I am not against HS2. I am for trees, but not just any trees; trees that enhance our environment and improve our biodiversity. I want to pick up on two very brief points, in relation to the remarks of the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), on net biodiversity loss and translocation.
It is absolutely clear that the commitment in the Government’s White Paper was not simply to no net biodiversity loss but to leaving the natural environment of England in a better state. This project will set a precedent on how to deal with the natural environment for all future major infrastructure projects. The question is whether it will fulfil the promise of improving the natural environment, leaving it in a better state for our children. National planning policy framework 118 is absolutely clear:
“planning permission should be refused for development resulting in the loss or deterioration of irreplaceable habitats, including ancient woodland”.
Ancient woodland is irreplaceable.
The Secretary of State used the figure of 7 million trees when he spoke from the Dispatch Box earlier. Seven million trees, if planted at the rate suggested by the Woodland Trust of 2,500 trees per hectare, would give rise to 2,400 additional hectares. I want a commitment from the Secretary of State that they will be additional hectares: additional to the Government’s promise that 5,000 hectares of new woodland will be planted in England each year, a promise that at the moment is not being met. Some 2,400 hectares had been planted up to 2014-15, which is more than 4,000 hectares light on the existing promise. I want a commitment that the additional 2,400 hectares—the 7 million trees he spoke of—will be on top of the existing promise that is not being met.
Finally, on translocation, Natural England clearly states that an
“ancient woodland ecosystem cannot be moved”.
The Woodland Trust’s extensive research into translocation states:
“The only thing that is certain when translocation of ancient woodland soils is undertaken is that a valuable habitat will be destroyed.”
There is no guarantee that a similarly valuable habitat will be created. The idea, therefore, that translocation can be used and justified as the Minister attempted to do earlier—he is an honourable and decent man using the information that his civil servants no doubt gave him—is wrong.
5.8 pm