Public Forest Estate

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Thursday 27th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I have today published a public consultation on the future of the public forest estate in England. A copy of the consultation document is available through the DEFRA website (www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/consult/index.htm) and the Forestry Commission website (www.forestry.gov.uk/england-pfe-consultation) and I have placed copies in the Libraries of both Houses.

The public forest estate in England is around 258,000 hectares of Government-owned land managed by the Forestry Commission. It represents less than one fifth of the woodlands of England, with the majority of the remainder in private and voluntary sector ownership. The estate was started at a time of national crisis after the first world war, with severe shortages of timber and a woodland resource depleted to less than 5% of the land area in Great Britain.

In line with the Government’s broad policy to effect a shift from big Government to big society, the consultation sets out the rationale for reducing state ownership and management of forest resources. The status quo is not an option. There is a fundamental conflict of interest in the Forestry Commission’s role. It is the largest player in the commercial forestry sector, a sector it also regulates.

The Government’s approach to looking at new models of ownership and management of the public forest estate in England will be underpinned by a set of key principles that are designed to protect public access and other public benefits that so many enjoy. The Government’s proposals, on which the consultation seeks views, are for a mixed approach which includes:

recognising that there is no one-size-fits-all approach to the different types of woodland and forestry;

inviting new or existing charitable organisations to take on ownership or management of the heritage forests in order to secure their public benefits future generations to enjoy;

creating opportunities for community and civil society groups to buy or lease forests that they wish to own or manage; and

issuing long-term leases on the large-scale commercially valuable forests. By leasing rather than selling, it will be possible to ensure that the public can continue to enjoy their benefits.

The Government are committed to the ongoing provision and protection of the public benefits provided by the public forest estate. The policy we are consulting on shows how we intend to achieve this. We will ensure that the powers in the Public Bodies Bill reflect our policy objectives, so that the powers and duties within it are strengthened to safeguard the natural and social capital our forests provide now and for future generations. This would apply to the powers of sale, lease and management of the public forest estate. The consultation proposes that conditions will be attached to leases so that access and other public benefits are protected. We will consider:

introducing a general duty on the Government to have regard to the maintenance of public benefits when exercising the powers under the Bill;

exempting the most iconic heritage forests from the full range of options so that for example, the Forest of Dean or the New Forest could only be transferred to a charitable organisation or remain in public ownership, in line with the policy as set out in the consultation.

The Forestry Commission will play an important role in supporting the wider forestry sector—through its regulatory, grant-giving, research and expert advisory roles—to provide a wide range of public benefits.

The consultation relates to 85% of the public forest estate. The remaining 15% is covered by the spending review settlement, announced in October 2010.

I am today publishing tightened criteria for those sales under the Forestry Commission’s programme to deliver £100 million in gross receipts during 2011-15. During 2010, the Forestry Commission’s asset disposal programme continued under criteria established by the previous Administration. At the end of 2010, pending review of the sales criteria, Ministers withdrew some sites from sale. The new criteria have been amended to strengthen the protection of public benefits through the withdrawal from sale of woodlands with significant areas of unrestored plantations on ancient woodland sites.

Independent Review of the Science Advisory Council to DEFRA

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Wednesday 26th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I wish to update the House on developments related to the Science Advisory Council (SAC) to DEFRA.

I am pleased to announce a new model for the SAC following the outcome of the review of all arm’s length bodies, and a separate and independent review of the SAC.

The ALB review sought to ensure better co-ordination between science advisory bodies in DEFRA. As part of this, the Department reviewed the role and functions of its 18 scientific and technical advisory bodies. On 14 October 2010 it was announced that the majority of the advisory bodies will become expert committees. They will continue to provide independent advice, but the change will allow for greater co-ordination as the scientific expert committees will work more closely with the Science Advisory Council and DEFRA’S chief scientific adviser.

DEFRA’S Science Advisory Council is to be retained as an NDPB, and will support the CSA in oversight of all relevant DEFRA scientific committees. It will continue to provide independent advice and challenge to the chief scientific adviser and Ministers on the science underpinning a range of DEFRA policies

The independent review of the SAC, led by Professor Charles Godfray and commissioned by DEFRA’S chief scientist, Professor Bob Watson, contained 12 major recommendations. Professor Watson and I are content to accept these recommendations which include:

that the SAC be reconstituted as a leaner body of around six people plus an external chair;

the need to articulate more clearly the role of the SAC and how it adds value to the Department’s use of science and evidence;

the need to provide challenge and scrutiny to other bodies providing science advice to DEFRA.

