UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Nicola Sturgeon – 2023 Resignation Statement

    Nicola Sturgeon – 2023 Resignation Statement

    The statement made by Nicola Sturgeon, the First Minister of Scotland and the Leader of the SNP, on 15 February 2023.

    Being First Minister of Scotland is in my – admittedly biased – opinion the best job in the world.

    It is a privilege beyond measure – one that has sustained and inspired me, in good times and through the toughest hours of my toughest days.

    I am proud to stand here as the first female, and longest serving, incumbent of this great office.

    And I am proud of what has been achieved in the years I’ve been in Bute House.

    However, since my first moments in the job, I have believed that part of serving well would be to know – almost instinctively – when the time is right to make way for someone else.

    And when that time comes, to have the courage to do so – even if, to many across the country, and in my party, it might feel too soon.

    In my head and my heart I know that time is now;

    That it is right for me, for my party, and for the country;

    And so today, I am announcing my intention to step down as First Minister and leader of my party.

    I have asked the National Secretary of the SNP to begin the process of electing a new party leader, and I will remain in office until my successor is in place.

    I know there will be some across the country who feel upset by this decision, and by the fact I am taking it now.

    Of course, to balance that, there will others who – how should I put this – will cope with the news just fine!

    Such is the beauty of democracy.

    But to those who do feel shocked, disappointed, perhaps even a bit angry with me, please know that, while hard – and be in no doubt, this is really hard for me – my decision comes from a place of duty and of love.

    Tough love perhaps – but love nevertheless, for my party and above all for the country.

    Let me set out – as best I can – my reasons.

    First, though I know it will be tempting, unavoidable perhaps, to see it as such, this decision is not simply a reaction to short term pressures.

    Of course, there are difficult issues confronting the government just now. But when is that ever not the case.

    I have spent almost three decades in front line politics – a decade and a half on the top or second top rung of government.

    When it comes to navigating choppy waters, resolving seemingly intractable issues, or soldiering on when walking away would be the simpler option, I have plenty experience to draw on.

    So if this was just a question of my ability – or my resilience – to get through the latest period of pressure, I would not be standing here today.

    But it is not.

    This decision comes from a deeper and longer term assessment.

    I know it might seem sudden but I have been wrestling with it – albeit with oscillating levels of intensity – for some weeks.

    Essentially, I have been trying to answer two questions.

    Is carrying on right for me?

    And – more importantly – is me carrying on right for the country, for my party and for the independence cause I have devoted my life to?

    I understand why some will automatically answer ‘yes’ to that second question.

    But in truth, I’ve been having to work harder in recent times to convince myself that the answer to either of them – when examined deeply – is ‘yes’.

    And I’ve reached the conclusion that it’s not.

    The questions are inextricably linked but let me take them in turn.

    I’ve been First Minister for over 8 years; and I was Deputy First Minister for the best part of 8 years before that.

    As I said earlier, these jobs are a privilege.

    But they are also – rightly – hard.

    And, especially in the case of First Minister, relentlessly so.

    Now to be clear, I am not expecting violins – but the fact is, I am a human being as well as a politician.

    When I entered government in 2007, my niece and youngest nephew were babies, just months old.

    As I step down, they are about to celebrate their 17th birthdays.

    Exactly the age to be horrified at the thought of your devoted auntie suddenly having more time for you.

    My point is this.

    Giving absolutely everything of yourself to this job is the only way to do it. The country deserves nothing less.

    But in truth that can only be done, by anyone, for so long. For me, it is now in danger of becoming too long.

    A First Minister is never off duty.

    Particularly in this day and age, there is virtually no privacy.

    Ordinary stuff that most people take for granted, like going for a coffee with friends or even for a walk on your own becomes very difficult.

    And the nature and form of modern political discourse means there is a much greater intensity – dare I say it, brutality – to life as a politician than in years gone by.

    All in all – and for a long time without it being apparent – it takes its toll, on you and on those around you.

    And if that is true in the best of times, it has been more so in recent years.

    Leading this country through the Covid pandemic is, by far, the toughest thing I’ve done.

    It may well be the toughest thing I ever do. I certainly hope so.

    Now, by no stretch of the imagination – to be clear – was my job the hardest in the country during that time.

    But the weight of responsibility was immense.

    And it’s only very recently, I think, that I’ve started to comprehend, let alone process, the physical and mental impact of it.

    So, what I am saying is this.

    If the only question was, can I battle on for another few months, then the answer is yes. Of course I can.

