Climate and Nature Bill

09:37:00

I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time. The Climate and Nature Bill has been four years in the making. The enormous amount of support that it has garnered from campaigners, trade unions, scientists, faith leaders, non-governmental organisations, businesses and especially young people means that it is both an honour and an enormous responsibility to set out what it entails, what it adds to existing law and why I believe it addresses the most important existential challenge of our generation: the intertwined climate and nature crises. This country has signed up to various international commitments, but we still have work to do to fully connect them to real and measurable action. We need to close the ambition gap between what is needed and what is promised, and the delivery gap between what is promised and what is actually happening. That is what the Bill aims to do, because too many metrics are still heading in the wrong direction.

It is important, as the hon. Lady has underlined, that we move forward together. She has not mentioned the National Farmers Union. Can she reassure me and others in the House that the National Farmers Union, and the Ulster Farmers Union in Northern Ireland, are happy with the Bill and accept the impact that its proposals will have on them?

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I would be delighted to have that conversation with representatives of the NFU in Northern Ireland and to reassure them on that point. As an environmental campaigner for the past 22 years, it has sometimes been easy for me to fall into doomism. Wild fires have ravaged Los Angeles, floods have devastated Valencia and the recently elected leader of the free world is urging us to “drill, baby, drill” in the name of making America great again, but I do not believe that doomism is helpful. Yes, the best time to take bold action on climate and nature would have been 50 years ago, but the second best time is now. The Bill is very ambitious for a private Member’s Bill, but not ambitious enough for a climate and nature Bill. It is not trying to be over-ambitious or pretending to be a silver bullet, but it aspires to answer the question: from where we are now, what is the right next step to take? The Bill’s guiding principle is that we have a duty to be good ancestors. Now that we know what we know about the impact that human activity is having on the liveability of our planet, how do we strike the right balance between present and future thriving? How do we ensure that we are not stealing health, wealth and wellbeing from generations not yet born? While we enrich our lives, how do we ensure we do not impoverish future lives? What do we want our legacy to be—a world with a strip mine next to a rubbish tip next to a shopping mall, or a world with clean air and drinkable rivers, regenerated soils and vibrant oceans, teeming with wildlife and alive with birdsong? As I speak, I am looking around to spot my three young friends in the Gallery—Polly, Amber and Bobby from Gloucestershire youth climate group. I spoke to the group recently and, by chance, bumped into them on the train into London this morning. When I was their age, I was blissfully ignorant of the looming environmental crisis: they do not have that luxury. They, and the rest of their generation, will face the consequences of our choice here today. I want to be able to look into their eyes after today’s debate and feel proud that this House rose to the challenge, that we did what was necessary, rather than what was politically expedient, and that we pledged to protect their future. What is in the Climate and Nature Bill? The Bill has been drafted by world-leading climate scientists, ecologists and conservationists, and aims to deliver an integrated plan to tackle the twin climate and nature crises. It would bring massive benefits for local communities, including my constituents in the South Cotswolds: improving the air we breathe; giving us clean water to drink, swim and row in; revitalising local populations of cherished wildlife, such as voles, otters, kingfishers and shrews; and providing cheap energy bills, warmer homes, green jobs, better food and happier lives. The Bill would create a joined-up strategy for the UK to tackle the interconnected climate and nature crises together. It is the only proposed or actual piece of legislation to create the link between the UK’s responses to climate change and nature loss. We cannot solve one without tackling the other. We risk making each crisis worse if they are tackled in silos, so the Bill supports a whole-of-Government approach to prevent the issues becoming siloed. Everything in nature is connected with everything else in nature, but sadly not everything in Government is connected with everything else in Government, but it needs to be. Housing, transport and even health are inter-related with climate and nature, so we need a strategy that transcends departmental boundaries. The CAN Bill would enshrine international commitments made by the UK into national legislation to cut emissions and to restore nature by 2030, as outlined in the global biodiversity framework. The Bill would bring the UK public along with that agenda via a climate and nature assembly, which is key to ensuring that all voices from across our country are heard, enabling workers to transition to low-carbon jobs and ensuring vulnerable communities are protected. It provides for a fair and just transition that does not come at the expense of the rest of the world. For centuries Britian prospered by exploiting resources overseas: animal, vegetable, mineral and human. The Bill requires the accounting for our environmental footprint to be honest, taking into account the carbon emissions and impacts on nature that are incurred overseas in producing the goods and services that we enjoy. It is disingenuous to offshore most of our manufacturing, and then congratulate ourselves for having reduced our environmental impact. I am delighted to say that the Bill has a long history of being supported by the party now in government. I trust that their ecological concern while in opposition has survived their transition into power, as they are now in a position to act on their pledges. Labour Members may try to tell us that His Majesty’s Government are already doing everything that is in the Bill, but looking at the metrics, we are still far adrift of where we need to be. Ultimately, our future will not be determined by our strategies and intentions—nature cares only about results. The Office for Environmental Protection recently published its progress report on the Government’s environmental improvement plan. It found that the Government are largely off track in achieving their legal environmental commitments. I acknowledge that this Government have been in power for less than seven months, so I do not hold them entirely responsible for that state of affairs. But I struggle to see how expanding our airports by approving two new runways will help them get back on track. The OEP assessment shows that on their current trajectory the Government will meet only four of their 40 environmental targets. The “State of Nature” report 2023 showed that nearly one in six species are at risk of being lost from Great Britian, and the UK now has less than half its biodiversity remaining. Out of the wildlife habitats assessed, only one in seven were found to be in good condition. Only one in 14 woodlands and a quarter of peatlands were in good ecological state. None of the seafloor around the UK was in good condition. Just 44% of woodland is sustainably managed, and only half of fish stocks are sustainably harvested. It is my view that the Government need to prioritise three things. The first is support for nature-friendly farming. Around 70% of land in England is used for agriculture. Supporting farmers to manage their land in a nature-friendly way will deliver significant environmental improvement at scale.