A new model for the Science Advisory Council will be established in line with the independent review’s recommendations. With these recommendations in mind, new terms of reference and a revised code of practice for members will be raised. The recruitment of new members will commence in February 2011, with the first SAC meeting scheduled for September 2011.

The SAC will support the CSA by independently assuring and challenging the evidence underpinning DEFRA policies and ensuring that the evidence programme meets DEFRA’S needs.

The DEFRA CSA will have oversight of, and offer support to, all DEFRA scientific expert committees, and the new SAC will support the CSA in this role. This approach will ensure that the Department achieves a greater and more co-ordinated level of evidence assurance.

Separately, DEFRA are taking forward plans to replace many of its advisory NDPBs with expert committees. Further announcements will be made in due course.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Tuesday 25th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

My right hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for agriculture and food represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 24 January.

There were three items on the agenda relating to agriculture. Discussion took take place on the following:

Presidency work programme: a routine presentation from the new (Hungarian) presidency of its plans and objectives.

A presentation by the Commission of its analysis of the state of honey bee health and what can be done to improve it. This is an important issue for the UK and we are already undertaking our own programme.

CAP reform: this debate will focus on the issues around natural resource protection and climate change.

There were five items under any other business:

Cross-border infectious animal diseases—a paper from Latvia flagging its action to prevent cross-border transmission of African swine fever from Russia and calling for EU support.

Current dioxin situation in Germany—a report from Germany on their current problems with dioxins in feed and the actions taken. The UK was one of the few member states directly affected (receiving some contaminated eggs).

Situation on the pig meat market—Belgium asking for Commission action to help farmers in the current difficult situation in the pig meat market and the setting up of a pig high-level group.

Foresight project on the future of food and farming—a UK item.

International agricultural markets—an update from the Commission on the current state of global food commodity markets.

December Environment Council

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Tuesday 11th January 2011 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

The Deputy Permanent Representative, Andy Lebrecht, represented the United Kingdom at the Environment Council on 20 December in Brussels. I was unable to attend due to severe weather disrupting travel between the United Kingdom and Belgium.

The Council reached political agreement on the regulation concerning the placing on the market of biocidal products. The UK welcomed the political agreement as a risk-based compromise which strikes the right balance between protecting health and environment from the biocides themselves but also from the harmful organisms that biocides are used to control.

The Belgian presidency presented the outcome of the third trilogue with the European Parliament on the regulation setting emission performance standards for new light commercial vehicles, as part of the EU’s integrated approach to reduce CO₂ emissions from light-duty vehicles. During the exchange of views that followed Environment Ministers indicated their support for the compromise that had been reached, including the long-term target of average CO₂ emissions of 147 grams per kilometre in 2020. The European Parliament is expected to vote on the proposal at its February plenary session.

The Council also adopted conclusions that welcomed the outcome of the Nagoya meeting of the convention on biodiversity in October, and committed the EU to implementation of the decisions taken.

Further conclusions were adopted on improving environmental policy instruments. Several member states expressed the importance they attach to having a seventh environment action programme to succeed the current one which covers the period up to 2012. The UK stressed the need for the new framework to be based on an assessment of the current sixth environment action programme, and highlighted the move to an environmentally sustainable, low-carbon, resource-efficient economy as a key challenge to be addressed. This could be achieved through focus on: integration of sustainability objectives in other policy areas; better implementation of existing legislation rather than new initiatives; and more involvement of society, incentivising and motivating behaviour change.

The Council also adopted a third set of conclusions, on sustainable materials management and sustainable production and consumption.

The Council took note of the presidency’s progress reports on the recast directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment (WEEE) and on the proposal for a regulation regarding the possibility for member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory. The discussion on GMOs followed similar lines to the earlier discussion at Environment Council in October 2010, with many member states raising concerns about the proposal. The UK has yet to finalise its position on this dossier, but emphasised the need to find a way through the current impasse and to achieve legal clarity on the consistency of the proposal with WTO rules and the single market. Several member states focused on the need to consider clear criteria upon which national decisions on cultivation could be taken and welcomed the Commission’s proposal to discuss this further.

Ministers also exchanged views on the outcome of the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN convention on climate change at Cancun. They agreed that the outcome was positive and forward-looking, laying the foundation for further work and confirming the strength of a multilateral process. The UK supported Germany in their call for a new strategy building on Cancun, part of which had to be a move beyond the EU’s 20% target.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council (13-14 December)

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 13 and 14 December. Richard Lochhead and Michelle Gildernew attended for Scotland and Northern Ireland respectively.