    But if the question is can I give this job everything it demands and deserves for another year, let alone for the remainder of this parliamentary term – give it every ounce of energy that it needs, in the way that I have strived to do every day for the past 8 years – the answer, honestly, is different.

    And as that is my conclusion – hard though it has been for me to reach it – then given the nature and scale of the challenges the country faces, I have a duty to say so now.

    I feel that duty, first and foremost, to our country – to ensure that it does have the energy of leadership it needs, not just today, but through the years that remain of this parliamentary term.

    And, right now in a very particular sense, I feel that duty to my party too.

    We are at a critical moment.

    The blocking of a referendum as the accepted, constitutional route to independence is a democratic outrage.

    But it puts the onus on us to decide how Scottish democracy will be protected and to ensure that the will of the Scottish people prevails.

    My preference of using the next Westminster election as a de facto referendum is well known.

    I’ve never pretended it is perfect – no second best option ever is – nor that there are no alternatives.

    That is why I have always been clear that the decision must be taken by the SNP collectively, not by me alone.

    But I know my party well enough to understand that my view as leader would carry enormous, probably decisive, weight when our conference meets next month.

    And I cannot – in good conscience – ask the party to choose an option based on my judgment whilst not being convinced that I would be there as leader to see it through.

    By making my decision clear now, I free the SNP to choose the path it believes to be the right one, without worrying about what it means for perceptions of my leadership, and in the knowledge that someone else will lead, successfully, along whatever path is chosen.

    There are two further reflections that have weighed in my decision – these, I suppose, are more about our political culture and the nature and impact of the dominance and longevity that comes from success in politics.

    The first, I hope my party will take heart from.

    One of the difficulties of coming to terms with this decision is that I am confident I can and would lead the SNP to further electoral success.

    Even in a time of challenge, we remain by far the most trusted party in Scotland.

    And while for every person in Scotland who ‘loves’ me, there is another who might not be quite so enthusiastic, the fact is we remain firmly on course to win the next election – while our opponents remain adrift.

    But the longer any leader is in office, the more opinions about them become fixed and hard to change. And that matters.

    Individual polls come and go, but I am firmly of the view that there is now majority support for independence.

    But that support needs to be solidified – and it needs to grow further if our independent Scotland is to have the best possible foundation.

    To achieve that we must reach across the divide in Scottish politics.

    And my judgment now is that a new leader would be better able to to this.

    Someone about whom the mind of almost everyone in the country is not already made up, for better or worse.

    Someone who is not subject to quite the same polarised opinions, fair or unfair, as I now am.

    The good news – as the country will now get to see more clearly perhaps – is that the SNP is full of talented individuals more than up to that task.

    My second reflection is related – and I think there is ample evidence of this in our current debates.

    I feel more each day just now that the fixed opinions people increasingly have about me – as I say, some fair, others little more than caricature – are becoming a barrier to reasoned debate.

    Statements and decisions that should not be controversial become so when it’s me making or taking them.

    Issues that are controversial end up almost irrationally so – and for the same reason.

    Too often I see issues presented and as a result viewed – not on their own merits – but through the prism of what I think and what people think about me.

    It has always been my belief that no one individual should be dominant in any system for too long.

    But while it’s easy to hold that view in the abstract as a leader, it is harder to live by it.

    With this decision, I am trying to do so.

    Indeed, if all parties were to take this opportunity to try to to de-polarise public debate just a bit;

    To focus more on issues than on personalities;

    And to reset the tone and tenor of our discourse;

    Then this decision – right for me and, I believe for my party and the country – might also prove to be good for our politics.

    I live in hope.

    Now, a couple of final points before I take a few questions.

    While I am stepping down from leadership, I am not planning to leave politics. There are many issues I care deeply about and hope to champion in future.

    One of these is The Promise – the national mission, so close to my heart, to improve the life chances of care experienced young people and ensure that they grow up nurtured and loved.

    My commitment to these young people will be lifelong.

    And, obviously, there is independence.

    Winning independence is cause I have dedicated a lifetime to. It is a cause I believe in with every fibre of my being.

    And it is a cause I am convinced is being won.

    I intend to be there – as it is won – every step of the way.

    Yesterday I attended the funeral of a dear friend and long standing independence activist, a wonderful man by the name of Allan Angus.

    It was actually during that service that I went from being 99% certain about this decision to 100% certain – though I know Allan would not be at all happy to have played any part in my departure.

    But his funeral reminded me that the cause of independence is so much bigger than any one individual; that all of us who believe in it contribute in different ways, at different stages of our lives.

    Since I was 16, I have contributed as an activist, a campaigner and a leader.

