions when one wonders how much we really know about what is being discovered or being hidden, so this matter would benefit from true transparency. I urge the Minister and the Department to consider the transparency of field studies, so that we know exactly what is going on and what the tests reveal. As the Chair noted, maize in Italy did not really suffer as a result of neonicotinoids being banned, but that is just one example. Everybody would benefit from more study and a more comprehensive understanding, including pesticide manufacturers. One problem that has to be borne in mind is that banning one type of pesticide might mean that other pesticides are used in an uncontrolled way. We have to monitor the use of all pesticides, especially when withdrawing neonicotinoids, as using different pesticides might make matters considerably worse. I am sure the Government are minded to do that.

On the wider question of the common agricultural policy and overall farm management, as we move towards a reformed CAP it is important to recognise good work, such as that done by the Environmental Stewardship scheme. I would like to see more farmers using such schemes, and for those schemes to become more tailored towards the kind of issue we are debating today.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

The hon. Gentleman speaks about further reform of the CAP. I am sure he is aware that recent reforms to the CAP have given national Governments discretion to switch subsidies to agri-environment schemes, which could bring in much more bee-friendly habitats. Does he agree that the Government ought to be taking that step, rather than going on so much about what might be done in the future? Let us use what we have got now.

[Neil Carmichael]

The Government are a Government of positive action. We are a coalition Government. We benefit enormously from having Conservatives on one side and Liberal Democrats on the other, and I am certain that that combination will bring about exactly what the right hon. Lady says.

The right hon. Lady raises an interesting point about what amounts to the devolution of the CAP. From its inception, its impact has been characterised by either dominant nation states promoting certain types of produce, or, as in this case, by policy filtration, with different levels of government influencing outcomes by changing the nature of the policy. That was particularly prevalent in the early days in certain Mediterranean countries with regard to olives and so on. We should recognise devolution, but it is a double-edged sword. We in this country are able to do the right thing, but can we always guarantee that that will be the case in other countries that might have other priorities? I welcome those changes in the CAP, but urge the Government to do as the hon. Lady suggests. Indeed, I would go further and argue that we need to amplify the CAP’s impact environmental protection. It needs to be understood more clearly by the wider public. If people understood its more positive implications and outcomes, we could generate greater support for the CAP.

To sum up, I think it is right to have the moratorium on neonicotinoids and that it was postponed to allow the supply chain to adjust. It is necessary, however, to maintain a weather eye on neonicotinoids, so I welcome the Government’s commitment to field studies. It is important that they be conducted transparently and that their outcomes be made transparent. It is also important to recognise the value of good management and the impact that the reformed CAP can have. I would like more farmers encouraged down that path. In broad terms, we should celebrate the fact that many organisations—including those in my constituency I mentioned—are doing a lot of good work for the protection of bees. We should be supporting and welcoming those local solutions. Gardeners, too, have a responsibility, because in the past they have used neonicotinoids. It is important to recognise that all of us—I indulge in a spot of gardening myself, though I do not use neonicotinoids —should promote good practice wherever it is necessary, and it is necessary in our gardens, as well as on our farms.

[Martin Caton (Gower) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who is a fellow member of the Environmental Audit Committee, and I join him in paying tribute to the leadership of our Committee Chair, not only on this vital inquiry, but on all our inquiries.

I strongly support all the conclusions and recommendations in our report, but my interest in what is happening to our pollinating insects goes back quite a bit further than last November, when we started taking evidence. In fact, it probably dates back more than 40 years to when I was at agricultural school and undertook a course in apiculture. The certificate I secured at the end remains a treasured possession. More recently, about three years ago, that interest was further spurred by a 2009 report produced by the organisation Buglife, which our Chair has already mentioned, and the Soil Association. It was a review of the scientific literature on a group of systemic pesticides called neonicotinoids on non-target insect species.

Although the combined evidence in the report was not conclusive, even at that time it rang serious alarm bells that should have received an urgent response from the Government. I secured a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, which a surprising number of Members from across the House attended to express their shared concern about the potential threat posed by these pesticides to a vital group of invertebrates—pollinating insects. Since that debate, thanks to intelligence supplied by Buglife and other environmental organisations, I have tried to keep track of further research and, when significant, have drawn it to the House’s attention through early-day motions and other parliamentary means.

As our Chair said, last autumn, the Committee decided to conduct what has turned out to be a major inquiry taking evidence from the organisations she mentioned. The first thing the Committee had to recognise was that many of our pollinating species appeared to have been in decline for some time. Of course, when we look at pollinators—especially any threats to them—the first focus is usually honey bees. That has been particularly the case in Europe and the USA in recent years, with alarming reports of what is sometimes called colony collapse on an international basis.

As a result of their economic significance, honey bees attract far more scientific attention than any other pollinator. Their decline has been ascribed to a range of causes—pests and diseases, such as the varroa mite, which has been mentioned, along with weather conditions, poor nutrition, poor husbandry, urbanisation, agricultural intensification, habitat degradation and the use and misuse of pesticides. However, honey bees are not the main pollinators in the UK—far from it. Ninety per cent of insect pollination is done by the thousands of other, wild pollinators—other bees, hoverflies, butterflies, carrion flies, beetles, midges, moths, and so on. These other pollinators are not monitored or studied like honey bees, so we do not know exactly what is happening to them. However, we received disquieting evidence from some witnesses of how, as the Chair has said, two thirds of wild pollinator species are declining, including moths, butterflies, hoverflies and bumble bees. We were told that of the 25 UK bumble bee species, two or three—no one is sure because the research has not been done—have already become extinct, while probably 10 others have suffered large range decline.

We were advised that DEFRA has a bee unit that does a good job of monitoring honey bees. There are 70 Government scientists dedicated to researching honey bees, but just part of one scientist looking at the health of wild bees. That has to change. We cannot afford to remain ignorant about our wild pollinators. That is why we call in the report for DEFRA to introduce a national monitoring programme to generate and monitor population data on a broad range of wild insect pollinator species. If we do not really know what is going on, we cannot make the right policy decisions to halt decline.

Most people looking at pollinator decline would come to the conclusion that, at least in most cases, multiple factors are at play—those that I have listed for honey bees and perhaps others. Most of our witnesses who addressed the wider picture accepted that there were probably a range of causes. However, the representatives of mainstream farming and especially the agrichemical industry were absolutely adamant that the decline had nothing to do with pesticide use and especially not the use of neonics. Our Chair has described how neonicotinoids work, which I will not repeat, but I will add that they are systemic, which means that they get into every part of the plants that are treated with them. Pollinating insects absorb them and carry them back to their nests or hives, even though they are not the target species.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

My hon. Friend is making some interesting points. Does he think, as I do, that the Government perhaps need to rewrite their national pesticides action plan? There are methods other than the use of chemicals. They ought to be encouraged so that farmers and horticulturalists do whatever they can to reduce the chemical pressure on the environment and the pollinators.

