Green Spaces

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Thursday 1st February 2024 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, the Government absolutely acknowledge the role that private gardens have to play as part of our overall green space and open space. The importance of our green spaces is of course reflected in the NPPF and other government guidance for planning.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, when I was chair of the London Food Board, we created 2,012 new growing spaces in London in the years leading up to the Olympics. There are still 2,500 of them—200 acres of London—producing an extraordinary amount of food, mostly in areas of most deprivation. The key to getting these places going was a thing called a “meanwhile lease”, which is different from an allotment because no council or building company will give anyone space in perpetuity. I have been trying to get the Government to adopt an amendment saying that meanwhile leases should be encouraged and made mandatory for all councils. Will the Government agree to look at that now? It is a very easy and effective way to give people of all denominations access to green space and their own healthy food.

[Baroness Penn (Con)]

My Lords, I am happy to look in more detail at the proposal put forward by the noble Baroness and to write to her on what the Government can do in this area.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Committee stage
Wednesday 24th May 2023 Grand Committee

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

My Lords, in moving Amendment 481, I shall also speak briefly to Amendment 483, the other amendment in this group. It has not been introduced yet, so we can regard this as perhaps an amuse-bouche—a taster of what is to come—given that we are talking about growing food, as well as other things. Last week, I was at the Sheffield Festival of Debate, talking about just access to land. People were saying that what we should be doing in the House of Lords was speaking up for the right to grow food. I am looking forward to the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, and others speaking to that amendment, which really sets out an important principle.

Amendment 481 is my second attempt to bring in what is generally known as Zane’s law, named after Zane Gbangbola. The Truth About Zane campaign is still working, with a wide range of support, to get on the record the truth about the seven year-old’s death in Chertsey in 2014, when floods swept hideously toxic hydrogen cyanide into the family home. That is not what the inquest verdict concluded in 2016, but the inequality of arms in legal representation in that inquest and the illogic of the verdict—given that Zane’s father, Kye, was at the same time left paralysed by hydrogen cyanide—means that it will surely have to go back. That very much highlights a broader issue, which is why I, the family and many others are campaigning for Zane’s law.

To go back in history to set out the legal background to this issue, in 1974 the Control of Pollution Act first took control over waste disposal. When that came into effect, many historical dumps were quietly closed and, essentially, forgotten about, except perhaps by people in the local community. EU regulations on waste and pollution came in through the Environmental Protection Act 1990, tightening up controls. In particular, Section 143 provided an obligation for local authorities to investigate their area and draw up public registers of land that may be contaminated. Section 31 of that Act also gave local authorities powers to inspect and close landfills and clean them up if necessary.

The fact is that lots of housing developments are and continue to be on old landfill sites. There were three consultations between 1991 and 1993, which eventually decided that Section 143 of the 1990 Act would not be implemented and all plans for public registers of contaminated sites were to be dropped. The explanation was that it was about the cost and desire not to place “new regulatory burdens” on the private sector. Limited powers were brought back in 1995, although they did not come into force until five years later, which meant that when developers found contamination problems, public authorities had to pay. But the situation further worsened in 2011. As part of the Cameron Government’s bonfire of red tape to reduce statutory burdens, the right of the enforcement authorities to use the law was further reduced. The emphasis was on voluntary clean-up by developers, with no real power to check that it had been done.

Amendment 481 attempts to return to the situation that we would have been in if Section 143 had been implemented. In discussion about this, a noble Lord asked me who was going to pay for this measure—the big question. Being in your Lordships’ House, where we are not allowed to allocate spending, I have not addressed that issue directly in this amendment. However, proposed new subsection (2)(c) would make it the law to

“identify the resources required to bring all land contamination in England to safe levels”.

I would therefore say in answer to that question that I am going as far as I can.

The last time I brought Zane’s law before your Lordships’ House was during a debate on the Building Safety Bill in this very Room. The Labour Front Bench, albeit different from today, expressed some interest and support for the amendment—as did the Lib Dem Front Bench—but asked, “Is this really a problem?” Of course, we have the tragic death of Zane to point to and we are in a climate emergency situation, seeing increasing levels of flooding, increasing temperatures and erosion around the sea where there have often been landfill sites at sea level. These are increasing problems.

