UKPOL.CO.UK

Category: Environment

  • Jim McMahon – 2023 Speech on Food Price Inflation

    Jim McMahon – 2023 Speech on Food Price Inflation

    The speech made by Jim McMahon, the Labour MP for Oldham West and Royton, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2023.

    I thank the Minister of State for his response, but this is a cost of living crisis driven in large part by the cost of food, so where is the Secretary of State? She seems to spend more time in the departure lounge than in her own Department at times. Mr Speaker, I feel like I am shadowing a shadow. Where is the Secretary of State on the most important issue at this point in her brief?

    Once again, we are in the midst of a cost of living crisis, in which food inflation is playing a large part. If inflation overall is not curbed, the danger is that that will have an impact on the ability of people to pay their mortgages and we could see further interest rate rises as a result. There are serious questions about the Government’s approach to the cost of food and our food security. Some producers are reducing production and some are exiting completely. There are now 7,000 fewer food producers in agriculture than in 2019. Food inflation is up 18.2%, which is the highest in 45 years, and import costs to February are up 12.7%. The Minister knows—he is in the business—that those import costs today will be felt for months to come.

    There has been warning after warning. Thanks to you, Mr Speaker, this is the second urgent question on food security, but where are the Government on farming payments, on labour shortages, on energy costs, on the costs of feed and fertiliser and on the impact of avian flu? Last time the Secretary of State was here, her advice to the nation was a call to arms to go out and buy turnips —those were her words of wisdom. That just does not wash. When will the Government realise that this is a crisis of their making and they need to take action now?

    Mark Spencer

    I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments and statements—there were not many questions in there. I can tell him that the Government wholly recognise the challenge that inflation brings to the economy. That is why the Chancellor of the Exchequer has set out a number of measures to curb inflation and to manage the economy in a way that he will struggle to understand.

    I would also say that huge pressures in the global economy, following Putin’s invasion of Ukraine on the back of a global pandemic, are being felt all around the world. Global energy prices have driven huge spikes, for example in the cost of fertiliser, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned: ammonium nitrate went from circa £250 a tonne to in excess of £1,000 a tonne for a short period. The good news is that global gas prices are easing back and coming back under control into a more affordable price range. That will take time to feed through to some of the cost pressures that are being put on our primary producers, but the Government are continuing to talk—[Interruption.] From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman mentions labour. That is why the Government increased the number of seasonal agricultural worker visas to 45,000.

    Jim McMahon

    We need 90,000.

    Mark Spencer

    So the hon. Gentleman says, but there are an extra 10,000 visas available should the industry request it and require it. That request has not come to the Government, because we still have enough people in the supply chain with the 45,000 visas that are available. We continue to work and co-operate with retailers, processors and the food sector on continuing to supply good-quality food to our consumers.

  • Mark Spencer – 2023 Statement on Food Price Inflation

    Mark Spencer – 2023 Statement on Food Price Inflation

    The statement made by Mark Spencer, the Minister for Food, Farming and Fisheries, in the House of Commons on 23 March 2023.

    I will respond on behalf of the Secretary of State. I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.

    We recognise that food prices have gone up. The recent increase in food price inflation was driven by upward price movements in eight of the 11 food categories. The three most significant price increases since February 2022 are oils and fats, at 32.1%; milk, cheese and eggs, at 30.8%; and non-classified food products, at 28.9%. While recent unseasonable weather in Morocco has also created some temporary supply disruption to fruit and vegetables, domestic retailers have held prices comparatively low compared with the rest of Europe, where increased demand led to some cases of 300% rises in the price of some vegetables.

    A number of media outlets have reported that the recent shortage of some salad and vegetables has been the driver for the increase in food inflation in February, but that is not the case. The overall inflation rate increases have been caused by several factors. There are other categories where price increases have been greater than that of vegetables over the past year.

    These high overall inflation rates are driven by high utility prices and pressures on global supply chains that are being felt across Europe and beyond. Commentators expect the rate of inflation both across the economy and for food and drink to be near its peak. The Government have put in place a number of measures to support households with prices, including committing £37 billion to support households with the cost of living; £1 billion of that has already gone towards help with the cost of household essentials.

    Looking forward to April, the Government will be uprating benefit rates and state pensions by 10.1%. The benefit cap levels will also be increasing by the same amount in order to increase the number of households that can benefit from those uprating decisions. In addition, for 2023-24, households on eligible means-tested benefits will get up to £900 in cost of living payments. That will be split into three payments of around £300 each across the 2023-24 financial year. A separate £300 payment will be made to pensioner households on top of their winter fuel payments, and individuals in receipt of eligible disability benefits will receive a £150 payment.

    Free school meal eligibility is being permanently extended to children from all families with no recourse to public funds. The Government have extended free school meals to more groups of children than any other Government over the past half century. We remain committed to ensuring that the most disadvantaged children continue to be supported.

    We are also working closely with retailers to explore the range of measures they can take to ensure the availability and affordability of food, so while we recognise that this is a challenging time for consumers, we are taking a large number of steps to support people with the cost of living and I have great faith in the food supply chain, which has proven itself to be extremely resilient over the past few years.

  • Alan Lovell – 2023 Speech at the Worshipful Company of Water Conservators

    Alan Lovell – 2023 Speech at the Worshipful Company of Water Conservators

    The speech made by Alan Lovell, the Chair of the Environment Agency, at the Worshipful Company of Water Conservators on 22 March 2023.

    The biggest challenge of our era is climate change. How people experience the physical impacts largely depends on how well we manage we manage water. That means:

    • In flood – when there is too much water
    • In drought – when there is not enough
    • And when water is polluted.

    Of these three, I am most concerned about water resources. But to grip the existential risk of supply and demand we will need to ask the public to do two things:

    • Save water, and
    • Pay more for it.

    Getting people to make these changes means we must also discuss water quality – because we cannot ask for public cooperation unless the water sector can prove it is cleaning up its act.

    The Environment Agency’s National Framework for Water Resources showed that by 2050: the amount of water available in England could be reduced by 10 to 15 percent, and some rivers could have between 50 and 80 percent less water during the summer.

    Climate change and population growth mean the need for significant action grows every year. This risk is more acute in some areas than others: the South-East is already the driest part of the country. As more people choose to move there, we face difficult questions about the distribution of national resources.

    2022 was the warmest year on record. During the 40-degree heatwave, demand for water increased by up to 50 percent and this led to short-term supply issues. If significant action is not prioritised, by 2050 around 4,000 million extra litres of water will be needed every day.

    There are reasons to be optimistic. Since the early 2000s, Statutory Water Resources Management plans have helped us save over 300 million litres a day, despite seeing population rise by over 6.5 million during that time.

    Also, water companies’ Water Resources Management Plans show ambitions to maintain supplies in extreme 1 in 500-year drought events by 2040. This is before the need for emergency measures such as rota cuts or standpipes.

    I am also grateful for the water companies’ collaboration with the Environment Agency as part of the National Drought Group. But the pace of change now requires much more significant long-term investment to increase supply and reduce demand.

    Everyone has a role: water companies, government, farmers, regulators, and the public. All must work together.

    Water companies must:

    1. Invest in capacity

    The last reservoir opened in England, Carsington in Derbyshire, was in 1991 and the next one, Havant Thicket, isn’t planned to open until 2029. I grant that some others have been expanded in the meanwhile, but nevertheless this 38-year gap has left us more exposed to heatwaves and population growth. We also need to invest in transfers of water between regions of the country.

