Protecting and Restoring Wetlands

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2024 Commons Chamber

[Siobhan Baillie]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I would very much like to visit to see his brent geese at some stage. Because it is so important for conservation and awareness, I encourage all Members to go and get their social media clips with their wetlands and wildfowl.

The convention on wetlands, also known as the Ramsar convention, is a crucial international treaty aimed at conserving and promoting the sustainable use of wetlands. The oldest global intergovernmental environmental agreement in the world, it set the standards for international co-operation on environmental action that other, more high-profile international agreements have followed. I am proud to say that the UK Government were an early signatory to the convention back in the ’70s, underlining our commitment to the preservation of these valuable ecosystems. The WWT plays a significant role as one of the six international organisational partners involved in the convention’s implementation. Various stakeholders, including environmental non-governmental organisations, contribute to this collaborative effort, showing the importance of partnerships in safeguarding our wetlands.

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

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, both for initiating this debate and for kindly letting me say a word about the Freshwater Habitats Trust, whose New Forest representative, Thea Margetts, I met at the volunteer fair put on by the national park authority last weekend. It is amazing what these volunteers contribute, not least the New Forest water code and other great pointers and advice as to how we can keep these precious but delicate environments safe.

[Siobhan Baillie]

I thank my right hon. Friend for that important intervention, which brings alive the number of freshwater volunteers and shows just how many people are gripped by this environmental work, really taking it into their hearts and running with it. I would say that the wetlands squad is true squad goals! They really do work together and with a range of different people across this country and around the world.

Ramsar sites—protected wetlands of international importance—are some of the UK’s most precious natural treasures. With 175 Ramsar sites, the UK has more than anywhere else in the world. These sites are the equivalent of the white cliffs of Dover or Stonehenge in their significance to the cultural identity of our nation—a country renowned for its wet weather.

Groceries Supply Code of Practice

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Christina Rees]

I agree completely with the points made by my hon. Friend.

The first significant issue to explore is that of intermediaries within the food supply chain. The code has brought many positives, including the removal of back-door illegal practices. Although the code has overseen improved practices, it does not cover the relationships that intermediaries have with either farmers or retailers. Its explicit purpose is to regulate supermarket behaviour to bring value and choice for consumers; it is not, and was never, about producers. The use of intermediaries has the potential to allow retailers to circumvent the code.

When I was preparing for the debate, I heard directly from farmers and about how such practices create problems for them. They rarely have a written contract, so a request for 100,000 lettuces during the first week of September could turn into a downgrade to 70,000 lettuces if the sun suddenly disappears and salads become less favoured than soups. That leaves the farmer with 30,000 unpurchased lettuces and a considerable threat to their business. There are perfectly sensible reasons for intermediaries to exist—in particular in the meat supply chain, where a farmer would not sell a whole carcase to a single retailer, and therefore a processor or intermediary sells different parts to different customers—but the potential for unfair and unsustainable practice is significantly increased without regulation.

A second issue to consider is pricing. Much of the criticism of the code centres on the fact that it does not cover pricing in the food sector, and the issue is exacerbated by the frequent misconception that it does. However, pricing was never covered by the code and the legislation does not allow for its regulation. Coercion by retailers has also had an impact as the cost of a product is squeezed beyond break-even as retailers put pressure on farmers to reduce their prices to allow them to factor in costs such as packaging, marketing and overheads. Instances of such practices have declined, but still pose a problem in achieving a fair price.

We must also look into the imbalance of power and risk. Pricing can illustrate the problem of unequal power and risk within the food supply chain. In 2008, the Competition Commission inquiry found that grocery retailers were transferring excessive risks and unexpected costs to their suppliers. Furthermore, examples such as the one I mentioned previously—when the size of a produce order is suddenly scaled back—illustrate the inequitable distribution of risk, with the grower shouldering most of the burden while the retailer can quickly adapt an order according to market forces without the same risk.