I will give the Committee some practical examples—just three cases that have been highlighted in the media in recent weeks. First, near Cedar Avenue in Coseley, Dudley, there are plans to build 72 homes on a former landfill site that was once home to hundreds of tonnes of toxic waste. It was an old open-cut coal mine that became a fishing site and then, in the 1970s, became a landfill site. Some of the things that locals recall being dumped there were fruit machines, vegetable and medical waste and up to 220 tonnes of toxic metal compounds, including industrial waste products such as mercury, arsenic, cyanide and asbestos, all of which, as I do not need to tell the Committee, are seriously concerning. There are plans to put 72 affordable homes on that site, which are currently on hold because of local controversy, as far as I am able to establish.

Secondly, in the village of Somercotes in Derbyshire there are plans to develop hundreds of homes on a patch of land dubbed the most contaminated site in England. It is supposed to include particularly highly toxic dioxins, which have been illegally dumped there in the past. My third case study is the 263-home Coppenhall Place development in Crewe, Cheshire, where it is feared that the homes have been built on a contaminated site.

We have a very clear issue here, and an approaching issue with the Government talking about building hundreds of thousands of new homes and the rightful desire to put them on brownfield sites. The first thing we have to know is what is on those brownfield sites and whether they are suitable for housing, in view of the potential contamination problems. That is what this amendment would do. It is not particularly new or creative; it simply seeks to bring in something that decades ago was thought necessary and is clearly even more necessary now.

I will keep pushing this. I would love to think that the Minister will leap up and say, “Yes, you’re absolutely right”, but I ask the Government at least to look at this issue, because there is a problem here that clearly affects many people and presents an enormous risk to their lives. Surely, a basic duty of the Government is to ensure the security of people in their own homes, which, quite frankly, they are unable to do now because they are not empowering, directing and resourcing local authorities to ensure that they know what is in their land. I beg to move.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 483, which is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Scott of Needham Market and Lady Young of Old Scone, and the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. I am very glad that this group of amendments has been reached today, because otherwise we would not have had the noble Earl with us. That is great.

[Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)]

It is a bonus.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

It is a real bonus. This is an incredibly simple amendment. It does not demand money, it demands very little to be done and it would bring an enormous number of benefits. As the amendment says, we are asking councils across the country to publish lists of where there is vacant land within their area that could be suitable for food growing or other kinds of growing. Take a group such as Incredible Edible Todmorden; it has grown both vegetables as well as flowers. It cheers up a neighbourhood but does a great deal more.

This first important thing to say is that we are not asking for allotments. Allotments are completely impossible, as anyone who has ever been involved in any campaign to get rid of an allotment will know. Allotments are there in perpetuity, as it should be, and they cover large areas, and the queues for them are huge. I have a couple of examples: the queue in Camden is 12 years, and in Southampton it is 20 years. More allotments are not going to be created—they need to be on land in the middle of town, which will therefore be seen as prime for building houses—but we can get community growing spaces.

In the belief that any good idea is best told in stories, I will tell your Lordships a few stories. In 2008 I went to work for the then Mayor of London, Boris Johnson—he later became Prime Minister, but that is another matter—as chair of the London Food Board. Not long after I got there, I was approached by a very eager group, which said: “We’ve seen something that was done in Vancouver before the Olympics, where they created edible community gardens. We want to do 2,012 gardens in London by 2012”. “Uh oh”, I thought, “How is that going to happen?” But I thought it was a good project—and, I have to say, so did the mayor.

We undertook the project and in the autumn of 2008 we opened the first garden at the Thrive garden in Battersea. It is a vegetable garden that is primarily used for people who have mental health issues—their doctors prescribe a session at Thrive for them. It is still going. There are many Thrive gardens, and it is extraordinarily important in what it does for people having a traumatic and difficult time.

However, things were very slow. We got hardly any gardens, and we could not figure it out. Councils and hospitals were reluctant; there was space, but what could we do? Then a man from the water board said, “What you need is a meanwhile lease”. That is a very simple thing: it says that you can be there for a few years but can be thrown out. That changed everything. Overnight, it flipped this project from being, quite frankly, hopeless to suddenly being a runner. We would assemble leaders of councils for breakfast, and I would collar them and say, “I want you to do 60 sites”. We would go to the housing associations and ask them to do 10 or 15 sites. Bit by bit, over years 2 and 3, we suddenly started to have this explosion of gardens.

