Environmental Targets (Woodland and Trees Outside Woodland) (England) Regulations 2022

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Grand Committee

Considered in Grand Committee

16:56

Moved by

[Lord Benyon]

That the Grand Committee do consider the Environmental Targets (Woodland and Trees Outside Woodland) (England) Regulations 2022.

Relevant document: 25th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument).

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, trees and woodlands have a huge role to play in tackling climate change and recovering nature. They capture and lock away carbon, provide important habitats for thousands of species and offer nature-based solutions to challenges such as managing flood risk and improving mental and physical health. We know how important it is to plant more trees, but over the past two decades planting rates in England have declined. To reverse this trend, we have set out our ambition to increase tree and woodland cover from 14.5% to 16.5% of land area by 2050.

As a first step, we made a commitment in our manifesto to increase annual planting across the UK to 30,000 hectares by the end of this Parliament. In the England Trees Action Plan, we set out our ambition to treble woodland creation in England as our contribution to this, as well as our plan to achieve it. As a result, we are seeing planting rates rise. We must continue on this trajectory if we are to realise all the benefits for people, nature and climate that trees and woodlands bring. This instrument makes clear the necessary commitment to planting and nurturing our trees and ensures that trees remain a priority in the future.

I should have started by referring noble Lords to my interests as set out in the register. I apologise again for doing that late.

I turn to the details of this instrument. The regulations we have laid create a legally binding target to increase the combined canopy cover of woodlands and trees outside woodlands in England to 16.5% by 31 December 2050. Achieving this target would see both annual tree planting rates and total tree cover exceed historic highs. The action we are taking now through the England Trees Action Plan, supported by £675 million from the Nature for Climate Fund, will set us on the right path to achieving these new heights of ambition. We want to create a diverse treescape to draw on the unique benefits that different trees and woodlands can provide. Almost all trees and woodlands will contribute to meeting the target, including trees in woodlands, hedgerows, orchards, fields, towns and cities.

The Forestry Commission will monitor progress against the target. Using innovative tools such as remote sensing, we will be able to report accurately on not just woodlands but individual trees, down to those in gardens and on streets. This target is ambitious, deliverable and critical if we are to meet the joint challenges of climate change and biodiversity loss. I commend these draft regulations to the Committee.

17:00

[Baroness Young of Old Scone (Lab)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as chairman of the Woodland Trust and thank the Minister for introducing this statutory instrument. I almost did not speak as I was speechless with amazement at this target. The woodland canopy cover target is the only one that has gone down rather than increased as a result of the Government’s post-consultation considerations. This instrument would slash the previous tree targets increase by a third from what was originally consulted on—and that is without any further discussion or impact assessment.

Most of the consultation respondents said that 17.5%, the original target, was unsatisfactory because it was too low. Even if you discount all the respondents who were linked to campaigns, there were still 900 respondents who, off their own bat, said the same. Almost more important than the disappointment of a target that has become less ambitious is the fact that it is no longer aligned with the Climate Change Committee’s recommendation on the forestation rates necessary to achieve a 1.5 degrees temperature rise and the net-zero strategy. In the committee’s view, that needed 18% canopy cover by 2050, and Chris Skidmore’s review of the net-zero strategy re-endorsed the role of trees.

This reduction in the target was not endorsed by Defra’s own expert group, which felt that 17.5% was the right target to try to achieve. It is made worse by another tweak since the original consultation—or at least the way the consultation has worked out—which is that the proportion of conifer woodland incorporated in the target has gone up while the proportion of native broadleaf has gone down. This means that, up to 2050, 30% of the new woodland in England will be conifers rather than the 20% consulted on. Currently, the proportion of conifers in the mix is 14%, so that is a doubling of the current rate of conifer planting as a proportion.

This will have a major impact on both biodiversity and climate change. Irrespective of the claims made by the timber industry, on the basis of the current science, coniferous woodlands provide less return for wildlife and, in the longer term, for carbon. Conversely, native woodlands support a quarter of the UK’s priority species, are more resilient to disease as a result of the diversity of tree species and spend a longer time in the soil, which means more carbon sequestered not only in the wood but in the soil ecosystems.

