Question follow-through · 121102

Environmental Land Management Schemes

To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether her Department has assessed the potential merits of landscape models combining 70% environmental preservation with 30% productive agricultural land, such as CPR Verde, as a too

answeredDepartment for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

About this written question

A written question asks a government minister for information in writing. Parliament publishes the question and any answer.

Answering body
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Tabled
16 Mar 2026
Target answer date
18 Mar 2026
Answer
23 Mar 2026 · 7 calendar days after tabling

Elapsed calendar days describe the record timeline, not whether Parliament considers an answer on time.

Votes on this topic

These Commons divisions share a topic label. The question did not necessarily lead to a vote.

Recorded timeline

  1. 16 Mar 2026

    Question tabled

    To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whether her Department has assessed the potential merits of landscape models combining 70% environmental preservation with 30% productive agricultural land, such as CPR Verde, as a too

  2. 18 Mar 2026

    Target answer date

    Date supplied by the official written-questions record.

  3. 23 Mar 2026

    Answer published

    Defra has made no assessment of such landscape models. Defra’s revised Environmental Improvement Plan (EIP) and the Land Use Framework (LUF) set out how the Government will accelerate progress towards Environment Act targets over the next five years and h...

Open official record

Official data retrieved 28 Sept 2026.

Later records

Possible follow-up questions

Strong links require the same MP, department and exact heading. Other same-department questions are shown as unreviewed candidates, not as confirmed follow-ups. No debate link is asserted unless a stable source relationship exists.

No later same-department questions indexed.

This is an absence in covered public data, not evidence that no follow-up occurred elsewhere.