Ash Dieback Disease

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Monday 29th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Heath]

We certainly need to communicate with local people who have forestry interests and trees on their property about what they should be looking for. I will not pre-empt the discussions with the experts on the ground about precisely what is the right action to take, but I assure my hon. Friend that we will apply all available resources to the problem, because we do not want it to spread further if we can possibly avoid it.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

The Minister said that he had difficulty identifying the pathogen, but did he or his officials contact Danish scientists who have a decade of experience in the field? Will he publish the scientific research indicating that airborne spores could reach this country from continental Europe?

[Mr Heath]

It was not I who had a problem identifying the pathogen; it was the international authorities, including the Danish authorities that the right hon. Lady mentions, who had reason to suspect that the pathogen was not the one that was initially identified, and that it was less virulent. That was why Europe and the world, frankly, took their eye off the ball to a certain extent and did not recognise the threat that Chalara represented to the Danish forests, for instance. Of course we work closely with our colleagues in other European countries and learn from their information, but I am afraid we cannot second-guess the international consensus.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

We hope in the next few weeks to make an announcement about satisfactory conclusions in respect of negotiations with the European Commission. That will be a major step forward.

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

The Secretary of State should have banned the import of ash seedlings the minute disease was found in nurseries in this country. He will not be forgiven for any delay by the people of this country, who so value the ash trees. Will he ensure that the Forestry Commission has all the resources it needs to be able to confront this terrible threat?

[Mr Paterson]

I think the right hon. Lady is being pretty unfair. The minute we heard about this, we launched a consultation. That will report tomorrow. On the basis of evidence—[Interruption.] All the right hon. Lady’s colleagues are shouting at me about evidence and science-based information, and from tomorrow evening I will look at the evidence, and if it is sensible to ban imports, I will take that decision and make restrictions on Monday.

Water Industry (Financial Assistance) Bill

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Wednesday 29th February 2012 Commons Chamber

[Dame Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

May I start by apologising to the House? I have an urgent constituency engagement and will have to leave before we conclude the debate.

Let me say at the outset that my constituents and I support the construction of the Thames tunnel. There is no doubt that we cannot continue to discharge raw sewage into the Thames. Much as I would like to debate many of the wider issues, I am essentially here to make a statement on behalf of my constituents, because Thames Water has a proposal to intercept the Deptford storm relief sewer that runs through Deptford discharging north into the Thames.

The site selected by Thames Water is a triangle of green, open space—the Crossfield amenity green, which is bounded by Coffey street, Crossfield street and Deptford Church street. For those who do not know it, Deptford Church street is a major dual carriageway intersecting the Crossfield residential housing estate. Thames Water proposes at least four years’ work on the site, the permanent legacy of which will be four main ventilation columns at least 6 metres high, with associated control units and maintenance requirements. During the phase one consultation, the preferred site was Borthwick wharf foreshore, but for the phase two consultation Deptford Church street is the preferred site and the Borthwick wharf foreshore is put forward, together with the Sue Godfrey nature reserve in Bronze street, as an alternative.

We in Deptford cannot understand Thames Water’s change of plans, which will have a great impact on an exceptional area of my constituency. The phase two consultation site information paper identifies three reasons why Deptford Church street is now preferred. The reasons given are, first, that Deptford Church street has relatively good access compared to Borthwick wharf foreshore; secondly, that using Deptford Church street would avoid work to the Thames foreshore; and, thirdly that the potential effects on residents, visitors and business amenity would be less than with the alternative site.

On access, no traffic impact assessment is provided to enable comparison between the two sites, so how can we judge? On avoiding work on the foreshore, there is a particular paradox. The majority of the site selection assessments favour sites in close proximity to the river, with jetty or wharf facilities. Clearly, the Borthwick wharf foreshore would have a great advantage over Deptford High street, in that material and spoil could be delivered and removed using the River Thames. Furthermore, the alternative site is located at the point at which the combined sewer overflows are discharged into the River Thames. Intercepting the sewer at that point would capture the contents of the entire length of the sewer. Intercepting it further inland, at Deptford Church street, would leave a length of the sewer uncaptured.

Thames Water has provided no data on the number of people, households and businesses affected at both sites, so it is impossible to compare the sites. In addition, the impact on St Joseph’s Catholic primary school on Deptford Church street is direct and severe when compared to any comparable community impact resulting from the use of the Borthwick wharf foreshore. A number of businesses will be directly affected by the use of Deptford Church street, while Borthwick wharf and the adjacent Payne’s wharf are both vacant.

Let me turn to the issues specific to the Deptford site chosen by Thames Water. There are two primary schools close to the proposed site: St Joseph’s Catholic primary school is opposite the site, and the new Tidemill academy is close by. As I say, the proposed works will take at least four and a half years, which represents most of the period of primary school attendance. That area of Deptford appears in the top 10% of areas in the country in the index of deprivation, making primary education of paramount importance. Both indoor and outdoor learning will be impacted by noise and air pollution.

Fire evacuation for St Joseph’s during the period is of concern. The school requires an off-site space near the school for 260-plus children and 25-plus staff, and they need to reach it quickly and safely. The site currently used is the green space that Thames Water proposes using for its shaft and associated construction works. No impact assessment on the school and its fire regulations has been offered.

Sited alongside the green is the grade-I listed St Paul’s church, the single most significant listed building in Lewisham. The proposed shaft and associated building works directly affect the setting and structure of the church, the boundary wall to the church cemetery, which is listed in its own right, and the grade-II listed railway viaduct to the south. It is therefore not surprising that English Heritage has expressed a preference for the alternative site to the Deptford Church street site, as there would then be less impact on heritage assets in our area.

The effects of the disruption to traffic patterns would be numerous, and the disruption would cause congestion and danger. The proposal involves closing the two northbound lanes of Deptford Church street; the two southbound lanes would provide one lane in each direction. Again, no detailed traffic modelling has been provided. There could even be emergency vehicle access restrictions associated with the traffic management measures along the proposed construction vehicle routes. Bus lanes in both north and southbound directions would be temporarily suspended, yet the width of the southbound carriageway is insufficient to accommodate heavy goods vehicles and buses in a two-way traffic scheme, particularly as Deptford Church street is on the borough’s oversized vehicle route.