The key stewards of our landscape for hundreds of years have been our farmers: no one has done more to make our countryside as beautiful as it is or has a bigger stake in protecting its health for the future. Does my hon. Friend agree that the path to net zero and sustainable local food production lies through our farming community, with the support provided by the Bill? If we are to get the best from our farmers, it is time to use rather more carrots and fewer sticks.

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. Reports by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs show that nature-friendly farming schemes can be a major pathway for first halting, and then reversing, the decline in species abundance, as well as delivering the majority of habitat creation needed to meet the UK Government’s nature and climate targets.

My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, and I congratulate her on bringing forward this important legislation. Like many farms in Glastonbury and Somerton, Camel Hill farm’s focus on regenerative farming has improved soil quality and nature loss. However, the farming budget has seen a real-term funding cut after inflation since 2007, leaving farmers trying to restore nature with reduced support.

Order. If we are to get Members in—we all see how many are present in the Chamber—interventions will have to be short and not pre-prepared speeches. There is plenty of time for those who have put their names down to speak. Members should not use up the time of the hon. Member for South Cotswolds for her opening.

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention, and applaud her for her work as an effective spokesperson on behalf of the farming community. Indeed, she pre-empted what I was about to say. Farmers should be properly rewarded for restoring soils, planting hedgerows and reducing pesticide use, with an expanded nature-friendly farming budget at the upcoming comprehensive spending review. They need a clear long-term strategy from the Government so that they are able to plan and invest accordingly.

I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this Bill forward. Does she recognise that the sustainable farming incentive is moving to rewarding farmers who are further towards the bottom of the scale, rather than at the high end of it as we would wish to see? To reward farmers for rotation of crops, for example, seems to be going back to the 18th century rather than ensuring a high level of stewardship.

My understanding, as a non-farmer, is that crop rotation is an effective way to regenerate soil. The second priority is to create more joined-up space for nature on land. Through the global biodiversity frame-work, the Government have committed to protect 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030. With less than five years to meet that target, a Wildlife and Countryside Link report states that the amount of land in England effectively protected for nature has fallen to less than 3%. The Government should put 30 by 30 at the heart of upcoming planning reforms, to ensure that all development is playing an active role in nature recovery, and expand the protected sites network by designating more significant and rare natural habitats, such as ancient woodlands and chalk streams. My third point is about the urgency of delivery, because urgency is lacking in the implementation of positive actions. The OEP states that the rate of tree planting needs to increase substantially to achieve woodland creation goals. Meanwhile, long-awaited major initiatives such as a UK chemicals strategy and land use framework, and the national action plan on the sustainable use of pesticides, as well as the ban on the sale of horticultural peat and the reintroduction of species such as the beaver, are delayed.

I say a big thank you to the hon. Lady for her excellent speech—this is clearly something that she is passionate about, and has been for a long time. Does she agree that tree planting is hugely important? Trees are part of our biodiversity, but they also give life to us, and I celebrate the work that Harlow council did in planting 5,000 trees across Harlow.

I applaud the fantastic work being done in Harlow to increase the number of trees. They are indeed life-enhancing and valuable self-contained ecosystems.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for having engaged with me about her Bill. She shared with me the frustrations she has had in discussing its contents with the Government. Can we get to the key issue here? She talks about urgency, but is it true that the Government are intent on kicking the Bill into the long grass because they do not want to be seen to be opposing it, yet they do not really support it?

That is not my interpretation of the Government’s position, and we have had some fruitful conversations. I shall move on briefly to the climate. While two sectors in climate—power and greenhouse gas removals—are on course to meet or even exceed the required emissions reductions, significant challenges remain in agriculture and land use, transport, and heat and building.

Some have queried the urgency or indeed the need to reduce emissions from fossil fuels, but does my hon. Friend not agree that, with 250 people in Somerset alone estimated to die early from air pollution according to Public Health England, there are other reasons why we urgently need to reduce carbon emissions?

I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend that we cannot go wrong in moving away from fossil fuels, given the implications for air quality as well as for the climate. I call on the Government to commit significant additional funding to support farmers in environmental delivery on the least productive agricultural land. Transport has the biggest gap of all sectors between confirmed policy and the emissions reductions needed. We need to improve public transport, reduce bus fares, increase provision for walking and cycling, and decarbonise the freight sector. Much more needs to be done on buildings and clean heat, too. In the Budget, the Chancellor pledged an initial £3.4 billion towards household energy efficiency and heat decarbonisation, but the current warm homes plan falls short of the pace and scale needed. A strong future homes standard needs to be introduced this year, mandating technologies such as solar photovoltaic, as per the New Homes (Solar Generation) Bill—the sunshine Bill—introduced by my Gloucestershire neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Max Wilkinson).

I commend the hon. Member for what she is doing with the Bill. When talking about the future of housing and properties, we often focus on energy and water. Does she agree that it is important to focus on rainwater harvesting and what can be done in that sense, too?

