Forestry in England

Debate between Neil Parish and Angela Smith

Thursday 11th January 2018 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the fifth report of the Environment Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Forestry in England: Seeing the wood for the trees, Session 2016-17, HC 619, and the Government response, HC455.

It is always pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Davies. It is good to see my friend from the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs here. I have forgotten her constituency. Sheffield, is it?

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

Penistone and Stocksbridge.

[Neil Parish]

Penistone and Stocksbridge, that is right. It is also good to see my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Chris Davies), who sat on the Select Committee in the last Session and had a lot to do with this report, and who also chairs the all-party parliamentary group on forestry, and other hon. Members. It is also good to see the Minister is still in her place—congratulations.

Forestry and woodland provide multiple environmental, social and economic benefits. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs estimates that woodland provides at least £1.8 billion in social, environmental and economic benefits each year. Trees are beneficial for carbon capture, reducing flooding and improving air quality, as well as providing timber for commercial production and creating green spaces for people to relax in and enjoy. But it was particularly disappointing to hear the Government say that there is no need for forestry representation when discussing the UK’s exit from the EU. Given the nature of research and development and that forestry research is already underfunded, I ask the Minister to reconsider keeping this funding in place, in particular for disease control. I found the Government’s response to our report, if I may say, disappointing. I hope she will be able to address some of the concerns we all share about forestry.

I very much support the ambitions of the northern forest and I look forward to the Government bringing forward the practical application of creating a great woodland across the north of England. I ask of the Minister that at some stage we will be able to discuss exactly how this will be achieved. We have the national forest, which we will be able to expand, but I am keen to see whether we can find ways of bringing land into tree planting and take the farming community with us as we do it. There will be land very suitable for tree planting. The land north of Hull is some of the best arable and vegetable growing land in the country. We need to ensure we have this balance.

I am sure the Minister will also consider the type of forest we require. We require tree planting for the environmental, social and community benefits, but what really matters is how we deliver a large forest in the north of England in the future. I want to see a mixture. For instance, take the Blackdown Hills in my constituency: there is a lot of forest, farmland in between, copses and areas where people can stay, walk and enjoy themselves. Woodland is great and woodland is right, but we also need a mixture of landscapes for it to be enjoyed. I always remember driving through the Redwood forest in the United States of America. We drove through the forest for some three days. One of the Americans said to me, “Gee, have you been to the Redwood forest?” and I said, “Yes, I have, but I’ve almost seen enough of it.” I saw a tremendous amount of trees and they are fantastic, but I think we need a mixture of landscapes to really make it enjoyable for the public.

In our report we asked for a one-stop shop for farmers and landowners to get grants and advice on which trees to plant. So far, the Government have resisted this idea, but I think it will be more and more important to do that, because we have environmental schemes, which we can change as we move to a British agricultural policy that is much more linked to forestry, but we also have to ensure that support can be accessed reasonably easily and that it is encouraging farmers and landowners to plant trees. I have said many times in this House that when I was a young farmer, if I borrowed a lot of money to buy land and said to my bank manager, “Well, now I am going to plant trees,” he would say, “Mr Parish, you should plant something that may bring an income in a little sooner, rather than 50 or 60 years hence.”

I am not asking for a licence to print money for farmers, I am just saying that if we want to encourage farmers to plant trees—I believe that on marginal land and certain types of land they will be quite keen—they need the right support. Why should a farmer—perhaps a seventh generation, or even first generation, sheep farmer, beef farmer or arable farmer—be told, “Right, you must now plant trees.”? I do not think any Government will do that, but we can encourage farmers to plant more trees. This northern woodland will be a real challenge, but it could also be very successful. However— I say again—it has to be done in the right way.

I spoke before about the countryside stewardship scheme. We have found in the past few years that there have been fewer schemes in place and fewer trees planted. There is a real opportunity now, because the schemes under the EU common agricultural policy do not allow for enough tree planting, and where they do, we have to work out whether the tree is a tree or a sapling and all sorts of complications. I am sure that is something we can make much better.