There can be no doubt that the proposed works will impact on existing businesses along Crossfield street, particularly given that access, both vehicle and pedestrian, could be disrupted and restricted. The construction vehicle movements would have a highway safety impact in Coffey street, particularly for those accessing St Paul’s church, and when the movements coincide with St Joseph’s school’s arrival and departure times. Narrowing Crossfield street would have an impact on the commercial units on Crossfield street, particularly in relation to deliveries and servicing. A further raft of transport concerns have been raised by Lewisham council in its formal objections to Thames Water, but they are too numerous for me to go into now.

[Mr Ben Bradshaw (Exeter) (Lab)]

Hear, hear.

[Dame Joan Ruddock]

I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that intervention. I will now slow down, as I know that he is desperate to be able to speak in the debate.

Overlying all the concerns that I have outlined is an aspect of Deptford that has been completely neglected. Planning consents have already been given for the construction of thousands of new homes in the immediate vicinity of the Deptford Church street site. Work is already under way and the nearby Convoys site, which has a footfall—this is quite amazing—equivalent to the whole of the south bank, is expected to be redeveloped over precisely the same period as the Thames tunnel. This is a prescription for chaos. It is particularly unfortunate because Deptford has enjoyed a prolonged period of regeneration led by Lewisham council, financially underpinned by the Labour Government and supported by a number of private sector partnerships.

Lewisham is the 12th most densely populated local authority in the UK, and my constituency the most dense of all. As a consequence, every small piece of open space is greatly valued and provides essential green lungs for the city. The Crossfield amenity green will be made unavailable and inaccessible for at least four years in an area of very limited open space.

Lewisham borough’s core strategy emphasises the importance of improving connectivity throughout the area for pedestrians and cyclists. The recently completed links project from Deptford high street through to Margaret McMillan park, as well as the work on Giffin square, the Deptford Lounge, Tidemill academy and Wavelengths, demonstrate the implementation of the council’s strategic aspirations for the area.

The completion of the Thames tunnel site works is not expected until 2021, resulting in an unacceptable delay to the delivery of the council’s strategic objectives for links to and connections through the area. Furthermore, Deptford high street is classified as a site of nature conservation importance in the adopted unitary development plan. If the borough were the local planning authority for this application, it would either refuse permission that had adverse impacts on nature conservation or, if development were considered essential, it would require an environmental appraisal that included methods of mitigation and proposals for compensation.

I appreciate the need for the Thames tunnel, so I would not be objecting to this site if I thought this was a case of simple nimbyism. It is not. There is so much at stake that we have to make the loudest and clearest objections on the grounds that I have outlined. Already 1,300 people, in an area where there is not a great deal of activism, have signed a petition opposing the use of the Crossfields amenity green. I support the measures in the Bill that will enable Thames Water to undertake a much needed improvement on behalf of all Londoners, but I| believe that it can provide the necessary shafts elsewhere with less damage than that which would result in my constituency. My plea to Thames Water is, in the words of the local campaign, “Don’t dump on Deptford.”

Environmental Protection and Green Growth

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Wednesday 26th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has been reading the useful publications from the European Union. I do not know which way he voted on Monday, but I am sure that that will be noted by the Whips. [Interruption.] Well, he is using the European Union to back up his argument, and that is very good news.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend remember, as I do, the amount of opposition from Tories and Lib Dems to all applications for wind farms in their areas? Our Government would have made much greater progress—I can say that as a Minister who was there at the time—had it not been for such opposition to developing renewables.

[Mary Creagh]

I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s role in government. Obviously, the decisions that we made in government paved the way for Mitsubishi and Siemens to think about relocating here. We do not want to drive energy-intensive industries or jobs overseas, because in many cases such industries are contributing directly to green development—for example, the steel that is pressed for offshore wind turbines that are manufactured in the UK. Companies in these industries want transparency so that there is a level playing field, showcasing the best and exchanging knowledge so that they can reduce their costs and their environmental impact. We pay tribute to the companies that have already done that work.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I shall make some progress, and then I shall certainly give way to the hon. Lady.

The hon. Lady talked about waste and recycling. It is reasonable for an Opposition to push a Government in certain directions, but they cannot just pluck a recycling target of 70% from the air, even though I would certainly aspire to such a target. However, recycling targets on their own are not a measure of how well a Government are doing. Instead, it is vital that we consider the matter in the round and that we push waste issues up the hierarchy. We cannot simply imagine a day when we could move to 70% recycling without getting the industry working properly with us to ensure that there are markets for recyclates and that we have an absolute plan, which is what we have done through our waste initiative.

[Joan Ruddock]

I remind the Minister that, in 2003, a private Member’s Bill that I introduced and which became an Act, imposed on local authorities a mandatory duty to recycle at least two waste streams, with a deadline of December 2010. What action did he take on the small minority of local authorities that did not comply last year?

[Richard Benyon]

We absolutely want to meet the EU’s waste reduction targets and the recycling targets, and we will certainly move towards 50%, but there are local factors to be considered.

[Joan Ruddock]

rose—

[Richard Benyon]

I am trying to answer the right hon. Lady.

Local factors apply. These matters can, and should, be dealt with locally, and local councils should be held accountable when they fail. I shall come on to that in a minute.

[Joan Ruddock]

I wonder whether the Minister heard me correctly. The duty is mandatory. What has he done with the local authorities that did not meet that mandatory target?

[Richard Benyon]

I shall get back to the right hon. Lady. [Interruption.] I am sure she understands that this is not an area of my brief, but the responsibility of my noble Friend Lord Taylor. However, I shall certainly get an answer to the right hon. Lady’s question.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

My experience in this House is that Yorkshire MPs believe that life starts and finishes in Yorkshire, and I am sure the green investment bank will find a way of investing in my hon. Friend’s constituency—and elsewhere. We will come to the House with more details in the near future.

We were talking earlier about whether the concepts of green and growth were complementary or at odds with each other. We firmly believe they are complementary. The environment is an economic issue. Better management of natural resources is a financial and environmental opportunity. That is recognised by the Government and leading businesses. The waste review and the natural environment White Paper underline that by putting resource efficiency and the natural environment at the heart of economic growth.

Broader initiatives either already delivered or in the pipeline include electricity market reform, the renewable heat incentive and the green deal, which is the largest retrofit project. The Government also have an initiative, “Enabling the transition to a green economy”, which is being led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, DECC and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills. It brings together under one heading all of our ambitions and plans for moving towards a green economy.

To help in that, we have set up the Green Economy Council, chaired by the Secretaries of State for BIS, DEFRA and DECC, which brings together more than 20 business leaders from leading businesses and business groups ranging from Ford to Waitrose. It provides an open forum for business to work with Government to address the challenges of creating the green economy and to facilitate growth opportunities.