There were two substantive agenda items on fisheries; the setting of fishing opportunities for EU vessels in the Atlantic, and in the Black Sea respectively. There were four items on agriculture (the three dairy items being taken together) and one agriculture AOB.

On fishing opportunities for 2011, the Council and Commission reached unanimous agreement on a package of measures which set quotas for the main commercial fish stocks in the Atlantic, including for cod, haddock, plaice and sole. Over two days of intensive negotiations, the UK battled hard to reach an agreement that ensures the long term sustainability of fish stocks, while providing short term catching opportunities for our fishing industry. The package my hon. Friend secured, helps all sectors of the industry, large and small, and delivers benefits for all parts of the UK—north, south, east and west. It also means the UK can drive forward with its innovative approach to fisheries management—catch quotas—which enable fishermen to land more while catching less, thereby helping to tackle the scourge of discards. The final agreement included a number of notable gains for the UK, including on Irish Sea Nephrops, Western Channel sole. West of Scotland megrim and monkfish in the West of Scotland and the Celtic Sea.

The UK team also fought off effort restrictions for fisheries in the Celtic Sea, with a commitment to consider a more sensible management regime to apply from 2012. Moreover, they won a firm commitment from the Commission to a comprehensive review of the EU’s cod recovery plan next year. The UK also resisted a revision to the management arrangements for plaice in the English Channel, that would have meant UK fishermen losing out badly.

Separately, the Council and Commission also agreed quota levels for sprat and turbot in the Black Sea.

The discussion on CAP reform concentrated on the achievement of food security. While all believed competitiveness to be significant, only Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK supported a greater focus on training, innovation, sustainability and improved business practices as a means of boosting competiveness. The majority of member states cited price volatility as a justification for the continuation of direct payments and wanted to retain a less favoured area scheme in the second pillar of the CAP. Proposals would issue in the next few months.

The Commission presented the dairy proposal and the quarterly market and quota phase-out reports. Both reports showed a positive market situation for the dairy sector. Most member states were on track for the expiry of the quota regime in 2015. The majority of member states welcomed new proposals to increase the power of producers in the food chain. The incoming Hungarian presidency hopes to reach political agreement on the dairy proposal by June.

The Commission presented its legislative proposals on Agricultural Quality Policy plus guidelines: on the use of private quality assurance schemes and on the use of GIs in processed products.

Agriculture and Fisheries Council (29-30 November)

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Thursday 16th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

My hon. Friends the Minister of State and the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), represented the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Luxembourg on 29 and 30 November. Elin Jones and Michelle Gildernew also attended for Wales and Northern Ireland respectively.

There were two agenda items on fisheries plus a working lunch on the reform of the common fisheries policy. There were four agenda items on agriculture with seven, mostly agriculture, AOB items.

On deep sea fishing opportunities in 2011-12, the Council and Commission reached agreement on fishing limits, notably deep water sharks, the black scabbardfish, roundnose grenadier, Alfonsinos and forkbeards. Given that these are vulnerable long-life cycle species, of which little is known, the UK and Sweden led calls for a precautionary approach that differentiated these from other fisheries. Some other member states (MSs) pressed for and gained significant concessions. The final agreement included declarations on defining a differentiated category for deep sea species to identify specific treatment in the Commission’s policy framework.

On the first round of discussions with Norway on the shared fishing opportunities for 2011 the UK underlined the importance of moving towards a catch quota management system which would reduce discards and incentivise responsible fishing and emphasised the importance of maximising arctic cod opportunities. Some MSs warned against using their stocks to pay for this. The UK noted the withdrawal of Iceland from talks on managing mackerel stocks which impacted on the EU-Norway talks; this attitude was unhelpful and the Commission should be firm.

On the Agriculture items: the Commission will act to ban 1, 3—dichloropropene as there was no qualified majority either for or against the proposal. The Commission’s recent report on the potential for the European Food Safety Authority to charge fees was discussed very briefly, with some MSs supporting its conclusion that a full impact assessment is required to inform any subsequent proposals. The Commission presented its paper on the Farm Advisory Service (FAS), highlighting a need to improve the targeting of advice, especially in reaching small and medium-sized farms. The subjects covered by FAS needed to go beyond cross compliance to cover competitiveness and innovation. Recommendations would be taken forward in due course.