The response to that was the creation of the code and enforcement by the GCA. Several mandatory reviews by Government, as well as supplier surveys, have shown significant improvements in supplier-retailer relations during the past decade or so. Despite that fact, fear remains in the industry. Many call on the GCA to make greater use of its powers to issue fines.

Some suggest that the GCA is hugely under-resourced. It is widely recognised that the cost of a single investigation is greater than its entire annual budget. The result is a perception that the GCA is toothless. The GCA’s opinion is that it is effective within the current parameters of the law, and it is not for it to say whether those parameters should be expanded. However, it is acknowledged that additional funding and powers would be needed to expand the remit of the GCA. The most common criticism of the code and the GCA is that they do not cover the whole supply chain, which means that they apply only to direct suppliers of the 14 biggest retailers, including Tesco, Morrisons, Sainsbury’s and Aldi. That leaves indirect suppliers unprotected, including many small farmers and primary producers. The Competition Commission predicted that problem back in 2008 and suggested two responses: to extend the code and the GCA to cover indirect suppliers or to introduce complementary codes to cover intermediaries and primary producers. Both options, though, ignore the issue of how such codes and regulators are funded so, finally, we must explore the issue of a regulator being both adjudicator and arbitrator.

The GCA is funded via a levy on 14 retailers. This is not uncommon for sector regulators, which are almost always funded via the organisations they oversee. However, that can leave them open to criticism of unfair practice and of not being hard enough on retailers. Although collaboration and arbitration are often useful ways of working, it can be argued that such circumstances pose a challenge if a situation requires the regulator to become an adjudicator and enforce fines. The GCA’s opinion is that the code is flexible enough to deal with a range of issues, including online sales, and that amending it might make it too rigid. When farmers are direct suppliers, the three issues raised by the petitioners are clearly covered and regulated.

What reforms are needed? It can be argued that the criticism levied at the code and the GCA is somewhat unfair as most issues, such as pricing and intermediaries, are simply not covered by the existing legislation and procedures. However, that does not preclude the fact that the issues exist and need to be dealt with. To that end, several reforms have been suggested and need exploring, including expanding the number of retailers covered by the code by lowering the threshold for compliance from £1 billion in turnover to £500 million, preventing retailers circumventing the code by purchasing through intermediaries, increasing the powers and remit of the GCA to cover issues such as pricing and processes, and setting up separate regulators with separate obligations.

The groceries supply code of practice is a vital tool that can either support or hinder the wellbeing of our farmers. It is our responsibility to advocate for reforms that ensure fairness, transparency and sustainability in the supply chain.

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

Like many other Members here, I was not aware of this issue until several constituents contacted me. Does the hon. Lady know whether there is any mechanism whereby small farmers and other suppliers can report it to the regulator when they are put in this difficult situation as a result of promises to make purchases not being kept? I do not see how the regulator can regulate if they do not have adequate information about where suppliers are being let down.

[Christina Rees]

The right hon. Gentleman makes a very important point. Applications are made to the adjudicator, but there is a certain amount of confidentiality involved, and sometimes the farmers reporting want to remain anonymous, so some reporting is done behind the scenes. However, I thank him so much for his intervention; as always, he makes a very valuable point, and it would be interesting to hear what the Minister says about it.

By advocating for reform, we not only support our farmers but contribute to building a more resilient, ethical and sustainable food system for generations to come. Furthermore, a reformed code should prioritise sustainability and ethical practices. Our farmers are not only responsible for feeding the population but for stewarding our environment. It is imperative that the code encourages and rewards environmentally friendly and sustainable farming practices, which could include provisions for fair compensation for using sustainable farming methods, and penalties for practices that harm the environment.

Additionally, the reforms should incorporate measures to address the issue of market access. Farmers, particularly small and local producers, often face barriers that limit their ability to access a diverse range of markets. The groceries supply code of practice can be reformed to encourage retailers to seek out and support local farmers, fostering a more diverse and resilient agricultural system.