I wish to highlight two ways in which we are hard-wiring natural capital across government, and I referred to that in passing earlier. We are working with the Office for National Statistics to include natural capital in the UK environmental accounts. We are also setting up a natural capital committee—an independent advisory committee reporting to the Economic Affairs Committee—to provide expert advice on the state of England’s natural capital. We will be advertising for a chair and members this year.

That develops one of the key objectives put forward by GLOBE International—my hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness and the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) are such able vice-chairmen for that organisation. We are also establishing a business-led ecosystems market taskforce to review the opportunities for UK business from expanding green goods, services, products, investment vehicles and markets, which value and protect nature’s services.

I shall now move on to more specific issues. Earlier this year, we published our waste review, which is a comprehensive look at prevention, reuse, recycling, recovery and disposal, aiming for a zero-waste economy. It provides a broader picture than recycling targets and sets us on a path towards a greener, more innovative economy that values waste as a resource and an opportunity for jobs.

[Joan Ruddock]

May I make a suggestion to the Minister? He will know that the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government is going to make millions of pounds available to local authorities to return to weekly collections, which they departed from in order to boost recycling. As the Minister will know, food is one of the main issues to deal with, so why does he not make representations to the Communities Secretary to say that money should be provided to those local authorities, such as my local Lewisham council, that have weekly collections but could expand, if they had the money, into food collections? That would have enormous benefits, including job creation.

[Richard Benyon]

The right hon. Lady is right to say that there are huge benefits if we get this right. We are working not only to deal with food waste—to encourage people to buy less and to waste less food—but to make sure that what waste food there is can be used in a constructive way. That is why our policies on anaerobic digestion have huge potential, not just for a municipal approach to this issue, but, for example, for the farming industry as a way of diversifying its business. So I assure her that we are talking, and will continue to talk, to people right across government to ensure a joined-up approach. I respect her knowledge on this matter.

I spoke earlier about broadband, but I wish to emphasise that it is an absolute priority for this Government, as it will make the difference to our rural community. Our economy will be enhanced in a sustainable way for the future when we are able to have creative industries operating in remote parts of the country.

We expect to be able to deliver better flood and coastal erosion protection to 145,000 households by March 2015. Despite spending reductions, no schemes have been cancelled. That is an important point for the hon. Member for Wakefield to understand. We expect to spend at least £2.1 billion on tackling flooding and coastal erosion over the next four years. We expect to spend this money better than it has been in the past and to do so in an open way, where local communities can really see how it is operating.

On mandatory carbon reporting for companies, we have consulted widely over the summer on whether we should introduce regulations in this area. We need to be clear that these regulations are the best way forward, and the Secretary of State will announce the outcome to the House this autumn.

To conclude, the Government are proud of what we have achieved thus far. We have been in government for only 17 months and there is a huge amount to achieve, but I am certain that we can achieve it. I ask the House not to support the motion, because I believe that what I have told the House this afternoon has shown that we are ambitious for more and that we can achieve enormous benefits for our economy by thinking in terms of the environment and the economy together. We hope to do that as we move forward.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Thursday 30th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paice]

I think my hon. Friend knows that we have not made any announcement about badger control yet. I hope that the conclusions of our consultation will be announced fairly soon, along with a wider package of measures to combat TB. Whatever steps we take will clearly need to balance the regulations that have to be in place for disease control with minimising their burden and using risk assessment as the basis for applying them.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

10. What her policy is on future levels of recycling of domestic and commercial waste.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I commend the right hon. Lady for her long-standing commitment to this issue. Our waste review set out our ambition to move from a throwaway society to a zero-waste economy. This includes maximising the recycling of waste that cannot be prevented or reused from households and businesses. We will work with local authorities and the waste management industry to make it easier for everyone to recycle, whether at home, at work or on the go.

[Joan Ruddock]

Just a year ago the Secretary of State said of recycling:

“We need to go faster and we need to go further.”

So is it the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government who has crushed her ambition and vetoed a target for recycling in this country? Having won the battle over fortnightly bin collections, why does she not now adopt Friends of the Earth’s target of halving black sack waste by 2020, thus reducing costs and creating jobs?

[Mrs Spelman]

I support the scale of the ambition of Friends of the Earth’s target, and we are of course bound by an EU target to recycle 50% of household refuse, but if targets are too specific they can be distorting, driving councils to meet centrally imposed indicators instead of doing what is best for their local circumstances. A good example of that was the landfill allowance trading scheme, which led to the anomaly of disincentivising the recycling of business waste.

Waste Review

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Spelman]

I thank the Chairman of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for her warm welcome for the Government’s waste review and her recognition that LATS fulfilled a role whose impact the landfill tax has largely overtaken in helping us reduce the amount that goes to landfill.

At the same time as publishing the waste review, I have published the Government’s anaerobic digestion strategy. We see the future for anaerobic digestion as very important. The Select Committee Chairman makes an important point. It is not just food waste that can be used as a feedstock for anaerobic digestion, and we must be careful that food crops are not caught as feedstock for anaerobic digestion. We should be using waste.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I suspect that the Communities Secretary eats rather more chicken tikka masala than the right hon. Lady. Does she agree that the chicken tikka masala remains would be much better put into a food collection than into a black sack? Will she make some progress on further recycling? What does she think of the Friends of the Earth target, which I very much support, of halving black sack waste by 2020?

[Mrs Spelman]

I have to feed teenagers who are rather partial to chicken tikka masala, and there is very little left at the end of the day. The Government will be working with local councils to increase the frequency and quality of rubbish collections and make it easier to recycle, to tackle measures that encourage councils specifically to cut the scope of collections and to support them where they wish to provide a weekly collection for smelly waste.

Forestry Commission

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Tuesday 1st March 2011 Westminster Hall

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

I am very grateful for the opportunity to open this debate on the future of the Forestry Commission. When I applied for the debate the Government were, of course, intent on selling off up to 100% of our public forest estate, which by any standards was an outrageous proposal, especially given Ministers’ repeated boasts of their intention to be the greenest Government ever. The U-turn made by the Secretary of State on 17 February, heralded by the Prime Minister’s disowning of the policy the day before, has to be one of the most humiliating ever. Just like the U-turns on green individual savings accounts, housing benefit, rape anonymity, dissolution of Parliament, knife offences, school sports, Bookstart, free nursery milk and debt advice, the forestry U-turn was the result of a rushed and ill-conceived set of proposals, put forward by an ideologically driven Government.

Where did the policy come from? It certainly did not come from the people who carried out the Labour Government’s review of the public forest estate. I suggest that once again we see a Secretary of State out of touch with the community of interests relating to her Department, and I only hope that the 500,000 people who rose up in protest against the forest proposals will do so again to defeat another Secretary of State and his plans to restructure the NHS.