I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that the right thing to do is to be much more intelligent in our use of water, which will reduce the demand for clean water and reduce run-off from rainfall, which is becoming increasingly heavy as climate change kicks in. The most significant addition that the Climate and Nature Bill would make to the existing strategy is its joined-up approach. Of the words in its title, perhaps the most important is “and”. Many people are aware that a changing climate is damaging nature. The wildfires in California this year have claimed millions of trees and thousands of homes. We see expanding deserts, melting ice caps and British moorlands on fire. We see natural cycles getting out of sync, so that newly hatched birds, insects and amphibians no longer find their favourite foods available when they need them. We are less aware of how the loss of nature, the cutting down of forests, the warming of the oceans and intensive agriculture affect climate. It is a two-way relationship. Forests, oceans and soils are some of our most effective allies for natural carbon capture and sequestration. Healthy soil, along with trees, re-wiggled rivers and water meadows, helps to mitigate flooding and run-off, which are on the increase with ever more intense rainfall. Nature’s ability to perform this moderating role and regulate climate is being compromised by the rate at which we are destroying it. We are damaging nature’s capacity to self-regulate by killing, reducing, polluting and compromising natural ecosystems. Activities such as deep-sea mining threaten to make extinct species that we have not even discovered yet—species that we may one day find to be enormously useful to humanity. We often hear that the UK is one of the most nature-depleted countries in the world. “Nature-depleted” is a rather sterile phrase. What does it actually mean? Many of the alarming stats on nature use 1970 as a baseline—just a couple of years after I was born. I remember a time when if we put bread out on the back lawn, within a minute, dozens of starlings would be squabbling over the crusts. I cannot even remember the last time I saw a starling. Heading off on holidays in my father’s Triumph 1200, we would have to stop while he cleaned squashed insects off the windscreen. We do not have to do that any more. We often saw hedgehogs. Okay, they were mostly squashed on the road, because it turns out that a fear response of curling up in a ball is not all that effective when the threat is an oncoming car, but I ask you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and the House: when did you last see a hedgehog? The collapse in the hedgehog population is not entirely due to roadkill. They lost their habitats, their sources of food and their ability to range and forage as woodlands were cut down and urban gardens were fenced in. If the first half of my life—perhaps the first two thirds, on a less optimistic estimate—has seen such huge damage inflicted on our natural world, I hope that in the rest of my life I will see nature put well back on the path to recovery. One of my team members is expecting a baby in May, and I would like to commit to Poppy’s future daughter that by the time she is five years old we will have halted the degradation of nature and that at least 30% of land and coastal waters will be protected. I would like to promise that unborn little girl that by the time she is 25, we will have reversed nature loss and will be living in harmony with nature, as stated in the global biodiversity framework.

I thank my hon. Friend on behalf of those on the Liberal Democrat Benches for her truly impassioned speech and for her work on the Bill. Chichester harbour has lost 58% of its saltmarsh since 1946—the equivalent of three football pitches every year. Does she agree that that needs to stop today to ensure that that national landscape and site of special scientific interest is protected for generations to come?

I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I know Chichester harbour well and absolutely agree that this is vital work. There is hope. Nature is enormously resilient and has an amazing capacity to regenerate when we give it a chance. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds’ appropriately named Hope farm has demonstrated that food production can coexist with benefits to wildlife: breeding bird populations there increased by 177% over a 12-year period. We need to encourage people to get involved—a new kind of land army working together for nature. We need to unlock the local knowledge, energy and passion for nature that I see every day in my constituency of South Cotswolds. I am sure every hon. Member in the Chamber has seen it, regardless of whether their constituency is rural or urban. One of my especially passionate constituents, Jonathan Whittaker, put together the “Shroud for Nature”, an art piece made of 13 double bedsheets covered with heartfelt messages about the Climate and Nature Bill. I have chosen a few of those messages to read out today. They are: “Care for the planet. Not just for this generation but the next ones. It’s your responsibility to make sure I have a home. I am twelve years old.” “We all come from nature, by destroying it we are destroying ourselves.” “When will those in power listen and commit? No nature, no us!” and “What you do today will change my life forever.” That is from William, who is 10 years old. They continue: “We have the solutions; we have the skill. Are we willing to make the change?” and “Leave politics aside. Make changes for humankind.” Now we have a little poem dedicated to the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs: “Secretary of State Steve Reed, do us a good deed”—

Order. I appreciate that the hon. Lady is quoting from a poem, but we do not refer to right hon. and hon. Members by name in the Chamber. Can we please ensure that the courtesies of the House are observed?

Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the poem will no longer rhyme, I shall move on to its second half. It continues: “Make the powers pay, and make the waters clean for our play.” I had better skip the next quote too, as it refers to the Prime Minister rather too directly. I hope that the next line will not get me into further trouble: “We blooming elected you! Listen to us!” To end on a more positive note: “You have a chance to do something important and good. SO DO IT.” Back on to safer ground, I would like to conclude with a few words about why this Bill matters so much to me personally. After I had my environmental wake-up call 22 years ago, I wanted to find a way to draw attention to my environmental message. For reasons best known to myself, it seemed like a good idea at the time to embark on a series of massive ocean crossings alone in a rowboat, using my expeditions as a campaigning platform to get my message across through blogs, social media, podcasts, talks and books. For seven years, I rode solo across three oceans—the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian. At the risk of stating the obvious, it was really, really hard. I spent up to five months alone at sea, rowing for 12 hours a day. What kept me going was my sense that our environmental crisis is literally the most important issue on the face of the planet. I learned a lot on the ocean, and I would like to share three insights that are relevant here. First, the Earth is surprisingly small. I managed to row across a large portion of it at something less than walking speed in just 520 days and nights. This small blue dot is now having to support 8 billion of us and our ever-increasingly materialistic lifestyle, with all the extraction, pollution and waste that entails. Secondly, nature is incredibly powerful. There is nothing quite like being alone in a 7-metre rowboat in the middle of a storm to make that very apparent. We may think we have nature tamed, but we do not. The recent wildfires, floods and other not-so-natural disasters have made that very clear. Even movie star wealth has not been enough to save homes from the flames. As a species, we have only been on this Earth for the blink of an eye, but we have transformed it out of all recognition. We have gobbled our way through its resources in a way that is by any definition unsustainable. There are laws of humans and there are laws of nature. Whether or not the Bill makes it into human law, for sure the laws of nature will ultimately prevail. Thirdly, on my journeys I saw the human face of climate change. When I stopped at the Republic of Kiribati on my way across the Pacific, I had a lengthy conversation with the President. With only one point of land more than 6 feet above sea level, his island nation faces existential risk. Later that year, I saw him at COP15 in Copenhagen, just as the talks had fallen apart. Fifteen years later, we are still not on track to save the Republic of Kiribati. How would we feel if our island nation—where we were born, where we had grown up and where our ancestors were buried—was about to disappear beneath the waves? The Bill is about more than targets and strategies; it is a covenant with the natural world and with future generations. It is our promise to threatened species like the turtle dove, the hazel dormouse and the red squirrel; to the black poplar, the paperbark maple and the star magnolia; to the European eel, the Atlantic salmon and the Arctic char that we will not abandon them to extinction. Taking bold action on climate and nature is the best way for the Government to demonstrate true global leadership and do what is right, knowing that in the long run the cost of inaction is far, far greater than the cost of action. Are we willing today to do what is required in the long term, rather than what is expedient in the short term? Are we willing to do not what is politically possible, but what is scientifically necessary to ensure a future for our planet? The choice is ours, and the time is now. Let us be the generation who chose to save our natural world, not the generation who stood by and watched it die. Nature knows no borders. It does not recognise our political divisions. It is time to write a new chapter in our nation’s story—one where we finally understand that in saving climate and nature, we save ourselves. I invite my colleagues to look up at my young friends in the Gallery: look them in the eye, and show them we are willing to do the right thing for their future. I commend this Bill to the House.