Today, we have 2,500 gardens. We opened the 2,012th at St Charles Hospital in the north of Ladbroke Grove in the winter of 2012—it is a fantastic garden and is still going. I remember some of the objections. Most of these gardens did not have fences and it was said that people would steal from them. Weirdly, no one ever stole. In fact, we opened a garden outside City Hall, by Tower Bridge. We got the patch of land, and someone called the Phantom Guerrilla Gardener would come by and plant extra plants—it was all very mysterious but wonderful.

We had a garden in King’s Cross, which, following on from what the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, said, was on contaminated land. Some genius came up with the idea that we could have a garden in a skip, and furthermore that the skip could move. We had three skips on one of those sites just behind the station—sites which are now unrecognisably beautiful and modern. We had three gardens, which you climbed up to; they were used by schools on Tuesday and Thursday mornings. Then the building developers wanted the site back, so they picked up the skips and moved them to another site, with the gardens. We did that three times before it was finally filled in.

We had gardens that were in the middle of tower blocks. When the designers in the 1950s put up those pretty terrifying concrete blocks, they left areas in the middle. We saw photographs of people walking, pushing children in their prams and walking dogs, but nowadays they are completely terrifying, because they are full of old needles and dog poo, rather than nice dogs on leads. People did not want to come down from the tower blocks and go there. But put a garden in, and something magical happens. People became protective of it and felt they could come downstairs and join in.

Redcar Steelworks

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Wednesday 17th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

The mayor has offered a review. We have only just got that letter; we are considering it. The public funding we put in did not create any positive land value. It was designed to remove the ongoing liability of £80 million a year that was falling to the Government after the liquidation of SSI UK Ltd. The issue of the 50:50 share shifting to 90% concerned further private investment.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, can the Minister update us on what has happened with the investigation into the massive shellfish die-off, which many scientists believe was the result of the dredging when we got this land ready for sell-off, and the chemicals released from the deep seabed? It is still disputed; if there is a review, can this question be included?

[Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)]

I am sorry; I do not have an answer to that question, but I will take it forward to Defra and we will get an answer.

Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

2nd reading
Tuesday 17th January 2023 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and my few remarks will build on what she said. I will look at where the money is going, in terms of UK public procurement, which, at the moment, accounts for £300 billion a year, or 13% of GDP. Recent research by the World Economic Forum estimates that government procurement accounts for 15% of our greenhouse gas emissions. By harnessing the enormous lever of procurement, government can show strong leadership in driving climate-positive and nature-positive public procurement. As well contributing towards the achievement of our net-zero and environment targets, it can contribute hugely to levelling up across communities by driving investment in new, low-carbon technologies, services and skilled jobs, as well as better health and well-being outcomes. You can get a lot of bang for your buck out of this.

I will also reference Chris Skidmore’s Net Zero Review, which came out this week. It recommended that the Government

“develop a public procurement plan for low-carbon construction and the use of low-carbon materials, by the end of 2023”—

which is this year. It also recommended that the Government

“set standards and build new markets for low-carbon construction through its own public procurement standards”,

which would

“send strong signals to the sector and enable firms to test innovations and start to scale them up”—

which is precisely what we need. We need to link into this agenda, which will help drive opportunities across all local authorities and will hugely help private companies. The Part Z campaign is already calling for these kinds of changes. Building regulations to introduce the reporting of carbon emissions and to limit embodied carbon emissions in new developments would of course help to drive down emissions. The Bill is the perfect place to introduce these changes.

The Net Zero Review also highlighted the example of how Preston in Lancashire has used its net-zero delivery strategy to retain procurement spend locally and to prioritise procurement from local and socially responsible businesses, helping to build community wealth. In my work on food over the last 15 years or so, I have seen a lot of local authorities make decisions about the local procurement of food, which is a win-win, not only for local growers, who have a market, but for the end users: we, the eaters, get better food at better prices.