As a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, I had responsibility for the Forestry Commission for a short time, and was very impressed with how the custodians of our public forest estate were developing their mission. They had moved some considerable way from the overriding timber priorities of the past, to delivering multi-purpose sustainable forestry, embracing the need to combat climate change, to enhance both biodiversity and leisure pursuits, and to develop sources of renewable fuel. We, the Labour Government, wanted to build on that progress, alongside our Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 and the creation of two new national parks, and so in November 2008 we launched the review of the public forest estate, to which I referred earlier. That review was conducted by independent representatives from academia, the civil service, industry and nature conservation, and the research covered the economic, environmental and social costs and benefits of the public forest estate. It was accompanied by a public consultation, which received more than 4,000 responses. The review group’s final report was presented to the Forestry Commission in May 2010, and its findings offered a way forward that was very different from the wholesale sell-off proposed by the Minister.

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

The right hon. Lady has made a number of comments about the Labour proposals, but she has not mentioned that the Forestry Commission is both a big commercial operator in the forestry market and a regulator of everyone else—all its competition. Was that part of the Labour party’s consideration, and did it feature at all in its report?

[Joan Ruddock]

The report, which was of course independent, was never responded to by the Labour Government, for the obvious reason that there was an election. The report went to the Forestry Commission and there was no opportunity for us to respond, but I recommend it to the hon. Gentleman. It took a considerable amount of time—more than a year—and came up with a huge range of suggestions, and the underlying research, which was reported on, was very important. The issues that the hon. Gentleman mentions are in the report, and I will come on to say what I think was very important about the review.

Has the Minister read that report? I wonder whether he has read this:

“Public consultation and social research showed passionate engagement with the public forest estate…and most people saw it as relevant to their lives”,

or this, among the major recommendations:

“The public forest estate should remain large scale, widely distributed throughout England, have a flexible and varied cross-section of all types of woodland, be able to provide a significant volume of products, services, skills and experience, and remain under public control and accountability.”

I have to assume that the Minister did not read the report; otherwise, how could he and his colleagues have embarked on such a reckless policy of selling off the lot?

That brings me to future sales. I say immediately that some sales can be justified when holdings are small or distant from the main estate, and when they are degraded or appropriate for restoration to open land. Over the 13 years of Labour Government our policies resulted in the sale of 9,000 hectares and a consequent purchase of 5,000 hectares—a net change of 4,000 hectares over 13 years. The comprehensive spending review announced the sale of 10 times that amount—40,000 hectares over a mere four years—quite separate from the new legislation that had now been abandoned. This Tory-led Government have sold 1,748 hectares to date, but we have been told that no further sales will take place—awaiting new advice. Can the Minister tell us how the Government—not necessarily his Department—expect to find the £745 million that their forestry sales were expected to realise, or what percentage of the public forest estate he still expects to sell off over the next four years, albeit with his new potential safeguards?

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

Will the right hon. Lady give way?

[Joan Ruddock]

If the Minister wishes to answer now rather than in his summation, of course I will give way.

[Mr Paice]

I can assure the right hon. Lady that I have a number of points to make when I wind up the debate, but I am slightly puzzled about where she got the figure of £745 million—the supposed gain from the sales—from, given that during the debate on this issue in the Chamber, the Labour Front-Bench spokesperson, the hon. Member for Leicester South (Sir Peter Soulsby), said that there was nothing in it financially for the Government.

[Joan Ruddock]

I am simply citing the Government’s own ambitions, and there are substantial sums to be realised from sales. I cannot, off the top of my head, remember what the Government have raised from the 1,748 hectares sold off already, but it is certainly many millions. I would be delighted if the Minister answered my question in his response, and told us what was expected to be raised from the sales of the forestry lands—the 15%. Will he also indicate how the Government will make up that money if they do not go ahead with the sale of the 15%? They cannot have it both ways; either they plan to sell or they do not. If they plan to sell, I know—I have been a Minister myself—that the Minister will have a real estimate of the financial result of those sales.

I have another question for the Minister. In principle, does he rule in or rule out the sale of woodland in national parks, areas of outstanding natural beauty, community forests and sites of special scientific interest? Will he confirm that DEFRA still requires the Forestry Commission to cut its budget by 25% this year, with a potential loss of 400 jobs? Surely job losses of such magnitude undermine any recommendations that his new panel might make for the future of the Forestry Commission.

In the drafting of the terms and conditions of the independent panel, is any account being taken of the findings of Labour’s review of the public forest estate? The Minister frowns, but it was an independent review carried out by experts over 12 months and was available to his Government the moment they took office, and it appears that he did not even bother to read it before coming up with these madcap proposals. Referring to the review would be significant.

Critically, will the panel be allowed to consider continuing public ownership? The Minister frowns again, but the consultation that has just been cancelled prohibited continuing public ownership. The new panel’s terms of reference will be significant. The public believe that they have won a great battle now that the consultation and plans have been cancelled pending the findings of the independent review, but the panel’s terms of reference are critical to determining the future.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

Is the right hon. Lady aware that in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and in the area that I represent, public forests are retained for public use and are not to be sold? Does she feel that the decisions of other regions in the United Kingdom to retain public forests should be part of the panel’s review and its final decision making?

[Joan Ruddock]

Perhaps forests in the other part of the United Kingdom are safer left out of the Government’s review. I am not sure that I would trust this Government with any bit of the forest, whether in Scotland, Northern Ireland or Wales. History to date suggests that we in England have been poorly served by this Government and their proposals; perhaps other regions are on safer ground. However, it will be for the Minister to answer the hon. Gentleman’s question.

I have a list of questions for the Minister. I shall not speak at huge length, as I want to hear his answers and do not want him to run out of time. Will he guarantee that there will be a place on the panel for representatives of the Forestry Commission work force? How will the voices of those who campaigned to defeat his proposals be represented? Will the panel’s deliberations be held in public?

The public have shown overwhelming support for our public forests; I pay tribute to the campaign 38 Degrees. The Government would be well advised to harness that support. The public forest estate in England must be maintained as the national asset that it is, under a single management structure. Rather than being sold off, it should be extended.

I pay tribute to my constituents and those of other MPs who took the time not only to express their outrage at the Government’s proposals but to tell us what the forests mean to them. Annette Lewis from Brockley wrote to me:

“As I have always lived in cities, I know how important it is for city dwellers to access the countryside. I believe in the preservation of woodland in public ownership for future generations. I want my children and their children to be able to find the joy and relaxation I have found from a walk in the woods.”