    I’m glad that the Environment Agency is part of the Regulators’ Alliance for Progressing Infrastructure Development, set up in 2019, to improve regulation and help the sector respond to long term water resources challenges.

    I am delighted that the draft plans for expenditure in AMP8 are significantly more ambitious in terms of the action and ambition required. I am aware that there are challenges around supply chains. We will work together with government and the sector to find solutions, but I am clear that the need for significantly more investment is pressing and absolutely necessary.

    1. Accelerate action to reduce leakage

    Water companies in England lost an average of 2,923.8 million litres of water a day in 2021-22, over a trillion litres over the year. Sorting this involves better management, preventative engineering, and the increased use of technology to spot leaks faster.

    1. Regain the public’s trust.

    We need people to change their habits. This is notoriously difficult.

    The government is clear that if we want to ask the public to act, water companies must first get a grip on leakage. But, to meet future resource pressures, people need to reduce their water use by 33 litres a day – from 143 litres per day to 110.

    England’s population is forecast to be around 67 million by 2050. 67 million people reducing average water usage down to 110 litres per person per day would save approximately 2,211 million litres of water per day. Roughly half of the 4,000 mega litres needed by 2050.

    Water companies can help by imposing hosepipe bans earlier in hot, dry years. It’s essential that people reduce their water use and make water efficient decisions. Hosepipe bans make savings and also alert more people to the fact that water is a limited and precious commodity.

    Water companies can also make metering, preferably smart-metering, compulsory where possible. Metering is proven to make people pay more attention to the amount of water they use. In the Environmental Improvement Plan the government has committed to increased smart metering for households and businesses through accelerated investment between 2020 and 2030. At the same time, families must be protected from unexpectedly large increases in bills.

    The government also has a key role to play and has committed that it will promote using water wisely with mandatory water efficiency labelling of products like dishwashers and showers.

    People could be encouraged to harvest rainfall. For individuals this could mean having a water butt in the garden or improving drainage. Last summer supplies of water butts in Cornwall ran out in days after South West Water made the excellent move of offering free water butts.

    For farmers, it means improving farming practices, including irrigation and, where appropriate, building more on-site reservoirs. As we look to increase resilience, nature-based solutions can help deliver wider benefits across catchments. Farmers have a big role in delivering this. The wider agri-food industry should do more to help farmers with on-site expenditure for the types of behaviours their customers would like to see.

    Regulators must also improve.

    Ofwat can allow bill increases, while ensuring the economically vulnerable are shielded from the cost-of-living crisis with strong social tariff protection. But bill increases are necessary for the infrastructure we need.

    Yesterday’s announcement that Ofwat will now require companies to take account of environmental performance when deciding whether to pay dividends is also a good step.

    The Environment Agency should be much clearer about how we are managing abstraction to balance multiple, current needs with the protection of nature. We also need to modernise regulation and, where appropriate, carry a big stick.

    We will continue to pursue large criminal fines in the courts. We are also very encouraged by possible changes affecting our ability to levy penalties, as opposed to fines set by the courts. This would bring us more in line with the penalties which Ofwat can impose and include a massive increase from the current level of £250,000 as well as hypothecating the proceeds – as indicated by the Chancellor.

    Our largest ever criminal regulatory investigation is currently underway. We are seeking to determine the extent of any non-compliance of environmental permit conditions. All wastewater treatment works are in scope and more than 2,200 sites are being scrutinised. But water companies don’t need to wait for us to conclude this investigation. They need to sort this now.

    The biggest challenge facing the water environment today is supply and demand, but without public action to save water and pay more for it, we are all lost at sea. Restoring trust is vital. Water companies can rebuild trust. To do so they must:

    1. Stop defending the indefensible
    2. Start fixing the problems (for one: resolve leakage)
    3. Be transparent
    4. Be much more careful with executive salaries and bonusses
    5. Improve compliance.

    For the Environment Agency’s part, as a regulator we will be fair and recognise good performance. I commit to personally celebrating good work when I see it, including in the next Environmental Performance Assessment.

    Today, the political will exists to implement change. We must capitalise on this moment to drive action that will better protect England’s water resources. The water sector must prove to the public that it is up to the considerable challenges ahead.

  • Rebecca Pow – 2023 Speech at the International Cooperation on Air Pollution

    Rebecca Pow – 2023 Speech at the International Cooperation on Air Pollution

    The speech made by Rebecca Pow, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Minister for Environmental Quality and Resilience), in Gothenburg, Sweden on 16 March 2023.

    It’s a real pleasure to be here today and an absolute honour to be asked to open this event, which is the first meeting of the Forum for International Cooperation on Air Pollution, here in Gothenburg.

    For those of you who do not know me, my name is Rebecca Pow. I’m a Minister of the UK Parliament – my actual constituency is in the west of England, called Taunton Deane. I am the Minister for Environmental Quality and Resilience. Under that – I say to people, I’ve got all the difficult stuff – everything to do with water and flooding, everything to do with waste and recycling. I’m really excited that here in Sweden, we’re going to go on to look at the deposit return scheme that they run for recycling here in Sweden. I’ve got my team up there – we’re going to go and have a look and see how you do it, because we’re probably going to copy it in some shape or form.

    I also have under my hat: chemicals and regulation, and of course air quality, which is a huge part of my portfolio. I would say it is a growing area because we’re more and more becoming aware of what we need to do on air. Action on all of the areas I’m responsible for – not just in the UK, but across the globe – are so important because we need to ensure the health of our people, the protection of the environment, and the sustainability of our economies. There is a big link between air pollution and our economies.

    This Forum for International Cooperation on Air Pollution – made up of officials, researchers, and international organisations from around the world – is charged with a very great challenge to make sure we get this right on air pollution.

    We do know that air pollution continues to be the biggest environmental risk to human health. I was talking to somebody just now; the tricky thing with air of course is you can’t see it. So, it makes it, I think, more difficult to get that message across to the public.

    We know that poor air quality disproportionately affects the vulnerable. We know that it causes a range of life-shortening diseases, drives down productivity, and harms the natural environment.

    And whilst a lot of actions are being taken to deal with this, we know there is a great deal more to do. Hence, this forum I believe will be so helpful. Through our collaboration and scientific innovation, we have achieved huge successes in driving down emissions over recent decades. But the action that has got us this far simply will not get us where we need to be now and in the future.

    If we are to go further, we really do need to be bold by sharing experience and expertise, supporting innovative policymaking, and by working alongside people and the private sector to drive behavioural change. This is how we will achieve what we know is necessary to protect our citizens and our environment from the harmful effects of pollution. We should not let the complexity of the challenge stop us from taking decisive action.

    Governments across the world are working hard to clean up the air, to tackle climate change, net zero and restore our biodiversity. The UK is no different. We have a clear commitment and we’re taking ambitious action on each of these global challenges. For instance, we were proud to host COP26 in Glasgow – I expect many of the people here today or joining us on video attended that. All 197 Parties agreed to the Glasgow Climate Pact.

    We recently led the way in securing an incredibly stretching package for protecting nature globally – which includes a new international fund to tackle the nature crisis; and an expectation that $30 billion a year of international nature finance will flow into developing countries by 2030.

    Our recently published Environmental Improvement Plan is the blueprint to maintain our trajectory and outlines a range of actions, including our two new legal targets for fine particulate matter concentrations. Also, by reducing emissions in our homes by managing domestic burning – so, that’s open fires and log burners. We know that we have got to control these emissions but that’s the difficult one because that’s the one that people are very closely associated with. And also, we’ve got actions supporting farmers to reduce the impact of ammonia emissions from agriculture.