    And so now, as we look to what I firmly believe is the final stage in Scotland’s journey to independence – albeit a hard one – I hope to use all the experience and perspective I have gathered over these years to help get us there.

    Lastly, there will be time in the days to come for me – and others – to reflect on what has been achieved during my time as First Minister. I am sure there will be plenty of commentary on my mistakes too.

    I will have more to say before I demit office, but allow me some brief reflections now.

    Scotland is a changed country since 2014 – and in so many ways it is changed for the better.

    Young people from deprived backgrounds have never had a better chance of going to university than now.

    Our investment to double early learning and childcare is transforming opportunities for the youngest children. It is also enabling more women to return to work.

    The baby box is enshrining our aspiration that every child should have an equal start in life.

    Scotland is fairer today than it was in 2014. We have a more progressive approach to taxation and a new social security system, with the Scottish Child Payment at its heart.

    As the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirmed last week, the poorest families with children in Scotland are now £2000 better off as a result of our policies.

    For many – in this cost of living crisis – that will be the difference between food on the table and a warm home, or not.

    There are stronger protections for victims of domestic abuse, and Parliament will soon consider legislation to improve access to justice for victims of rape and sexual offences.

    To be clear, I will be the strongest possible backbench advocate for these reforms.

    We have also shown over these past few years what can be done with the full powers of a nation – creating new institutions that are part of the transition to becoming independent.

    New tax and social security agencies, a network of trade hubs across the world, and a state owned investment bank ready to help the country reap the industrial benefits of our vast renewable resources.

    There is so much that I am proud of.

    But there is always so much more to be done. I look forward to watching with pride as my successor picks up the baton.

    There will also be time in the days to come for me to say thank you to a very long list of people, without whom I wouldn’t have lasted a single day in this job, let alone 8 years.

    I won’t do so today – I might inadvertently forget someone or, perhaps more likely, start to cry.

    But there are a couple of exceptions.

    Firstly, my husband and family. Few people understand the price families of politicians pay for the jobs we choose to do. Mine have been my rock throughout.

    And, of course, the SNP.

    Since I was 16 years old, you have been my extended family. Thank you for the honour of being your leader.

    And I don’t know about you, but it seems to me that 8 emphatic election victories in 8 years ain’t a bad record together.

    Finally – and above all – the people of this beautiful, talented, diverse, at times disputatious, but always wonderful country.

    We faced the toughest of times together.

    I did everything I could to guide us through that time, often from my very familiar podium in St Andrews House.

    And in return I was sustained through that period by a wave of support from you that I will remember and value for the rest of my life.

    So to the people of Scotland – to all of the people of Scotland – whether you voted for me or not – please know that being your First Minister has been the privilege of my life.

    Nothing – absolutely nothing – I do in future will ever come close.

    Thank you from the bottom of my heart.

  • Stewart McDonald – 2023 Comments on the Resignation Announcement of Nicola Sturgeon

    Stewart McDonald – 2023 Comments on the Resignation Announcement of Nicola Sturgeon

    The comments made by Stewart McDonald, the SNP MP for Glasgow South, on Twitter on 15 February 2023.

    Nicola Sturgeon is the finest public servant of the devolution age. Her public service, personal resilience and commitment to Scotland is unmatched, and she has served our party unlike anyone else. She will be an enormous loss as First Minister and SNP leader. Thank you!

  • Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee – 2023 Report into the Appointment of Richard Sharp as Chair of the BBC

    Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee – 2023 Report into the Appointment of Richard Sharp as Chair of the BBC

    The report published by the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee on 12 February 2023.

    Text of report (in .pdf format)

  • Amy Callaghan – 2023 Speech on Removing VAT from Sunscreen Products

    Amy Callaghan – 2023 Speech on Removing VAT from Sunscreen Products

    The speech made by Amy Callaghan, the SNP MP for East Dunbartonshire, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    I beg to move,

    That this House has considered the matter of VAT on sunscreen products.

    We should be united across this House in our efforts to beat cancer, and that means all cancers—not just the ones it is politically expedient to target. Melanoma is the fifth most common cancer in the UK, killing 2,300 people each year. It receives only a fraction of the political attention it deserves, especially when we consider that 90% of cases are preventable with adequate skin protection—that is more than 2,000 lives we could save each year.

    In recent years, both melanoma and non-melanoma cancers have been on the rise across the UK, with around 16,000 new cases of melanoma diagnosed each year— 90% of which, as I said, could be prevented by staying safe in the sun. With Cancer Research UK finding that getting sunburnt just once every two years can triple a person’s risk of melanoma, which sunscreen plays a vital role in preventing, it is just common sense that we should work together to make sunscreen products that bit more affordable for our constituents.

