BBC Regional Politics Coverage

Debate between Neil Parish and Jim Shannon

Monday 22nd June 2020 Commons Chamber

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

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for granting this debate tonight. I think we have five hours for the debate, so I feel a speech coming on, but I promise you I will try not to go on for more than 4 and a half hours. I called for the debate because BBC regional programmes could well be under threat. MPs across the House will be alarmed at the direction of travel.

During covid-19, valued programmes such as “Inside Out” and the regional “Sunday Politics” shows have had to be taken off air, with no return date as such at the moment, although I just learnt today that ITV’s programmes are returning by September. BBC executives have said that the cuts are to do with safety, but a review of English programming is taking place, which is looking to save costs. Many regional journalists fear that they will be cut and never return to work on those vital programmes. If that were the case, that would be a great loss to all of us and our constituents.

The “Sunday Politics” show covers 11 regions of England, from the south-west to the north-east and Cumbria. Those shows are a crucial part of our local and national democracy, holding us all to account throughout the year. All our regions have their identities. This is essential. With the Government looking towards more regional representation, such a step by the BBC would be a retrograde one.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I congratulate the hon. Member on bringing the debate to the Chamber. The number of right hon. and hon. Members present illustrates how deeply interested we are in it. Does he not agree that the boost that regional TV provides to communities, and the information it contains, is essential to addressing regional issues? While the BBC must cut its cloth to suit, perhaps it should look at renegotiating contracts with some of its higher paid broadcasting staff as well as its directors, which would easily pay for regional programming.

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—I got the constituency right—makes a really good point. Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland have quite a lot of regional coverage, and rightly so. They could do with more, but so could the rest of the regions.

The merging of those 11 shows into one “Politics England” programme deprives local communities of properly funded regional and relevant politics.

--- Later in debate ---

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is right. We from the provinces and the sticks—not all Members present are, but I am—want those different types of flavour, and London wants its flavour as well. That is the whole argument for regionally-based programmes. London is a very large region with a lot of people, so it is right that it has not just the national news but London-based news.

[Jim Shannon]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise the importance of local, regional opportunities so that people can shine and then move on to bigger jobs elsewhere—for instance, in the London circle? Many people in my constituency and in Northern Ireland as a whole have had opportunities in the regional BBC and then progressed. Does he recognise that that progress is very important to bring us all together? This is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, all together.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. Sometimes when we publish a Select Committee report, I do regional radio across the whole country, and I often have to ask which radio station someone is from because their accent is not from the region. It just shows that, through radio and television, people move around the whole country, and that is really good. My hon. Friend and neighbour, the Member for East Devon (Simon Jupp), is a case in point: not only did he do well in the BBC, but he is now here in Parliament. That is probably a retrograde step—I did not say that, did I?

St Patrick’s Day

Debate between Neil Parish and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 17th March 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but every day is St Patrick’s Day for us and we are very pleased to celebrate it on St David’s Day.

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

It is great for me to be celebrating St Patrick’s Day in this Chamber, in his Adjournment debate, because I have an Irish grandmother. I just want to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on probably being the Member who has intervened the most in Adjournment debates in this House.

[Jim Shannon]

Well—

Direct Payments to Farmers (Legislative Continuity) Bill

Debate between Neil Parish and Jim Shannon

Committee stage & 3rd reading: House of Commons & Committee: 1st sitting: House of Commons & 3rd reading & Committee: 1st sitting
Tuesday 28th January 2020 Commons Chamber

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare). I congratulate the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) on his re-election as Chair of the Select Committee. He brings a wealth of experience to that position, and we wish him well in it.

I am very pleased to speak in this Bill Committee, both on direct payments and on the commitment that the Minister has given. As always, I am pleased to see him in his place. He understands agriculture, just as he understands fishing, for which he also has responsibility. We look forward to his co-operation with the Northern Ireland Assembly, and particularly with the Minister for Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs, Edwin Poots, who is my party colleague.

The agrifood sector is vital to the economy of Northern Ireland, and of my constituency in particular, whether we are talking about milk, beef, sheep, lamb, poultry or arable crops. Sustainability, to which the Minister referred, is critical to enable the agricultural sector to maintain its high food standards, and to gain through its partnership with the manufacturing companies.

