UKPOL.CO.UK

Tag: Speeches

  • Rishi Sunak – 2023 Speech at Munich Security Conference

    Rishi Sunak – 2023 Speech at Munich Security Conference

    The speech made by Rishi Sunak, the Prime Minister, in Munich on 18 February 2023.

    The United Kingdom will always be on the side of freedom, democracy and the rule of law.

    And the security of our European continent will always be our overriding priority.

    Now there’s no greater example of those commitments than our response to the war in Ukraine.

    Just this year we became the first country in the world to provide tanks to Ukraine – and the first to train pilots and marines.

    We gave £2.3 billion last year – and we will match or exceed that in 2023.

    Now other allies can tell a similar story – and our collective efforts are making a difference.

    But with every day that passes, Russian forces inflict yet more pain and suffering.

    Now the only way to change that is for Ukraine to win.

    So we need a military strategy for Ukraine to gain a decisive advantage on the battlefield to win the war, and a political strategy to win the peace.

    To win the war, Ukraine needs more artillery, armoured vehicles and air defence.

    So now is the moment to double down on our military support.

    When Putin started this war, he gambled that our resolve would falter.

    Even now, he is betting that we will lose our nerve.

    But we proved him wrong then.

    And we will prove him wrong now.

    Together we’re delivering as much equipment in the next few months as in the whole of 2022.

    And together we must help Ukraine to shield its cities from Russian bombs and Iranian drones.

    And that’s why the UK will be the first country to provide Ukraine with longer-range weapons.

    And it’s why we’re working with our allies to give Ukraine the most advanced air defence systems, and build the air force they need to defend their nation.

    Now of course, the UK stands ready to help any country, provide planes that Ukraine can use today.

    But we must also train Ukrainian pilots to use the most advanced jets, and that’s exactly what Britain is doing…

    So that Ukraine has the capability to defend its security for the long term.

    But to win the peace we also need to rebuild the international order on which our collective security depends.

    First, that means upholding international law.

    The whole world must hold Russia to account.

    We must see justice through the ICC for their sickening war crimes committed, whether in Bucha, Irpin, Mariupol or beyond.

    And Russia must also be held to account for the terrible destruction it has inflicted.

    We are hosting the Ukraine Recovery Conference in London this June.

    And we should consider – together – how to ensure that Russia pays towards that reconstruction.

    Now second, the treaties and agreements of the post-Cold War era have failed Ukraine.

    So we need a new framework for its long-term security.

    From human rights to reckless nuclear threats, from Georgia to Moldova, Russia has committed violation after violation against countries outside the collective security of NATO.

    And the international community’s response has not been strong enough.

    As Jens Stoltenberg has said, “Ukraine will become a member of NATO.”

    But until that happens, we need to do more to bolster Ukraine’s long-term security.

    We must give them the advanced NATO-standard capabilities that they need for the future.

    And we must demonstrate that we’ll remain by their side, willing and able to help them defend their country again and again.

    Ukraine needs and deserves assurances of that support.

    So ahead of the NATO summit in Vilnius we will bring together our friends and allies to begin building those long-term assurances.

    And our aim should be to forge a new charter in Vilnius to help protect Ukraine from future Russian aggression.

    Now let me conclude with one final thought.

    What’s at stake in this war is even greater than the security and sovereignty of one nation.

    It’s about the security and sovereignty of every nation.

    Because Russia’s invasion, its abhorrent war crimes and irresponsible nuclear rhetoric are symptomatic of a broader threat to everything we believe in.

    From the skies over North America to the suffering on the streets of Tehran, some would destabilise the order that has preserved peace and stability for 80 years.

    They must not prevail. And we need not be daunted.

    As President Zelenskyy said when he addressed the UK Parliament last week, we are marching towards the most important victory of our lifetime. It will be a victory over the very idea of war.

    And we could have no greater purpose than to prove him right.

  • 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.

  • Jeremy Corbyn – 2023 Statement on Not Being Allowed to Stand as Labour Party Candidate at General Election

    Jeremy Corbyn – 2023 Statement on Not Being Allowed to Stand as Labour Party Candidate at General Election

    The statement made by Jeremy Corbyn, the Independent MP for Islington North, on social media on 15 February 2023.

    Ever since I was elected as a Labour MP 40 years ago, I have fought on behalf of my community for a more equal, caring and peaceful society. Day in day out, I am focused on the most important issues facing people in Islington North: poverty, rising rents, the healthcare crisis, the safety of refugees, and the fate of our planet.
    Keir Starmer’s statement about my future is a flagrant attack on the democratic rights of Islington North Labour Party members.

    It is up to them – not party leaders – to decide who their candidate should be. Any attempt to block my candidacy is a denial of due process, and should be opposed by anybody who believes in the value of democracy.

    At a time when the government is overseeing the worst cost-of-living crisis in a generation, this is a divisive distraction from our overriding goal: to defeat the Conservative Party at the next General Election.

    I am proud to represent the labour movement in Parliament through my constituency. I am focused on standing up for workers on the picket line, the marginalised, and all those worried about their futures. That is what I’ll continue to do. I suggest the Labour Party does the same.

  • 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.