10:10:00

I thank the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage), the promoter of the Bill, for the hard work that she has done to get to this point—it has, I believe, been a baptism of fire. I am sure many people across the House would like to thank her for what she has done to get the Bill back before the House once again. I also thank the Zero Hour campaign—or the Climate and Nature Bill campaign, as it is sometimes called—and all my constituents who have not given me pause to breathe in telling me to get here today, once again, to vote for the Bill. I am sure many other Members have experienced that, too.

Does the hon. Gentleman not think that the Members who, before they came to this House, campaigned in support of the Bill, and agreed to vote for it, should be present today to vote for it?

We all understand that it can be difficult for Members to come to the House on Thursdays and Fridays; we need to spend time in our constituencies, and many people also have family commitments. I would not for one second want to stand here and judge anyone for what they may have going on in their personal lives or in their constituencies. However, I know that most Members across the House care deeply and passionately about this subject and are here if they can be. I know that many could not be here today, for good reason; some have sickness, and some have other commitments. I am sure that all Members present today will make fantastic contributions, and that those who cannot be here are still rooting for the Bill and will be punching the air at their TV screens. Many of us have had constituents come to us on this matter, and the Bill has made many headlines. One reason is that it is emblematic of the shortfall that people feel there is between the political ambition and the on-the-ground delivery that we all know needs to happen. People may be critical of my Government and some of the things they have done in their first six months—I may come on to that in a minute. I would say, though, that they are doing a lot better than the Government who came before. That is, I accept, a low bar; in fact, it is so low I would have difficulty limboing under it. None the less, that is the bar, and we are doing better than the previous Government. I think many Labour Members understand that we have far more to do; there is much more to do, and a lot further to go, and I believe this Government will do it. There will be a debate and a discussion, and I will be part of that, as I am sure will many Members on the Government Benches and across the House. We cannot get away from the fact that there is growing concern in this country and across the world about what is happening to the natural world. Today, we have a weather bomb off our coast, which is something I had never heard of before in all my 50-something years. We all know in our hearts that that has come about because of the climate and ecological crisis. We know that we are seeing this kind of thing more and more often. We understand that we may be heading into a dystopian future, where food and water crises become more and more frequent. We can already see the impact of “climateflation”, as economists are now calling it—the stubborn inflation where the basic staples of life, such as food and water, increasingly become more costly. Many people are increasingly being priced out of being able to buy the basic food staples they need. That also has an impact on central banks and the political and economic obligation we have given them to tackle inflation. We have this stubborn inflation that will not go away, and we cannot seem to get growth in our economy. This is the climate crisis—this is what it looks like. We were warned about it by Stern decades ago, but it is here now. We need to do something about it; in fact, we need to do a lot about it. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Broadland and Fakenham (Jerome Mayhew) is chuntering away—he is more than welcome to make an intervention, if he wishes. If he does not, I will continue. We understand the situation. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds outlined very clearly—brilliantly, in fact—the scale of the challenge before us. The fact is that 47% of the biodiversity in this country has been completely obliterated. We are one of the most denuded countries in the world when it comes to biodiversity and wildlife. I believe one of the few countries ahead of us is Singapore, which has 30% of the natural world left. That is on the edge—the tipping point—of ecological collapse, and we are not far behind. We should be on 90% and we are on 53%. We need to improve. We need to move ourselves. We need to act. The Bill can help us do that. I want to talk about something that we in this place still do not quite get: the interconnectedness between climate and nature. The hon. Member for South Cotswolds discussed that very well, and I want to tease it out a bit further. Many of us now see tackling the climate crisis as an economic opportunity. I understand that, and there is a lot of mileage in it. However, it is quite possible to tackle the climate crisis—to build solar farms and wind farms, and do all the things that decarbonise—yet still kill the biodiversity of the planet. It is entirely possible to do both. Now that many of us in this place understand the climate crisis, we have to ensure that we also understand the nature and biodiversity crisis. In my constituency of Norwich South, we had something called the western link, which was a massive road that was going to go through an ancient woodland.

I do not want to give the hon. Member a lesson in geography, but he will recognise that the western link road is in my constituency and not his.

