Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent representations he has received from the (a) Official Verderer, (b) Commoners Defence Association and (c) National Park Authority of the New Forest, on (i) damage to the landscape caused by excessive numbers of depastured cattle and (ii) the establishing of the reference period for delinking Basic Payment Scheme (BPS) payments from the requirement to make an annual BPS application in order to continue to receive such payments; what assessment he has made of the accuracy of reports that the increase in cattle numbers on the Forest in recent years is unsustainable; and if he will make it his policy to make a decision on that matter as soon as possible and treat the New Forest as a special case.
Answered by Victoria Prentis - Attorney General
We have received three pieces of correspondence from the New Forest Commoners Defence Association on these subjects.
The New Forest National Park Authority are aware of the challenges and have been working with the Forestry Commission, Verderers and the Commoners Defence Association to help find the best solution to support commoning and deliver the best outcomes for land management.
Natural England recently recommended that the Environmental Stewardship Higher Level agreement with the Verderers should be extended by one year as the agreement was delivering its objectives and the Sites of Special Scientific Interest within the forest were being managed in a way that improved their condition. We are not aware of damage to landscape due to increased numbers of de-pastured cattle.
We intend to consult further with the industry before setting the detailed rules for delinked payments. This will help us get the approach right for farmers and allow us to take account of any particular concerns, such as the impact on commoners.
The reference period to be used for delinked payments is one of the areas that we intend to consult on. For example, we could make payments based on the Basic Payment Scheme payments the farmer was entitled to receive in a particular scheme year or average over a number of years. We understand the importance of carefully deciding on this reference period and of communicating it to the industry in good time.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care on the benefits to mental health of access to green spaces during the lockdown due to the covid-19 outbreak; what recent assessment he has made of the potential merits of reopening garden centres; and if he will make it his policy to allow (a) garden centres and (b) private gardens to admit members of the public subject to the strict maintenance of social distancing requirements.
Answered by Victoria Prentis - Attorney General
The Secretary of State regularly discusses a range of issues with Cabinet colleagues including the Health Secretary and, as set out in the Government’s 25 Year Environment Plan published in January 2018, is aware of the benefits of connecting people to the natural environment for both mental and physical health and wellbeing.
As this is the International Year of Plant Health, we have been promoting the benefits of our plants in all settings and are planning a National Plant Health Week in September.
The benefits of being outside are noted in the Government guidance for the public on mental health and wellbeing aspects of coronavirus (COVID-19). You will be aware of the announcement the Communities Secretary made on 18 April with regard to ensuring public parks stay open.
The Government is keeping the situation on garden centres under review, but concluded last week that it was too early to ease any restrictions on such retail environments. Social distance requirements will continue to be considered in accordance with this review.
We will continue to work closely with the representatives from the horticulture supply chain to understand what short-term and long-term support the sector needs and how we might be able to support them. We are ready to respond to emerging issues quickly and effectively.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, what recent comparative assessment he has made of the effect of (a) increases in the volume of rainfall and (b) decreases in the volume of river dredging on the (i) quantity and (ii) extent of flooding in each of the last 10 years; if he will make it his policy to increase river dredging; and if he will make a statement.
Answered by Rebecca Pow - Parliamentary Under-Secretary (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs)
Dredging is one of the interventions used by the Environment Agency (EA) to manage rivers. The EA prioritises those interventions which achieve the greatest benefit in terms of better protecting people and property from flooding. Dredging and clearing channels are important parts of the EA’s maintenance regime. Dredging is used where it is technically effective, good value for money, does not significantly increase flood risk for others downstream, and is environmentally acceptable. Dredging is unlikely to be effective in isolation but it can be part of a solution involving multiple interventions.
A useful reference on the effectiveness of dredging was published by CIWEM in 2014, entitled, ‘Floods and dredging, A reality check’.
Other activities the EA uses to manage rivers include clearing aquatic weed within rivers, removing blockages such as shoals of silt, clearing debris from screens and gates and removing obstructions such as trees, so that water can flow freely along the channel.
Over each of the past three years, in real terms, the EA has spent between £45 million and £55 million per year on channel maintenance compared with between £39 million and £55 million per year in each of the three years to April 2013.
Without these interventions more flooding would have occurred over the last decade, although it is difficult to quantity this benefit.
Asked by: Julian Lewis (Conservative - New Forest East)
Question to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs:
To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, for what reason her Department's internal report on the impact of fracking on rural communities has been made public only in redacted form; what the criteria are for imposing such redactions; and if she will make it her policy to publish the report in full.
Answered by Dan Rogerson
I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Bassetlaw, John Mann, on 11 September 2014, Official Report, column 723W.