    Building on the progress we made during our COP and G7 presidencies, we will continue to display strong global leadership on air quality, climate change and nature. To keep our promises, and deliver to the highest standards, we must work with our partners across the world to maintain momentum.

    International co-operation continues to be as important now as it was back in 1979 – you all look a bit young here but 1979, some people will remember that – when the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution was signed. This was following acid rain damage right here in Scandinavia during the 1970s and 1980s. I remember seeing those really devastating accounts of the effect of acid rain – and of course, that was air pollution. 32 countries came together then, and they’ve since gone on to achieve a remarkable decline in emissions across the region. It does show what can be done.

    This Convention is an example of what we can achieve through our cooperation. Air pollution – as we all know – knows no borders and it’s only by working together that we can address the interlinked threats of pollution, climate change and biodiversity loss. In that vein, it’s important we look beyond the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe region and continue to strengthen collaboration and cooperation with Parties right across the globe. It’s great to have our UN representative here today, who I met earlier.

    Our new Forum for International Cooperation on Air Pollution has an important role to play in continuing to support the emissions reductions we know are needed on a global scale.

    By exchanging information, mutual learning and enhancing cooperation, I know that we can improve the air we all breathe. This, of course, starts with learning lessons from the past. There is much we can learn from the Air Convention’s action to control and reduce transboundary air pollution over the last 44 years.

    This morning’s session on pathways to air pollution action will discuss the building blocks needed for regional cooperation, including some of the challenges and how the Convention overcame them.

    This afternoon’s session on ‘no regret’ actions will discuss different measures that countries can implement to improve air quality, even if they don’t necessarily have an expansive monitoring network. By sharing exactly this kind of science and policy expertise internationally, we can help more regions to take the necessary steps to tackle this pollution.

    The United Kingdom are incredibly proud to be co-chair of this international forum with Sweden. I think it’s already showing that it’s going to be a great working partnership. I would really like to offer my thanks to our Swedish co-chairs who have been instrumental in the development, design, and delivery of this forum. Thank you very much for that.

    I would also like to thank the Task Force, whose engagement and contributions in Bristol in October 2022 helped shape the programme we have lined up today and will continue to play a central role in the forum going forward.

    And finally, I’m grateful to all of you for travelling from around the world to be here today but also all of those joining virtually. It’s great that if you can’t get here in person, that you can still be a part of it and I hope those people will still be engaging with the different events going on. It is only with the valued input of all of these people that we will be able to work together to find new solutions that can be implemented across the international community.

    With your commitment and engagement, this Forum for International Cooperation will serve to pull together representatives from a very wide and inclusive sphere from right around the world to tackle the challenges of air pollution – potentially on a holistic scale, because this links in to so many parts of our lives. I’m absolutely sure this forum will be a force for good. I can feel it already, so I’m expecting great things. I really look forward to having a report back from my team who are here about how this goes but also what’s going to happen next – because I think that’s the really important thing. So, let’s carry on and push this up the global agenda, together.

    Thank you.

  • James Bevan – 2023 Speech on How To Get An Organisation To Net Zero

    James Bevan – 2023 Speech on How To Get An Organisation To Net Zero

    The speech made by Sir James Bevan, the Chief Executive of the Environment Agency, at Chapter Zero in London on 28 February 2023.

    Introduction

    Most of the really useful lessons in life I’ve learned from getting things wrong. I have often only found how to do something successfully by failing to do it the first time. And sometimes the second and third as well. But I have always learned from those mistakes – eventually.

    This is one of those stories. It is a story of a work in progress, because while I and the organisation I lead, the Environment Agency, want this story to have a happy ending and are confident that it eventually will, we are still finding out what works and what doesn’t as we seek to get there and we don’t have all the answers yet: in fact, nobody does. But what I’m going to tell you is still, I hope, news you can use. And it’s possibly the most useful news there is, because it’s about how to tackle the biggest challenge of our time: the climate emergency.

    What we decided to do

    In 2019 we committed the Environment Agency to be net zero for carbon by 2030: that is, we would become an organisation that was no longer a net emitter of carbon and thus would no longer be contributing to climate change.

    We did that for three main reasons.

    We did it because the EA is a major player in helping the country as a whole get to Net Zero – for example by regulating down most of the greenhouse gas emissions that cause climate change and advising on how to mitigate its extent and adapt to its effects – and we did not think we could credibly tell others what to do if we were not doing it ourselves.

    We did it because much of what we do ourselves – building flood defences, tackling drought risk, helping design and create more resilient places – is all about tackling the impacts of climate change, and since we are trying to solve that core problem we did not want to be contributing to it ourselves.

    But we mainly did it because it was the right thing to do. Climate change is the biggest of all threats to our world, and everyone needs to play their part in tackling it.

    How we are seeking to do it

    When we made that commitment we also took some important decisions about how we were going to achieve it. We would aim to do it through the classic twin-track approach: by cutting all our own carbon emissions as far as possible – and we set ourselves a target for that of cutting them by at least 45% by 2030 – and by offsetting the rest of our emissions through tree planting, habitat creation and other measures that take carbon out of the atmosphere and lock it up safely so it doesn’t drive any more climate change.

    We also decided to adopt what was at the time the most comprehensive and scientifically sound definition of net zero. That meant we included in our target not just all the carbon the EA produces itself in its own operations, which is a lot – we pump a lot of water around the country to manage drought risk and alleviate flooding, pour a lot of concrete in our flood defence schemes, have a big vehicle fleet, hundreds of offices and over 12,000 employees, whose commuting we also included – but also all the carbon produced by our supply chain as well, which was considerably more.

    Other definitions of successful Net Zero were then and are now available, most of which at the time would have given us a much lower carbon target and made our task a lot easier. But we like a challenge in the EA. And we wanted the outcome to be as ambitious and impactful as possible.

    There was one further challenge element in all this, which was that there was no additional money to do it. We are funded mostly by government grant and the charge income we receive from those for whom we provide services, and neither of those income streams was going up. So we’d have to fund this from within our existing budgets.

    How it felt

    We have a saying in my executive team: “Everybody must be heard. We don’t all have to agree. But we do have to make a decision.” And on this decision everyone was indeed heard, we didn’t all agree, but we did eventually make a decision.

    There was little debate over the principle of whether we should aspire to be a Net Zero organisation: everyone thought that was right. But there were two main areas where views differed.

    The first was over the impact on our operations if we made that commitment. The EA exists to protect people and wildlife, and nobody wanted to compromise our ability to do that by chasing a net zero target that might undermine our ability to carry on pumping water out of homes or building flood defences, or all the other things we do to protect lives and livelihoods and create a better place. We settled that debate by agreeing that our commitment would be to do both things at the same time: we would aim to get to Net Zero by 2030 while continuing to deliver all the outcomes we exist to deliver for all the people and places we serve: reducing flood risk, regulating industry, preventing pollution, enhancing nature and so on. So there would be no stopping doing any of these things: instead we’d need to do at least some of them differently, sometimes radically so.

    The second debate was a more philosophical one, which was this: at the time of the decision, we didn’t actually know whether or indeed how we could reach our proposed 2030 target. So was it right to make a commitment to do something without knowing precisely how to do it? That is exactly the sort of clear-eyed practical question you’d expect from an organisation like the EA which always wants to operate on an evidence-based basis, and when it sets out to do something always wants to be sure it will achieve it. For the EA, committing to do something we didn’t know exactly how to do – which meant we were taking a big leap in the dark – was very counter-cultural.