I also acknowledge that the EU is part of the problem and that post-Brexit the policy can change. Farmers, I believe, will be interested in planting more trees. We can also plant trees in banks to help with flooding. We can have more forestation, more woodland, greater wildlife and retain soils in the fields and stop communities from being flooded. There are many advantages to changing this. Today, I listened to the Prime Minister set out our 25-year environment plan, for which I have much enthusiasm, but now I want to see the practical application of how we will meet these goals. If we want to change a financial regulation in banking, we change it and that hopefully fixes the problem, but if we want to plant millions of trees, we have to physically plant those trees, we have to find the land and the policies to do it. I am not saying that we cannot do it, but what matters is how we deliver that in the future.

Timber from the woodlands has many economic benefits. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Brecon and Radnorshire has done much work on timber, timber use and natural timbers being used in this country. We also need to look at that. Going back to the New Forest—do we want woodlands just for recreation? Do we want them for the carbon capture? Or do we also want them for the wood they will provide in the future? We sometimes think that trees live forever. They do not, and we need to cut them down and then replant, so let us look at the type of trees that we are growing.

Onshore Oil and Gas

Debate between Neil Parish and Angela Smith

Tuesday 26th January 2016 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, but we have to ensure that the people who will be living around the mouths of the wells, where the shale gas comes up to the surface, feel that there is a direct benefit to them. It is good to appeal to the greater good, but it is also good to appeal to those who will see the fracking most. That is the particular point I am making.

[Angela Smith]

Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that there are already plans on the table to return to local communities some of the investment and profit from the shale gas industry—something like 6% of the value of the gas extracted?

[Neil Parish]

I think there are such plans. There are various ideas, such as sovereign funds, but again, we need to explain to the local residents that they will get that money. One problem in the past with many such schemes has been that the money has not filtered down to the local people who have to live right next to the entrance to a shale gas resource. That is what I want to see.

We need to ensure that we explain the situation to local people and that they know there will be something in it for them—I know that may sound basic—and that they are doing something for the greater good. I will go on to talk about industry, but the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Tom Blenkinsop) made a really good point: fossil fuel extraction is necessary. We need only take the agricultural industry, in which natural gas creates ammonium nitrate, to see that it is hugely necessary.

My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton made a point about having a single regulator, which is a good idea. It is about reassuring the public. The fracking will take place far underground and there is little or no chance of any problems with groundwater supply, but people are talking about those things. Those who are against fracking make much of them, so they need to be reassured. We must ensure that someone goes to the areas in question and presents the case strongly, so that people feel reassured about the safety of fracking. People can always cite problems in certain parts of the world, which makes it doubly important that we reassure people.

Badger Cull

Debate between Neil Parish and Angela Smith

Thursday 25th October 2012 Commons Chamber

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

I want to concentrate on the effect of TB-infected herds on farmers, especially in the west country, particularly in Devon. For nearly 20 years, and certainly for the past 15 years, cases have been increasing. In Devon, we started off in 1998 with some 1,700 infected cattle, and now there are 5,000-plus. We should not forget that those farmers who have herds with TB have been restricted throughout that period, when they have been testing their cattle every 60 days. Under restriction, dairy farmers can sell their milk and beef farmers their finished animals, provided that they do not have TB, but they cannot sell any young stock. They are restricted throughout the period, so one can imagine the effect on family farms and their finances.

I declare an interest: I am a farmer. Most hon. Members will not have heard me say anything else but that. Farmers whose cattle are restricted and who cannot sell their young stock see only an ever-rising overdraft. Not to put too fine a point on it, every time the bank statement arrives, farmers feel suicidal. They are trapped because nothing can be done; they cannot rid their cattle of the disease. There is not only the emotional impact, but the impact on all the cattle of being for ever tested. Cattle do not like being put through a crush every 60 days and injected. Would any of us? Those are the sorts of things that we have to face up to.

We have talked a lot today about vaccines, which are always a year away. For 20 years, farmers have been told that. The last Labour Government spent virtually all the time saying that to farmers. I have much respect for the hon. Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), but the last Labour Government got very close to having a cull and they chickened out, which the Secretary of State has no intention of doing.

