Protection of Ancient Woodland and Trees

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 10th December 2015 Westminster Hall

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

Thank you, Mr Turner, for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. I, as one of the last of the Back-Bench contributors, have the great pleasure of congratulating all those who have spoken before me, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), who has done a wonderful job not only of securing the debate, but of alerting other right hon. and hon. Members to the fact that it was going to take place. It has certainly been very well attended so far.

I note that until very recently the Scottish National party was well represented in this debate. I understand that the party is not fully represented at the moment, for good reasons, and I know that it is the long-term aim of its Members to cease to be represented entirely at Westminster. All I can say is that, while they are here, their contributions to our debates are greatly appreciated.

My right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs Gillan) managed to marry with the topic of this debate the relentless and gallant campaign that she has been waging to preserve so much of our precious rural heritage against the depredations of HS2. I am sure that this phase of her parliamentary career will be well remembered by future generations who benefit from the restrictions and reductions in the devastation that building HS2 along its original planned route would otherwise have inflicted. Those reductions are greatly to be welcomed, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend has many more in mind before she desists.

My hon. Friends the Members for North West Hampshire (Kit Malthouse) and for Cannock Chase (Amanda Milling) embodied something that I have noticed about the whole debate. We are all used to having fraught debates and arguments in this Chamber and in the main Chamber of the House, but something seemed to come over every contributor to this debate as soon as they became involved and engrossed in the topic: a quality of content and delivery that was almost poetic. That speaks to the vital importance not only physically, but psychologically, of our valued, treasured and wonderful ancient woodlands to the people who have the privilege of enjoying them.

I understand that the definition that woodlands must meet to qualify as ancient is that the site must have existed since at least 1600 AD. Given that the New Forest dates from 1079, it clearly qualifies very easily, although it must be borne in mind that it is called the New Forest precisely because it was a creation by man to supply fresh meat to William the Conqueror and his entourage. Hence, the term “new” in our history means approaching merely 1,000 years old, which I suppose is new on some basis of terminology.

The networks of woodland in and around the New Forest collectively form one of the largest extents of lowland forest remaining in western Europe. I am indebted to the New Forest National Park Authority for providing me with a briefing on some of the main aspects of what I am about to say. There are 4,800 hectares of the ancient and ornamental woodlands in the Open Forest alone and there are many privately owned fragments within the New Forest national park boundary. While their communities of plants and animals, many now rare, are an echo of the prehistoric wildwoods that covered much of Britain, they have since been uniquely shaped by farmers, commoners, local people, livestock and wild animals, resulting in the complex landscape and ecological patterns that we see today.

About 1,500 ancient or veteran trees have been recorded so far in the New Forest, most within the ancient and ornamental woodlands in the heart of the New Forest, but many on private land. Those trees have a feeling of great age and character, with gnarled and twisted trunks, crevices and hollows and a large girth, some more than 8 metres around—hon. Members can tell that I did not draft those words myself, as I would have been most unlikely to have used metres rather than more traditional measures. Oaks and ash trees will be at least 400 years old, while yews can live for over 1,000 years.

The character of the New Forest has been well summed up by Mr Oliver Crosthwaite-Eyre, who is not only the current chairman of the New Forest National Park Authority, but a distinguished former official verderer of the New Forest. In connection with the topic we are debating, he said to me:

“The New Forest is believed to have one of the largest extents of Ancient Woodland in Western Europe. Immensely old, and full of character, some of the ancient trees within these woodlands are especially rare. Our Ancient Woodlands have been sculpted by man, revered by generations of local people and survived through remarkable changes in the world around them. They are unique and cannot be replaced. In the New Forest we are working together to protect, enhance and manage our Ancient Woodlands; they are such an important part of our living, working landscape and we want them to remain so for future generations.”

For people in the modern age, ancient woodlands are a retreat from hustle and bustle—somewhere it is possible to find peace and inspiration, and to get closer to nature. There is strong evidence supporting the idea that the use and enjoyment of woodlands improves people’s overall health and wellbeing. Indeed, they have been described as a natural health service.