[Neil Parish]

I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that family farms are a structure that is to be found across the whole United Kingdom, but nowhere more than in Northern Ireland. This Bill and the future of agriculture are critical to Northern Ireland.

[Jim Shannon]

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I agree wholeheartedly, and will go into that shortly.

I want to talk about the farmers who do well, the companies that work through them, and the partnerships that are established. Lakeland Dairies, which employs some 260 people, produces milk and powder and exports them across the world. There is also Rich Sauces, Willowbrook Foods and Mash Direct. Those are just four of the companies in Northern Ireland that work in partnership with farmers. Farmers with direct payments enable those companies to produce good products, which they sell across the world.

Farmers in my constituency and in Mid Down are ranked second for milk production across the whole of Northern Ireland. I declare an interest, Madam Deputy Speaker: I am not only a member of the Ulster Farmers Union, but a farmer, so I understand the importance to my neighbours of milk and the whole sector. I received correspondence from the Ulster Farmers Union, the sister organisation of the National Farmers Union. I welcomed the announcement from Her Majesty’s Treasury on farm funding for 2020, as it delivers on the commitment made by the Conservative party, and by the Minister. It is essential that Northern Ireland’s share of UK farm funding is maintained. It is my understanding that Her Majesty’s Treasury has confirmed to the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in the Northern Ireland Assembly that the money will be rolled over from 2019 to 2020.

We hope that DAERA will be able to pay 100% of payments by mid-October. Has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss the nitty-gritty directly with the new Minister in Northern Ireland, and is there an understanding of how we will achieve the things that we wish to?

Getting a new Northern Ireland agriculture policy up and running by 2021 will be very ambitious, but I hope that the Government are up to the challenge. Last week, the Ulster Farmers Union’s beef and lamb policy committee met to discuss the priorities for the new Northern Ireland Agriculture Minister. The UFU’s hill farming policy committee will meet this week to look at its key priorities. I tell the Minister that because it is important that we work together, and that what is happening in Northern Ireland is mirrored by what is happening here.

Plastic Food and Drink Packaging

Debate between Neil Parish and Jim Shannon

Thursday 24th October 2019 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the Sixteenth Report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2017-19, Plastic food and drink packaging, HC 2080.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stringer. It is also a pleasure to see the new Minister in her place and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ipswich (Sandy Martin), here as well.

Plastic waste has been at the forefront of public interest for the last few years. There is, quite rightly, outrage about the impact of plastic pollution on the natural environment and about the amounts of recyclable waste exported, only to pollute other countries. The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee set out to examine whether enough is being done to reduce the use of plastic and properly manage waste in the food and drink sector.

It is worth reflecting on the fact that plastic is everywhere for a reason. For food and drink, it is lightweight and flexible, and it ensures high standards of hygiene. We should also remember that when plastic is used properly, it can help us to prevent food waste, which is a big contributor to carbon emissions. We do not want to increase the amount of food that is wasted.

Plastic’s durability is both a blessing and a curse. The properties that make it useful for food preservation also mean that it lingers in our seas for decades. We need to manage our waste better. More materials need to be captured for recycling. The Committee was supportive of the Government’s proposal to introduce consistency in recycling collections and simpler labelling for consumers. We would like to see that across the whole country.

Unfortunately, it is not particularly clear how much of our plastic waste is actually recycled. The Government often cite a 46% recycling rate for plastic packaging. However, businesses that produce fewer than 50 tonnes of packaging per year do not have to report on how much they place on the market or recycle, so there is a gap in the figures. We think that threshold should be lowered to 1 tonne of packaging. I ask the Minister to consider that.

On top of that, 60% of what is classed as “recycled” is actually exported abroad. Members will have seen media reports that our plastic exports can end up in countries where they are landfilled or burned instead, which can really affect villagers and others in those countries. We must recycle our own waste. We do not currently know how much plastic waste is recycled—it is likely to be less than 46%—and, if we cannot measure recycling, we cannot know whether policy changes are having the right effect. It is vital that we get the right figures.

The introduction of a deposit return scheme was another focus of our inquiry. We heard convincing evidence that a DRS would boost recycling of plastic bottles. I am convinced that if plastic bottles are to be recycled, that must be done through a reverse-vending machine so that the same bottle can be made again from that plastic. Hon. Members may ask: why am I saying that? It is because most recycled plastic is not used to make the same item again; we get a much lower-quality waste plastic. We need to ensure that the label, the top and all those things are recyclable so that we can make another bottle out of the bottle that went through the reverse-vending machine.