    With the support of several organisations and Members across the House, my VAT Burn campaign seeks to reform the value added tax charged on sunscreen products of SPF 30 and above—products deemed by the NHS to provide significant enough coverage to our skin if applied correctly. Removing VAT from sunscreen is not a radical idea; in fact, when asked, most people are surprised, if not shocked, that VAT is charged on sunscreen. It is not a novel idea; both the US and Australia have made sunscreen exempt from VAT-style taxes. But removing VAT is a necessary idea—one that should, can and must be done to promote sun safety measures and reduce cases of skin cancer. It would be an important step to demonstrate the UK Parliament’s commitment to sun safety and send a clear message to the public about the importance of sunscreen.

    We should not stop there. As in Australia, removing VAT from sunscreen should go hand in hand with an awareness campaign. The Australian Slip, Slop, Slap campaign was a huge success, and there is no reason why something similar could not be replicated in the UK. This is not hard. As Australia and the US have shown, any barriers to implementing this policy change are surmountable. That is why there are two folds to my VAT Burn campaign: first, to reform the value added tax charged on sunscreen products; secondly, education and awareness around skin protection from the sun. I encourage colleagues present today and others to sign early-day motion 839, in my name, which calls on the Government to launch an Australia-style awareness campaign around skin protection in the sun and the risks of prolonged sun exposure.

    Sunscreen products are currently treated and defined as cosmetics or luxury goods for VAT purposes, which, given their clear health benefit, is unacceptable and unjust, particularly with temperatures rising—although, I must say that sunscreen should not be worn only when we perceive it to be hot outside. It should be worn all year round, which is why I launched this campaign in February, on World Cancer Day, and not at a sunnier time.

    I am incredibly passionate about this issue, and I will put front and centre the reasons why. People like me, whether because of background, class or opportunities, do not tend to end up in this place. For those who do, we end up in politics, I hope, to create positive change for us and for our communities, but most importantly, for our constituents. Not many 30-year-olds—nor Members of Parliament, for that matter—can speak from a position of experience of having survived melanoma twice. It would be a dereliction of duty to my fellow cancer survivors, my surgeon and my family if I did not use that experience to speak up for those who cannot.

    I will clarify that VAT Burn seeks a VAT exemption for sunscreen products of factor 30 and above, with a four-star UVA rating and marketed exclusively as sun protection. I will be crystal clear that this exemption will not encompass products from the cosmetics industry, such as foundations including SPF, as those products provide little or—I argue—no protection from the sun.

    The anomaly of sunscreen products being exempt from VAT is longstanding, and seems perfectly reason to question, given we are in a cost of living crisis and a climate crisis. Also, given the VAT relief provided to drugs, medicines, medicinal products and aids for the disabled, it seems logical that preventive healthcare measures should be exempt too. Many of my constituents will find it hard to believe that the like of Calpol and paracetamol are exempt from VAT, but not sunscreen products.

    The Government line that sunscreen products are exempt from VAT when dispensed by a pharmacist simply does not hold up to scrutiny. First, only a tiny amount of the population receive sunscreen on prescription. Secondly, prescriptions are already free in Scotland, meaning that our constituents do not receive any benefit from that. The Government, I assume, will also argue that this policy will cost the Treasury too much money. But given that it is estimated to cost somewhere in the region of £40 million, which is only 0.03% of the total amount of VAT the Government receive, it is a tiny amount of money in the context. This is clearly not about the money; it is about the Government’s unwillingness to act.

    We should not be talking about money, especially the money it will cost the Government. Instead, let us think of the lives that can be saved—those 2,030 lives per year that I mentioned earlier. Let us think of the effort saved by our NHS diagnosing and treating less skin cancers. The money saved within this vital public health service cannot be ignored. At the risk of pre-empting the Minister’s response, why does she recognise the merits of zero-rating some products, but not sunscreen? Do the Government value the protection of our skin from the sun? Do they see merit in an Australian-style awareness campaign? Will the Minister take the proposal to the Prime Minister, and share his views on whether sunscreen products should be more affordable to our constituents?

    I understand that there are some reservations about VAT exemptions, because previous zero ratings have not produced savings for consumers. That is exactly why, as part of VAT Burn, I have a pledge for retailers and producers to sign up to. I can confirm today that Morrisons has agreed to sign up to it, and, given that Tesco already absorbs the VAT on sunscreen products, I feel confident that our constituents will see a saving when it comes to sunscreen, should the Government choose to back VAT Burn.