In a report on the impact of locally spent money, the New Economics Foundation found that, if you spend £1 in a local shop, you will generate £10, but, if you spend it on a multinational or a company that is not local, such as Tesco—I am not singling it out—that money goes whizzing back to head office and does not circulate in the community. In this case, it is not just the growers who do not get the work; it is also the plumber, the locksmith and the printer, because that money is taken away. We have seen other towns do this, and I have put down amendments to other Bills to look at 50% of government procurement being used locally to generate local jobs and industry.

I will make two final points. During Report on the Procurement Bill in the Lords, an amendment was passed to ensure that the strategic priorities included in the national procurement policy would include achieving our climate change and environmental targets, adding social value, promoting innovation among all potential suppliers and minimising fraud. That Bill is now approaching Committee in the other place, and I hope that the Government will not seek to remove this important amendment.

Finally, another huge lever for linking up the delivery of our climate change targets and levelling up is planning, as many noble Lords have pointed out. In its progress report to Parliament, the Climate Change Committee recommended:

“Net Zero and climate resilience should be embedded within the planning reforms that are expected”


to be part of levelling up and regeneration. The Net Zero Review recommended that a reformed planning system

“should have a clearer vision”.

The Government have recently consulted on reforms to the national planning policy, seeking views on

“opportunities to support the natural environment, respond to climate change”

and make sure that it always contributes to “mitigation and adaptation”. However, the reforms are proposed to come in after the Bill has received Royal Assent, so please could provisions be included in the Bill to fully align our planning system with net zero at every decision-making level and to demonstrate that government leadership and commitment are really about delivering net zero, as well as social benefit?

Levelling-up Report

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Lords Chamber

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

It is important that we think about our existing stock. As Building Safety Minister, I think that the quality of housing is incredibly important. One of the key headline metrics is the proportion of non-decent rented homes and ensuring that we continue to drive this down and increase the number of homes that have achieved the decent homes standard, which will be adopted within the private rented sector as well.

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, do the Government think that it is an appropriate part of levelling up to postpone the ban on two-for-one HFSS foods in supermarkets and delay the advertising ban during children’s television? This morning, Cancer Research published data showing that 50% of adults in this country will be obese by 2025. As other noble Lords have pointed out, the disparity between rich and poor in terms of living with good health is now 17 years. That is a burden not just to them but to us and the taxpayer. Could the Minister therefore please explain to the House why the Government have taken this decision to make bad food cheaper, rather than subsidising healthy food to make it more accessible to people on a budget?

[Lord Greenhalgh (Con)]

My Lords, I think it is for one of my colleagues to explain that decision, but it is clear that the healthy life expectancy metric—to increase it by some five years by 2030—remains, and the Government need to do all they can to achieve that.

Land Use Framework

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, I am delighted to follow the noble Baroness. As ever, she has set out her stall very wisely, with many facts and elements that we need to take on board. It is clearly madness that we do not have a land framework strategy. It is a bit like trying to build a house without deciding where you might want the kitchen or the bathroom.

My remarks will concentrate on food, as that is the area I probably know best. As the noble Baroness said, land is a scarce resource. We have used it for three purposes: housing, recreation and food production. The latter currently takes up 70% of English land. That is clearly too much if we are going to hit our climate change targets. As the noble Baroness has just said, we need to get multifunctional in the way we use all our land.

The Climate Change Committee has estimated that approximately 21% of agricultural land in England has to change its function to forestry, energy crops, peat land or agroforestry if we are to get to net zero on the timetable we have laid out. However, that does not mean taking land out of agricultural use entirely. It is about the right kind of farming, such as no-till, mob grazing, almost zero application of pesticides, letting hedgerows grow and herbal leys—a whole range of things that can encourage wildlife and carbon sequestration on land that is also producing food. It is about being, as the noble Baroness said, multifunctional.

I am anxious that we go down this route as if we do not and we agree that we cannot grow enough food to feed us, we will end up entering into trade deals with countries far away. That not only means that we outsource our carbon footprint, but that we lose jobs and undercut our own farmers. Indeed, in Questions in the House yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Deben, made this point very strongly in relation to the Australian trade deal.

