§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dorrell.]
10.11 pm§ Mr. Greville Janner (Leicester, West)I am delighted to have the opportunity to place before the House the Countryside Commission's proposal for a new national forest in the midlands and to say how much Leicestershire Members of Parliament, irrespective of party, believe that Leicestershire is the right place for the forest. This is one of the many occasions, which are seldom recognised, when Leicestershire Members of Parliament work and campaign together and I hope that we shall achieve results together.
I wish to say how much my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) regrets that he cannot be present. He has asked me to say how much he supports the campaign and I know that he does so because he is a tremendous worker for his constituents. The placing of the forest in Leicestershire is important to us all.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), in whose constituency the bulk of the forest will be, is present. If he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that he will say that he supports the proposal, as does the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) with whom I have campaigned on many issues affecting our constituents which, like this one, were above party politics.
Unfortunately, because of his reprehensible office, the hon. Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) is unable to speak. On this matter, at least it would have been a pleasure to hear him. He indicates, by his smile and posture, that he is on our side.
The Countryside Commission has produced a consultation document entitled, "A new National Forest for the Midlands." It is a great concept for a massive new national forest. The Countryside Commission has suggested five sites. It says that the purpose of the forest is to provide a proper framework of tree planting around which housing and farming and recreation can be developed, to be a major new recreational resource, to offer a way of using farmland that has been marginalised by new farming methods and by the European Economic Community, and to act as a catalyst for economic development. This is a matter of great environmental importance, not least because at a time when acid rain is destroying our forests it offers us a chance to build one.
Why is Leicestershire the most suitable of the five sites? I apply to it the criteria that the Countryside Commission would apply. It is the least treed of all the sites—the most green field of the sites. There is a small forest, Charnwood —small compared with Sherwood—from which the proposed forest would radiate. The region has many old mines and areas which require landscaping. As industries decline, the need for this forest becomes increasingly important. Alas, the traditional industries of Leicestershire are declining—knitwear, hosiery and footwear—and we need the new life that the forest would bring. It is essential if new industry is to be attracted to our county.
The Countryside Commission said that one vital factor in choosing the site would be the willingness of local people to have it. I pay tribute to the stunningly successful woody tree campaign which was run by the Leicester Mercury and which evoked 10,000 telephone calls in 114 support one weekend, thousands of letters sent through the post and representations which will be sent on. Schools and individuals in my constituency say that, although the forest will be outside Leicester, it will provide a vital new asset to the city, a new lung and a new resource for the people who live in it.
The Countryside Commission said that there must be support at local level which must be maintained, and I am sure that it will be. The commission said that it will be some 20 years before the first trees show signs of lively growth and perhaps 50 years before there is real progress. I hope that my constituents will be good enough to keep re-electing me so that I will be there to feast and picnic in that forest in 20 years' time, if not in 50. I hope that, with the united phalanx of Leicestershire Members of Parliament—whether they are able to speak in the debate or whether they can only sit and listen and nod—the Countryside Commission will hear what we have to say and recognise that Leicestershire is the right county for this magnificent new forest.
§ Mr. David Ashby (Leicestershire, North-West)I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for choosing this subject for an Adjournment debate and for being so courteous to other Leicestershire Members in allowing time for us to speak. As he said, I am the Member perhaps most affected by the proposal for a new forest in the midlands if our area is selected. I need not go through all the arguments so admirably put forward by the hon. and learned Gentleman as to why we should have the forest. I shall concentrate on other matters.
If we are to have the forest, it is right that we should show that we support it locally and that it will be loved, cherished and looked after by local people. The Countryside Commission will consider that criterion in making its choice. We in Leicestershire have shown how much we want the forest and will look after it.
I pay tribute to the magnificent campaign run by the Leicester Mercury, informing people and getting the overwhelming support of the local population. The newspaper ran a phone-in and found that 10,000 people were in favour and only 44 against. That speaks for the support that the forest will have in our area.
There is another aspect. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West comes from the city and referred to the delights to which the city dwellers will look forward. The forest will not only offer leisure facilities and attract. tourism—it will be a delight for the people of Leicester who we hope will be able to come along the Ivanhoe line from Leicester, stop at a glade in the middle of the forest and picnic there in summer, enjoying the delights and benefits that the forest offers.
I shall not go around demanding that the forest be in north-west Leicestershire, crossing south Derbyshire into Staffordshire. I do not make such a demand because that is not how the Countryside Commission operates and that is not how it will be persuaded to choose our area. I merely say that our area wants the forest, we need it and we will give it all the support and love that is required in such an immense undertaking. Our area is therefore eminently suited to be considered for the siting of the forest.
§ Mr. Keith Vaz (Leicester, East)rose——
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)Does the hon. Gentleman have the permission of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner)?
§ Mr. VazYes, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
This year, my hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) celebrates a generation in the House, having been a Member for 20 years. With his usual generosity he has allowed other Leicestershire Members to take part in the debate. I am particularly fond of my hon. and learned Friend because he brought me to the House in 1979 and took me on to the roof. It was my first visit.