We have also heard concerns from local authorities that taking that valuable material away from kerbside collection would undermine the viability of their wider recycling efforts. We therefore recommend that the Government monitor carefully the financial impact on local authorities of introducing a deposit return scheme.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

In Northern Ireland, we already have kerbside collections—indeed, we have moved on marvellously with recycling materials. It is incredible what a household can do when it commits to recycling. Has the Chair of the Select Committee had an opportunity to look at any of the other regions—Northern Ireland, for instance—where kerbside collection is already in place and working well?

[Neil Parish]

We did not look at the situation in Northern Ireland, although I understand that that is a good method of collection. In England, we found that because there are so many authorities with so many different contracts, there are totally different methods for what is recycled where. To put on my local government hat from many years ago, local government likes its own views and ways of dealing with things. However, in this case, we need to know how to recycle properly.

[Jim Shannon]

The hon. Gentleman is very kind to give way again. In Northern Ireland—let us be honest, we are a smaller region—we may have six or 10 councils working together. Perhaps that is something that England could look at.

[Neil Parish]

The hon. Gentleman makes the point that Northern Ireland is naturally a more compact, smaller community. Recycling works quite well in Wales, where again there are fewer authorities, which can come together better. Given its size and the number of its authorities, England is more difficult. Somehow or other, the Government must send down an edict to local authorities to pull them together. Some local authorities will have long-term contracts that will take a while to get out of, but the Government must pull them together, because what we recycle and how we do it here in London is totally different from what we do on the farm back in Somerset, for instance.

Gambling Levy: Online Gambling and Greyhound Racing

Debate between Neil Parish and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 25th June 2019 Westminster Hall

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

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the gambling levy from online gambling and racing greyhounds.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Paisley, and to lead this debate. In 2016, as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, I led an inquiry into greyhound welfare. At the time, we found that there was a distinct lack of data, the regulation was not strong enough, the inspection regimes were insufficient, and there was poor welfare in parts of the greyhound racing industry. We recommended improvements in each of those areas, but funding continues to hold the key to lasting improvements.

I compliment the industry on going forward in many ways. Today’s debate is not about finding fault with the industry; it is about concentrating on the betting industry and the £2,500 million a year that is bet on greyhound racing, and ensuring that enough of that gets to animal welfare charities and the industry in order to make the life of retired greyhounds so much better.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

My grandfather kept greyhounds, so there is a particular interest in them in my family. I agree that these dogs are not simply assets; they are living and breathing, and deserve a minimum of care. A small statutory levy may well bring about that standard of care. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a 1% levy will not break the bank for the bookies, but will help a poor animal to avoid a broken leg from inadequate nutrition and the strenuous nature of the races it is involved in?

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend—I believe him to be my hon. Friend—raises a very good point. Not only would 1% not break the bank for the betting industry, but without greyhound racing the gambling industry would lose £2,500 million a year. I will be quite blunt: I think it is criminal that the industry does not pay 1% or more—1.5% or even 2% if necessary. There is no point in imposing a levy for the sheer sake of it, but we have to remember that back in 2008-09 we were on some £14 million. Since then, the amount has probably halved. We are building it back up to £10 million now, but I would like to see around £20 million going towards rehoming greyhounds.

The public demand good welfare—it is also in the interests of the industry—and for the betting industry to deliver that money. Otherwise, there will be huge pressure not to have greyhound racing at all. That is the point I stress. The amount of welfare funding at the moment is a voluntary 0.6%. I will talk about the good companies that come up with that. Previously, too few betting companies have coughed up the cash, and there are still a few more to go—especially online betting companies based overseas.

I congratulate the Minister, and her predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Tracey Crouch), on getting the bookies around the table, and on getting them to contribute to the British Greyhound Racing Fund, which was set up to protect greyhound welfare. I also congratulate the betting companies themselves—Betfair, Betfred, Sky Bet and William Hill—that have committed to meet the 0.6% target in January in this year, raising a projected £3 million a year. That will take the total amount raised up from £7 million to £10 million.