However, all land is different. Some of the land that could deliver the greatest environmental benefits might not be that good for food growing. The most productive 33% of English land produces around 60% of our total output, while the bottom 33% produces only 15%. Similarly, making farming more environmentally sensitive has many other gains: reducing runoff from just 5% of agricultural land that produces the most water pollution could reduce phosphorus and other sediments in our rivers by 25% and the nitrogen load by 13%.

Food and food growing has dominated our landscape for hundreds of years. Indeed, the phrase “eat the view” is intended to encourage us all to eat more British-grown vegetables, fruit and grains. It was coined some years ago and I think it is a good phrase, but it misses out key elements, such as which bit of land should we be using for this and which bit for that? This is why we need a framework.

I advised a little on Henry Dimbleby’s food strategy. We recommended that by 2022—soon—Defra ought to devise a rural framework. What does this mean? First, Defra should work with local nature recovery networks to prepare basic maps of what is what right now. These maps should include data on how productive the agricultural land is in the network’s area—something we can glean from the agricultural land classification system. There should be an assessment of local priority areas for the environment. For instance, is there peat or ancient woodland? Areas with significant levels of pollution should be identified, together with ideas on what to do. All this needs to be linked in with local tree strategies, the peat action plan and any existing local nature recovery strategy.

Once all this has been collected, Defra then actually has something to work on. This is something it lacks. It will provide a framework for us to decide how we want to use our precious and extremely tiny amount of land. We can tell which land is most appropriate for semi-natural land, low-yield farmland and high-yield farmland, as well as land that is better for housing and economic development such as business parks. At all stages, this report will make clear how this model can help meet the Government’s legal commitments to reach net zero by 2050, while at the same time protecting 30% of land for nature by 2030 —the 30x30 target.

Land change cannot be imposed by central government. Defra should make its national land map freely available to land managers and councils, which can then decide how they will best use it. It should form a guide for how the new environmental land management scheme is delivered and managed. It seems to me that currently, the Government are pinning everything on ELMS in terms of the countryside. I am the first to agree that it is a tremendous advance on the CAP and a step in the right direction. However, a lot of questions remain. ELMS has nothing to say on land management more generally, what happens to land outside of the farm, housing, roads and areas of outstanding natural beauty—or, indeed, on planning decisions. It cannot do all this because it does not have the remit.

For ELMS to truly function in the way that it should, it has to sit alongside an overall land management strategy. There are currently at least eight schemes influencing how we use land—from the England Trees Action Plan through to ELMS itself—and they control funds ranging from £10 million to £2.4 billion. It is a lot of money. We need a framework: it would help shape priorities such as improving areas of outstanding natural beauty. It could help us decide the best place to grow crops and, indeed, which crops, and where to graze cattle.

It could also give us information about where to build new houses. The additional land needed for new housing is relatively small for an issue that attracts so much distress and anger. Just 2.2% of UK land is needed by 2060 to fulfil all current calculated needs. If we had access to a bird’s eye view, we would not need to keep building on flood plains or next to sites of scientific interest like the rewilding project at Knepp, which noble Lords will know I have banged on about. In fact, in a minute I am going to come back to it.

A rural land use framework will outline the most effective way to get to net zero by 2050 and to 30x30 by 2030. We need better data if we are to achieve these goals. If we are to reduce the amount of land we use for farming by a steady 1% a year, while maintaining our food security through healthier and more sustainable farming management, we need a really good plan. We need to know which areas are the best to grow on and which are possibly the best to be rewooded or rewilded.

I want to finish with a story of something that happened in the last few weeks at the recent Tory party conference. Isabella Tree, the environmentalist behind the rewilding project at Knepp, attended the conference to speak on a rewilding panel. As noble Lords know, given how many have spoken on this issue, she and her husband have been fighting a battle against Horsham District Council to prevent it building 3,500 new houses on the border of their land, which would destroy the carefully planned wildlife corridors that connect Knepp and other places like it to the sea and deep inland. The builder is Thakeham, which has given more than £500,000 to the Conservatives in the last three years. Thakeham had the most prominent stand at the conference, sponsored meetings, hosted a drinks party and—which was really shocking to me—had its company name on the lanyards of every single delegate at the four-day event. As Isabella Tree said:

“This isn’t democracy … There is a lot of money … shouting for more housebuilding. Where is the money shouting for nature?”