Today Leicester Members on both sides of the House are united in support of the campaign. I pay tribute to the Leicester Mercury, the editor Mr. Leys, and its journalists for leading the campaign so dynamically. Newspapers are so often destructive, but here we have an example of a newspaper playing a constructive role in leading public opinion.
I believe that the people of Leicestershire and my constituents will cherish the forest. It will become a vital part of life in our beautiful county, which lies modestly in the heart of England. I hope that the Minister will take note of the tremendous and rare unity that we display today and will use his good offices to pass on our views to the chairman of the Countryside Commission.
§ Mr. Michael Latham (Rutland and Melton)It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby). I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West has worked closely with the Leicester Mercury on this matter, which affects his own constituency. I am a member of the Leicestershire branch of the Country Landowners Association executive committee, although I own no land in Leicestershire or anywhere else—apart, that is, from a quarter of an acre of garden. At our meeting some months ago, members expressed considerable unhappiness that other counties were making more of their claim to have the forest sited in their area than Leicestershire. As a result, tremendous efforts were made by Leicestershire county council, the Leicester Mercury and others to get the forest in its rightful place, which is Leicestershire.
I am unique among Leicestershire Members in having a potential competitor in my own area. The Northamptonshire forest, if granted—I hope that it will not be granted—would spill into Rutland, but I am delighted to be able to tell the House that Rutland district council has said that it does not want the forest. Apparently,
The north western part of Leicestershire was thought to be more deserving of such a scheme than Rutland.That is the decision of Rutland district council, and I am happy to commend it.
§ Mr. David Tredinnick (Bosworth)I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) for giving us this opportunity to be seen among other Leicestershire Members demonstrating our solidarity in 116 favour of the forest. The forest has caught the imagination of the people of Leicestershire. The Leicester Mercury has run a good campaign. We have shown that there is very little opposition and a fantastic amount of support. That is hardly surprising because, of all the proposals, this is the only proposal for a really new forest. The forest may be between two existing forests, but the land on which it will be planted is virgin territory—it has never before been planted with a large number of trees.
There are many former mineral sites in the county which need attention and are eligible for grants. We desperately hope that the forest will come to north-east Leicestershire. It is a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby), whose idea this was originally, that there should be a massive campaign in favour of the forest and we are all behind him.
§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory)I congratulate the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on raising this important issue on the Adjournment and on securing this striking degree of all-party support. We have heard speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham), for Bosworth (Mr. Tredinnick) and for Leicestershire, North-West (Mr. Ashby) as well as from the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz). I note that my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Dorrell) has ensured that his duties in the House coincide with the debate.
The interesting idea of a midlands forest emanates from the Countryside Commission which launched a consultation paper last November, giving certain details and seeking views on several key factors, particularly funding, management and, perhaps most important, location. It identified five areas which it has shortlisted—first, a north-south belt between Birmingham and Coventry; secondly, land on the borders of Staffordshire, Derbyshire, Leicestershire and Warwickshire; thirdly, an area in north-east Northamptonshire which takes in part of south-east Leicestershire; fourthly, the Sherwood forest area, mainly in Nottinghamshire but extending into eastern Derbyshire; and finally, the most westerly option, land from Droitwich into Hereford and Worcester and northwards to Telford.
The commission's aim in suggesting those options is to decide on a final site later this year which will launch a 150 sq mile multi-purpose forest, only about half of which will be in strict terms under tree cover, with the rest consisting of a blend of small woods, fields, towns and villages. In due course, like its famous and ancient counterpart in Hampshire, we hope that the new forest will become a major national asset.
The Countryside Commission has chosen the midlands for all of its candidate sites. Why? It is partly because much of the farmland is vulnerable to changes in agriculture in the light of farm surpluses and other changes in the pattern of agriculture. In addition, the midlands includes major centres of population which in some cases are only poorly or incompletely served with opportunities for countryside recreation. In addition, the past activities of industry have 117 produced a legacy of damaged landscapes in the area which offer considerable scope for environmental improvement.
To bring the project to completion would be a long-term challenge of great complexity. It would be the work of several generations. I am sure that good progress could be made within the first 30 years or so and that the forest would serve to enhance the landscape as well as create new habitats and outlets for recreation. It would create jobs and eventually provide an important source of home-grown timber. Great thought will have to go into planning the forest to get the balance right between soft woods and hard woods and between the different species of hard woods.
The commission has rightly stressed that, to succeed, the forest must attract the support of local people, landowners, businesses and central and local government. The consultation paper marked a first step in seeking their views. It carried a foreword by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, who described the concept of a new lowlands forest as "bold and far-reaching". However, he endorsed the importance attached by the commission to canvassing a broad range of opinion to ensure that
any scheme which results enjoys the wide support which will be a vital factor in its success".I am sure that the commission will take into account the degree and depth of local support and the strength of local campaigns in selecting a final choice. The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West has drawn attention to the support in his constituency and in Leicestershire generally. I know, because I have seen the press cuttings, that the Leicester Mercury has run a notable campaign in support of that site. The consultation period runs until 28 February and in parallel the commission has in hand several further studies covering likely costs, the socio-economic effects of the proposed forest and its potential environmental impact. It is also conducting surveys of public opinion in the areas concerned.The next step will be for the commission to consider the results of those studies, once available, and the detailed response to public consultation itself.