Although the UK was covered in woodland 10,000 years ago, after the last ice age, woodland now covers only about 2% of the land area of the UK. That is why it is so vital that it must be protected for future generations. There is not only the question of the physical destruction of ancient woodland, but a risk of tree pests and diseases entering the country from abroad, as well as non-native invasive plants that spread within woodlands and put native wildlife at risk. Natural England estimates that 15% of ancient woodland is located within national parks and 30% is located within areas of outstanding natural beauty. In national parks, 29% of the woodland has site of special scientific interest status, as does 13% of woodland in areas of outstanding natural beauty.

One thing I have found, as a city boy who was fortunate enough to be selected to represent a wonderful rural constituency, is that for all the peace, tranquillity and beauty of the gorgeous New Forest, it is not without controversy. There are many organisations and people with a long history of interest and participation in the activities of the New Forest. I think I am right in saying that, of all the national parks, the New Forest is the most densely populated.

Among the commentators with long experience and great reputation on matters concerning the New Forest is Mr Anthony Pasmore, who regularly writes an expert column in the local press on current affairs affecting the welfare of the forest environment. He has drawn to my attention the danger of trying to be what could almost be described as “too naturalistic” in the conservation of the forest. For example, when we have storms—as inevitably occur from time to time—that cause windfall destruction of parts of the forest, ancient and not so ancient, there is now a tendency to leave all the fallen trees where they lie. I understand that, traditionally, it has always been understood that some 20% of windfall trees should be left behind to create beneficial habitats for beetles and other wildlife. There is always a slight tension between trying to interfere to the minimum amount necessary and remembering that the New Forest is a living, working forest. He raised with me the fact that there is an almost blanket ban on the withdrawing and removal of tree debris following such destruction, which is actually making the forest less habitable and less accessible to human beings by overdoing the environment that one wishes to preserve for the beetles and other wildlife.

[Rebecca Pow]

My right hon. Friend is waxing so lyrical and making such a good point that I cannot resist joining in. Many of these ancient woods are not just old relics with rotting wood; they are managed landscapes, many of which have been coppiced over time so that man can use the wood for other purposes. These ancient woodlands are still valuable, and I am sure that large tracts of the New Forest are included in that.

[Mr Charles Walker in the Chair]

[Dr Lewis]

That is precisely the point that I was endeavouring to make, and my hon. Friend makes it with far greater fluency than my poor efforts.

Anthony Pasmore draws attention to the fact that the New Forest is just that: it is ancient, but it is also new. It is what it is because, as he puts it, there is a “question of balance”. There has to be a question of balance between letting nature take its course and managing the forest in such ways as go with the grain of beauty and accessibility, rather than always trying to take too rigid a stance, which might inhibit the ability of the community that lives and works there to enjoy the New Forest. Those are secondary issues; the most important fact is that we have this wonderful asset.

I shall conclude with a rather modern controversy, namely, the possibility of hydraulic fracturing taking place underneath a national park at some stage. We have heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham about how it is possible to preserve and save woodlands by driving tunnels deep beneath them, and therefore, in principle, it might well be possible to extract valuable energy assets from a long way below the surface even of sensitive areas. We know that hydraulic fracturing may well yield great dividends for our country’s economy, but there are plenty of parts of the United Kingdom where we can master the technology long before we need to bring it anywhere near those particularly precious areas that have been designated as national parks. This is my appeal: the Government should by all means explore fracking technology, but they should make sure that they know what they are doing, by practice and by developing a successful industry based on hydraulic fracturing in less sensitive areas of the country, before approaching anywhere near our ancient woodlands and national parks.

Sale of Puppies and Kittens

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 4th September 2014 Commons Chamber

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

It is a privilege to speak at the end of this debate, because it has been a good debate and all parties have come together. I have the great pleasure of chairing the all-party group on animal welfare, and I believe this is an issue that we all care strongly about.

There are more than 11 million cats in this country, and Blue Cross and Cats Protection take in between 4,000 and 5,000 stray cats and kittens a month. That shows the scale of the problem with not only puppies but kittens. If kittens are taken too early from their mother, not only is that bad for their welfare, but most will probably depart this world for health reasons. We must be clear about that.