Hazel Montgomery from Lewisham Central wrote that

“there are many places around south-east London and Kent which are woodland. They are fantastic because London is so overcrowded and children love to roam freely in safety with parents; this is so for all our national woodlands.”

Simon Brammer of Telegraph Hill, who works on climate change, wrote:

“How can we ask other countries much poorer than our own not to chop down forests, critical in regulating our climate and storing carbon, when we are prepared to sell our own for a song”?

[Hon. Members]

Rubbish!

[Glyn Davies]

The right hon. Lady refers to the chopping down of forests. Is she aware that forests can be cut down only if a licence is granted, and that in almost every instance new forest must be planted in its place?

[Joan Ruddock]

I am more than aware of that. I am expressing the passionately held views of my constituents. If people are concerned enough to write to their MPs in unprecedented numbers, it is important that we understand their concerns. Concerns about climate change and the future of this planet are dear to the hearts of many of our constituents.

[Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)]

rose—

[Joan Ruddock]

If the hon. Gentleman will calm down for a moment, I will be more than pleased to give way. I am dealing with a point already raised. The issues are important, and it is greatly to the credit of the public in this country that they can and do associate our precious forests with tackling climate change and have linked that issue to the fact that we should not only do what we must in the developed world but seek to influence those in the underdeveloped world who have custodianship of the most important forests in the world. That is important, and I resent the fact that Conservative Members should attempt to rubbish my constituents on an issue about which they are passionately and properly concerned.

[Damian Hinds]

I did not hear anybody rubbish anybody, but for the avoidance of doubt, although important issues are being discussed about the future of the Forestry Commission’s estate, will the right hon. Lady acknowledge that the subject is not in the slightest related to deforestation or the chopping down of forests?

[Joan Ruddock]

No, absolutely not. The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. We have one of the smallest forest estates in Europe, so the extent of ours is important to people. I argue that if we keep the forest estate in public ownership, we are more likely to be able to deal with the diseases that are arising and manage it comprehensively and effectively, and less likely to encounter some of the problems that occur when forest estates are fragmented and people fear, maybe wrongly, that trees will be felled unnecessarily. He will know that over the years, the Forestry Commission has changed its culture and become very aware of the great issues of our time, such as the threat of climate change and the loss of biodiversity. People understand that. It is important that we as parliamentarians associate ourselves with those concerns and in no way criticise people when they want to bring them to our attention.

I was about to wind up, but gave way because there was such agitation opposite. I now come to my final point. I have read out only selected comments from the long e-mails that I received from three of the 392 constituents who contacted me, and they will now ask, as I do, what exactly is the future of the Forestry Commission?

--- Later in debate ---

[Joan Ruddock]

The hon. Gentleman has to take into account the many remarks that have been made, not least by the Minister, about the so-called sell-off and disposal of up to 100% of the forest estate. The hon. Gentleman criticises the term “sell-off,” but the fact is that disposals of whatever kind mean that the estate is totally fragmented. That is the big difference and that is why it is so significant.

[Tony Baldry]

I do not wish to pursue this point, but the right hon. Lady was a Minister in the previous Government and understands the concept of collective government, so she well understands that comments by a Secretary of State at the Dispatch Box represent the collective view of the Government. The Secretary of State could not have been clearer when she spoke at the Dispatch Box about what the Government intended to do.

I was fortunate to grow up in Burnham Beeches, which is a substantial area of woodland between Maidenhead and Slough that is owned and very well managed by the City of London corporation. It makes the point that much of our woodland in this country is owned by a diverse group of owners. I am a Church Commissioner and the Church Commissioners own a fair amount of woodland, much of it in our agricultural estate, and we lease woodland to the Forestry Commission. Having had the opportunity as a child to enjoy the benefits of Burnham Beeches, I am conscious of the importance of woodland. Moreover, as a representative of the county of Oxfordshire, which has very little woodland cover, I am conscious of how important it is to encourage woodland cover as a whole.

When I was fortunate enough to be a Minister in the Department of the Environment, I was proud to be part of a ministerial team that advanced initiatives on both the national forest and the community forest. At that time, Mr Gray, you were a distinguished special adviser to Ministers in the Department.

--- Later in debate ---

[Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I have been inspired to speak by the previous contributions, particularly that of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). I congratulate her on providing this useful opportunity to have a considered discussion about an issue that is hugely important to me personally. I am enjoying the debate.

I agreed with much of what the right hon. Lady said about objectives. I love forests. As a farmer, I planted forests on my land, purely for my own pleasure—they are of limited commercial benefit. Like the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams), I, too, should declare an interest, albeit a small one, in that I planted woodlands with the support of Forestry Commission grants, and my main farm is surrounded by Forestry Commission land.

Clearly, the objective has been to increase biodiversity. That is a stated objective of the Government as well as the Opposition. It is also hugely important that we increase and improve access. I must say that when I first saw reports on the coalition Government’s intention to change the ownership of woodland, I had personal concerns because of my huge interest.

When I was a young man, I spent much of my time on Forestry Commission land at Cwmystwyth in central Wales looking at red kites. I make this point because it is relevant to another contribution that we heard. There were probably no more than about a dozen red kites left in the whole of Britain. The only way we were able to reintroduce the red kite into central parts of England—people can now see them everywhere along the M40 as they drive into London—and the north-east is because many people in mid-Wales put in a lot of voluntary effort to retain the red kite when its very existence was threatened.

The one part of the right hon. Lady’s speech that caused me concern was the way in which she misinterpreted what the coalition Government intended to do. Like other Members, I have received letters and e-mails—I think there were 250, although the proposals did not even apply in Wales. Even before I heard the Secretary of State’s statement in the House, I thought that people had misunderstood what the Government were proposing. After the statement, I wrote to those 250 people and sent them a copy of what the Secretary of State actually said in the House. Much of the statement was drowned out—it was a noisy, highly emotional debate, and I do not think that people actually heard what was said. I have not had 250 e-mails back, but I have probably had 15, and people are saying, “We didn’t know that. We didn’t understand what the Government were actually planning to do.” They were much more supportive of the plans. However, I do not want to hark back too much to that, because we are now moving forward.

[Joan Ruddock]

Is it the hon. Gentleman’s understanding that the Government were proposing—and, therefore, could propose again in future—the disposal of anything up to the whole national forest estate? He has criticised use of the words “sell off”, but “disposal” would mean that the Forestry Commission and its comprehensive approach to the national forests would no longer exist. The situation would be very different.