    VAT Burn is the product of months of work. To be honest, I never wanted to get to this stage. When I submitted a written question pointing out the anomaly of VAT charged on sunscreen, I had hoped that the Minister would respond positively, and the UK Government would intervene to remove the VAT and quickly bring sunscreen into line with all other healthcare products. But that was not the case. I was told people should wear hats, cover up and sit in the shade, while the Minister curiously ignored sunscreen. Those are important measures to keep safe in the sun, but only alongside wearing sunscreen.

    I organised a cross-party letter to the Chancellor, and 40 MPs from every major political party signed the letter. The Chancellor, at the time the right hon. Member for Spelthorne (Kwasi Kwarteng), reiterated the UK Government’s opposition to removing the VAT, citing the same arguments as before: sunscreen alone does not mean someone is safe in the sun. But no one ever said that it does; it is clearly just one part of the solution. When the Chancellor changed, and we had a former Health Secretary in post, the right hon. Member for South West Surrey (Jeremy Hunt), I re-sent the letter. I hoped that someone with experience in health policy would see the sense in this simple change, but I received another stock rejection.

    Whether it was parliamentary questions or meetings with Ministers, none of it has got us anywhere. That is why we are here today, and why the campaign is being covered in the media. It is why six charities are backing the campaign, and why I will keep pushing until we see movement on the issue—specifically, with a ten-minute rule Bill on VAT Burn on 23 February.

    I touched very briefly on the organisations supporting VAT Burn. I place on record my thanks to each and every one of them for the great work they do to raise awareness of the signs and symptoms of cancer and its impact. I thank the Teenage Cancer Trust, Skcin, Melanoma UK, Young Lives vs Cancer, Melanoma Focus, and, last but not least, Melanoma Action and Support Scotland—Scotland’s only skin cancer specific charity, based in my constituency of East Dunbartonshire.

    It is also a workers’ issue. Too many workers spend prolonged periods of time exposed to the sun without adequate, or any, protection. I note that Police Scotland provide their officers with sunscreen if they spend prolonged periods of their shift exposed to the sun. If sunscreen were more affordable, more employers would step up and provide sunscreen products for their staff. This Government proposed to provide free sunscreen to all emergency workers. It would be useful to get an update on that from the Minister. No worker should be put at unnecessary risk of skin cancer due to a lack of sunscreen being provided by their employer.

    This common-sense approach to zero rating sunscreen can help everyone. It almost feels daft that I have to stand here today and make a case for it. Let us agree to work together to make this simple change for the benefit of all our skin.

  • 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.

  • James Sunderland – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    James Sunderland – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    The speech made by James Sunderland, the Conservative MP for Bracknell, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing the debate and welcome the Minister to her place. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) for all the work that has been done to progress the housing agenda in the right way—in particular through new clause 21, of which I am a huge fan. I also thank everyone for their speeches today; I agree with most of what has been said.

    Ultimately, we are talking about the balance between brownfield land and the green belt; it is important that we focus redevelopment on brownfield, not the green belt. We have an acute housing crisis in the UK—we need more housing—because the population is getting older, people are separating, and immigration is on the increase. We have to ensure that we have enough houses for people to live in, so there is no question but that we must build more housing. The issue is where and how we build it.

    I am a fan of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill. In effect, I am speaking in support of it. It will drive local growth and empower local leaders to regenerate their areas. It will regenerate the high street in town centres and give new powers for rental auctions and permanent pavement licensing. It will introduce compulsory design codes to ensure redevelopment reflects community preferences. We are giving powers back to the community, and that is really important. It will also introduce a new infrastructure levy to fund affordable housing.

    On housing targets, I was never a fan of the terrible Lichfield formula, so I give the Government full credit for listening and overturning it. We now have advisory targets, which are the right thing to do. I am dead against mandatory targets, but if anything, I want to see the end of advisory targets too, because councils are best placed to decide what housing they need locally.

    I commend the Government on their brownfield development programme. Some £1.8 billion was allocated in the 2021 spending review, including £300 million of locally led grant funding to unlock smaller brownfield sites and £1.5 billion to regenerate underused land, which is expected to unlock up to 160,000 homes. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Greg Smith), who spoke about permissions. We could build 1.2 million houses right now if there was the will to do so. Again, there is no need to go anywhere near the green belt.