Obviously, I like to expand the borders of Norwich South as far as possible. I will caveat that by saying that it is a big issue in my constituency and many of my constituents will use that road if it is ever built, which hopefully it will not be. I have opposed it, as have many people, and it may no longer be built because of public pressure. That example is instructive, because we were told that if we wanted economic growth in Norfolk, it was necessary to build the road. I was invited down to the ancient woodland, and yes, there were bats there. I know that the proposed carbon offsetting would have meant the planting of tens of thousands of new saplings to replace the ancient woodland, which would have ensured that the carbon sequestration took place and that we could still hit our climate targets. However, I went down there and saw a flint axe head. I saw an ancient oak woodland that had been there for tens of thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, of years. The complex biodiversity that was there—the insects, the birds, the mycelium networks underneath the ground—was beautiful. I could feel how old it was, and it was going to be bulldozed over and replaced with tens of thousands of saplings somewhere else in Norfolk.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

No, I will make some progress. At that point, I understood that it is entirely possible for us to hit our climate targets as we rip up and destroy a 10,000 or 50,000-year-old woodland. At that moment, I realised that I could never allow the road to be built. We can look at the Amazon forest and campaign about what should not be happening there, but what about our own backyards? There is a question for the Government —my Government or any Government—about growth: what kind of growth do we want? No one is answering that question. Do we want sustainable growth? What is growth about? What are we growing? Are we growing pollution in our rivers? Are we growing roads that go through ancient woodlands? Yes, that is growth, but is it the growth we want? Do we not want to see growth in well-paid adult social care or renewable technology? Do we not want to see growth in rewilding or sustainable farming? Those are the areas where I want to see economic growth. I do not want to see growth that comes at the cost of my daughter and her generation’s future. That is the kind of decision that we in this country and this Government have to make. I am afraid to say that we cannot have growth on a dead planet. Politicians need to understand that; for too long, we have not. We cannot pick growth out of the air and say, “Biodiversity will come in second place; climate will come after.” They are all interlinked. We cannot have a viable economy unless the climate and nature of our country and the economy are working well together in unity and in synthesis. That is what needs to happen.

I agree with the hon. Member’s point about the kind of growth we want. Does he agree that if the Government were to proceed with expanding Luton airport, as rumours suggest, that would fly in the face of advice from the Government’s own climate experts and economists, who say that it would not deliver the kind of growth that airport expansion used to deliver?

I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, and that was a great pun—“fly in the face.” This decision has not been taken. I, for one, do not believe that it is compatible to have expansion of aviation at these four airports: London, which has already been agreed, Luton, Gatwick and Heathrow. Choices need to be made here. Many of my constituents cannot afford to fly. Everyone wants to see their constituents benefit from the economy, and if we go down that path of expansion, we will be heading in the wrong direction. There will be many Members on both the Government and the Opposition Benches who do not want to see that. I believe that expanding Heathrow is incompatible with having a genuine approach to biodiversity and climate. The Climate Change Committee has already stated, before we even get to the seventh carbon budget, that this should not happen. We will need to have a very hard, honest conversation about that. I do not think it should happen.

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for bringing forward the Bill, and to all the academics and campaigners behind it. Listening to the debate, I think the one point we need to draw out is that we need robust scrutiny, and we need to be able to hold Government to account through tighter mechanisms. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is crucial that the mechanisms in the Bill are expedited, to ensure that Government get on with achieving the targets that we have all been talking about?

I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution, and indeed for the work she has done on climate and nature throughout her political career. Of course I agree. Everyone understands that in government, there are pressures on Ministers—there are pressures from the Treasury, from business and from vested interests, many of them big and powerful, with big PR and the ability to lobby Ministers in ways that our constituents cannot and in ways that nature cannot. Squirrels, bats and newts cannot lobby like BlackRock and others who want economic growth and profit. This needs to be locked in and legislated for; that is what the Bill is all about. There are organisations and individuals—billionaires —who have benefited very much from the last 50 or 60 years of rapacious growth and wealth building.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

I need to conclude, because I believe other Members want to take part. We have to understand that there are people who have done very well from this growth. The problem with growth is this: when we get GDP growth in unequal societies, and we bulldoze over beautiful woodland forests and expand airports—

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

I will make progress. When we get that GDP growth in deeply unequal societies, it is those in the top 1% or top 5% who accrue the benefits. A working-class woman in one of the Brexit debates—and I was a remainer—was told, “You’ve never had it so good. You’ve had growth of 3% or 4% for so many years.” She stood up and said, “But that’s your growth, not our growth.” This is what I am talking about. If we want a sustainable economy and sustainable biodiversity, and if we want to protect nature and ensure that future generations have somewhere to live and have food security and water security, we need to ensure that this Bill, or something like it, becomes law. We need to ensure that Labour Members do the right thing for climate and nature. It is what our constituents want to see.

10:24:00

I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) on her good fortune in having secured a place in the ballot and been able to introduce a Bill that I believe will be very important. I am proud to be a sponsor of it. It is deeply flawed in places; we all know that. I have been in this place for quite a long time and I know of no private Member’s Bill that was perfect when it started its journey. However, I hope and believe that it will receive a Second Reading. If it comes to a vote, I shall most certainly support it. Old men can bore for Britain. As the grandfather of the House, I am probably just as capable of that as anybody else in this place.

I would like to put it on the record that the right hon. Gentleman is not boring the House.

Give me time, young man. At the risk of going down that path, I should like to take a short ramble down memory lane. I was brought up in Poole, in Dorset. My grandparents’ house had a lilac tree in the garden. In flower, it was smothered in red admirals, peacocks, tortoiseshells and all manner of butterflies. At night, the garden was full of moths. These days, we are lucky if we see a cabbage white. The little house that we lived in was on the edge of Poole Park lake. I played in the park daily; I used to pluck conkers from under the trees during the season for it. I saw stag beetles in abundance. Hedgehogs, which we have heard referred to, roamed free. Out in the hills alongside Cerne Abbas in Dorset, I walked along country paths where my father and I saw foxes, voles, stoats, weasels, rabbits and, up in the sky, birds of prey feeding on them. Where are they now? The World Wildlife Fund says that in the past 50 years—well within my lifetime, but sadly not within the lifetime of most, albeit not all, hon. Members present—our wildlife has been depleted by 73%.