It is more important than ever to ensure that we can enforce whatever legislation is in place—I am sure that is what the Minister will speak about this afternoon. It is no good having legislation that we cannot enforce. This is not just an animal welfare problem. When someone chooses a puppy, they are bringing an animal into their household. They may have young children, and that puppy is potentially dangerous and could grow into a dangerous dog. If people do not see the mother of that puppy and the environment in which it has been raised, they will not know what could happen in their family with that puppy.

With the internet, it is becoming much easier to access a puppy, and if someone goes to buy one and their child picks it up and loves it, it is difficult for them to say they are not going to buy it. Not only will the puppy be difficult from a welfare and behavioural point of view, it may be suffering from many diseases. It probably will not have had proper inoculations or been dealt with properly, whether it has come from a badly managed puppy farm or from eastern European countries where, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend West (Mr Amess) mentioned, rabies and other diseases are a problem. We must act on all those issues to protect people from buying the wrong type of puppy or kitten.

I am not against designer dogs such as Cockapoos or Labradoodles, but they are expensive. People decide they want this type of dog, they look on the internet and they see a puppy that is half or a third of the normal price of a Cockapoo or Labradoodle. Naturally, people buy the cheaper puppy, which has probably come in from central or eastern Europe. Therein lies the problem.

I welcome the Government’s introduction of microchipping, but we have to make sure that it happens. Will those who breed puppies in their backyards and should not be breeding puppies be the sort of people who will microchip them? No, they will not.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making such a superb speech that I think we need to hear an extra minute, so may I ask him if he is aware of the work of wonderful charities such as Woofability in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr Chope)? Such charities train dogs beautifully to do tremendous work for disabled people, such as pulling their socks off, taking the washing out of the washing machine and all sorts of tasks that able-bodied people think nothing of doing, but which are of huge assistance to someone confined to a wheelchair?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend highlights not only that dogs can help people with certain tasks that they are unable to do themselves, but that a dog is a part of the family and an individual’s life. For many elderly people, their dog becomes their life, so if they lose a dog and then buy the wrong type of puppy—it might be diseased or have huge behavioural problems—that becomes a serious social issue as well. It is imperative, therefore, that we deal with the situation.

The Minister has many weapons in his armoury already, but there is not enough enforcement. Are we tracking vans coming through the ports of Dover and elsewhere with illegal puppies? Are we checking them? Do we know what is coming in? Are we checking the microchips already in dogs? According to Battersea Dogs & Cats Home and Blue Cross, only a third of the microchips they see in puppies and dogs are accurate. Not only do puppies need to be properly microchipped, but we need a national database to trace where dogs have come from.

If we ignore this situation, I fear it will get worse. People have got so used to buying clothes, shoes or whatever on the internet that unfortunately they think they can do the same with puppies. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have strongly made the argument that, for goodness sake, when someone buys a puppy, they should make sure they know where it has come from, have seen its mother, have seen where it has been bred and know how the mother behaved, so that they know what they are bringing into their home and can have a successful and loving pet. That is what people in this country believe in. The vast majority of people do a good job, but we have to stamp down hard on the rogues in our society.

National Park Authorities (Elections)

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 28th November 2012 Westminster Hall

[Tim Farron]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. That is true. I will mention the Scottish example in a moment. The elections in the Scottish national parks have engaged people and made them take the national parks seriously, providing a sense of ownership rather than a sense that this is a national thing deposited upon them.

It is important that our national park boards are chosen by local people, not simply chosen by others, so that a strand of legitimacy supports their decision making. Of course, that is not to say that people who are elected will make perfect decisions. We hon. Members present are proud to be elected to this place, but there are occasions when we do not get things perfectly right. Decisions made by people who are accountable will tend to be better, because those people have had to listen to those who have put them where they are.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I agree with the thrust of what the hon. Gentleman is saying. Is he proposing that all or most of the NPA members should be elected? There are a couple of pilot schemes under way, whereby a proportion—about half a dozen—members will stand for election. I am pleased to say that the New Forest national park authority volunteered to be one of the two authorities to go down this route. The NPA in the New Forest got off to a bad start, cutting across the grain of society, leading to protests, but after a complete reorganisation it now works with the community, which is why it is not afraid to volunteer to have at least some of its members elected.