However, there is a small, good note. Buglife has just discovered a very small snail—the little whirlpool ramshorn snail. It is in the water catchment area underneath the development that Thakeham plans to build. This tiny creature—just 5 millimetres in diameter—is so rare and so in need of protection that the planning has been temporarily halted. Talk about David and Goliath! It shows what a crazy system we live in. Just as it has taken a footballer to get the Government to agree to feed hungry kids in the holidays, so it has taken a miniature snail to get someone to look again at a really ridiculous planning project.

This is an urgent situation. We only have one planet. We have to start now. A rural land framework and a land use strategy is an essential part of our journey forward.

Queen’s Speech

Baroness Boycott Excerpts

Monday 17th May 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Boycott (CB)]

My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow two such fabulous maiden speeches, and I look forward to working with both noble Lords. There is much to welcome in the Speech, but there is much that still seems to be about rhetoric rather than action, as many noble Lords have said. It is probably no surprise to anyone who knows me that I am going to confine my remarks to food.

I want to give the House a few facts. These are not suppositions or the ideas of radical NGOs; these are facts and figures drawn up by the IPCC, the Treasury, Defra, the FAO and reputed world experts. It is like looking at climate change targets 30 years ago. Some 34% of emissions globally come from our food system, and it accounts for 30% of all our anthropogenic emissions. Food and drink account for 25% of the footprint of every individual in the UK, and 50% of all habitable land is used for agriculture. It is the driver of 80% of deforestation worldwide and an identified threat to 24,000 of 28,000 species, as documented by the IUCN—the International Union for Conservation of Nature. According to our own Professor Partha Dasgupta, whose report was commissioned by the Treasury, 80% of land-use related biodiversity loss is attributed to biomass extraction, of which the primary products are food and crops. Unless we change our eating and food waste patterns, we will need to double our agricultural production in the years ahead just to stay where we are. The point of all this is what it adds up to, and this is absolutely incontrovertible: even if all other sectors that noble Lords have referred to reduced their emissions to zero tomorrow, we would still overshoot the 1.5-degree target that we are all aiming to achieve at Glasgow and around the world. We must take this on board.

I understand as well as anyone does that food is a real mess, and I have spoken about this. It is in every department, it is extremely complicated, it does not fit into a box and it does not easily subscribe to a target. It is not like saying that we will stop having fossil fuel-powered cars by 2030 or 2040; it is very difficult. But however messy and difficult it is, we can no longer duck this. We cannot ignore it and we have to take it on board. It is the most important thing that we all consume, and it is the one thing we cannot do without. We can all rage about cotton T-shirts causing environmental damage and we can do without so many of them, but we cannot do without food.

What worries me in this gracious Speech is that food really does not get much of a look in. We have the Agriculture Act coming through at the moment, and I welcome the ELMS as much as anyone, but I just want to see how it will work. The gracious Speech makes reference to the food strategy written by Henry Dimbleby, which I have been an adviser on. I am a huge supporter of this because it will help our diets and our comeback from Covid, and it will stop us being such an unhealthy nation and, to some extent, start to work against climate change if we implement it. But noble Lords cannot assume that 34% of global emissions can be dealt with by one White Paper produced by one individual. That is crazy. This must be rethought. I am also really worried that it says that the Government’s response is to consult. I know that they are meant to do this within six months, but it is my understanding from people I know that Defra is commissioning a whole other ball game to try to look at these facts. They are there, and we know them. We have to go much further.

We cannot leave the question of climate change merely to a food strategy, however good it is. Bloomberg News said—it is a ridiculous quote, but I will read it out anyway— last week:

“There is no escaping that beef is a climate villain.”


Some 14% of human-driven emissions come from livestock production.

We are not alone as a country in doing this. It is not something that should be political, but I would welcome a chance to work on it. It can be done. It needs to be seen as a whole, and in the light of the spectacular benefits it will bring us. We went into Covid as an unhealthy nation eating rubbish food. Every single bit of rubbish food is a result of bad farming practices. When you eat a cheap chocolate mousse, you are actually probably destroying the habitat of an orangutang in Indonesia. The same things are true right across the board: if we fix the food system, we fix an incredible number of other things. I really hope that the Government will step up to this and not see it as a party-political issue, but something from which we will all hugely benefit.