As a Poole Member, I recognise those places. Will the right hon. Gentleman join me in congratulating Dorset on being one of the only places in the country that has turned around the depletion of nature? Thanks to people like Mark and Mo Constantine, we are restoring ospreys and other birds of prey to our wonderful county.

With great respect to the hon. Lady, who is fortunate to represent a beautiful place, the Poole that I knew is not the Poole that she now knows—not even in the town, never mind in the countryside. Although one or two places such as Branksea island, to give it its proper name, may have improved—the overgrowth was taken down about 20 years ago in a fire—a lot of our national habitat has nevertheless been lost. That is the point that I am trying to make. I am blessed with five grandchildren. Additionally, I have five surrogate Ukrainian grandchildren and one infant—Florence, the daughter of two of my dearest young friends—whom I care about passionately. I want them to be able to grow up in at least some of the world that I knew, and to enjoy the natural environment that I enjoyed. That is why I am standing here today; I have no other reason. Sadly, I believe that a lot of that is at risk. The planning changes that have been partially announced this week—I assume that there will in due course be a further statement to the House—seek effectively to abolish the right to judicial review. In my constituency, National Grid is planning to build a monstrosity, 90 feet high and the size of five football pitches, on the Thanet marshes—which it has just discovered are wet—immediately adjacent to a site of special scientific interest. If built, it will indeed be a monstrosity, and will be accompanied by a string of high-powered, high-voltage pylons. If we are denied the right to challenge that, to whom do we look for redress in the future? Like the last Government, this Government are subsidising Drax, to the tune of billions of pounds. For why? To transport millions of trees, felled and shipped across the Atlantic at God knows what carbon cost, to burn in the interest of some sort of future carbon-free fuel—which, of course, it is not. Why are we allowing this, and why are we paying for it? Those who oppose the Bill—which, as I have already mentioned, is flawed and will need to be amended—have described it as ideological rhetoric, an assault on our individual freedom, and a direct threat to our way of life that will lead to food rationing. One constituent wrote to me to say that only 50% of our food is produced naturally. Why should we be dependent on importing the other 50%? The answer to that, I am afraid, now lies with the Government’s house building policies. If the planners have their way, acres of farmland in Thanet that are now producing, this year, grade 1 agricultural wheat from which bread is made will, in a couple of years’ time, be growing houses, not food. The National Farmers Union has said, “Please do not undermine UK agriculture by importing agricultural products produced to environmental standards that are different from ours here.” A couple of weeks ago, I was visiting a friend in Thanet who allowed me to hold a facsimile of part of the skull of a Tyrannosaurus rex. The teeth were about nine inches to a foot long. Those beasts that ruled the Earth have been extinct for millions of years. We are supremely arrogant if we believe that “Drill, baby, drill” is the answer; if we believe that we have a right—someone who wrote to me described it as a God-given right—to carbon fuels. A couple of weeks ago there was an exhibition in the House organised by Helping Rhinos, which seeks to defend the black rhino, and someone who attended made the case that the black rhino could outlive the human race. We are about to become—if we do not listen today—the authors of our own demise, and that is why I believe that the Bill deserves, at the very least, a Second Reading.

10:35:00

From one old fogey to another, I presume. I have never enjoyed a speech by the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) as much as the one he has just delivered; he did not bore the House in any way. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for introducing the Bill; it has had a very long gestation, involving many Members on both sides of the House, but it is good that it has cross-party support. Indeed, the first thing I want to focus on is the importance of cross-party support. These issues had cross-party support in the House for many years following the Climate Change Act 2008, and that continued until about 2015. That was tremendously important in the progress that not only we but the world were able to make. People saw that it was possible for Parliament to come together and do things that were considered radical to tackle climate change. Latterly, unfortunately, that consensus has broken down somewhat, and it is important—it is the duty of all Members of the House—to try to repair that consensus and to build on it. Unless we do, we will face the sort of future that the hon. Lady and the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich outlined. I am conscious that many people want to speak in the debate, so I will pick up quickly on just three issues in the Bill. First, clause 2(2) states: “The strategy must include annual interim targets consistent with the achievement of the objectives”. Those objectives are the climate and nature targets, and it is great that the Bill makes the link between the two; that is fundamentally important. However, I want to counsel against annual targets in this regard. As we know—it is well documented in the OEP report that the hon. Lady referred to, as well as in the Climate Change Committee’s reports—there is natural fluctuation annually in what happens around us. Sometimes that is because of the El Niño effect, and sometimes it is for other reasons—nobody in the House will be more familiar with the El Niño effect on the oceans than the hon. Lady. It is important that we understand that sometimes an annual target, to be consistent with the five-year targets and the overall long-term target, will look like it is going backwards. We need to look at that very carefully in the Bill. Another issue I want to pick up on is clause 3, on the establishment of the climate and nature assembly. In the last Parliament, six Select Committees came together to convene a people’s assembly on the climate. That was a wonderful moment for the House, because instead of our telling the people, “This is what you have to do,” the people were telling us, “This is what we want you to do on our behalf.” It was really important that that took place, and it is great that the hon. Lady has included that measure in the Bill. I gently point out, however, that the climate assembly disagreed with some of the things that the Committee on Climate Change told us were essential to do. The 66% figure in the clause is actually quite a low threshold. Sometimes the report from the climate assembly was clear that people were not prepared to go as far as the Committee on Climate Change and other nature organisations, such as the Joint Nature Conservation Committee, believed was imperative. On who is in charge, there is a failure to connect things up, because the clause says that if something is recommended by 66% of the assembly, it must be included in the strategy. We will need to go through those areas in serious detail. Finally, it is important that the Bill talks about the impact of climate, biodiversity and nature on each other. I pick up on what the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich— the grandfather of the House, as he styled himself—said about Drax. We are going down the wrong road with Drax. I understand the reasons why: Drax power station provides 4% of UK electricity in the power sector. It seen as an important area, so the question is, if we take it away, how will we fill it? But we cannot allow the damage to old growth and to virgin forests that we know is happening in Canada. More than that, as has been said by the noble Lord Birt, who has also seen some of the whistleblowers’ accounts, as I have, those accounts make it clear that the Ofgem investigation was correct in saying that the sustainability of the feedstock had been not only misreported but deliberately misreported. That means that the people concerned in Drax are not fit and proper to run the company, and we should not be paying them—at the moment—£9 billion. We have now to decide whether we will subsidise that even further. The impact on biodiversity is disastrous, and although they say it is renewable, it is not within the timeframe to meet the 2050 climate target. It is salient that the previous Secretary of State, after she ceased to be the Secretary of State, said, “We knew all along that this was not sustainable.” If that is the case, perhaps she should have done something when she was Secretary of State, but it is this Government who must now act to ensure that no further subsidy is paid to Drax.