[Tim Farron]

My hon. Friend makes a superb point and underlines the case. I envisage a minority of people, rather than a majority—these are national parks—being there as the local voice. It is commendable that the New Forest NPA has put itself forward and it is to be congratulated on that.

If our national park boards were in part elected, they would, as my hon. Friend said, be far more legitimate in the eyes of local communities, residents and businesses, because there would be a far greater sense of collective ownership of decisions. Local communities would be far more willing to accept even difficult decisions, if they felt that they had at least been arrived at with the local case having been made.

This is about the quality of decisions, not about the quality of the people. The Lake District and the Yorkshire Dales national parks are led by outstanding chief executives. Cumbria’s two national parks are led by Richard Leafe and David Butterworth, decent people with vision and immense competence. The Lake District national park is chaired by Bill Jefferson and the Yorkshire Dales national park by Carl Lis, both of whom are staggeringly hard-working servants of our local community and who are desperate to do the right thing, both by the nation as a whole and by local residents. All the board members I know—I know most of them—are good, decent people who are dedicated to their roles and selflessly give their time and service.

I return to what I said at the beginning. The national parks are there for the enjoyment of the whole nation. It is right that a proportion of the board membership should be selected nationally, but wrong that none of those members should be elected locally.

I welcome the proposed pilots in the Peak district and the New Forest. I note that Scotland has blazed a trail with national parks, with Loch Lomond and the Trossachs electing many of their board members for some years now. But why are all national parks not required to elect some of their members, and why was the nation’s biggest, highest-profile and most populated national park, the Lake District national park, not first on the list in the selection of the pilot project, whether it volunteered or not?

Is there not a special case for introducing democratic legitimacy in the Yorkshire Dales national park, given the genuinely mixed response received in some quarters to plans to extend its boundaries? Many residents and businesses in and around Barbon and Casterton retain deep concerns about proposals that would bring their communities within the boundaries of the Yorkshire dales, not least because these are Westmorland communities and have never been in Yorkshire. Their concerns mostly focus on their fears that, whereas planning and housing decisions affecting them at the moment are made by the democratically elected and accountable South Lakeland district council, in future they may be made by an unelected and unaccountable national park.

There are, of course, dangers in introducing elections to the national parks. Just as many of us do not want our police service party-politicised, we do not want our national parks to become arenas for party politics. I would advocate for party political labels not being allowed in the contest, for example, to ensure that there was no sense that national parks would simply ape local councils in that respect. Nor would we want vast amounts of public money to be spent on such elections. However, given that every year in Cumbria there are parish, district or county elections, it would be possible to ensure that national park elections coincided on the same day to ensure cost savings and, at the same time, to maximise turnout.

If we thought that electing a proportion of national park board members would ensure decisions that everyone was happy with, we would be deluding ourselves. However, life can be tough in our national parks, because incomes are often low, and housing and the cost of living are high. Businesses need to be able to thrive, communities must be able to hang on to their young people, and farmers must be able to continue to farm. What point is there in attempting to maintain a thriving tourism industry in the lakes and the dales, if the dead hand of restriction kills off expansion and innovation?

Do we really want national parks that can only be lived in by the wealthy few, or do we want our national parks to be open to people of all income backgrounds? lf we want thriving businesses and thriving communities for people from all income backgrounds in our national parks, we need to ensure that decisions are taken by people chosen by our local communities, who will be responsive to those communities and will answer to them for decisions that they make, both good and bad.

As Winston Churchill said, democracy is not much of a system, but it is infinitely better than all the alternatives. He was right. It is time that that applied to our national parks, too.

--- Later in debate ---

[Richard Benyon]

I will come on to talk about that, but it is important that the three legs of the stool of sustainability are considered at every stage: environmental, yes; economic, absolutely; as well, of course, as the social dimension the parks give to their inhabitants and visitors. My hon. Friend is absolutely right.

To turn to the main issue of the debate, the coalition’s programme for government said:

“We will review the governance arrangements of National Parks in order to increase local accountability.”