    Matthew Pennycook (Greenwich and Woolwich) (Lab)

    That 1.2 million figure keeps being thrown around, but does the hon. Gentleman accept that that represents the total existing capacity? It is not an annual figure. The Government’s target remains, I think, 300,000 new homes each and every year.

    James Sunderland

    My understanding is that 1.2 million is the overall figure. It is important to say that. That is what Government sources have told me, so I am inclined to believe it.

    Bracknell is pioneering the nationwide move to use brownfield sites. Some £2.3 million has been allocated to Bracknell Forest Council to assist with three major projects: £1.6 million will go to redeveloping Market Street; £570,000 will go to redeveloping the depot site off Old Bracknell Lane West—importantly, 25% and 35% of those sites are for affordable homes—and £119,000 of public money will go to creating an access road to unlock a piece of tarmacked land that will be redeveloped into four single-person homes and two wheelchair-accessible homes. So Bracknell Forest Council is doing its bit, in line with the national agenda.

    In Bracknell Forest in 2019 and 2020, a total of 1,688 homes were added, of which 1,200 were built. That is a 128% increase on the previous year, so I commend Bracknell Forest Council and Wokingham Borough Council for meeting their local plans. Those Conservative-run councils have a proud record of meeting local plans and delivering homes.

    I will make a slightly negative point about residual land, however, which is important because my constituency area is deemed to be 41% built up—it is mainly an urban, built-up area. Surrey Heath, next door, is 31% built up, Wokingham is 23%, Windsor is 23% and Maidenhead is 18%, so Bracknell is already one of the most built-up areas in the south of England. That is important because we have to ensure that we are giving due consideration to the quality of life of the people who already live there. My loyalty as an MP is to those who live in the constituency, not necessarily to those who want to move into it. It is really important that we preserve constituents’ quality of life.

    My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said—this is important—that we should not be building on farming or agricultural land, golf courses, school playing fields or any other leisure areas. The people we represent have to have access to those open spaces.

    Far from encouraging building on farming land, we should be holding developers and councils to account, and issuing them punitive fines if they are doing so. We have to protect what we have; we have to feed our population. I also want to see recognition of the residual land formula in the Bill. If a constituency has only a small amount of land left, let us value that land; let us look after it and make sure that we do not build on it, even if councils quite clearly have targets to meet—thankfully, now advisory—and as we know, section 106 money is quite attractive.

    I will conclude to give my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills time at the end. My point is that building is fine in the right areas. Yes, we need more housing, but we must not build on agricultural or green-belt land. Our green and pleasant lands are very important; we must not cover them with dark satanic mills. Once they are gone, they are gone.

  • Jim Shannon – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    Jim Shannon – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    The speech made by Jim Shannon, the DUP MP for Strangford, in Westminster Hall, the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    I thank you for calling me, Ms Fovargue, and I thank the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for setting the scene. I supported her request to the Backbench Business Committee for this debate. We are discussing English planning rules, so I cannot share any knowledge from that perspective, but I wish to sow a Northern Ireland perspective into the debate, as I always do, because what we have in Northern Ireland is mirrored in England. I will also reflect on the contributions of right hon. and hon. Members.

    I congratulate the Minister on her new role. I know that she will put her energy and commitment into her position, and I look forward both to her response and to her contributions in her role in the future.

    The NPPF states:

    “Planning policies and decisions should promote an effective use of land…in a way that makes as much use as possible of previously-developed or ‘brownfield’ land.”

    It goes on to instruct local planning authorities to

    “give substantial weight to the value of using suitable brownfield land…and support appropriate opportunities to remediate despoiled, degraded, derelict, contaminated or unstable land”.

    That is the thrust of where I am coming from, because my constituency has utilised brownfield opportunities over the years, but there is still opportunity there. It took a long process to convince the planning authorities— I understand that the planning system in Northern Ireland is different from that on the mainland.

    I represent an area that has a lot of land that is not under permitted development. Although our planning system is different, the problems are the same. It is incredibly costly for a developer to develop a brownfield site, with remedial costs on top of the cost to build, which is more expensive in Northern Ireland due to the Northern Ireland protocol. My goodness, I have to mention the Northern Ireland protocol in every debate I attend, because it affects us. It affects us in planning and in everything in life—it affects the very air I breathe—so its impact cannot be ignored.

    New housing developments have to do a number of things. There is a delicate balance to strike between meeting the need for houses and protecting our natural environment, and I am not sure that the balance is being struck; what hon. Members have said today indicates that it is not. As the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills said, new housing developments must deliver affordable housing for people to buy and they must develop infrastructure, whether that be for storm water, sewerage, roads, footpaths or street lighting. In Northern Ireland, a great deal of that development is not put in the hands of the Departments but in the hands, and indeed the moneys, of the developer.