    In the end we were inspired by something that many have called humanity’s greatest ever achievement: the US Apollo Programme. In September 1962 President Kennedy publicly committed the United States to putting a man on the Moon by the end of that decade and bringing him safely home again: a SMART target if ever there was one – specific, measurable and time-bound.

    When NASA heard about this pledge – which they did at the same time as everyone else listening to the speech – they were incredulous. They had no idea how that would be done, and even if they had known, very few of them thought it could be done in the seven years that the President had promised. And yet we all know how that story ended: with Neil Armstrong stepping onto the lunar surface in July 1969. We thought that if the US could put a man on the Moon inside seven years without initially knowing how to do it, the Environment Agency could probably get itself to Net Zero in eleven years on the same basis.

    The EA Board readily and unanimously endorsed that decision. They were then, and remain now, our biggest supporters and champions as we seek to deliver it.

    How we set about it

    Which was the next challenge. Once the decision in principle to make the EA Net Zero in 2030 had been made, there remained the small matter of how we were going to do it.

    At Harvard Business School they drill into every aspiring CEO the same message: the main thing is to make sure that the main thing really is the main thing. So we made the climate emergency the Main Thing for the EA. We put it at the heart of everything we did and now do.

    At the strategic level we made it the centrepiece of our Five Year Action Plan that drives what the whole organisation does. We put it at the heart of our new Flood Strategy, which among other things dictates how we spend most of our money. And we ensured that every time our executive leadership took a decision on any big issue, one of the questions we always asked before that decision was: how will this help us tackle the climate emergency?

    At the operational level we put in place governance arrangements to monitor and oversee delivery of our new Net Zero goal. We established Senior Responsible Officers for the key elements of it. But – critically – we made achieving that goal the business of every single EA employee. We helped our people understand what the goal involved and why we were aiming for it, including by putting everyone through training at our online Climate Academy. And we encouraged all our teams to think for themselves and identify ways in which they could change what they did and how they did it in order to help us get there. Then we stood back and waited to see what would happen.

    What happened was astonishing. President Kennedy’s commitment to an audacious but inspiring goal triggered a massive upwelling of enthusiasm and innovation from staff all across NASA. Exactly the same thing happened in the EA in relation to Net Zero. While some of the measures we put in place to get us there were necessarily driven from the top down – such as the decision that we would use low carbon concrete or alternative materials wherever they were available for all our construction – many of the things that happened came from the bottom up: initiatives invented by our local teams to cut, absorb or avoid carbon while delivering the day job.

    Progress to date

    I said this was a work in progress. We are now four years into our eleven year sprint to 2030, with seven still to go. How are we doing?

    Not bad: in 2019/20 (our zero baseline year) our direct operational carbon emissions totaled 31, 284 tonnes, mostly from pumping water to reduce flood or drought risk and pouring concrete to build flood defences. By the end of last year (2021/22) we had got that figure down to 20,485 tonnes, a cut of more than a third. We report on these figures publicly every quarter – another incentive to keep improving.

    We are finding new ways to do what we do. Example: using natural flood management techniques that don’t emit and actually absorb carbon such as planting trees, restoring rivers to their natural curves, creating hollows to store rainwater, all to absorb water and slow the flow which could otherwise cause flooding. We are also looking at more advanced technology like electric plant and vehicles, and hydrogen fuel cells.

    Meanwhile we are starting to offset our remaining emissions. We have built a pipeline of potential projects to absorb and offset as much as we can, using land we own ourselves as well as potential partnerships with others. These UK- and nature-based projects will include tree planting, creating wetlands and other new habitat like salt marsh. Example: The Lower Otter restoration project in Devon, which will not only reduce flood risk to the local community, but will also create 55 hectares of intertidal saltmarsh, providing habitat for wildlife and sequestering carbon.

    Will we get there?

    Will we get there by 2030? Honest answer: I don’t know. As we’ve gone further it’s got harder. As we have improved our data we’ve found that we were emitting more carbon than we thought we were when we made the 2019 decision, which means we have more to do to get to Net Zero in 2030 than we originally understood. We are finding it a lot more difficult than we thought it would be to secure credible offsetting measures for the remainder of our carbon output: there are a lot of fake or doubtful “offset” schemes, and we only want to invest in the ones that are real. Our preferred approach to offsetting is for nature-based solutions and it will take time for those to have effect: however innovative we are, we can’t change the fact that trees take a long time to grow.

    So right now I simply don’t know whether we can hit our original 2030 target. On our current emissions track and what we know we can currently offset, we won’t. Personally, I think we will. But that depends on several questions to which we don’t yet know the answer: on whether we can make deeper reductions in our own carbon footprint than originally planned, which in turn depends on technology not yet mainstream, affordable or even invented; on whether we can quickly find more offsetting arrangements that make a real difference; and on whether we can secure the funding we need to invest in that new technology and those offsets.

    But seven years away from their goal, NASA also thought they weren’t going to make it. And EA staff are just as clever, innovative and dedicated as those who put Neil Armstrong on the Moon. So we are going to carry on driving towards that target, do what we can, use what we have, and see where we get to.

    And while I would love to hit our 2030 target, not least since I have a big personal stake in doing so, if we don’t make it exactly on time it doesn’t mean that this isn’t something that’s worth doing. What matters is outcomes: driving down our emissions and locking up the rest as fast as possible. And to achieve that the most important thing is that we keep the goal in sight, that we get there as soon as we can, and that we continue to think differently about what we do and how we do it. Because if we are to tackle the climate emergency successfully – and I think we can and we will –– our thinking needs to change faster than the climate.

    What I’ve learned

    What have I learned from all this?

    I’ve learned that getting to Net Zero is easy to say but difficult to do, and a good deal harder than I thought it would be. There are technical challenges: there are, for example, currently no ultra low emission options for some of the heavy plant we need to do what we do. There are resource challenges: we haven’t been able to fund things like electric charge points for all our offices and depots or convert our whole vehicle fleet to low or no emissions. And there are still cultural challenges: getting everyone in the organisation and all our supply chain partners to Think Carbon and put as much emphasis on reducing or avoiding it as they do on meeting their other operational targets.

    But I’ve also learned that the decision to make ourselves a Net Zero organisation was the right thing to do, not least because it is giving us a whole set of benefits that I didn’t anticipate.

    Not only did the decision unlock a massive amount of enthusiasm, experimentation and innovation from many of our staff, but it is also changing the EA culture for the better, making us more entrepreneurial, readier to experiment and innovate, and less risk-averse. That will stand us in good stead in the future for everything else we want to do. And the fact that the EA is visibly and explicitly committed to tackling the climate emergency, symbolised most powerfully by our 2030 commitment, has played a significant role in helping us recruit the talented staff we need at a time when the employment market is very tight and we cannot compete with the private sector on pay. That too will stand us in good stead in the future.

    I promised you News You Can Use. How would I distill my advice to other leaders who want to get their own organisations to Net Zero? Here are my Top Ten tips.