In conclusion, although the groceries supply code of practice was established with good intentions, it requires significant reform to provide better support for those who toil tirelessly to bring food to our tables. It is imperative that we acknowledge the challenges faced by our farmers and work towards creating a more equitable and supportive system. We must reform the code to ensure a fair distribution of power and risk in the supply chain. This could be achieved through the establishment of a transparent and accountable framework, possibly involving a new regulator, separate from the GCA, that promotes fair pricing, timely payments and equitable contractual relationships. By empowering farmers with the tools that they need to negotiate fairly, we can foster a more balanced and sustainable agricultural sector. Let us stand together in solidarity with our farmers and work towards a future in which their invaluable contributions are acknowledged, respected and fairly compensated.

While I was preparing for this debate, I met the petitioners and many stakeholders, and I would be pleased if the Minister could explain his Government’s position on the code and give his opinions regarding the issues I have raised. I also invite him to meet me and the petitioners, so that we can explore these issues in greater depth.

Legislation on Dangerous Dogs

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Monday 27th November 2023 Westminster Hall

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

I came to the debate to find out more about the issue and to give voice to my constituent Helen. She is caught by what my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) described as the imprecision of the rules on what actually constitutes a dog of this dangerous categorisation. The Minister is as kindly, compassionate and open to reason as any former Chief Government Whip could be, so I presume on the time of the Chamber only to quote a few extracts from a quite convincing letter from my constituent.

Of course, dangerous dogs legislation has a bit of a history. I was not yet a Member of Parliament when the original legislation was passed. However, I think I am correct that it became a bit of a byword for legislation introduced in a hurry on an issue that turned out to be rather more complex than initially seemed to be the case, and I fear that the same may be true of the present update to the Act. It is therefore with reluctance that I say that we of course all agree that the safety of human beings must come first, but if we propose to inflict severe restrictions on pet owners, we must at least be unambiguous in what we do.

Let me turn to what Helen wrote to me:

“I do not have an ‘XL bully’. My dog is, by DNA testing, an American Bulldog X Neapolitan Mastiff mix, with multiple breeds mixed on the mastiff side. In other words, I have your basic mutt, or ‘Heinz 57’ dog. He will be 11 in April and I have had him since he was 9 weeks old. He has never shown an ounce of aggression towards any humans, including at the vets during some incredibly negative procedures, none of which the vets have ever felt he needed to be muzzled for, including when he had to have a stent placed into his ear when he damaged a blood vessel”—

a procedure she says he had done, “without pain relief!” She continues:

“So you can imagine my shock, my horror, at learning that the ridiculously vague ‘breed definition’ of the XL bully, very hastily and incredibly poorly formed by the Government ‘experts’, somehow seems to have incorporated every and any large muscular looking dog in the UK, potentially including my beloved boy.”

She says that according to the EFRA Committee discussion, the XL bully came to the UK in 2014, but her dog was born the year before, so she finds it hard to believe that he could so be categorised. She says:

“With such vague descriptors as ‘gives the impression of great power for size’, ‘blocky head’ and ‘neck is medium in length’, and the equally vague descriptor that the dog must meet ‘a substantial number of the characteristics’, I have no idea if he would fit ‘type’, and seemingly all that matters is what everybody else thinks!”

She then goes on to say, “Of course, you could recommend my taking a ‘precautionary approach’” and register him anyway, because it would just mean that he would have to be on a lead and muzzled in order to comply. However, apart from this costing her dog its freedom, which she feels is wholly undeserved, she says there is much more in the way of consequences than might be expected.