The first discussion on the Commission Communication on CAP restricted Ministers’ interventions to three minutes each. Most MSs broadly welcomed the communication as a useful starting point. There was general endorsement for the continuation of the current two pillar structure of the CAP. A number of important themes emerged during the debate, which focused largely on what the communication was missing:

There was support for continuing direct payments (DPs) to farmers, with new MSs calling for their equalisation. Some MSs rejected a transitional period at the beginning of the next financial perspective (FP). The abolition of historical references periods was welcomed. France, Germany and Greece, however, cautioned that new objective criteria should not result in a flat rate payment; DPs needed to be allocated fairly, taking account of regional costs and farm structures. A few MSs resisted the intention to cap payments to large farms. The UK called for substantial cuts to the EU budget, which should include material cuts to the CAP budget and with progress on reducing reliance on direct subsidies leading eventually to their abolition. Others, however, called for a strong or adequate CAP budget commensurate with its challenging policy objectives.

All MSs called for a significant effort to simplify CAP rules. The UK noted that some of the Commission’s ideas looked too complex. The Commission will establish an expert group to work alongside those drafting legislation to ensure that new measures did not increase administrative burdens for farmers or national authorities.

Many MSs were sceptical of the Commission’s proposal to green pillar 1, as this could work counter to the simplification objective. However, a number welcomed the principle of securing better environmental benefits. The Commission insisted that new measures on environmental compliance would not increase burdens and would generally take the form of guidance on the application of cross compliance provisions.

MSs queried the confused treatment of less favoured areas (LFAs) in the Communication. Some wanted LFA payments to remain in the second pillar, whereas others favoured an additional LFA uplift in pillar one. Some MSs supported the Commission’s intentions to provide a small farmer payment and to restrict payments to active farmers, although clarity was sought on definitions of “small” and “active”.

MSs welcomed the retention of a specific pillar devoted to rural development. The UK called for a greater share of a reduced CAP budget to go to this. Some new MSs called for pillar two resources to be concentrated on MSs with the greatest modernisation needs. MSs were broadly supportive of the continued focus on competiveness and agri-environment. Territorial cohesion was frequently stressed.

The presidency said that the issue would be discussed on 13 December. The incoming Hungarian presidency stated that it intended to seek a conclusion at the March Council.

Under Any Other Business:

There was a short Commission paper on the current inter-institutional blockage on long-term fisheries management plans. In its view a large majority of MSs (not the UK) were not being realistic; the European Parliament had a legitimate interest in setting these under the Lisbon treaty and the Council could not cling to this power. It wanted to begin a dialogue to resolve the matter quickly.

The presidency presented its information notes on the review of the European plant health regime and the international conference on animal welfare education.

On the 2011 Budget the Commission took the opportunity to sensitise MSs to difficulties with the reimbursement of DPs, if the new draft budget was not adopted. National budgets would take the strain of some 75% of direct payments being made by national authorities in the first few months of 2011, while operating under a system of twelfths. However, problems were unlikely to arise for market management or rural development expenditure, which had flatter spending profiles. There was no discussion.

The Netherlands presented its note on the conference on agriculture, food security and climate change.

France presented its note on the aims of the French presidency of the G20 in the field of agriculture highlighting four themes: increasing transparency about global stock reserves, enhancing the moral behaviour of market operators, co-ordinating international crisis management and addressing price volatility.

Finally, the Italian Minister tabled a point related to the food labelling proposal due to be discussed at the EPSCO Council formation on 7 December. The Italians want to see the manufacturer of products identified on the label. The UK responded that this would not be acceptable given that this information is not meaningful to consumers, adds burdens to businesses and has the potential for negative impact on competition.

Environment Council

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Wednesday 15th December 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I will represent the UK at the Environment Council in Brussels on 20 December.

At this Council, the Belgian presidency will seek political agreement on the regulation concerning the placing on the market of biocidal products. The presidency will also present a progress report on the recast of the directive on waste electrical and electronic equipment and a progress report on the proposal for a regulation regarding the possibility for member states to restrict or prohibit the cultivation of GMOs in their territory.

The presidency will further seek the adoption of Council conclusions on sustainable materials management and sustainable production and consumption, improving environmental policy instruments and the outcome of and follow-up to the 10th meeting of the Conference of Parties to the convention on biological diversity in Nagoya.

There will also be an exchange of views on the outcome of and follow-up to the 16th session of the Conference of the Parties to the UN convention on climate change and the 6th session of the Meeting of the Parties to the Kyoto protocol.

There may be an agenda item on the regulation setting emission performance standards for new light commercial vehicles, as part of the Community’s integrated approach to reduce CO₂ emissions from light-duty vehicles.