That commitment was honoured with a public consultation that ran from 9 November 2010 until 1 February 2011. The question of accountability and transparency was central to the consultation. The Government take seriously the improvement of the transparency of decision making and an increase in the accountability of national park authorities. We have made it clear that variety between authorities is possible, which would allow that governance to reflect better the national parks’ individual circumstances and histories as part of our commitment to decentralisation and localism.

Since the original legislation was enacted in 1995, there have been calls for some members of park authorities to be directly elected, which now already happens in the Scottish national parks authorities, as my hon. Friends suggested. I said in September 2011 that I had concluded that the time had come for us to explore that option more thoroughly in England, so I consulted on legislation that would allow for the possibility of elections to the national park authorities and the Broads Authority. Initially, we proposed to apply new legislation on a pilot basis in two parks, namely the New Forest—as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest East (Dr Lewis) mentioned—and the Peak District. They provide different contexts in which to assess the effect of directly elected members.

First, I should be clear that although national parks cover some 9% of the country, have a population of more than 320,000 people, encompass in excess of 700 local authorities and parish councils and handle some 9,500 planning cases each year, fewer than 170 responses were received on the question of direct elections, which is a staggeringly low figure. Fewer than 40 of those responses came from individual members of the public. While a majority of responses were generally in favour, there was no clear consensus, even between parks, that direct elections were the answer to improving local accountability. As the Deputy Prime Minister recently made clear, opinion is divided.

Secondly, while much is made of the possible benefits of introducing some elected members into the national park authorities, views are divided and some practicalities need to be taken into account. The legislation required to implement direct elections would be significant, so we would need to identify a suitable opportunity in the parliamentary timetable. I must share with hon. Members the fact that such legislation would not only create a significant call on the time of the House but, as we face the reality of the financial situation, we would be bound to ask if this would really be a good use of public money. Initial estimates indicate that the costs of the proposal could run into many hundreds of thousands or even millions of pounds, although obviously there would be a full cost assessment nearer the time.

Thirdly, the consultation proposed holding pilot elections in the New Forest and Peak District national parks during May 2013. Given that we have not yet secured the required legislation, those pilots obviously will not go ahead on time. It is also clear that we cannot and should not commit to any wider programme of direct elections without piloting so that we can fully understanding what impact, if any, the changes would have on the performance of the national parks in question.

Finally, direct elections are not the only mechanism for improving accountability and openness, and some of the suggestions from the governance review are already being taken forward by individual parks. Many avenues could be explored and, in conjunction with the park authorities, we will continue to look at what can be achieved. It is also worth making the point that local authority members of a national park authority are elected members of the local authority, so they are already held accountable through the ballot box, although not to the satisfaction of some. Similarly, parish council members are sometimes elected.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

I am not entirely happy with the thrust of what the Minister is saying. Are the pilot schemes therefore on hold indefinitely? With the greatest respect to the Government, the legislative pressure on the time of the House of Commons means that it should not be impossible for such relatively uncontentious legislation to be slotted into the timetable, especially if the past few weeks are anything to go by, when we have frequently finished our business earlier than scheduled.

Ash Dieback Disease

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 12th November 2012 Commons Chamber

[Zac Goldsmith (Richmond Park) (Con)]

I welcome the recent action that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has taken to tackle ash dieback, imposing an import ban and restrictions on movement; initiating a national survey to map the extent of the disease; and hosting a summit of forest experts to identify ways of tackling ash dieback in the short term and tree health generally in the long term, on which point I wish to focus briefly.

It is hugely worrying that, as we heard from the Minister, there are 150 confirmed sites with ash dieback, but we need to keep sight of the fact that this is just one of many of the growing number of invasive pests and diseases threatening the UK’s native trees. Seventy per cent. of horse chestnut trees are affected by bleeding canker in some parts of England. Our iconic English oaks are in serious trouble, wilting under assault from acute and chronic oak decline. In part of my constituency, up to 50% of our oaks show signs of acute oak decline. It has been claimed by The Daily Telegraph—so it must be true—that there are more ancient oaks in Richmond park than in all of Germany and France combined. Even if we halve that and allow for a little exuberance, it is still a tragedy to think that these great oaks are facing a very serious threat.