    1. It’s all about leadership. Organisations behave like their leaders. So if you are serious about getting yours to Net Zero, show it and mean it. Your Board and your executive leadership team need to be united behind the goal and visibly committed to reaching it. Staff are very quick to identify when their leaders do and don’t mean what they say.
    2. The main thing is to make sure the main thing really is the Main Thing. If you want your organisation to get to Net Zero, you need to put it at the heart of your day to day business as an essential outcome that everyone is responsible for delivering, not treat it as a nice-to-have add-on or the responsibility of a few people in a Net Zero unit.
    3. Too much communication is never enough. Talk regularly to your own staff about the goal, why it matters, and where you are making progress: nothing succeeds like success.
    4. What gets measured gets done. Have a Net Zero metric as one of your Key Performance Indicators, review progress regularly, and intervene if you are off course.
    5. Reinforce the behaviour you want: recognise and reward those who are helping get there and tackle those who aren’t.
    6. Governance matters: work out how you are going to oversee delivery of your target, be clear who is responsible for what and hold them to account.
    7. Experiment. Be prepared to take a risk that something won’t work: at the very least you’ll learn how not to do it.
    8. Learn from others. Look at what other organisations are doing, share your own successful ideas and adopt theirs: none of us is as good as all of us.
    9. Don’t be afraid of stretching targets. You will come under regular pressure to adjust or dilute the targets or the deadline or both to make them easier to achieve. Don’t, unless you think it will lead to better outcomes. Unless your organisation is really stretched by the targets, you won’t garner the momentum you need to get there.
    10. The journey is as important as the destination. Even if you don’t hit your deadline, it’s still worth the effort: you will energise your organisation, stimulate innovation, attract more talent, and learn things you didn’t even know you didn’t know.

    Conclusion

    Since I’ve been channelling President Kennedy, let me end with another quotation from him. This is for anyone considering whether to commit themselves or their organisation to tackling the climate emergency and setting a Net Zero target: “If not us, who? And if not now, when?”

  • Therese Coffey – 2023 Comments on Sewage Entering Rivers

    Therese Coffey – 2023 Comments on Sewage Entering Rivers

    The comments made by Therese Coffey, the Environment Secretary, on 20 February 2023.

    People are concerned about the impacts of sewage entering our rivers and seas and I am crystal clear that this is totally unacceptable.

    We need to be clear that this is not a new problem. Storm overflows have existed for over a century. The law has always allowed for discharges, subject to regulation. That is how our Victorian sewers are built – wastewater and rain are carried in the same pipe. When it reaches a certain height, it pours into another pipe and into rivers.

    And while we have done more about it than any other government – we were the first government to require companies to start comprehensively monitoring spillage so that we could see what was actually going on – there is still significant work to do.

    Through the largest infrastructure programme in water company history we will tackle the problem at source, with more investment on projects like the new Thames Tideway super sewer. I am making sure that regulators have the powers they need to take action when companies don’t follow the rules, including higher penalties that are quicker and easier to enforce.

    I am now demanding every company to come back to me with a clear plan for what they are doing on every storm overflow, prioritising those near sites where people swim and our most precious habitats.

  • Therese Coffey – 2023 Speech to the NASDA Conference in Virginia

    Therese Coffey – 2023 Speech to the NASDA Conference in Virginia

    The speech made by Therese Coffey, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in Virginia, the United States on 15 February 2023.

    Thank you, Ted, and thank you to NASDA for inviting me today.

    It is a particular privilege as I understand that this is the first time a foreign Secretary of State for Agriculture has been invited to address NASDA, and it comes at a particularly interesting time as we are still suffering the economic aftershock of Covid, global supply chains are still recovering, the illegal invasion of Ukraine by Russia has really impacted one of the most important agricultural countries in the world.

    I am very proud that our two countries continue to stand shoulder to shoulder with Ukraine though this terrible ordeal, from supporting heroic efforts to get the harvest in amid the turmoil of war and share it with some of the world’s poorest and most vulnerable people, to working together through the G7 to identify stolen grain and frustrate Russia’s efforts to profit from theft.

    But all this to me reinforces the need to champion free trade. And I’ve spent the last few days in the great state of North Carolina. The UK is their biggest market for sweet potatoes – but it doesn’t stop there. They told me they wanted to get on with a free trade agreement and I hope we can resume our talks soon.

    I am no stranger to the USA and the food industry, as I used to work for Mars Incorporated – who produce human food and pet food (not in the same factory you will be pleased to know) – my understanding of the global food supply chain was certainly enhanced by working there.

    Even in a country as blessed and resourceful as the USA on food production, trade is essential. That cup of Joe in the morning or the candy bar pick-me-up cannot exist without the imports of the key ingredients.

    In the UK, we only have domestic self-sufficiency of about 60% and we want to maintain that at least, if not consider higher. We do know that we can see the pressures of the environment and changes in the seasons. We see that for ourselves alongside the global demand for products and the supply chain for such ingredients and farming techniques have to be ever more sustainable and agile to deal with the challenges ahead. We also have to see that alongside other pressures – particularly the food inflation which is really challenging families with the cost of living.

    We have also been on a journey since we left the European Union. We have undertaken two significant pieces of legislation for farming. In 2020 we passed our Agriculture Act which gave us freedoms on how to support our farming industry and reduce red tape. And most recently the Gene Editing, the Precision Breeding Bill – which should be in law very soon – will allow the latest technology to help food become more resilient, whether that be a new wheat crop resistant to climate change, or that can design out weaknesses to pests and ultimately reduce our need for quite so many pesticides, particularly those harmful to pollinators.

    Now we have some prominent research institutes in the UK that I fully expect to start to take advantage of these new freedoms because it is through science, innovation and technology that our farming industry will continue to be sustainable. It is so important in the UK that our Prime Minister has just created a brand new government department to give that leadership and focus to science innovation and technology.

    And that is why I started my trip to the USA by visiting agritech businesses in North Carolina. I particularly enjoyed the trip to the new world-class Plant Science Initiative facility at North Carolina State, ably led by Adrian Percy who was once a British academic. Of course I enjoyed some classic North Carolina hospitality, especially the grits, and I was pleased to promote some new entrants into the market, starting with some Brit expats blending the best of British and American at the Fortnight Brewery in Cary.

    Now while we missed seeing Commissioner Troxler in his home state – Sir, it was a pleasure to meet you last night and you have a very fine state and certainly the UK has embraced your sweet potatoes. I’m conscious that just by singling out North Carolina I may have alienated the 49 other states, but I know that you have fantastic produce as well.

    I want to recognise and commend the USA’s leadership – including NASDA’s leadership on trade, sustainability, and innovation. And I think that the US and the UK are in a perfect position to develop our partnership on this even further in the months and years ahead. We can and we will build on good foundations as we already see some pioneering technology at work.

    That could be the UK-based company developing drone software that is now being used by farmers in New York and Michigan States, promoting sustainable approaches to managing pests in their apple orchards, maximising their harvest, saving them time and money, improving the natural environment, and boosting their profitability as well. Frankly – what’s not to like?

    I know some of your colleagues from NASDA saw that technology working wonders on a field in Kent in the UK during your visit last fall and I hope that many more American and British businesses will be able to benefit from this sort of collaboration.

    Now our trade relationship is worth more than two hundred and fifty billion dollars overall. The US is already our largest single trading partner and our top investor – creating twenty-seven thousand UK jobs last financial year alone, with one and a half million people getting up and going to work for American companies in the UK, alongside the more than a million people who do similarly for British companies in the USA as well.

    So, let’s build on that together.

    My portfolio as Secretary of State is rare if not unique in the world’s largest economies as it covers both the environment and agriculture. Now at times there can be seen to be conflict between the two, but far from being mutually exclusive, I actually see that they can be symbiotic.