For example, she says that the health insurance, which she has had for the dog ever since she brought him home, would be lost to her. Without health insurance, it would have cost her more than £3,500 for a procedure that her dog had to undergo, but it actually cost her £800 with the insurance. She says that in the midst of a cost of living crisis, she now has to decide whether to register her dog as an XL bully when she does not believe that he is one at all,

“completely and pointlessly removing his freedom and drastically restricting his life, plus lose the financial backing that I have had his entire life just at the time when he will need it most…or I don’t register him as I don’t believe he is one and wait to see if someone else disagrees, reports me, and I wind up having him forcibly seized, taken away (at a point when I don’t know how much longer he has left with me) and, to top it off, become a criminal, when, as a middle-class, middle manager who has never been out of work I’ve had nothing more than a speeding ticket in my whole life.”

In this individual case, Helen is saying—very much in concert with many of the contributions we have heard so far—that this is a blanket approach insufficiently focused on the actual circumstances under which people should be deprived of their dogs. I agree that we need legislation, and that human life must come first, but I do not agree that the statutory instrument, as it stands, cannot be improved. I am therefore, not for the first time, throwing myself on the mercy of this particular Minister; I look to him to give us, when he comes to wind up, an undertaking that the Government, rather than rushing ahead in a blinkered way, will have another look at the formulation that they have come up with to see whether people like Helen, who by no stretch of the imagination pose a danger to the public with their beloved pets, cannot be excluded from a blunderbuss approach, when a rapier is the weapon we ought to employ in dealing with a very real problem.

Oral Answers to Questions

Julian Lewis Excerpts

Thursday 31st October 2019 Commons Chamber

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

Canterbury!

[Michael Fabricant]

No, Lichfield. We want him in Lichfield and then the hard work done by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York could be shared. We have that precedent; we want you now.

Ivory Bill

Julian Lewis Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons
Monday 4th June 2018 Commons Chamber

[Michael Gove]

The hon. Lady makes an important point: the bravery and determination of those who do this work is outstanding. In countries such as Gabon individuals risk their lives to save elephants and safeguard the animals they love in a country to which they are deeply attached, and as it goes in Gabon it goes in many others countries as well.

The hon. Lady’s intervention also gives me an opportunity to thank our own armed services. As the Defence Secretary pointed out, only last week we dispatched more trained military personnel to support the work of rangers on the ground. That capacity of a country like ours to work together and use our expertise alongside the commitment of those from African nations will help us turn the tide and beat back the poachers.

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

rose—

[Michael Gove]

With that, I am more than happy to give way to my right hon. Friend the Chairman of the Select Committee on Defence.

[Dr Julian Lewis]

Among the tens of thousands of people who responded to the consultation were my constituents, Susie Laan and Louise Ravula, who are part of a small but effective organisation called Two Million Tusks, representing the million elephants slaughtered in the past 100 years. They did some original research that showed that, in 72 auction houses covering 180 lots of ivory, 90% of the sales of those lots were unable to prove the provenance—in other words, the dating to pre-1947—of the ivory, which is a legal requirement for the sale of ivory at the moment. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that research proves that we need a pretty comprehensive ban if we cannot tell the date of the product being sold?

[Michael Gove]

My right hon. Friend makes the next important point in the chain of argument for legislation. Yes, we have restrictions at the moment, but they do not work. The existence of the current legal market allows illegally obtained ivory to pass as legally acceptable ivory or worked ivory for sale. In effect, that means that criminal organisations and those who are driven by the significant profits to be made by selling ivory into markets where there is a demand can use the weakness of the existing provision to pass illegal material off as legal. That is why we need to act.

The need to act, to be more precise and to change the burden of expectation is critical in the minds of all those who responded to the consultation and of those African and other leaders who are pressing action on us. They want to ensure that we take steps to communicate to the world that ivory should not be sold, trafficked or displayed in a way that encourages anyone to think that African elephant ivory is a good of ostentation that someone could derive pleasure from demonstrating their wealth by acquiring. The whole point about the trade in elephant tusks is that it is abhorrent and involves unspeakable cruelty, and every possible step needs to be taken to stop it.

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.