In March, the usually fatal sweet chestnut blight was found to have hopped the channel from France. Sweet chestnut is the main tree species in an estimated 30,000 acres of woodland in Britain. According to a recent report by Robin Maynard of the Countryside Restoration Trust—I declare an interest as a trustee of the CRT—25 new pests and diseases are already established, recently arrived, on their way or seen as likely threats to our trees. Clearly, that is not just a rural problem; a high proportion of the trees under threat are planted in urban areas. For instance, plane trees constitute one 10th of all trees in the capital, and the plane wilt fungus has ravaged 80% of plane trees in France. Last year, French officials revealed that all 42,000 plane trees lining France’s historic Canal du Midi, a world heritage site for the past 10 years, in southern France, would be felled because of the disease.

What is happening? Research implicates a greatly expanded horticultural trade in imported species as the main Trojan horse for new pests and diseases. It accounts for up to 70% of invasive introductions to the US and anything up to 90% to the UK. It is believed that Phytophthora ramorum in larch came in on one viburnum shrub imported from the EU to a nursery in Cornwall in 2002. A batch of maples imported into the EU and Britain from China was found, despite being certified pest-free by the Chinese authorities, to be infested with Asian longhorn beetles. Oak processionary moth infestations have been tracked back to one large specimen oak brought in from Holland. It came in roughly six years ago, and in my constituency it has grown exponentially. The tragedy is that the annual cost of just managing the oak processionary moth is probably what it would have cost to deal with it outright in the year when it was detected. It costs £200,000 a year in Richmond park alone, not to mention Kew gardens and other such areas.

The Woodland Trust has pledged to support community and local tree nurseries to help to ensure that new tree planting is rooted in the community. Obviously, that is welcome. One thing many of us can do is ensure that, when we plant trees, they are UK-grown and disease-free. It seems absurd that we are importing ash trees, when there are hundreds of millions in the UK already.

The famous Mrs Beeton advised in her “Book of Household Management”:

“No matter how small your garden, always ensure you leave at least three to four acres for trees”.

[Laughter.] It was a different time. Small gardens do not normally have four acres sitting idle, but at one point or another most of us will plant a tree, so this is a lesson we can learn. As the Institute of Chartered Foresters has pointed out, the difficulty is that, whatever we do now, the arrival of more pests and diseases is inevitable. We therefore require new and more resources, if we are to get to grips with this growing problem, and we need to build greater resilience into our woods and forests.

DEFRA had reallocated £8 million over four years for new research into tree health. In the context of this discussion, that is not enough. Let me put that figure into perspective. The annual cost to UK forestry from pests and diseases has been put at about £130 million. That is bound to be an underestimate, reflecting the low value we attach to trees, not just in industry but culturally, socially, environmentally and so on. If the Asian longhorn beetle were to become established in the UK, based on the experience of the US authorities in eradicating it, it would cost £1.3 billion to attempt to do the same here —and there would be no guarantee of success either.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

As part of a solution, is my hon. Friend advocating restrictions on imports, not just for ash but for other varieties of trees and shrubs?

[Zac Goldsmith]

Yes. We know the benefits of trade, but they pale in comparison with the costs of unwanted stowaways, so we need to take a far stricter approach to restricting imports, particularly for larger trees, which have become increasingly fashionable. The ones with large earth balls allow even greater opportunity for the introduction of unwanted species.

In his written ministerial statement on Friday, the Secretary of State said that he was prepared to consider radical proposals. I want to add one thing. As well as encouraging more local sourcing of trees and greater vigilance by the horticultural trade, I urge the Government at least to consider requiring the relevant horticultural sectors to contribute more to the cost of inspection services and forestry research. With 90% of invasive tree pests and disease attributed to imports, the horticultural and landscaping sectors should surely bear a proportion of the costs of preventing and containing outbreaks. It is a sad reflection on successive Governments that it has taken this tragedy to focus minds on the issue of tree diseases. This must be a turning point.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

In the two minutes remaining to me I would like to say that, despite the rancour between the Front Benchers at the beginning of the debate about whether the disease was blown in on the wind or imported, in the letter the Secretary of State sent to colleagues, he took quite a balanced view. He said:

“The infections in the nurseries were caused by imported plants; those in the wider environment have no identifiable links to the nurseries and are likely to have been carried on the wind over the Channel.”