[Angela Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Parish]

No, I think not. I want to carry on in this vein.

I object to Opposition Members’ comments that farmers have not restricted cattle movement. There have been a few such cases, but the vast majority of farmers have had ever-stricter regulations imposed on them. They clean those cattle; every summer and winter, they come in and are tested and the TB reactors are taken out. In the spring, those cattle are put back out to grass. I might be being simplistic, but they then graze on grass infected with badger urine. Do not forget that whatever the percentage of badgers with TB, we can be certain that the biggest percentage of infected badgers are where the most TB is in cattle, so they are giving it to one another. However, we are taking out cattle with TB, but we are not taking out and controlling badgers.

We know that the vaccine will not work on infected badgers. Government Members are not bloodthirsty. We do not love the idea of a cull, but we must take out badgers in those areas with the highest concentration of infected badgers. We must not forget that these are pilot culls in areas that have been chosen because they are TB hot spots with harder boundaries. Yes, badgers will cross roads, but with a large motorway, a river or the sea, there will be much less perturbation. We all accept that there will be some, but if it can be restricted, that is right.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

The whole idea of the trial is to get a 70% reduction in the number of badgers—

[Angela Smith]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Neil Parish]

I have not really answered the previous intervention, but I will give way.

[Angela Smith]

The evidence is that the setts are left untouched. That has already been demonstrated. They are often repopulated by healthy badgers, which then pick up the disease.

[Neil Parish]

My point, in answer to both interventions, is that the whole idea of the trial is to carry out a cull of at least 70% of badgers in the given area over a four or five-year period. That is key to ensuring that we cull the diseased badgers. I cannot say which badger will go back to which sett, but I am certain that if we reduce those numbers, we will reduce their movement, and if they cannot spread beyond the cull area, we will see a reduction of much more than 16% in TB in cattle in those areas. It has been found throughout the world that where infected wildlife are culled there is a much greater effect.

The Government are right to carry on with the culls. I respect what the NFU has had to do. Because of the Olympics, it was late in the day before the culls could be started. We are getting towards much darker nights and we have had probably one of the wettest summers and autumns that I have ever known, so now is the wrong time to go forward with the cull. But I dispute the idea that we can do nothing about the situation and that culling badgers in the infected areas is wrong.

Until we tackle those concerns, farmers in my constituency and across the country, especially in the west, will be unable to rest, because they know that more and more cattle will become diseased and more and more restrictions will be imposed on them, and in the end many of them will decide, because of the weather, the price of feed and the disease, to give up cattle farming. Do we not want to see those farmed cattle healthy and grazing in the fields? Of course we do, which is why we need to take action. I very much respect the Secretary of State for sticking to the plan to have a cull.

--- Later in debate ---

[Angela Smith (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)]

In following the hon. Member for Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire (Simon Hart), let me say that I was disappointed at an attempted politicisation of this debate, which has so far been incredibly cross-Bench and non-partisan. What Members are doing today is putting the issue first. This is not about party politics; it is about animal welfare. More than anything else, it is about the future of farming in our country and the attempts that we need to make effectively to tackle bovine TB.

Tuesday of this week was a day on which a degree of common sense prevailed in DEFRA. Although I welcome Tuesday’s announcement, it was only for a postponement and I, along with many others, want to see this madness stopped and will not rest until the Secretary of State sees sense and stops the cull permanently. That is what the motion is about.

Let me be clear: there is no doubt that bovine TB is a major problem. If there is one thing on which I agree with the Government it is that bovine TB presents a serious threat to both cattle and wildlife. Where we differ, however, is on the actions needed to tackle this awful disease. In order to answer that question, one has to ask why, after the successful reductions of the disease in the 1950s and ’60s, it has become more prevalent, particularly during and after the 1990s. I do not believe that the rise was due to an increase in the number of badgers, which is an equation often made by the myth makers.

What is clear is that changes to farming practices are not helping matters. The intensification of farming means that we have ever bigger herds, and all the evidence says that the bigger the herd, the faster the disease will spread within it once it takes root.