    I expect that you as agricultural commissioners and directors and secretaries would likely agree with me that our farmers are the original friends of the earth. Their custodianship, their stewardship, is absolutely vital to the wellbeing of our planet as is their regard for animal welfare, which I know you know is something UK consumers care about, as do your consumers too.

    While I represent a rural constituency known for its pigs, potatoes and parsnips, I am well supported by my farming minister Mark Spencer, who is still a practising farmer and whose family have worked the land for four generations. So coming from that background, in addition to the global pressures that are currently affecting prices, energy, and supply chains, I’m very aware that farm businesses are now facing a range of challenges from historic flooding and drought in a changing climate, to outbreaks of pests and diseases.

    So it is crucial we support our growers and their businesses to become more resilient to these impacts.

    And the UK – having left the European Union – we have seized the opportunity to shape our own agricultural policy for the first time in half a century. So I’d like to share our approach, for food for thought.

    Recognising farming is the backbone of our second largest manufacturing sector, the food processing sector, it brings jobs to every county and plays a vital role in rural communities.

    In England, 70% of the country is farmland. So farmers hold the key to making the most of our land for all the things we want to achieve, including not just food security, but also our plan to improve the state of nature.

    And our view is that making space for nature can and must go alongside sustainable food production – indeed, working with nature, not against it. And while rightly there is an ongoing role for pesticides, we think we should not be using them quite so liberally, especially when they impact on other pollinators.

    But that is why we are designing, developing, and deploying new and improved funding programmes with our farmers, not imposing on them. Because we want to make it as easy and attractive as possible for businesses of every shape and size to apply and get involved on the way forward.

    Our aim is to provide a menu of different actions that farmers can be paid to do, and for each business to choose what works best for them as part of their plan to improve the productivity, profitability, sustainability, and resilience of their business for the future.

    In practice a lot of this is not new. It is rediscovering the agricultural techniques of our forefathers and marrying them with the latest scientific innovation. For example, we all know that good soil and a steady supply of clean water are absolutely crucial for a healthy crop, as well as forming the building blocks of a resilient ecosystem. A healthy environment is inherently linked to food security.

    Indeed in nurturing and utilising more of our natural capital, for example through good soil husbandry, we can reduce input costs from increasingly costly chemical fertilisers, and boost the long-term resilience of our food system. What that means is that we’re using taxpayers’ hard earned money to reward our farmers for the work that they do that is not yet fully rewarded by the market.

    But that benefits us all, including taking on the global challenges of antimicrobial resistance and zoonotic diseases. Embedding the nature-based solutions like trees that provide effective, cost-effective solutions to so many challenges including absorbing carbon, and protecting homes, businesses, and indeed entire communities from the impacts of droughts and flooding.

    Working with all our farmers and growers to produce world class food while protecting the land they rely on. That is the outcome that we want to see.

    Ultimately we know that as we lose the abundance, diversity, and connectivity of flora and fauna, we risk overturning the delicate global web of life that underpins our food security. And we have made a commitment – in law – to report to our parliament on the state of our nation’s food security at least once every three years. So that we keep a close eye on the evolving picture as our climate and indeed global geopolitics continues to shift.

    Now I know that you are in the thick of Farm Bill preparation here in the US, encompassing jobs as well as innovation, infrastructure, research, trade, and conservation. So, I look forward to hearing more about that here at NASDA. I think that we agree, that where decades, even generations of hard-won experience have given us a strong sense of what already works, we need to recognise the importance of the solutions that farmers bring to the table, and not forever reinvent the wheel.

    In everything we do, we need to reflect the immense contribution farming makes to our communities, our respect for cherished ways of life – particularly rural life – and the sheer grit, ingenuity, and determination it takes to keep us fed, whether that be to get up at the crack of dawn every morning to milk the cows, or the day-in-day-out nurturing of crops.

    Technology has helped us with some of that of course. But the cows are never going to milk themselves. But we also know that farmers have always been a part of good animal welfare – and that they can and must be a part of improving that in the future as well.

    Don’t worry, I’m not going all vegan or vegetarian on you. Meat is certainly still very much on my dietary plate. Caring for animals with good levels of husbandry is the right thing to do – and the smart thing to do as well if we want to improve biosecurity, prevent diseases and stop them from spreading like wildfire, as we know they can. That has an impact not just in one state or one country, but indeed on trade exports around the world.

    We have experienced that in the UK, and it is why we’re just recovering in some areas like lamb. And we need to make sure we continue to have that biosecurity ever present.

    I think it is important to say that together, we are stronger, we are more resilient and that collaboration, those high standards that we share, build our trust in each other which, of course, helps us trade with each other.

    And while there may always be an element of risk with food security in this changing, evermore interconnected world, when unexpected challenges and shocks raise their head, we have always been there to help each other out – as the UK did last year, when a domestic producer was hit by a bacteria outbreak, a UK-based company was proud to step into the breach to make sure American families had access to vital baby formula, and it was the first foreign company to do so under an expedited process thanks to that trust in each other.

    So friends, I want to thank you again, for the honour of speaking today, for inviting me to see some of the pioneering work underway, by redoubling the deep and enduring bond between the British and American people that makes our relationship so special.

    Ted, I think you said earlier that NASDA wants to be the best partner in your relationships. Well I can tell you that the reception you put on for Valentine’s night, that speed dating, I can assure you, you have a willing future partner in me and certainly in the UK.

    By learning from each other and working together, we will have done right by each other, and critically we will have done right by every generation yet to come. Thank you ladies and gentlemen and God Bless America.

  • Rachel Maclean – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    Rachel Maclean – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    The speech made by Rachel Maclean, the Minister of State at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons, on 9 February 2023.

    It is a huge pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this debate, and for the interest it has generated from colleagues from across the House and across our United Kingdom—it would not be the same without our friend the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).

    I also thank colleagues for their kind words about my role, and the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Matthew Pennycook) for his words of welcome. I very much look forward to having many exchanges with him, and I stress the word “many”. I am sure they will all be polite and constructive, yet probing and robust when they need to be. He has definitely eased me in very well today, and in a very kind way, although no doubt that will not continue. However, we have enjoyed today.

    Let me start by saying that there is so much that we all agree on in this debate. We all agree that brownfield regeneration is absolutely vital. I again pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for her tireless championing of this cause and her constructive engagement with the Government ahead of the Report stage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. In her customary way, which we all know well, she raises so many practical points that her communities and residents have raised with her. That is a reflection of how she champions her constituents and the Black Country values that she represents so well in this House, and we all benefit from that.

    We all know that redeveloping brownfield sites is not just better for the environment, but also holds the key to regenerating communities. The Government share my right hon. Friend’s view that, as I think every colleague has highlighted, we should do everything we can to protect our precious green-belt, greenfield, open-space and countryside land, while also making the best possible use of land that has already been developed—land that usually already benefits from mains drainage, power and road access.

    That is exactly why the Government have pursued an unambiguous “brownfield first” approach to development. Indeed, I am sure my right hon. Friend will have seen that we have announced £60 million to help councils to free up their brownfield sites for regeneration and new homes. That is part of a much bigger pot of money—catchily entitled the brownfield land release fund 2—that is worth £180 million overall. This £180 million-worth of grant funding will help to accelerate the release of land for roughly 17,600 new homes by 2020. The brownfield housing fund has already had a transformative effect on communities. Let me answer the challenge that the hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich posed about how the funding is allocated across our country. In November ’22, we announced that 57% of brownfield land release funding was allocated outside London and the south-east, which is of course consistent with the Government’s levelling-up aspirations.