[Glyn Davies]

No, that was not my understanding. Clearly, I had an interest, and I had concerns because of reports in the newspapers, but I must admit that I do not always believe everything I read in the newspapers. Sometimes interesting issues are raised, but that was not my understanding, which was why I said that I waited to hear exactly what the Government were proposing before making a judgment. I thought that the speech in the House during the last major debate was sensibly based.

However, I want to move on from that to an issue of concern that has not been addressed: the position of the Forestry Commission as both regulator and a major operator in the field. That is a real issue which, at some stage, the Government will have to address. It cannot be right that the body that is the main commercial operator in the field also regulates all its competitors. That matter will have to be dealt with. The one other aspect to which we must refer—this something which my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) raised—is dealing with commercial property. I cannot see the sense in Government dealing with commercial forestry. Changing the ownership or management of forestry through lease is crucial. We have to get back to a position of maintaining or increasing access, increasing biodiversity wherever possible, and contributing to fighting climate change if that is part of the wider debate, as it should be. That can be better done through lease than sale, which is why I hugely welcomed the original debate.

I want to refer to Wales. I live in Wales, and a lot of people say that the Government there are taking a completely different line on the issue. The hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire made that point. What is proposed in Wales is that the estate should be retained, but there will be improved and more dynamic management, and there will occasionally be sales. That policy really is not very different from what we might propose. One does not know where we go from here, but a report is coming, and things will not be the same as before. To say that we will simply retain forestry in aspic in the other nations is not accurate. In all areas, where a large part of land is owned, there has to be a degree of flexibility and of management responding to conditions as they come along, and that will be what we will do. That is all I wish to say.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr James Paice)]

I have attended many debates in Westminster Hall, which is normally a place for relatively non-controversial issues to be raised and discussed in a calm manner by hon. Members from all parties. I am afraid I cannot say that of today. The opening speech by the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) repeated many of the myths and nonsenses that we have heard during previous discussions and questions about forestry. It was not the serious contribution to the future of the Forestry Commission that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Roger Williams) referred to and urged upon us.

I will address some of the key issues and respond where I can to the questions raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry) rightly pointed out that part of the public concern arose from the Public Bodies Bill. One can look back and say that the cart was put before the horse, but because we believed that changes to the Forestry Commission were necessary and we were conscious of the constraints of the legislation, we decided to put the provision into what appeared to be a suitable vehicle to permit us to make those changes. I am the first to recognise that, together with the remarks I made to which the hon. Member for Leicester South (Sir Peter Soulsby) referred—I am not withdrawing those remarks, but they were back in October—that allowed people to become concerned. As it happened, that concern was unnecessary, but it allowed a number of myths to gain credence.

In the communication to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I used the word “disposal” carefully. I did not use the word “sale” because, as will be observed, the consultation document often implied disposal but not sale. Part of the absurd nonsense from the right hon. Lady included the figure of £745 million, which I suspect she took from the Forestry Commission’s annual report. That is actually the book value of all the public forestry estate, prior to any discounts for the preservation of access and other public interests. It includes the book value of the New Forest and the Forest of Dean, and we made it clear that for both of those the disposal was to be free—gratis—had it gone through. The right hon. Lady’s figures were absurd; the concept of disposal included a free handover to a charitable trust.

[Joan Ruddock]

I am more than happy to be corrected. Perhaps the Minister will let us know the estimate for the amount of money that would be raised by the disposals of which he speaks.

[Mr Paice]

As the right hon. Lady knows, the consultation document contained a lot of variability, particularly about what might be called the middle strata of woodlands and forests—not heritage but not the main commercial areas—where there was a range of options. The income from that is not easy to estimate, but we published an impact assessment as required, and the figures are in the public domain. I repeat: the primary objective of the proposition was not simply to raise cash. I will return in a moment to the issue of ongoing sales.

The right hon. Lady referred to the 0.5 million people who expressed concern about this matter. I cannot help but observe that she took a lot less notice of the 0.5 million people who opposed a ban on fox hunting and whom she treated with disdain.

[Mr Paice]

Quite. As we have said, and as the Secretary of State said in the House, we recognised that public concern was raised dramatically, and that it was a pointless exercise to continue with the consultation in that environment. Therefore, we have withdrawn it and I do not propose to waste more time discussing what was or was not in the consultation document. That would not be constructive.

The issue was raised of the ongoing sales, or the 15% of the Forestry Commission estate that is in the spending review for the next four years. It is estimated that we would have raised £100 million from the sale of up to 15% of the forestry estate in England. The hon. Member for Leicester South asked what is happening to that, and as the Secretary of State made clear, we have suspended that process. No parcels of land or forests will be offered for sale until the panel—to which I will refer later—has reported and made recommendations regarding the protection of public interests. At the moment, there is no direct financial consequence. The £100 million, although placed in our spending review, was not allocated to any heads of expenditure. Therefore, other than a short-term cash-flow issue, there are no direct consequences of deferring those sales. I hope that explanation has clarified the issue.

A point was made about sales by previous Governments. Again, that makes me doubt the right hon. Lady’s—the hon. Lady’s—

[Joan Ruddock]

Right honourable.

[Mr Paice]

My apologies. It makes me doubt the right hon. Lady’s commitment to the whole picture. On her website, she has been on about how much land the previous Conservative Government and the Forestry Commission sold. Of course, she omits to point out that most of that was in Scotland, because under that previous Government the Forestry Commission was one body, so in comparison with what happened under the Labour Government, who were selling only in England after devolution, the figures look dramatically different. She also omitted to mention, although one of my hon. Friends did mention it, that under the previous Government tree planting fell to an all-time low. The rate halved under the Government of whom she was so proud to be a member.

Much has been said about the fact that the public forest estate comprises just 18% of all woods and forests in England. We should not in any way ignore that statistic. It is clear that many people were confused about how much of the forestry in this country was owned or rented by the Forestry Commission. It is just 18%. Although the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford and other hon. Members have been, by implication, quite damning of the 69% that is held in private hands—the rest is in other forms of public or community ownership—we do not see with that 69% all the disasters that we were told would befall public land if it went into the private sector. As my hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) rightly pointed out, people cannot fell trees in this country without a felling licence, and almost certainly they will have to replant. Indeed, since I have been the Minister responsible, I have had to intervene on a few occasions to enforce the replanting requirements to ensure that that happens. Therefore, suggestions of massive deforestation are completely absurd and take us away from the serious debate that others want to address.

Let me deal with some of the specific questions that I was asked. I will not disclose anything about the content of the panel, because the Secretary of State will announce in due course who will serve on the panel and what its terms of reference will be. I can emphasise, though, that the status quo—the hon. Member for Leicester South asked about this—is of course an option. If the panel recommends that, clearly it is entitled to do so. To rule it out would be nonsensical. If the panel recommends change, the issue of public consultation comes back into play, so there will be plenty of time. The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said that if the panel concludes in favour of anything other than the status quo, we will not have listened to the public. I say to him that we will consult the public about any changes if the panel recommends them. I do not want to prejudge what the outcome of the panel will be.