Husbandry is another issue that we cannot dismiss. Yesterday in the Lobby we had a visit from Steve Jones, who is a dairy farmer in the Forest of Dean. He described eloquently the often less than ideal conditions in which cows were—and still are in some instances—kept, along with the increasingly intensive regimes to which the animals are subjected. For example, water troughs are often said to rarely be cleaned out. Over time, they can become reservoirs of the disease as the stagnating water collects various bacteria, typically over the winter months. He also talked about the practice of some farmers—not all of them by any means—who, even now, collect the slurry deposited during the course of a farming day, spread it over the land and immediately let some of their cattle feed off those fields.

[Neil Parish]

I cannot believe that the hon. Lady believes that farmers who have had the disease and who have been testing their cattle every 60 days do not clean their water troughs. If she had suffered the same pain as a farmer, she would not make such a comment.

[Angela Smith]

I will not comment on particular instances of the husbandry practices of farmers and how they keep their herds. All I can say is that there is some evidence that water troughs, particularly those kept at ground level, can be a source of the disease and that some farmers do not keep them as clear as they ought to of disease.

It is also argued that cows infected are often not quarantined quickly enough and that animal stress levels caused by pain and suffering can reduce immunity and make cattle more susceptible to diseases such as bovine TB.

As the instances of bovine TB started to climb in the 1990s, the then Secretary of State, Jack Cunningham, asked Professor Krebs to report on the matter and then to conduct the randomised badger culling trials, which have been referred to so often today. The important point is that they still stand as the most extensive study ever completed into the relationship between bovine TB and badgers. A two-page paper produced two or three years later does not stand in the context of the extensive trials carried out as the legitimate view of the scientists.

Although it is true that the independent science group concluded that in the cull areas the incidence of bovine TB fell by 23%, it also found that in neighbouring land outside the culled area the incidence of the disease rose by approximately 29%, thanks to perturbation, whereby surviving badgers move to new areas as a consequence of disturbance.

Overall, the study concluded that the benefits of culling were, at best, modest, with an average reduction of just 12% to 16% in the incidence of infection over a period of seven years. The ISG concluded that

“badger culling can make no meaningful contribution to cattle TB control in Britain.”

That point was reiterated by Lord Krebs on Monday when he said in the other place that, after nine years of culling,

“there is still more TB around than there was at the beginning; it is just that there is 16% less than there would have been without a cull. The number is not the 30% that the NFU quoted; that is misleading—a dishonest filleting of the data.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 October 2012; Vol. 740, c. 148.]

Another problem is that the test used to check whether cattle are infected with bovine TB—the so called SICCT, or single intradermal comparative cervical tuberculin test—is not accurate. A recent scientific paper has suggested that as many as two in 10 infected cattle might be missed by the test. That is a staggering 20%, meaning that a significant proportion of cattle-to-cattle transmission of bovine TB may be going undetected and that the role of badgers in the spread of bovine TB to cattle may be overestimated.

Culling, therefore, is not the way forward. Its impact, the science tells us, would be marginal, and if we get it wrong, the results could be disastrous. It is demanded that 70% of badgers in the pilot culling areas must be culled; otherwise, the incidence of bovine TB could get worse—hence this week’s U-turn. Given the lack of credible assessment of the number of badgers in the pilot areas, it is difficult to get the 70% figure right. Equally, it is also difficult to avoid breaching the law by killing too many and taking the species to the brink of extinction in the specified areas.

When I started my contribution, I said that bovine TB is a major issue for farmers and I stand by that. I want the Government to take the opportunity over the next few months to work more intensively on developing the badger vaccination programme, which all experts believe is a better way forward in diminishing the instances of bovine TB in that species. We also have to do more to develop a vaccine for cattle, which is the long-term answer to this problem. I am told that there is now a suitable DIVA test to identify and separate cattle with bovine TB from those that have been vaccinated, and that it is in the process of being licensed.

I appeal to the Minister to take seriously the points that have been made, to invest in getting the cattle vaccine licensed and on the table, and to talk to the EU to get it sorted.