However, too many companies still do not contribute. Many independent bookmakers, and a growing overseas betting presence, do not pay their fair share. Not only is it wrong from the point of view of the greyhounds’ welfare, but it is wrong for the rest of the betting industry, because if some companies are making that donation so should they all. Bookmakers profiting from greyhound racing have a responsibility to support it, whether they trade on the high street or online. Of course, high street bookmakers have contributed and still do.

When we consider that £2,500 million is staked annually on live greyhound racing in the UK, the welfare conditions of some of those animals remain shocking. They are improving, but with more money they could be much better. Greyhounds bred for racing are animals, not assets. They are gentle, athletic breeds. They feel pain, whether due to damaged limbs or dental problems, and they need love like any other dog. We must ensure that all kennels are up to scratch.

I thank the Greyhound Board of Great Britain for all the work that it does inspecting and helping to raise standards, and I thank the Kennel Club, the Greyhound Trust and other welfare charities for the great work that they do in rehoming greyhounds. An increase in cash for the British Greyhound Racing Fund would make a great difference to greyhound welfare. Even the commitment made in January for the betting companies to reach 0.6% merely reverses a decade-long trend of drastically declining income from the voluntary levy paid by bookmakers.

Income for the British Greyhound Racing Fund has fallen by half in the last 10 years, from £14 million in 2008-09 to just £7 million last year. While online betting continues to thrive, retail betting is suffering. Some 60% of BGRF funding currently comes from retail betting, but the introduction of the £2 maximum stake for fixed odds betting terminals which, by the way, I am very much in favour of, will result in a decline in the amount of money received. That is why we need to increase the percentage of the levy.

A statutory levy that targets greyhound betting equally, levied on all bets placed on UK greyhound racing, will be fair on betting companies and on greyhounds. A strong greyhound welfare system requires strong long-term financing. Take horse-racing as an example. The horse-racing betting levy covers the gross profits of all gambling operators offering bets on horse-racing in Great Britain. Last year alone, the 10% statutory levy on profits generated around £100 million to support infrastructure improvements, a reduction in injuries, better data and higher prize money.

A similar statutory levy on greyhound racing, but based on 1% of gross turnover, would generate £11.6 million for greyhound welfare. A levy of 1.5% would generate £17.5 million. That is where I would like it to be at the very least, because I do not believe that it would affect the industry very much at all. In fact, it would make for a stronger industry. Immediately, the money would provide a more stable income stream for animal welfare activists and charities that improve kennelling standards, pay for veterinary bills and rehome greyhounds. It would also create an even playing field between contributing bookies.

As the sixth most-watched sport in Britain, the welfare and care of all racing greyhounds, from registration to retirement, must be a fundamental part of its successful future. Last year, 4,963 injuries were sustained by dogs in the greyhound racing industry. We welcome the industry giving those figures, because that was something that we put in our report. Almost 1,000 died or were euthanised. I do not want greyhounds to be euthanised because it is not economic to keep them going. That simply should not happen. Enough money should come from the betting industry to rehabilitate those dogs and get them rehomed.

A campaign is under way to ban greyhound racing altogether. I believe a statutory levy will better protect welfare and the industry in the long run. The industry should embrace that—if it does not, greyhound racing will be under pressure in future. It is wrong of the companies not to embrace the levy and pay more. I congratulate the Minister and the gaming companies that have contributed a voluntary levy on their hard work, but I urge her to do more and greater things to get more money out of the gaming industry.

After Brexit, the Government should come forward at the earliest opportunity with primary legislation to introduce a statutory levy, to equalise welfare contributions and protect greyhound racing. Believe it or not, the statutory levy on horse-racing was introduced before we joined the EU, and it is quite difficult to introduce a levy under EU law. As we leave the EU, we can put a statutory levy on online gambling and racing greyhounds. I would very much welcome that, because putting it in place would bring into line a lot of the gambling companies that are not paying at the moment. We in this House, and people across the country, all want our greyhounds to have a good retirement. Let us ensure that those that can be rehabilitated after racing have a good life. We can then have a good industry that is well run with good welfare conditions that are well funded by the gaming industry.

UK Fishing Industry

Debate between Neil Parish and Jim Shannon

Thursday 1st December 2016 Commons Chamber

[Neil Parish]

I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, although there is a limit to my influence and power. That said, the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee will be carrying out an inquiry on fishing, which is probably more urgent now. Part of that inquiry will involve looking at and taking evidence about all these things—support, labour and how we run our fishing industry. I can give him a commitment about that.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

rose—

[Neil Parish]

I give way to the hon. Gentleman for Northern Ireland; I am not sure of his constituency.