    My right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills will know about the incredible work done by our friend Andy Street, Mayor of the West Midlands Combined Authority. She also highlighted the work of Councillor Mike Bird, with whom she has worked closely. The West Midlands Combined Authority has been a trailblazer for brownfield redevelopment, using £153 million from the fund to unlock over 10,000 new homes on brownfield sites.

    She will know about projects such as the Lockside scheme, which will see 252 well-designed, high-quality homes built at the old Caparo Engineering site, and the transformation of the Harvestime bread factory, which has already delivered 88 much-needed new homes and a thriving community. An added benefit of that development is that it has tackled some of the crime and antisocial behaviour that used to be seen at the site.

    Colleagues raised a huge number of points; I will try to respond to them in turn, using the time I have available. The hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) gave us a fascinating insight into the civil war history of his constituency, and highlighted the similarity of the challenges facing us all, no matter which parts of our nation we represent. He asked about biodiversity and rare species on sites where development is proposed. He will know that we are putting the protection of habitats at the heart of the planning system, through the introduction of biodiversity net gain from November 2023; developers will need to assess the condition of the land they propose to develop and ensure there is better biodiversity value after development.

    I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) for all the work she has done throughout the passage of the Bill, under my predecessor, particularly with reference to new clause 21. She is working to rebalance the planning system and I listened carefully to all her comments. We should have a meeting to discuss the issues in a huge amount of detail, with the kind assistance of my officials, who have been working on this for a lot longer than the 48 hours I have had to do a massive reading sprint of all the comments and debates; we will do better justice to the issue by having a meeting. Although she said she would be obstinate, she was also incredibly polite, so I look forward to many future discussions with her.

    The hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) talked a lot about the brownfield remediation that is needed. The Government are reviewing the brownfield land planning system, and I am happy to write to her with more detail in response to some of her questions.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) referred to the importance of food production—the food and drink that is produced in his constituency, and across the country—which is considered in the national planning policy framework. Again, I listened to his comments. He will know that the consultation is under way, and I invite him to join the meeting with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, or on another occasion when we can discuss the issues in more detail. I understand the frustration of some of his constituents.

    The hon. Member for Strangford reminded me of a very happy trip I made to the Mourne mountains and the beautiful scenery of Northern Ireland—[Interruption.] I do not want to interrupt his conversation, but he reminded me of the wonderful time I had. I went through his constituency to another part of beautiful Northern Ireland, so I have seen it for myself. Although the system in Northern Ireland is devolved, we have many similar challenges and we can all learn from working with each other.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland) talked in favour of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill; I was grateful to hear his support. He talked about how it will regenerate high streets and communities, which we can all welcome. He highlights the importance of local plans to the quality of life of the people who already live there.

    Last but not least, I come to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Maggie Throup). I well remember her long record of campaigning and how she started her journey to this House. I have no doubt that she will never give up, as she set out in her motto. I hope I can assist her campaign by promising to set up a meeting with her as soon as I can; I am looking to my very helpful officials, who no doubt are scrutinising the debate closely.

    I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills for securing this useful and constructive debate. Having been in the job for two days, it is an honour to be here discussing these issues that touch all our constituents, in every single community, no matter where we live. The Government have a mission to level up the United Kingdom and build beautiful homes in the places where people want to live. We all want homes to be available for our children—or in my case, my granddaughter. I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend; she talked about the excitement of first getting the keys to her new home, and that is the balance we seek to achieve in our work. We are thoroughly committed to working with all hon. Members across the House in that endeavour, and we will continue to build the right homes in the right places for the people who need them most.

  • Matthew Pennycook – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    Matthew Pennycook – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    The speech made by Matthew Pennycook, the Labour MP for Greenwich and Woolwich, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Fovargue. I also welcome the new Minister to her place and express a genuine hope that she improves on the 87-day average tenure of her four predecessors, not least because I have to meet the new Ministers once they are in post to decide how we might work together, which I certainly hope we can.

    I congratulate the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing this important debate and thank all other Members who have participated. In her thoughtful opening remarks, the right hon. Lady made an impassioned case for protecting the green belt and for prioritising brownfield development, and that point has been echoed by many other Members this afternoon. I doubt any right hon. or hon. Member would disagree with the notion that the Government should be doing everything possible to incentivise and encourage good development on brownfield sites, and to prioritise such development over that on urban green space and greenfield, wherever possible. Of course, “brownfield first” is far from a new policy concept.

    As far back as 1995, the Major Government outlined proposals in their “Our Future Homes” White Paper to use the planning system and public investment to encourage more development in existing urban areas and less on greenfield sites, with an aspirational target of 60% of new homes on brownfield land. The 1998 planning for the communities of the future policy statement, published by the Blair Government, set out a general preference for building on previously developed sites first; the 2000 planning policy guidance note 3 specified a brownfield target of 60%, with the aim of promoting regeneration and minimising the amount of greenfield land being taken for development. That 60% brownfield target remained in place throughout the life of the Blair and Brown Governments and was carried forward by the Conservative-led coalition Government into the 2012 national planning policy framework.

    In short, while the precise weight accorded to brownfield over greenfield has certainly fluctuated, every Government over recent decades, of whatever political persuasion, has ostensibly sought in one way or another to maximise the development potential of brownfield land. The succession of Conservative Administrations since 2015 are no exception in that regard.

    All manner of initiatives have been announced over recent years to promote brownfield development, including the use of brownfield registers, the allocation of funding to unlock and accelerate development on suitable and available brownfield sites, and minor changes to the planning system to fast-track brownfield regeneration. The problem is that these recent initiatives have been and continue to be undermined by other decisions the Conservative Administrations have taken—or, in many cases, have failed to take. Let me give three examples.

    First, there is the Government’s reluctance to reform biased spending rules. Leaving aside the issue of whether this Government are actually going to be able to spend the £1.5 billion brownfield fund, or whether the Treasury might claw some of that funding back, one need only examine the distribution of allocations from the Government’s brownfield land release fund over recent years to see that a disproportionate share of brownfield land remediation funding flows to local authorities in the south of England for no other reason than the fact that they are already relatively prosperous and have higher house prices.

    If the Government were serious about delivering a more overt brownfield-focused policy, they could choose to direct more already allocated funding towards brownfield regeneration in those parts of England where urban brownfield land is relatively low value and the cost of remediating sites often prohibitively high, rather than channelling those funds into high-value housing markets where that further stokes land-price inflation.

    Secondly, there is the Government’s general unwillingness to intervene to enable brownfield development. In those parts of the country where land values are relatively high, the existing incentives for brownfield land, including subsidy, are often sufficient. Instead, barriers to development in those locations more often than not relate to delivery, whether that be problems relating to fragmented land ownership or difficulties associated with site assembly.

    Again, if the Government were serious about delivering a more overt “brownfield first” policy, they could act to ensure that brownfield development takes place in areas where local planning authorities either cannot or will not build out deliverable brownfield sites themselves, whether that be, as one hon. Member mentioned, by legislating for further reform of compulsory purchase powers or by overhauling Homes England to give it a greater role in driving brownfield regeneration and supporting local authorities with land assembly, master planning, infrastructure delivery and the brokering of local delivery partnerships.