The following topics will be covered under “any other business”:

Information from the Commission on the Commission communications on practical implementation of the EU biofuels and bioliquids sustainability scheme and counting rules for biofuels, and on voluntary schemes and default values in the EU biofuels and bioliquids sustainability scheme;

Information from the presidency on the main environmental events organised by the Belgian presidency;

Information from the Lithuanian delegation on nuclear installations planned in the EU neighbourhood (Kaliningrad region and Belarus);

Information from the Belgian delegation on the implementation of directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and cleaner air for Europe with particular regard to PM 10 particles;

Information from the Greek delegation on the outcome of the Mediterranean climate change initiative;

Information from the Portuguese delegation on directive 2008/98/EC on waste, including climate aspects in the application of the energy efficiency formula to waste energy plants and to plants in the EU outermost regions, and the strategic importance of end-of-waste status for high-quality refuse-derived fuel in the near future;

Information from the Romanian delegation on the 2nd Meeting of the Parties to the protocol on water and health to the convention on the protection and use of transboundary watercourses and international lakes (Bucharest, 23-25 November 2010); and

Information from the Hungarian delegation on the work programme of the incoming presidency.

Oral Answers to Questions

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

18. Which planned flood defence schemes will not proceed as a result of her Department’s planned reduction in expenditure on flood defences.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I am sorry to have to tell the House some sad news. A member of Environment Agency staff was tragically killed yesterday in an accident. I hope the whole House will join me in extending our condolences to his family at this difficult time.

No schemes have been cancelled as a result of the spending review. Schemes already under construction or under contract will be completed. The Department has launched a consultation on how national funding should be allocated to flood protection schemes in future.

[Toby Perkins]

May I associate myself with the Secretary of State’s remarks a moment ago?

In Chesterfield in 2007, more than 500 homes were flooded and it was expected, from DEFRA’s previous statement, that 145,000 homes across the country would be removed from flood risk by 2011. I understand that the date has now been moved back to 2015. Does the Secretary of State recognise that the reduction in funding for flood defences and the removal of those homes from that earlier expectation flies in the face of the comments that she and her party made in opposition?

[Mrs Spelman]

With respect, I think the hon. Gentleman is confused about the figures. The Chancellor in fact gave the figure of 145,000 homes as a minimum to be protected during the spending review period—there was never any suggestion that that would happen by 2011.

I know that the hon. Gentleman has constituents in Chesterfield who are flood-affected. The Environment Agency is currently proceeding with the Avenue coking works remediation project, which is under construction. That should help to provide protection to more than 100 properties in his constituency.

[Karl Turner]

One key recommendation of the Pitt review was that the Government should increase spending on flood defences by more than inflation year on year. With the Government’s 27% cuts to flood defence budgets, have they turned their backs on communities such as mine in Hull East, which is still suffering very badly from the effects of the 2007 floods?

[Mrs Spelman]

Sir Michael Pitt’s review, which was commissioned by the hon. Gentleman’s party when it was in government, says that we

“should not simply assume that the costs of flood risk management will be met centrally…The Government should develop a scheme which allows and encourages local communities to invest in flood risk management”

schemes. The Government have launched a consultation on payment for outcomes, which will help to provide more flood defences to more communities in future.

[Miss Anne McIntosh (Thirsk and Malton) (Con)]

May I join the Secretary of State in expressing my condolences to the family of the Environment Agency member of staff who tragically lost his life? I pay tribute to all those who put themselves in harm’s way in the event of floods. All who serve on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee would like to record our appreciation of their work.

I congratulate the Secretary of State on protecting capital expenditure. However, I am concerned to ensure that work will continue on maintaining watercourses and that more work will be done, because that too can protect from floods. May I draw her attention to the fact that the statement of principles may well not be reviewed in 2013? Is she alarmed by that development?

[Mrs Spelman]

My hon. Friend is right, as Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, to record the Committee’s sympathy for the EA staff member.

DEFRA is expected to spend £2.1 billion over the period of the spending review on flooding—half will go on maintenance, and the other half on capital—so I am confident that we can maintain our flood defences. The Association of British Insurers has warmly welcomed the proposals under the payment for outcomes scheme. That will assist us in renegotiating the statement of principles.

[Anne Marie Morris (Newton Abbot) (Con)]

I have mentioned the Teignmouth flood defence scheme to the ministerial team on a number of occasions. May we have an update? Will funding be made available for those very important works?

[Mrs Spelman]

I cannot comment on individual projects ahead of Environment Agency decisions, which it has said it will make after the end of the consultation period on payment for outcomes, which concludes on 16 February. However, my hon. Friend’s concern about flooding in her constituency is taken very seriously by all of us.