[Jim Shannon]

It is Strangford. I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman does not know that—I thought that everyone in the House knew of Strangford. It must have slipped his mind.

The hon. Member for South Down (Ms Ritchie), two SNP Members—I am sorry, but I cannot remember their constituencies—and I met the previous Minister to make a definitive case for the retention of the Filipino fishermen to ensure that the boats in Scotland and Northern Ireland could survive, but it was not agreed to. Responsibility therefore lies not with Europe but—I say this with the greatest of respect—with the Immigration Minister. There is a scheme for seasonal—

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs Eleanor Laing)]

Order. The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make a speech later, if he leaves enough time after his intervention.

Hospital Food (Animal Welfare Standards)

Debate between Neil Parish and Jim Shannon

Wednesday 12th December 2012 Westminster Hall

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

I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss this important issue, and I thank you, Mr Turner, for allowing me to open the debate, in which I will call for the introduction of mandatory animal welfare standards for hospital food in England. It is a pleasure to do so under your chairmanship. As many hon. Members know, I am passionate about animal welfare, and I am both a proud member of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the chair of the associate parliamentary group for animal welfare.

It may come as a surprise to many that the food served to patients in NHS hospitals in England need not meet mandatory animal welfare standards. Currently, Government buying standards are mandatory only for central Government buying departments, the Ministry of Defence and prisons. Schools and hospitals, which are excluded from the buying standards, account for 70% of public sector spending on food, meaning that prisoners currently have a guaranteed minimum standard but patients do not.

The welfare standard provided for animals reared for food is undoubtedly important, especially for animals reared for food bought by the taxpayer and served in public institutions such as hospitals. The animal welfare quality of food bought by hospitals in England varies widely, yet patients throughout the country deserve to eat food produced to the same high standards. We need a consistent approach to tackle the situation.

Animal welfare standards for hospital meat, dairy and eggs are subject to a postcode lottery. The programme for Government stated that the coalition Government would promote high standards of farm animal welfare, and it is important that public bodies set an appropriate example by ensuring that their purchasing policies are in line with that objective. Unfortunately, research published by the Campaign for Better Hospital Food and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals reveals big regional differences in animal welfare standards for hospital food in England.

The research discovered a number of shocking findings: 71% of eggs bought by hospitals in England are laid by caged hens, and only 39% of eggs bought by hospitals in the south of England are cage-free. Only one in four eggs in the north of England, and only one in every six in the midlands and east of England, are cage-free. We can see how much it varies in the postcode lottery. The report also revealed that 86% of chicken and 80% of pork bought by hospitals is not certified to meet RSPCA welfare standards. The figures paint a sad and regrettable picture of the welfare standards for animals reared to provide food for our hospitals. Chicken, pork and eggs that have not been produced to RSPCA welfare standards are likely to come from animals that have not had a good quality of life. Government attempts to set animal welfare standards using voluntary measures have failed, which is why I am calling for a statutory solution.

Concerns about the quality of hospital food, including its animal welfare standard, are not new. A report by Sustain, the alliance for better food and farming, estimates that in the last 20 years, the Government have spent more than £54 million of taxpayers’ money on issuing guidance to hospitals encouraging them to improve the quality of the food that they serve, including the animal welfare standard of its production, yet the research by the RSPCA and the Campaign for Better Hospital Food shows that the guidance has had a disappointingly weak effect.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the issue to the House. Although it is important to improve animal welfare standards not only in England and Wales but in Northern Ireland and Scotland, he will be aware of the oft-stated comments about hospital food by patients and people who visit hospitals. Does he feel that improving animal welfare standards will also improve the quality of hospital food? That must be a good step.

[Neil Parish]

The reason why I talk about England is that the food served in hospitals is a devolved matter. However, it is still important for Northern Ireland. I am keen to get good animal welfare standards, and I believe that that will help with the quality of meat and eggs served to patients. The two are linked. I believe that most production in the UK and Northern Ireland meets high standards, and I want to ensure as far as is practical that that is the sort of food served in hospitals not only in Northern Ireland but across England as well.