    I have lived in the Ards area and peninsula for all but four years of my life. I am pleased that the Minister—and, I think, her husband—came over to my constituency last summer. I was pleased to have her come and see what she told me was the beauty of my constituency, including Strangford lough. I know that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers), who was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland for some time, also had an opportunity to go there on regular occasions, including to Mount Stewart and down the Ards peninsula where I live. It is an area of outstanding natural beauty and of special scientific interest, so there are broad controls over what can happen there. Over the years, we have been able to develop brownfield sites down the Ards peninsula. Whether it be Ballyhalbert, Portavogie or Carrowdore, where there was land available, or Ards town—the main town—Comber, Ballynahinch or Saintfield, all that brownfield land has probably been taken.

    It is important to have the infrastructure. For 26 years, I was a councillor for Ards and North Down Borough Council, and I had a particular interest in planning. I recognised early on that there was an opportunity to move towards brownfield sites, and we moved that way and relaxed planning rules to ensure that brownfield sites could be used. Let us be honest: factories—in the linen sector, for example—had closed down, and they were never coming back, so that land was going to lie there for ages. It seemed logical to move in that way, so we did over time, but it took the planning laws to change.

    The Library briefing succinctly sums up the issue when it says that:

    “CPRE (formerly the Campaign to Protect Rural England) has argued there is sufficient brownfield land to meet England’s housing needs, noting that ‘there is space for at least one million homes on suitable brownfield land’.”

    It continues:

    “The planning consultancy Lichfields has argued that brownfield land ‘can only be a part of the solution to the housing crisis’”,

    which we have to recognise. It then says that Lichfields

    “noted that suitable brownfield land is often not available in places where there is more need for new homes.”

    For example, in Belfast, some of the land along the River Lagan lay derelict for ages, but all of a sudden, it is a lovely housing development. A lot of work was done around the River Lagan, so the properties on that land became very attractive, as they did in Belfast harbour and across other parts. Land may look derelict and as though nothing can be done with it, but we have to recognise that it can be.

    I will conclude, because I understand that the timescale for speeches is about seven minutes, Ms Fovargue. We have to make sure that the community is always involved and that we bring people with us. What I want to say is: “You don’t go agin them—if you go agin them, you get nowhere.” That is important and it is what we try to do back home. I do have concerns and issues about planning in my area, so I urge the Government and the Minister to continue the process that they have started and to ascertain the best way forward to ensure that we make use of brownfield sites, yet do not leave that as the only financially possible solution.

  • Greg Smith – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    Greg Smith – 2023 Speech on Brownfield Development and the Green Belt

    The speech made by Greg Smith, the Conservative MP for Buckingham, in the House of Commons on 9 February 2023.

    It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Fovargue. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) on securing an incredibly important debate, as the other place continues its deliberations over the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill. I worked alongside my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Theresa Villiers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Bob Seely) on many amendments. We will start to see some big wins in protecting the countryside from development on green belt, open countryside and greenfield sites, which will push the Government much more towards their stated aim of brownfield development.

    I will start by trying to define what we are talking about. It is not just the green belt. That is a technical term. The green belt is vital to many constituencies, but in mine, we have very little technical green belt. What we have is 335 square miles of open countryside. Ninety per cent of the land in the constituency that I am fortunate enough to represent in this place is agricultural.

    I echo the points made by the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Jon Trickett) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet when I say that it is important to remember when we debate these matters that there is a point to the countryside. It is not just there to be pretty and beautiful, although it is both of those things. It is not just there for people to enjoy for leisure: to walk, camp and do all of the things we enjoy the countryside for. It has specific purposes. First, obviously, to produce the food and drink that we all enjoy eating and drinking. It is part of the vital backbone to our national economy. It is also important to things such as water management, allowing drainage to run, rivers to flow and chalk streams to be vibrant and active. The more we build over open countryside, green belt and agricultural land, the greater the risk there is to those things.

    I will give a couple of examples from my own constituency. When the Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill was in Committee, I used the village of Ickford as an example when speaking to some of the amendments on flooding. The village is small and close to the Oxfordshire border with Buckinghamshire. Deanfield Homes has almost finished building nearly 90 homes on a site there —a site that has always been known to flood. It is on the flood plain of the River Thame.