10:42:00

I rise in support of the Bill. As a co-sponsor, I congratulate the hon. Member for South Cotswolds (Dr Savage) for not just introducing the Bill but the way in which she introduced it. Echoing the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner), I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) on what was a truly outstanding speech. As a number of people have referenced, we only have temporary hold of our planet, so let’s start with a good old biblical quote, Genesis 3:19: “for dust you are and to dust you shall return.” We have only the lightest of steps on our planet, and we need to remind ourselves of that. The arrogance that, as the apex species, we have taken on our shoulders—the idea that we can do anything and some brainbox somewhere will find a way of ameliorating or attenuating it at some point, so it does not matter, should be part of historical political thinking. In that respect, the hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis) was absolutely correct. I want to speak to my colleagues and my party and to those who would describe themselves as centre-right in the political spectrum. Conservatives conserve. We are and have been champions of a notion of handing things on to successor generations. That must mean, in today’s parlance, not just physical capital of pounds, shillings and pence and of assets, but natural capital. My party has a proud and innovative track record on these issues. It was Geoffrey Howe’s early 1980s Budget, in response to the issues of acid rain, that, through the carrot and stick policy, sought to make unleaded petrol cheaper than four-star, thereby driving people—another pun, I am afraid—to have catalytic converters. My noble friend John Gummer introduced the landfill tax, and the first hypothecated environmental tax in our country. It was a Conservative Government who introduced the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, and a Conservative Government who put through the environment Acts of 1986, 1995 and 2021. The Clean Air Act 1956 was introduced by a Conservative Government. Excellent work was done by former colleagues in this House, such as Michael Gove, Rebecca Pow and others, who took these issues seriously, made the case, and we legislated.

The right hon. Gentleman outlined articulately how Government legislation can make a positive difference to our environment. Does he agree that as well as a relentless focus on housing targets, we should also have targets for amenities and for nature and green spaces, so that we can achieve lots of objectives and support the aims of the Bill?

The hon. Gentleman is right, and I wanted to echo the point raised by the hon. Member for South Cotswolds. I note the word “or”, but I like the word “and”. Indeed, I will share with the House that I am on a particularly stringent January diet. It is slightly working, I think, but there is still a long way to go. Ask any member of my family, and they would say, “Now Simon, would you like custard or cream?” and my eyebrows would shoot up at the word “or”, as I much prefer “and”. The hon. Lady was right: climate and nature are two sides of the same coin, and have a close, interwoven symbiotic relationship. I say to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) in response to his intervention, again echoing the hon. Member for Norwich South, that of course we must have growth, but too often the didacts from both sides of the debate say that it is either/or: we can either have a biodiverse natural environment and address climate change, or we can have growth, but we cannot have both. Well, it depends first on what type and kind of policies we pursue when addressing CO₂ emissions and the drive to net zero, but also on what type of growth one has. It must be a legitimate anxiety, but I am pretty confident that many people who elected the Labour party into government believed that they would get that fact: that the definition of “growth” needed to be reset in order to meet the challenges that we now face. The Budget—I shall be charitable—did not quite land as the Chancellor of the Exchequer hoped or expected, and some of the economic indicators are not pointing in the direction that any Government would like to see. I hope it will not fall on deaf ears—the two Ministers on the Front Bench have a long and respected track record in addressing these issues when they sat on the Opposition Benches, which I hope they will continue now that they sit on the Treasury Bench. I hope that in order to prove this to people who are anxious about economic growth, and the fact that there does not appear to be very much, it will not be foot-to-the-floor growth of any type, anywhere, in order just to nudge the figures. It has to be the right kind of growth, and sustainability has to be at its heart. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich asked: is this Bill perfect? No, and I do not think that the hon. Member for South Cotswolds would claim perfection. My right hon. Friend said that he had never seen a private Member’s Bill that was perfect and beyond amendment; I have to say to him that in my nearly 10 years in this place, I have yet to see a Government Bill that could be described as perfect and without the possibility of improvement by amendment. I say to my right hon. and hon. Friends: let us not sacrifice the good in pursuit of the excellent. We have to make progress. Are many of the issues addressed by the Bill difficult? Yes, but what do we all usually say to our children? “Things which are difficult are usually much more worthwhile seeking to attain than the easy, low-hanging fruit.” Will the Bill come with costs? Let us be frank: we must all be conscious that we have come through or are coming through a cost of living crisis, and inflation has eroded people’s ability to spend and fuel costs are high. But to those who simplistically say, “Well, we can’t afford to do this; now is not the right time in the economic cycle,” I say, with the greatest of politeness: if not now, when? I do not believe that we can afford not to do this. Failure to do so would be the longest suicide note in history for our species. On our coastline, there are places that are built below sea level—one thinks of Canvey Island—so this is not just something that is happening elsewhere, about which we should be slightly anxious but not at all concerned. Rising sea levels and other changes will affect us here at home as well. We need to be careful in our consideration of that. For those who claim a driving concern about the need to control immigration, I say in all sincerity that I do not believe that one can divorce from that addressing the changes to our planet that climate change is introducing, as it will be a major spur for fellow members of our species to pack up their belongings, meagre or otherwise, and try to find a place of safety for themselves and their families, where they are able to grow a bit of food and sustain their lifestyles, meagre as they may be. To those who say, “Hang on a moment, our emissions are not too bad, and we’ve got to look to China and everybody else,” I say: pollution does not respect international boundaries. It moves on the tides and the winds. We have lulled ourselves into a false sense of security, because, in essence, we have exported the production of many of our commodities—needed, desired and wanted—overseas. We have said, “Look, our manufacturing emissions have gone down,” but the production of those products is still creating emissions elsewhere. There are some noble aims in the Bill that we should think about.

