State of Climate and Nature
Debate between Mary Creagh and Tim Farron(2 weeks, 5 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
I thank the Minister for early sight of the statement.
On my way into Kendal this morning, before I came down to Parliament, I observed the jarring reality of fields yellowing in the dry heat and the River Kent so low that I could see the bedrock. Alongside it, defensive walls were being built on the banks of the river in the aftermath of devastating floods—a reminder that climate change has brought extreme weather. It has brought different threats at different times, but they have been equally challenging and dangerous. I am afraid that those who continue to deny climate change look more foolish by the day. We see the danger of climate change especially in the terrifying wildfires in the Peak district—a reminder that we do not protect nature if we completely remove livestock and the human beings that manage nature.
The Government aim to reclaim 30% of our land and seas for nature. I welcome that, and much of the action plan, but 70% of England’s landmass is agricultural land. Does the Minister agree that we must start by ensuring that all farmers have access to environmental schemes—not just those who apply for them the quickest? Will she give more detail on the welcome proposal that the Liberal Democrats have long fought for to now permit those who farm common land to access payments to help restore nature in our most precious landscapes like the Lake district, the Peaks and Dartmoor?
Farmers estimate that hot weather this year will cost them 20% of their harvest. What is the Minister’s plan to remove barriers so that farmers can build on-farm reservoirs and take other measures that will protect our natural environment and food security?
Finally, if the Government want to meet their targets—we really want them to—are they not being unwise in their rush to deregulate on planning? Should we not be increasing the ability of local communities to resist the destruction of nature and to have greater power to direct developers to protect and enhance nature rather than being at the whim of those whose only motive is profit?
Mary Creagh
The hon. Member asked about a range of policies. I will talk about natural flood management. We will invest £300 million in natural flood management over the next 10 years—the highest ever figure for floods programming, and that is the minimum level. We will be supporting projects that reduce flood risk and deliver wider benefits to communities and nature.
On the concrete flood barriers and dried rivers that the hon. Gentleman spoke about, we must do more to enable farmers to hold water in their land. When they are building their reservoirs, we do not want concrete bowls or buckets; what we need are natural scrapes and areas where they can hold on to water. They can help with that natural aspiration by planting trees and experimenting with agroforestry, as we are doing with the western forest around Bristol and Gloucester. We are acutely aware of the challenges that farmers face from extreme weather events. In some areas in the east of England, the wheat harvest is already being brought in.
We are committed to maintaining food production and supporting thriving farm businesses. But, as I said earlier, land managers and farmers have an increasingly important role in reducing the risk of flooding and coastal erosion as we adapt to climate changes, and eligibility criteria for natural flood management funding has widened to include them for the first time. We want them to do more on soils, so that they can hold the water as well, buffer strips, to slow the flow, and run-off attenuation features to store and release water.
Oral Answers to Questions
Debate between Mary Creagh and Tim Farron(3 weeks, 2 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
My constituents who live close to the Flusco landfill site in Newbiggin are one of many communities right across the country bearing the brunt of this nationwide scandal. The owners of the site—a legitimate one on paper—have been judged to have flagrantly broken environmental regulations. Like many other sites, this one has been ineffectively regulated and poorly policed. Residents cannot leave out their washing or let their kids play outside. In this heat especially, the stench can be unbearable, and the leachate and gases utterly intolerable. Meanwhile, the country is being ripped off as the Government’s landfill taxes are being flouted to the tune of at least £1 billion every year. Will the Government act urgently and powerfully to help my constituents and all those living near landfill sites, which in recent years have become toxic in every sense?
Mary Creagh
I was pleased to meet the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) to talk about the activities at these waste sites. Unpicking the work happening there is a long and complex legal process involving multi-agency and cross-agency working. We now have a properly funded waste crime enforcement unit. The funding for that unit was a mere £10 million in 2023-24, but it has had an extra £5 million this year to take it up to £15 million, and then we are doubling it to £30 million. That is the way we take these people down.
Public Forest Estate (England)
Debate between Mary Creagh and Tim Farron(15 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mary Creagh
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point and brings us back to the question of money.
Who will pay to look after England’s forests? Page 17 of the consultation document has many warm words on the English woodland grant scheme. It says that any new owners could apply to create new woodlands and to care for existing ones. However, that document must be read in conjunction with a much more serious one—the impact assessment, page 39 of which states that payments under the woodland grant scheme
“may not be sufficient to secure the level of public goods currently provided on the PFE.”
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD)
The hon. Lady makes some good points. Does she agree that this Government could learn lessons from the mistakes of the previous Government, of whom she was a member? Rigg wood in my constituency was sold off under the Labour Government, and as a result, public access has now been restricted. Would it be right for this Government to think carefully about how we protect public access to our forests, whether publicly owned or otherwise, given that her Government failed so badly?
Mary Creagh
Let us go back to the numbers. We sold off 9,000 hectares and bought 5,000. The Government whom he supports—I am grateful that he is backing our campaign on this issue—will sell off more land in the next year than the previous Labour Government sold off in 13 years, and they will do so without giving any guarantees whatever on public access. Government Members should think on that and reflect on the 40,000 hectares that are going in the sale of the century.
Page 18 of the consultation document states that
“significantly increasing woodland cover across the UK would be a cost-effective way to help with both climate change mitigation and adaptation.”
When I met Forestry Commission staff, they told me that they estimated that the future value of biomass and wind power on the public forest estate could be as much as £75 million a year. Perhaps Government Members can tell the House how the sell-off will increase tree planting if there are not enough grants to go around.
I recently met free miners and verderers from the Forest of Dean. They told me that it costs £500,000 to look after their forest, and that it brings £100 million to the rural economy. They want their questions answered. Who will run the forest? What would happen if the much-vaunted charitable trust collapses? How would their commoners’ rights be protected in any transfer? The New Forest costs the Forestry Commission £2.9 million to run. How will that money be raised in perpetuity? I shall answer that question for the House: the money will be raised through increasing parking charges, by closing toilets and by reducing spending on wildlife management. That is not my view, but the view expressed in the Forestry Commission’s staff consultation, which was published today and which lays everything out for us in black and white.