§ Mr. LathamMy hon. Friend said that the consultation period ran until 28 February. Will he ensure that this debate is brought to the attention of the Countryside Commission?
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryI undertake to do so.
The next step is to consider the results of the surveys and, as part of the consultation process, to study the views of Members of Parliament and what is said both inside and outside the House, as I have promised.
I should stress that besides the all-important matter of location, on which the debate has focused, a number of key points remain for exhaustive consideration. Obviously, funding will be important. Considerable resources will be required for a large-scale, long-term programme.
§ Mr. AshbyBritish Coal owns a great deal of the land and much of it has been ravaged by mining. Should not British Coal put in a great deal of the funding? Will my hon. Friend consider that?
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryThe greater the sponsorship from the private sector or from public bodies such as British Coal, the more likely it is that the candidate sites will receive favourable consideration. I urge hon.
118 Members not to waste any opportunities to secure corporate funding to bolster the case for their particular sites or constituencies. It is a major project and costs will be substantial. Although there are planting grants under existing schemes run by the Forestry Commission and other bodies, of themselves they will not be sufficient. We are looking for outside, additional funding to get the project off the ground and to ensure that it is followed through to a successful conclusion.
A second aspect on which decisions would be needed relates to the land itself. A significant area would need to be converted from its present use to woodland. We need to consider how that would become available, bearing in mind the size of the project. I have already said that, in total, it would encompass about 150 sq miles. There is no question of compulsory purchase—that has already been ruled out by the Countryside Commission. In any case, as I have emphasised, the forest would not consist of unbroken tree cover. Farmland and continued agriculture would form part of the essential character of the forest. However, the commission believes that local landowners would be keen to establish and manage new and existing woodland cover, but complementary to that there is also scope for linking new woodland and recreation facilities to new development and for converting derelict land to lowland forest.
I do not rule out the acquisition of land on the open market, for example, by bodies already owning and managing land, for conservation and amenity purposes.
Last but not least, we need to look ahead to see how the project and the forest would be managed in the longer term. As the commission stresses, we are talking of an extremely long-term investment and that highlights the management requirement and the essential need for continuity of that management.
Some people suppose that planting a forest is simply a question of putting in a few saplings, going away for 40 years, coming back and finding a forest. That is not the case. Trees need to be staked, watered, weeded and kept free of vermin and vandalism. In other words, we need a long-term commitment by people living and working in the area.
§ Mr. TredinnickSeveral villages in my constituency come within the new forest area and there is a genuine determination among landowners and all those working on the land to make a success of the project. One or two farmers were concerned that they would be forced out of business, but they have been reassured. There is tremendous support for the project right across the board in this part of west Leicestershire.
§ Mr. Heathcoat-AmoryI re-emphasise that there will be no compulsory purchase of land—essentially the undertaking is voluntary—and I hope that that reassures landowners in my hon. Friend's constituency.
The commission has not yet decided what the vehicle should be for undertaking the large project. Should we set up a private company on which private and public interests are represented? Should the company be publicly owned or should a voluntary organisation, perhaps with charitable status, push the project through? Perhaps the answer will be a combination of all the models, but I do not want to prejudge the issue.
As hon. Members have said, the proposed midlands forest is part of a wider trend. Worldwide there is increased 119 interest in all matters to do with trees and forests. More than ever we are conscious that the stability of global ecosystems, even of the climate itself, is crucially dependent upon forest cover in ways that we are only now beginning to understand.
My hon. Friend the Member for Leicestershire, North-West mentioned our coal deposits, which were laid down over some 300 million years. In the space of just a few centuries, however, we are putting a lot of that coal back into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide. Planting trees can reverse that process and fix carbon dioxide back into solid form. It might be a nice concept locally that we are completing the carbon cycle by planting trees.
Great concern has also been expressed about the destruction of the tropical rain forests. In only three years this country has suffered great storms of considerable violence that have caused the loss of many trees. Some 15 million were lost in the great storm of 1987 alone. It is therefore vital that we do all we can, where we can, to promote new planting. I remind the House that only 10 per cent. of Great Britain's land area is covered by forest, in 120 comparison with the 25 per cent. average forest cover in the European Community. There is considerable scope for increased planting.
I emphasise the importance of local support and commitment to the project. We want to harness local enthusiasm and convert it into firm offers of involvement by private and voluntary organisations, companies and the public generally. In part at least, a final choice of location for the forest will be critically dependent on practical local support of that sort.
We have had a useful, although short, debate. The vision of a midlands forest is an exciting one. But, like anything worth while, it will not be achieved without hard work and commitment. From what I heard during this debate, that dedication exists in the midlands in abundance. I cannot possibly prejudge which of the candidate sites will be selected. For the present, I must simply note the views expressed. I have already undertaken to pass them on to the Countryside Commission. I will certainly bear in mind both the support and the views expressed when the final decision has to be taken.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.