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

To my neighbour from West Dorset? Of course.

I thank my Dorset neighbour for giving way. As always, I find myself agreeing with a lot of what he says, not least on the cost of inaction being far greater than the cost of action. He makes many good points about the fact that we have outsourced our carbon emissions to places far away, but does he agree that we often fail to sell the opportunities around tackling climate change, especially for British businesses, such as those provided by tidal and wave technologies? We should celebrate those opportunities. The Government talk about growth; there is so much opportunity for growth in this sector, and we should do more.

This is getting rather worrying, because I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Either he is doing harm to his political career or I am doing harm to what might be left of mine. I shall leave it to my hon. Friend the shadow Deputy Chief Whip to jot that down in his little red book. I find UK manufacturing really strange in this respect, because the trajectory of policy for the past several years has been very clear. We are not trying to make our petrol combustion engines go faster; we are trying to make electric vehicles more reliable, less costly, travel further and so on. Why has UK plc manufacturing not grabbed hold of that as a fourth industrial revolution and led the way, in the way that our forefathers did at the start of the first industrial revolution? We have to look to private equity and others to invest. I was pleased to see an investment in a solar farm in my constituency. I visited the site to see where it was all going to go and how it was going to plug in, and I asked, “If you broke down a solar panel, where did the component parts come from?” Not a single component had been manufactured in the United Kingdom. They had come from about 12 different countries; the only thing that we had done was assemble them. I say to our entrepreneurs and our leaders of industry and commerce that we are better than that. We are not just assemblers; we are makers and innovators. We are an island race that has worked on free trade and exporting values, ideas and products across the surface of the globe. This is a time for us to lead in the export of actual hard power, and drive forward an international alliance on these important issues.

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Dorset is well represented this morning. I will of course give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch.

My hon. Friend has not mentioned China specifically, but China is still intent on increasing its CO₂ emissions until at least 2030. As a result, it is able to compete unfairly with what would be UK enterprise if we had not put a stranglehold on it with all these regulatory restrictions. How does he expect to deal with the issue of China?

Let me respond to my hon. Friend by quoting one of his great political heroes, the noble Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton: just because we cannot do good everywhere, that does not mean we cannot do a little bit of good here. I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. Of course we have to be conscious of cost differentials, production costs and all the rest of it, but I say to him respectfully that if the rest of the world does something that is to the good, and one or two countries decide not to, or go at a slower pace or on a different path, I do not believe we should just stop, shrug, throw it up in the air and say, “Oh, well, if not everybody’s doing it, why the hell should we?” We led the abolition of slavery. Nobody else was doing it. We did it because we thought it was right. We introduced factory Acts. Nobody else was doing it. We did it because we thought it was right. We introduced votes for women. [Interruption.] Not me personally! I am not as old as my hon. Friend; I have just had a hard life. We have led. It is what the United Kingdom does. We are not a nation that follows; we are a nation that sculps, leads, forms, challenges, cajoles and encourages.

Will the hon. Member give way?

The hon. Lady needed encouragement; she has got it.

I rarely need much encouragement. The hon. Member is making an impassioned speech about the fact that this country has led, and it can continue to lead in this area. He talked about hard power. Does he agree with me and my Liberal Democrat colleagues that if our country is to be better than just assembling parts, we need urgently to rip up the red tape that is stopping so many of our home-grown manufacturers building the climate technology of the future because of the trade barriers that exist with our EU neighbours?

The hon. Lady is pushing at an open door. There is much merit in the trade and co-operation agreement that we have with the European Union. That should never have been seen as an event; it should be an evolutionary process, responding to events in a pragmatic and sensible way while always maintaining the integrity of the result of the Brexit referendum. She and I were on the same side in that debate. We lost, and we now have to play the hand of cards that we have been dealt. I have received emails describing me as a “dangerous radical” and a Stalinist. I have been called many things in my time, but a Stalinist dangerous radical was new to me. My North Dorset constituency is about 440 square miles, of which only 12% is built upon; the rest is open farmland, hill land, ancient woodland and so on. I had hoped that I might have been able to finish my speech by now, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am just getting into the romantic prose. I notice that the clock stands at 10.59 am, and I understand that you want the statement to be given at 11 am. I am now in “Just a Minute”, talking down the clock without hesitation, repetition or deviation— Proceedings interrupted (Standing Order No. 11(4)).