    Throughout the planning process, every excuse under the sun was accepted. Every clever scheme that was introduced for clever drainage solutions, or whatever it might be, was proposed and ultimately accepted by the Planning Inspectorate. Of course there are no surprises in the fact that that land continues to flood to this day, to the extent that the developers have even raised the level at which they are building the houses, with the fancy graphics used on the marketing materials even showing enormous slopes in the back gardens to allow water to run off, which of course goes into the existing and older properties in that village.

    Only this week, I heard from a concerned constituent in the village of Haddenham, which has seen considerable development over recent decades, who reported a development at the back of their house on The Clays, off Churchway. The drainage pond that was put in as the developers started to dig foundations has been way above its natural level for some time. The amount of concrete that is going into those foundations is forcing the water towards their cul-de-sac, which is surrounded by walls made out of a cob unique to Buckinghamshire called wychert that, if it gets wet, quickly falls down.

    We therefore have to ensure that we encourage the development of the houses and commercial properties that we need on brownfield and regeneration sites; I very much appreciate the soundbite that my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills came up with, namely “the regeneration generation”. It is important that we are cautious about the impact that development on the countryside has on flooding.

    The big issue, of course, is food security. The more we build over our countryside—our farmland and prime agricultural land—the lower our self-sufficiency in food will drop. We are already down to about 60%. Of course we will never hit 100%, because there are lots of things that we like to eat and drink that cannot be grown in this country. Nevertheless, the more we build over our agricultural land, the more reliance we will have on imports, which is crazy.

    I was pleased when, off the back of an amendment that I tabled to the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, the Government and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities agreed to put into the consultation on the new NPPF a reference that food production can be “considered” in the planning process for the first time. That is important and I urge the Minister to ensure that that change makes it through to the final NPPF. More than that, however, I urge her to ensure that planning authorities up and down the land are given a clear instruction that that is now available to them and they can use it.

    A big flaw in the current NPPF—the previous NPPF, if we can call it that—is that the best and most versatile agricultural land was often walked all over and ignored by planning authorities and indeed the Planning Inspectorate. It would therefore be much appreciated by my constituents if the Minister could give some assurances in her response about the pressure that the Government will apply to planning authorities and the Planning Inspectorate on the provisions that will hopefully, in the not-too-distant future, be in the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act and the new NPPF.

    My last point is about consistency within the Planning Inspectorate, because if we are to achieve the ambition of the homes, commercial properties and solar panels that we need being on brownfield sites, or on rooftops in the latter case, rather than across our fields, we will need consistency in the planning process. I have a perverse case that has come to light regarding land—open countryside —that was always believed to be protected as a buffer zone next to the town of Princes Risborough in my constituency. Despite two previous decisions by the Planning Inspectorate saying that the land should be protected, a third planning inspector has now granted retrospective permission to a number of plots that have been developed on the site, so the residents of the hamlet of Ascot and the nearby hamlet of Meadle are up in arms. We need consistency from the Planning Inspectorate when it considers such matters and—if it can be achieved through the Minister’s good offices—we need that clarity to be pushed down, not only to planning authorities but to the Planning Inspectorate.

    The facts speak for themselves. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills, the hon. Member for Wirral West (Margaret Greenwood) and others have mentioned, the plots are out there on brownfield land. The CPRE’s data is pretty clear: there is space for 1.2 million homes. The Government’s manifesto talked of an ambition to build 300,000 houses, whereas brownfield development can deliver 1.2 million without touching a blade of grass on the green belt—precious agricultural land, open countryside, nature reserves and so much more. I urge the Government to be bold in their ambition to move towards brownfield development.

    Margaret Greenwood

    The hon. Member has made the case very clearly. Does he agree that we need a much more positive way to talk about brownfield development? Wirral Council’s plans for the Wirral, which is a peninsula, involve the development of the east side of the borough, which has brownfield sites with fantastic views of the Liverpool city skyline. Brownfield sites can be incredibly exciting urban developments that people will want to live in, but we need the political drive to make sure that they happen. The design of many brownfield sites can be very attractive for people.

    Greg Smith

    I fundamentally agree with that proposition. Lots of brownfield sites offer spectacular views—whether of a skyline or out towards the countryside. The big challenge is political ambition, but we also need recognition within the tax system through the infrastructure levy to ensure that prospective developers do not look at a brownfield site and a comparator in the green belt or open countryside and say, “It is far cheaper for us to develop the countryside.” If we had a sliding scale to make it cost-neutral to the developer, so that they paid far less in the infrastructure levy or another form of taxation to develop a brownfield site, that would be a quick political win to get us to the brownfield development that I think all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in the debate want to see.