I am sorry that the Secretary of State is not here today to develop remarks that were apparently attributed to him by The Times. It stated on Saturday that he proposed to “take on the EU”, and that:

“He warned that the free movement of trees and plants within the single market was putting the British countryside at risk, and pledged to challenge European laws to prevent more diseases from entering the country.”

That shows at least an acknowledgement of the significance of the element of the problem that has been imported.

It is right that I should get the tail-end Charlie slot in this debate, because fortunately, the wonderful New Forest does not have many ash trees. However, we could be next in line, and this is where the argument made by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond Park (Zac Goldsmith) is so important. There is a vast array of pestilences and diseases just waiting to hit us. According to yesterday’s edition of The Sunday Telegraph, the Woodland Trust now says that for the jubilee woodland project, it will use species such as oak and birch instead of ash. Well, if something were to hit oak and birch, the effect on the New Forest would be devastating. Therefore, I make one simple point: it is one thing to try retrospectively to address the problem with ash, but what we have to do is proactively to put measures in place—this is what all the experts are telling me—to prevent the importation of other diseases in the future.

Points of Order

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Tuesday 26th June 2012 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

We are grateful to the Secretary of State for that acknowledgement and explanation, which is very helpful.

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Although, sadly, the Deputy Prime Minister is no longer with us—corporeally, at any rate—I was concerned, as I trust you were, at the widespread reports in the weekend press that he had vetoed any prospect of a referendum on the possible introduction of a proportional representation voting system for elections to a reformed upper House. Given the constitutional importance of such an issue and the motivation that it is clearly designed to help the Liberal Democrats retain a permanent stranglehold on future legislative processes, should not such announcements be made initially to this House rather than via the media?

[Mr Speaker]

That was a scintillating polemic for the House to savour, but what I would say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I have known for 29 years this October, is that although the logic of his attempted point of order is compelling, it suffers as a point of order from the disadvantage that the premise on which the logic has been built is, in my judgment, misplaced. The reason I say that to the hon. Gentleman is that the Deputy Prime Minister was not announcing a change of Government policy but, as far as I can tell, merely reiterating the status quo. That will have to do for now, but all these matters will doubtless be explored eloquently, in detail and at length in the upcoming debates on House of Lords reform, to which I fancy the hon. Gentleman will wish to contribute.

Public Forest Estate (England)

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 2nd February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

I was interested to hear that my right hon. Friend said that no organisation would be allowed to take over one of those forests unless it was capable of running it. She has heard already the figure of £2.9 million, which is the deficit cost to the Forestry Commission from running the New Forest. What sort of charity would be able to shoulder that deficit?

[Mrs Spelman]

I can give my hon. Friend the same assurance as I have given the National Trust, the Woodland Trust and any new trust that would like to manage our heritage forests for us: we do not expect them to do it for nothing. Let us look at the model of British Waterways. Our canal network is to be moved into the hands of a mutual trust. Obviously, the Government will continue providing running costs to that trust because we understand that it cannot manage the network for nothing.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)]

At the end of the classic film “It’s a Wonderful Life”, the James Stewart character is taken back to see what would have happened to his home town, Bedford Falls, if he had never lived. He discovers that it would have been cheapened, commercialised and degraded. Indeed, even its name would have been changed to Pottersville after the greedy grasping capitalist who was the villain of the film. I know that no one would wish to see any such fate befall the New Forest, but there is huge concern in my constituency that steps may be taken in that sort of direction.

I had an early start this morning. I had to go to the New Forest and get back in time for the debate, because I was attending the funeral of my constituent and friend, Mr Mike Gilling. Mike was the sort of person who, by anyone’s definition of a society, big or not, put into it far more than he took out of it. It was therefore not surprising that there was a wide spectrum of mourners at that funeral, representing a good cross-section of the people of Hythe, which is on the edge of the New Forest. Did any of them come up to me after the funeral and say, “Julian, I really think you should be supporting these proposals that the Government are putting forward for the New Forest”? Not one. Did anyone come up to me and say, “Julian, I do hope you’re going to speak out against these proposals this afternoon in the debate”? Quite a few.