[Mr Jamie Reed (Copeland) (Lab)]

All on this side of the House share the condolences expressed by the Secretary of State for the Environment Agency worker who sadly lost their life.

I am afraid that the confusion mentioned by the Secretary of State is on the Government’s part. DEFRA’s 2009 report stated that 145,000 homes would be protected from flooding by March 2011. They have abandoned that aim because of huge cuts to the EA’s flood defence budget—27% next year—and instead now hope to protect the same number of homes by 2015, two years after the current agreement with the insurance industry expires. That deliberate choice to delay will cause widespread anxiety and uncertainty for homeowners, businesses and local authorities up and down the country. The Government should now be honest with the country: either they know which flood defence schemes will be abandoned and are aware of the consequences of those cuts, or the cuts are indiscriminate, and the consequences are not understood. Does the Secretary of State know which schemes will be abandoned—yes or no?

[Mrs Spelman]

I just said in answer to the previous question that the Environment Agency would make decisions on all pending schemes after the close of the consultation on 16 February. As regards the figure that Opposition Members keep quoting, at no point has the figure of 145,000 properties receiving more protection ever been attributed to a time any sooner than 2015, the end of the spending review period. It would be inappropriate to compare spending levels with those of the previous Government, because Labour has failed to say how it would have accommodated the 50% cut in capital that the previous Chancellor had committed it to.

[Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)]

4. If she will bring forward proposals to prohibit the sale of primates as pets.

--- Later in debate ---

[Stephen Gilbert (St Austell and Newquay) (LD)]

7. What progress her Department has made on implementation of the recommendations of the Pitt review on lessons learned from the 2007 floods on levels of flood protection for homes.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

Good progress has been made on taking forward the Pitt review recommendations. We are implementing the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and have recently launched a consultation on our national strategy. We published the national flood emergency framework in July, and held a response exercise last month to launch preparations for Exercise Watermark, which will test responses to severe wide-area flooding in March next year.

[Stephen Gilbert]

I welcome the Secretary of State’s reply and was delighted to welcome her to Cornwall so that she could see for herself the recent flooding in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cornwall (Sheryll Murray). One of the lessons we have learned is that the Met Office gave a warning at 10.30 pm of an 80% chance of flooding some six hours before homes were affected and businesses destroyed, but that warning was never passed on to residents. Will she agree to meet me to discuss how we can improve early warnings?

[Mrs Spelman]

I commend my hon. Friend’s work in helping with the ongoing recovery in his constituency. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that it is hard to predict surface water flooding events. In the afternoon of that event, there was only a 20% risk of severe flooding, but by 10.30 pm, when most people are in bed and asleep, it had increased to an 80% risk. One lesson learned from previous flooding incidents is that flood wardens, who can knock on doors and alert, in particular, vulnerable members of the community of the increased risk, can assist a community’s resilience.

[Lisa Nandy (Wigan) (Lab)]

Simon Douglas, the director of AA Insurance, was quoted in the Evening Standard as saying that “inadequate spending” on flood defences would

“leave thousands of homes uninsurable and thus un-mortgageable.”

What help will the Government offer to the thousands of people who will find themselves in that situation?

[Mrs Spelman]

I refer the hon. Lady to my earlier answer about the warm welcome that the Association of British Insurers has given to the payment for outcomes approach, which, as the ABI chairman made clear, is what Pitt called for, what the ABI has been calling for and what the communities that would like to build greater resilience have also been calling for. I am sure that it will assist those at risk of flooding.

[Susan Elan Jones (Clwyd South) (Lab)]

8. When she plans to publish a rural impact assessment in respect of the comprehensive spending review.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

My Department is the rural champion in government, and we are working with other Departments as they develop their policies following the spending review. Those policies are the responsibility of individual Departments, but DEFRA will work with them to inform a policy statement in the new year, setting out this Government’s commitment to rural people, and our approach to promoting and supporting their needs.

[Susan Elan Jones]

I am grateful to the Secretary of State for her answer, but will she home in a little and give me one concrete example of something that DEFRA has done in this area?

[Mrs Spelman]

DEFRA is continually active in rural-proofing all policy that comes through, and hon. Members who have served in government will know that any Cabinet Minister has that function within their Department through DEFRA. The allocations have not yet been made, so the individual working out of the spending allocations has not been achieved. Let us consider, for example, the impact that DEFRA has had, working with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, in achieving a roll-of out superfast broadband in four rural pilot areas.