Larch Disease

Debate between Neil Parish and Jim Shannon

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Westminster Hall

[Neil Parish]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We have to use our common sense and bring a mixture of trees back into these ancient woodlands, which have suffered from the destructive larch disease. From my farming background, I know that the greater the spread of varieties of tree, the lower the chance of spreading the larch disease that might still be there. I am sure that the Minister heard exactly what my hon. Friend said, and it will be interesting to see whether the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs can come up with a solution whereby we can get the forests replanted, especially the very valuable ancient woodland.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) for bringing this matter to Westminster Hall; his concerns are shared by many of us. In Northern Ireland, for example, some 200 hectares of trees are under the same threat. Does he agree that trees are perceived as the lungs of the earth and that if they die, it will affect the environment as well? They are important. Does he agree that we need a co-ordinated plan that takes in not only parts of southern England but other regions such as Northern Ireland, where there has been a severe outbreak? It is clear from the evidence that the disease has jumped species.

[Neil Parish]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is right. It is said that such diseases often breed better in the south-west of England due to the climate, but it is amazing how, over the years, they gradually move north. Is the disease present in Northern Ireland at the moment?

[Jim Shannon]

The evidence from the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development is clear. The disease is present in 200 hectares across nine woodlands and 4 hectares of private woodland. It is a disaster for the woodland in Northern Ireland, and it is prevalent in the Republic of Ireland as well.

[Neil Parish]

There are a lot of larch trees in Scotland as well. We must be concerned about the disease, which is why I am glad to have the opportunity to debate it with the Minister so that we can put the case to him. The case has been made for Northern Ireland and the south-west of England, and I will carry on. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention.

The industry believes that a flat-rate supplement will maintain the present imbalance of incentives, exacerbate the softwood differential and push up the cost of dealing with the disease. The Confederation of Forest Industries believes that the proposed grant system will increase the cost to the taxpayer by £1,500 a hectare. To retain a successful forestry sector in the south-west, urgent action is needed to create a more balanced grant system to allow forest owners more choice in replanting; my hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Dr Wollaston) made that point. We must also listen closely to people who own and manage forests.

The Clinton Devon Estates are close to my constituency, and they have assessed what is happening with the disease. Before the involvement of His Royal Highness Prince Charles in February 2011—I understand that the Secretary of State was present at a meeting with the Clinton Devon Estates—the growing belief in the industry was that the plant health threat was poorly understood within the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and that the issue was under-resourced and at significant risk of being compounded by a lack of timely action and resource.

The Clinton Devon Estates now believe that the situation is being turned around. Experts and practitioners across the field are pulling together an action plan that highlights the following: understanding and minimising plant disease threats and mitigating their risks; managing pests and diseases and mitigating their impact; a robust review of the UK’s plant import controls to learn how we inflicted the disease on ourselves, which we hope will delay future disease threats; continued resourcing of relevant Forestry Commission activities, specifically aerial monitoring and diagnostic and research work undertaken at the FC research station at Alice Holt, to provide rapid diagnostic support to field teams and resource to engage proactively with woodland owners; and adequate resourcing of rhododendron removal from the wider environment.

As I am sure the Minister is aware, many parts of the south-west have a huge number of rhododendrons. Natural England leads on the issue within DEFRA and has requested additional resources. To date, there has been no response, although I understand that the Minister is probably not entirely flush with money.

The disease needs to be treated like foot and mouth, and the equivalent of a national war room should be set up to give focus and momentum to efforts to address the threat. Unlike foot and mouth, larch disease does not represent an obvious issue to society. Therefore, it is important to keep the pressure on so that proper resources are allocated to addressing it. The proposed support measures for replanting infected woodland should be equitable to commercial softwood species and native broad-leaf planting. Significant productive areas within the south-west risk being lost, which would have a direct negative impact on the wood processing sector.

Some 11.5% of Devon, or some 77,000 acres of land, is woodland, enjoyed by all who visit it. However, a Forestry Commission survey found that 60% of Devon’s woodlands are under-managed. That is a key issue that should be addressed. I am happy that the Minister could be here for this debate, and I ask him to take these matters forward. As I said, not everybody realises what is happening to our forests as a result of larch disease, and we need to tackle it quickly. We have many rhododendrons in the west country that could spread the disease. I will be interested to hear what solutions he has.