I did not just go by an, as it were, self-selecting sample like that. Nor did I just go by the self-selecting sample of people who have written a sheaf of letters to me, even though the balance is still dozens on one side of the argument and not yet a single letter—the Whips Office had better get cracking and find someone in my constituency so that I cannot say this again—in favour of the Government’s proposals. No, I am afraid it is all anti.

I did not rely even on those two samples, the small one and the larger one via the correspondence. I also spoke to one of the most senior figures in the New Forest, who has all the expertise that I freely confess I lack. What he said to me was that everybody in the New Forest who is involved in its administration in various types, capacities and dimensions is in a state of deep shock; that the status quo is unanimously preferred; and that, if there is a consultation, we had better hope that it is a genuine one, because then, on the basis of the sampling that I am seeing so far, there will be an overwhelming series of representations against what is proposed.

[Neil Carmichael]

What I would like to know is what will happen to multi-purpose woods—those which are commercial, heritage and used for recreation.

[Dr Lewis]

My hon. Friend will find that I am coming to that very point. There are two models according to which the New Forest can be run. There is the old model, with many sources of power intermixing, interacting and influencing each other, and there is the overarching model, with some authority in place to which everything else is subservient. My dear and hon. Friend the Member for New Forest West (Mr Swayne) was right when he said that we stood shoulder to shoulder to battle against the national park authority being imposed on us, because we felt that that was an overarching model rather than an interacting model of different organisations.

That is where I fear my Front-Bench team has lost its way. It is not as if the Forestry Commission has, or ever has had, overall control. The Forestry Commission is one of a number of bodies in this universe, along with the verderers, the New Forest Commoners Defence Association, and voluntary bodies such as the New Forest Association, all of which have to work together and persuade each other before they can go forward. The Forestry Commission is not just about commerce or timber; it is also about conservation and disease control.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that when phytophthora ramorum, otherwise known as sudden oak death, is starting to devastate large forests and mixed woodland, it is not the right time to do something that might put at risk measures to control it?

[Dr Lewis]

I share that concern. It comes back to the exchange that I had with the Secretary of State during her initial contribution. There is a deficit in the running of the New Forest, and there is a good reason why there is a deficit. It is precisely because the Forestry Commission has duties, such as trying to address matters concerning disease and matters concerning conservation, as well as trying to make what profit it can from the commercial management of the timber industry.

When we consider what the future holds, we are told not to worry because either the Government will be convinced that a new or existing charitable trust will be able to take on the burden, or they will not give up the forest and it will remain in public ownership. This is not dissent; this is me participating in the consultation. Here is my answer: do not give up the forest or give it to a charity, either a new one or an old one, because they will be unable to take on the £2.9 million deficit. If the Government say, “Don’t worry, we’ll pay for that,” why the heck are they bothering to make the change? We really do not need this.

There is particular concern about the Public Bodies Bill. The New Forest has traditionally always been governed by its own legislation, which is laid out in the New Forest Acts, but there are provisions in the Public Bodies Bill that look as though they will take precedence over those Acts. If I seek any assurances at all from those on the Government Front Bench, it is an assurance that no provision in that Bill will have supremacy over the provisions of the New Forest Acts. It is terribly important that we have a constellation of organisations and that the verderers are able to say no. We need a sort of mixed economy, with neither statism on the one side, nor total privatisation, or hand-over to a private organisation or charity, on the other.

[John Pugh (Southport) (LD)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Dr Lewis]

No, I will not.

I must say that I am getting a bit fed up with being put in this position, as this is not the first time. At the general election there were Liberal Democrats who pledged in good faith that they would not raise tuition fees, and yet they have had to treble them, and there were Conservatives, like me, who pledged in good faith that the nuclear deterrent would be safe, yet we have seen its confirmation put off until after the next election. Now we have this measure, which I do not think was in any party’s manifesto. Much effort has been put into ensuring that the Conservative party is no longer seen as the nasty party. We may no longer be the nasty party, but I do not want the new party that I understand some people are trying to form—a strange permanent coalition of Conservatives and Liberals—to get the reputation of being the party of nasty surprises. This is a nasty surprise, and we can do without it.