[Mr James Gray (North Wiltshire) (Con)]

The Department is facing deep cuts—34% in capital and 28%, I think, in current costs—thanks to the appalling profligacy of the previous Government. Does the Secretary of State agree that vital to our countryside is the maintenance of environmental schemes on our farms? We have got to preserve biodiversity and a higher level of environmental conditions in our countryside. I hope that she will be able to reassure the House today that despite the cuts, she will be determined to ensure that that still happens.

[Mrs Spelman]

I am delighted to be able to draw my hon. Friend’s attention to the fact that we anticipate an 80% increase in higher level stewardship schemes, notwithstanding the need for DEFRA to make a contribution to addressing the budget deficit that we inherited from the previous Government.

[Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab)]

We had expected the publication of the rural impact assessment, but I am afraid that all we got was more weak excuses for the Secretary of State’s failure to produce it. If she is having trouble completing her own assessment, will she at least back the findings of last month’s report on rural poverty by the Commission for Rural Communities—soon to be scrapped by her Department—which found a lack of proper business support provided to farmers by the Government, poorer access to welfare services in the countryside and a quarter of farming households living below the poverty line, under the first Government since 1926 to try to remove employment protection from agricultural workers? Is not the reality that this is a spending review that slashes investment from rural bus services and social housing, from a Government who are indifferent to the greater inequality that their policies will cause in rural Britain?

[Mrs Spelman]

Oh dear. I think that constitutes a serious own-goal. The hon. Gentleman should surely be aware that the data that the Commission for Rural Communities was using to make its assessment relate to the period when his party was in government.

[Mr Gray]

Get back to jockland.

--- Later in debate ---

[John Robertson (Glasgow North West) (Lab)]

10. What representations she has received on her Department's plans for its project to plant 1 million trees in the next four years.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

Thus far, DEFRA has received around 100 e-mails from local authorities and community groups seeking information on or expressing an interest in the big tree plant campaign and a small number of letters from other individuals and organisations.

[John Robertson]

How much of the money received through privatisation will be spent in the areas of planted trees? How much of it will be spent north of the border, particularly in Glasgow?

[Mrs Spelman]

With respect, the question is about the big tree plant campaign, a partnership campaign that DEFRA will support with £4 million of public money. The campaign is being run in conjunction with a large number of partners and charities, including Groundwork, Keep Britain Tidy, the Tree Council and the National Forest Company. In every sense, it is a big society campaign.

[Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South) (Lab)]

Two hundred and fifty thousand a year sounds like a lot of trees, but not when compared with the estimated 250 million trees—1,000 times as many—owned by the Forestry Commission in England, much of which the Government are intent on selling off and putting at risk. Will the Secretary of State tell us what she will say to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, who is actively campaigning against proposals to dispose of a similar proportion of Forestry Commission land in Scotland—a sale of trees that Lib Dems have described as “hugely flawed” and as a “money-making scam”?

[Mrs Spelman]

Let me say a couple of things in response to that. With the 250,000 trees a year planted as part of the big tree plant campaign, the challenge is that the majority will be in urban areas, particularly in deprived communities, so significant plantings in those areas will benefit those communities. As for the Forestry Commission, I suggest that the hon. Gentleman, rather than reading the newspapers as a guide to Government policy, should adopt the better-informed approach of waiting for the launch of the consultation proposals, which I have discussed closely and successfully with the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.

[Peter Aldous (Waveney) (Con)]

11. What recent discussions her Department has had on reform of the common fisheries policy; and if she will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Con)]

12. What recent steps her Department has taken to maintain the level of biodiversity.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

We will act on agreements reached at the successful biodiversity conference in Nagoya through a new biodiversity strategy for England, which will be published alongside the natural environment White Paper in the spring.

[Andrew Rosindell]

Will the Secretary of State outline the Government’s policies on the protection of biodiversity in our 16 British overseas territories? In particular, will she tell us what the Government are doing to protect the biodiversity of the Henderson island, one of the Pitcairn Islands, where an appalling rat infestation has caused 25,000 chicks to be killed every year?

[Mrs Spelman]

I think that everyone in the House is well aware of my hon. Friend’s concern about, and interest in, the overseas territories. I am delighted to be able to tell him that while attending the biodiversity conference, and the day before, I was able to announce additional spending under the Darwin initiative and, specifically, help with the protection of the Henderson petrel.

[Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)]

13. What representations she has received on the proposed provision of a super-dairy in Lincolnshire by Nocton Dairies; and if she will make a statement.