    The third example is the Government’s refusal to confront many of the underlying reasons why greenfield development is so much more attractive for private developers than is brownfield land. That applies in both high and low-value land areas. In many ways, the proliferation of low-quality, car-dependent development on greenfield sites that more often than not fails to meet local housing need is a direct consequence of the Government’s over-reliance on private house builders building homes for market sale to meet housing need. Again, if they were serious about delivering a more overt brownfield-focused policy and reducing greenfield market sale sprawl, the Government could take steps to ramp up social housing-led development on those brownfield sites with genuine viability challenges and limited prospects for market development, not least by more effective use of grant funding.

    However—here we come to what is the nub of the issue in many ways—even if the Government did act in those and other ways to increase the overall quantum of brownfield development, the fact remains that brownfield development alone will almost certainly never be enough to meet the country’s housing need. The evidence on that fact is perfectly clear. There are simply not enough sites on brownfield land registers to deliver the volume of homes that the country needs each year, let alone enough that are viable, in the right location and able to provide the type of homes required to meet local housing needs and aspirations.

    The CPRE figure is correct, but it is existing total permissions over a very long period. Analysis published by Lichfields last year makes it clear that even if every brownfield site that has been identified to date were indeed deliverable and were built out to full capacity, including by means of intensified density, the resulting development would equate to 1.4 million net dwellings over 15 years. That is just under a third of the 4.5 million homes that estimates suggest are needed in that period.

    Put simply, even if the Government manage to boost rates of development on identified brownfield sites significantly, that will only ever be, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) argued in his contribution, part of the solution to the housing crisis, which is why previous “brownfield first” approaches ultimately had to incorporate requirements to ensure that local planning authorities maintained a sufficient supply of housing on deliverable sites, irrespective of whether that supply could be met in full by development on identified brownfield sites alone.

    Wendy Morton

    I am listening intently to the hon. Gentleman’s comments, which I welcome. On that specific point about brownfield, does he agree that unless sufficient protections are in place around the green belt and really push the “brownfield first” approach, all that happens is that brownfield sites remain undeveloped, developers continue developing on the green belt and we achieve absolutely nothing?

    Matthew Pennycook

    I agree with the right hon. Member. As I hope I have conveyed to the House, I think the Government could be doing much more to ensure that brownfield sites are built out and that we do not get speculative fringe development of the type that she refers to. They could do so by, for example, putting in place effective regional frameworks, and sub-regional frameworks, for managing housing growth. There is nothing there at the moment, and a series of Members just applauded the removal of the duty to co-operate, which, as flawed as it is, is the only mechanism in place to provide for that sub-regional housing growth. We will end up in a situation where we have no strategic planning mechanisms to go for growth, and I fear that, even with the changes in place, we will still get speculative development of the kind that the right hon. Member refers to.

    I would like to make some progress, because I am conscious of the time. It is the requirement to maintain a deliverable supply of land for housing in order that objectively assessed housing need can be met that the Government, in their weakness, have fatally weakened through the proposed revisions to the NPPF. As I have argued on previous occasions, the Government clearly hope that England’s largest cities and urban centres will do the heavy lifting, when it comes to housing supply, as a result of the entirely arbitrary 35% uplift to urban centres being made policy, but we already know that most of the cities that that uplift applies to almost certainly will be unable to accommodate the output that it entails.

    Therefore we are left with a situation where, despite a rhetorical commitment to “brownfield first”, the Government are seemingly not prepared to do what is necessary to maximise the supply of new homes on brownfield sites. Neither are the Government prepared to explore other ways in which brownfield-constrained local areas might meet local housing need, while avoiding development on urban green space and greenfield, for example by throwing the full weight of Government behind serious efforts to boost infill development in suburbs. And the Government are certainly not prepared—despite, as a series of hon. Members have mentioned, presiding over the progressive loss of large amounts of high-quality greenfield land over the past decade, often to haphazard and speculative fringe development—to consider how we might instead ensure that more of the right bits of the greenbelt are released by local authorities for development, that land value capture is maximised on those sites so that the communities in question can benefit from first-class infrastructure and more affordable housing, or that greenbelt land with the highest environmental and amenity value is properly protected, enhanced and made more accessible.

    Instead, Ministers have taken the easy option, namely to amend national planning policy in a way that will ensure that fewer houses are built in England over the coming years. In the midst of a housing crisis, the fact that meeting objectively assessed housing need is seemingly no longer a Government priority is, I would argue, a woeful abdication of responsibility. As we will continue to argue, it is high time that we had a general election, so that the present Government can make way for one that not only is committed to fully exploiting the potential of brownfield sites, but serious about building the homes the British people need.

  • Maggie Throup – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    Maggie Throup – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    The speech made by Maggie Throup, the Conservative MP for Erewash, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue, and I commend my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for securing this important debate on a subject close to my heart. My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith) made an excellent point early on in his speech about the true definition of “green belt”, and the difference between that and agricultural land, but I reassure him that my examples today are about the green belt. Really, though, my message is more about “brownfield first”, because that is what we need to ensure.

    I first became involved in politics because of a community campaign to protect huge swathes of the green belt. I set up that campaign, and although it took eight years, I protected that swathe of green belt and stopped a motorway service station from being built. A number of years on, I am back here, once again talking about protecting the green belt. My message is that I will never give up.

    All colleagues have spoken passionately about the need to build on brownfield sites first. Like others, I understand that there is a need to build more houses in this country, including in Erewash, and to support those, such as our younger generations, who want to become homeowners, but that should not come at the expense of the green belt. I welcome the Government’s initial steps in pursuing the “brownfield first” policy; I am also pleased that they will end the so-called duty to co-operate, which made it easier for urban authorities to impose their housing on suburban and rural communities. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) said, I am wary of the watering-down of that commitment. The Government need to do more, but I emphasise that green-belt land should only ever be built on as a last resort.

    I am concerned that local authorities such as Erewash Borough Council are coming under increasing pressure to include green-belt land in their core strategy, partly due to unfair housing targets being imposed on them. Despite expressing my views to Erewash Borough Council, there are still plans to build 6,000 houses in the borough, the majority of them on the green belt, including around Kirk Hallam and Cotmanhay. I campaigned tirelessly to prevent those proposals from going ahead, but sadly without success. The description that the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) gave of the impact on his community mirrors the impact that such building would have on my communities.

    We do have brownfield sites available across Erewash, as well as a considerable number of empty properties, mainly above retail sites in the town centres of Long Eaton and Ilkeston. Erewash has a proud industrial heritage, and there should be a planned approach to access those empty and derelict properties, with the option of converting them to residential properties. There are already some examples of that happening in Erewash, but not enough: the Poplar pub on Bath Street, which is the high street in Ilkeston, has now been replaced by housing and retail units. While it is always sad to see the demise of our pubs, that development will play its part in the redevelopment of Bath Street—so important for a thriving community—as well as taking pressure off our green belt. Maximising those kinds of opportunities first surely must be the strategy moving forward.

    On 21 March last year, I wrote to the Secretary of State requesting a meeting, along with the leader and chief executive of Erewash Borough Council, to discuss the specific situation in Erewash. That request was passed to the then Housing Minister—that was a few Ministers ago—but I am still waiting for that meeting. I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Rachel Maclean) to her place today; hopefully, she will be in post for a sufficient length of time for that meeting to take place.

    Today’s debate has provided a welcome opportunity to raise awareness of why the “brownfield first” policy is the right path to choose. It is clear that building on brownfield land plays an important role in regenerating our communities across the country. I welcome the Government’s initial steps to pursue the “brownfield first” policy. Nevertheless, they need to fully commit to it and do more.