The hon. Member for Leicester South asked how we would guarantee independence. The chairman will be appointed and will be completely independent; indeed, all the members will be. We are not filling the panel with civil servants or anything like that. It will be completely independent. It will be for the members to decide how they operate, but I cannot see why they should not have public meetings if that seems appropriate.

The hon. Gentleman asked about the 25% cut, and other hon. Members have raised that. All Opposition Members should be well aware that they managed to leave this country in desperate straits and we have had to take very tough decisions on public expenditure. All DEFRA’s arm’s length bodies have had to take a 25% cut, just as core DEFRA has had to. That is tough, and I feel for all the people who may find themselves losing jobs or not being able to get a job because the job has disappeared as a result. However, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, the deficit must come first—we must deal with it. I will not apologise—indeed, it should be for those on the Opposition Benches to apologise—for the fact that we have had to make those reductions. The details of how they will be made in this area are a matter for the Forestry Commission. It has made its proposals, which are out for consultation. It would be wrong of me to discuss them in public while that consultation is going on.

A number of other points were raised. I shall try to encapsulate some of them but, most importantly, I want to make the point that, contrary to the impression that the Opposition have tried to give, the Government feel very strongly about forestry. Perhaps I should have said, like other hon. Members, that I have the grand total of 1 hectare of woodland on my own little property. Like others, I planted it myself 20 years ago under a woodland grant scheme, although that has long since expired, and I am proud to spend a lot of time in it managing it. I passionately believe in the importance of forestry. What I do not believe is that the status quo is automatically always the best way forward. It is right that we should reconsider how the Forestry Commission operates, and the panel will advise us on whether there should be changes.

It is worth pointing out that the Forestry Commission’s commercial arm makes a margin of just £1 million on its commercial activities. That is substantially offset by the understandable costs of recreation, amenity, biodiversity and the other services that the commission provides, as a number of hon. Members rightly identified. That means that there is a massive overall cost to the taxpayer. As my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, in the past the commission has made that up by selling off assets on an annual basis, and it has been selling those assets without the protection for public access, rights of way and all the other things that Opposition Members now preach to us about. Those things were not protected, so Opposition Members are not in a good position to criticise us.

We hope that the panel will consider all aspects of the public forest estate. As I said, the Secretary of State will publish details of the proposed membership and the terms of reference of the panel shortly. We look forward to the conclusions that it comes to. I can assure the House that the present Government’s genuine commitment to forestry in this country—public, private and community—is real and as strong as it has ever been.

The truth of what I have just said is underlined by the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury said, the National Forest was brought in by a Conservative Government, who did a tremendous amount of work in developing forestry in the former coal mining areas of the midlands. That is a great place for everyone to visit. The real point to make, though, is that virtually none of it is on state-owned land. Planting has been incentivised on private and community-owned land, not public land bought by the Forestry Commission. Therefore, we can have a vibrant, strong forest in this country, with access and with all the necessary protection for biodiversity. Whether the state needs to be involved not only in owning it but in managing and running it is now a matter for the panel, the details of which we will announce shortly.

Public Forest Estate (England)

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mary Creagh]

Yes, we risk a cross-infection of job losses across the Forestry Commission estate with these proposals.

It is not only Forestry Commission staff who are worried. David Sulman, executive director of the UK Forest Products Association, called the proposals

“a recipe for disaster. If these leasing plans go ahead, thousands of jobs in the forestry and forest products sector will be put in jeopardy; many businesses could be starved of their wood supply and would face closure as a consequence.”

There is no plan for rural jobs and growth here.

The consultation is full of holes. The Government talk about the big society, but the Forestry Commission and its communities are the big society. The Department’s impact assessment shows that the costs will outweigh the benefits. There is no mandate for this. The coalition agreement promised

“measures to…promote green spaces and wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity.”

How will these sales achieve that?

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend have any idea what would happen to partnerships such as the Capital Woodlands project, which cares for biodiversity and conservation in the urban areas of London? More than 300 of my constituents from the inner city have written to express their concern about the wider issues that she has described, but also about those precious green spaces in the capital.

[Mary Creagh]

My right hon. Friend is right to raise the issue of woodland in the capital, which is something that the Labour Government sought to extend. Also, it is important that people living in cities have the enjoyment of woodlands and access to forests. How do the sales achieve that? What has happened to the Government’s woodland strategy?

What role can a broken-up forest play in carbon capture and storage? The answer is on page 51 of the closely read impact assessment, which says:

“The co-ordinated approach to implementing adaptation measures across the public forest estate would be put at risk through large-scale changes in ownership.”

However, we need to step back from the Public Bodies Bill and the full sell-off and look at what is happening in England’s forests right now. Ministers can sell off 15% of English woodland without any change to the law. [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary says from a seated position that that is why we did it. I have already explained how much was sold under the Labour Government; I want now to come to what will be sold by him. In our 13 years in government, we sold just 4,000 hectares net, reinvesting the proceeds in forestry.

The Secretary of State told the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in November that she and her Ministers had already factored in £74.5 million of sales under existing laws. However, she gave no guarantees that the money would flow back to the Forestry Commission. Indeed she was at pains to point out that

“it would be perfectly possible for us to use the proceeds from sales of these assets towards increasing the capital available for flood defences”.

We need to step back a minute. She has cut the flood defence budget by 27% and wants to sell off our forests to make up the shortfall that she has imposed. That does not strike me as any way to run a Department.

Oral Answers to Questions

Joan Ruddock Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Richard Benyon]

I can assure my hon. Friend that we continue to challenge the cost assumptions behind that scheme. It is a massive undertaking, and I can see that it will fall on Thames Water’s charge payers, so we want to ensure that if it goes ahead, it goes ahead because it has to, and that the work is done at the best possible price.

[Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) (Lab)]

In 2003 my private Member’s Bill became the Household Waste Recycling Act, obliging local authorities to introduce doorstep recycling. Local authorities have until the 31st of this month to comply, and I am glad to say that 94% are in compliance. What does the Minister intend to do about the remaining 6%?

[Richard Benyon]

The right hon. Lady is a great expert in that field, and I pay tribute to her on that issue. It is an absolute priority for our Department, and it is being taken forward as part of the waste review, not only to ensure that the difficult wins are achieved, but to consider how we can continue to encourage local authorities to deal with areas where, on recycling, there is still a long way to go.