--- Later in debate ---

[Andrew Selous (South West Bedfordshire) (Con)]

T1. If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

I commend the work of those who volunteered their services during the extreme weather, particularly our farmers. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree that they provided a valuable service to many communities—from clearing snow to transporting midwives. That is a great example of the big society.

[Andrew Selous]

Will my right hon. Friend give the House a rough idea of the cost of food imported into the country that we are able, and have the capacity, to grow?

[Mrs Spelman]

In 2009 the UK imported indigenous food—food that could be grown in season in the UK—with a total value of approximately £15 billion. Total imports of food, feed and drink in the same period were valued at £32.5 billion.

[Mary Creagh (Wakefield) (Lab)]

The right hon. Lady’s colleague the Minister of State, who has responsibility for forestry, wrote to all MPs in October saying that he would consult the public on the sale of England’s forests before the end of the year. We now hear that he has postponed that consultation until the new year—yet in a parliamentary answer to me he revealed that he is busy meeting forestry companies on this very issue. When will the public get their say on the future of England’s forests?

--- Later in debate ---

[Mary Macleod (Brentford and Isleworth) (Con)]

T3. Green spaces and trees are vital in our cities, and I am fortunate that my constituency has many beautiful parks, including Dukes meadows, Gunnersbury park, Osterley park, Boston Manor park, Syon park and Hounslow heath. Can my right hon. Friend tell me what plans the Department has to plant many more trees across the city of London?

[Mrs Spelman]

I invite my hon. Friend, and encourage her constituents, to participate in the big tree plant campaign, which was launched at the beginning of December and will continue, and for which there are publicly available funds. We will do this in partnership with a number of charities, and I imagine that they have members in her constituency. In participating, she will demonstrate the effectiveness of this big society approach.

[Jim Sheridan (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)]

T7. This Con-Dem Government propose to abolish the Agricultural Wages Board—a proposal that even Mrs Thatcher refused to implement. The Prime Minister suggests that because of the minimum wage the AWB is just a quango, but that “quango” covers workers’ wages, holidays, sick pay, overtime, standby arrangements and even bereavement leave. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is just a quango?

[Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) (LD)]

T4. Following the successful Nagoya conference on biodiversity and against the background of the current very important climate change conference in Cancun, can the Secretary of State tell us how she intends to take forward the protection of biodiversity, both in this country and internationally?

[Mrs Spelman]

As I said in response to an earlier question, the new biodiversity strategy for England will be published alongside the natural environment White Paper in the spring, to which we have had an astonishingly high number of contributions from the public: there have been in excess of 15,000.

[Andrew Gwynne (Denton and Reddish) (Lab)]

T10. Given the Minister’s acknowledgement on Second Reading of the Sustainable Livestock Bill of the serious nature of the deforestation caused by the production of soy for livestock feed, what position will the Government take on reform of the common agricultural policy to reduce UK imports of soy?

Agriculture and Fisheries Council

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

The Minister of State with responsibility for agriculture and food, my hon. Friend the Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Mr Paice), and the Under-Secretary of State with responsibility for natural environment and fisheries, my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon), are representing the United Kingdom at the Agriculture and Fisheries Council in Brussels on 29 and 30 November.

There are two fisheries and four agriculture items on the agenda. Discussion will take place on the following:

Total allowable catches and quotas for deep-sea species;

EU-Norway fisheries agreement: discussion with Norway about management of joint stocks in North sea/north Atlantic as part of the December fisheries package;

Plant protection product 1, 3—dichloropropene: the Commission has proposed banning this soil fumigant;

Report on possibility of the European Food Safety Agency charging fees:

Commission communication on the future of the CAP: this is the first chance of the Council to respond to this recently published communication

Communication on the Farm Advisory Service: routine report on its operation.

There are currently six items under any other business

1. Long-term fisheries management plans—information supplied by the Commission

2. Conference on the reform of the plant health regime: report from presidency

3. Conference on animal welfare: report from presidency

4. 2011 budget: update from the Commission on handling agriculture payments, should the EU 2011 budget not be agreed before the end of the year

5. Conference on food security: report back by the Dutch on their recent conference

6. G20 and agriculture: report from the French on their plans for their G20.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Caroline Spelman Excerpts

Tuesday 30th November 2010 Written Statements

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mrs Caroline Spelman)]

A report on “The contribution that reporting of greenhouse gas emissions makes to the UK meeting its climate change objectives” will be laid before Parliament today.

The report is laid to meet the requirement in section 84 of the Climate Change Act 2008. Copies will be made available in the Vote Office and can also be accessed on the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs website at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/index.htm.