I can only speculate on why the Government are proposing this diminished target. I beg the Minister’s forgiveness as I am going to paraphrase the Government’s response to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Basically, it is this: we are not hitting the current planting target so we will reduce the statutory target to make it easier to meet it. It is rather a major cop-out; the Government have been completely open about that. They are saying, “We are reducing the target because our planting rates are not currently achieving the levels that we said they should”.

The lack of ambition to come up to the mark and this deleterious switch in the conifer-broadleaf proportions also make me sniff the breeze and smell the work of the Forestry Commission somewhere in this, perhaps overly influenced by the forestry industry. The Forestry Commission is supposed to be for all woodlands but, increasingly and worryingly, it is reverting to its name, beating the drum for the forestry industry and commercial industry rather than for woodlands of all types and the many benefits that come from more diverse woodlands with respect to biodiversity, carbon, access, health, water and soil protection, et cetera. Although the forestry industry is right to say that the UK needs to be more self-sufficient in timber, that should not be a zero-sum game at the expense of native woodland benefits for biodiversity and carbon.

Let us return to the Government’s view that, as they have not delivered the targets so far, they will reduce them to make it easier. What should be happening is keeping the 17.5% target and stepping up to the challenge. There are things that could easily be done to achieve this: first, clearer incentives in the ELMs scheme for farmers with longer-term security for their plans for their land to encourage them to plant trees, indulge in agroforestry, create shelter belts, undertake water protection, replant hedgerows that have disappeared and fill in the gaps in existing hedgerows.

Secondly, we need changes in the rules for tenant farmers, as outlined in the Rock report, because tenant farmers are not in a position to make commitments to planting trees at the moment.

Thirdly, we need a sensible land use framework to indicate how the land can accommodate the trees and where. I was delighted to see Chris Skidmore endorse the fact that we need such a framework and that it needs to include the planning system, not just Defra issues.

Fourthly, we need a lot more urban tree planting and measures to support local authorities and developers in this. Local authorities are up for it. They are taking up the measures already on offer from Defra but much more can be done. They have lots of land that is small-scale, close to people, helps with urban air quality, helps with health—including mental health—and absolutely should be capitalised on for both biodiversity and carbon.

Fifthly, we need to simplify the Forestry Commission process of enabling trees to be planted and make it more efficient. I was at the commission’s celebration bunfight in this House last year. When an opportunity for questions was given, everyone duffed up the commission and complained about how bureaucratic, slow, unhelpful and useless it was. It was really quite sad because we need it to be powerful, helpful and effective. It needs better procedures.

Lastly, I hope that Defra is not resiling from ambitious targets for fear of the wrath of the Office for Environmental Protection if it fails. I know that the office is giving Defra a hard time at the moment on the lateness of the targets and environmental principles, and that there is all to go for in the 31 January deadline for the environment improvement plan, but it would be a sad outcome if having a tough new regulator resulted in everybody becoming very cautious in making commitments.

I want to finish by asking the Minister some questions. Some are real and some, as he will no doubt detect, are a bit facetious. First, what are the real reasons for reducing the targets? Are any of my surmises right? Secondly, in Defra’s response to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee, it talked about the first review of the targets. When will we see that first review begin? Tomorrow, I hope. Will the review assess what measures could be introduced to deliver enhanced targets with more sense of urgency? Lastly, does the Minister believe that an ambitious target honestly striven for but marginally missed is better than complacent targets that do not give leadership and signal that climate change and biodiversity do not really matter?

I shall now be speechless with rage.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

My Lords, of the three instruments that we have discussed today, this is the one that gives me the most concern, for many of the reasons just outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. The context of this is that every environmental scientist and data scientist on every continent says that, if we are to reduce global warming and get below the 1.5 degree figure, we need to extract more CO₂ from the atmosphere. The only way we can realistically do that is by planting something in the region of a trillion trees. The UK has a tiny but significant role to play in that.

I have known the Minister long enough to know that, although the dignity of office means that he must respect the collective decisions of the Government, he will be personally hurting inside at this reduction in what was in itself a fairly limited target. Today, he has told us that the Government must set realistic targets. A realistic target with political leadership intent could be 17.5% canopy cover. It requires leadership and resource.

We are in very difficult times but, I have to say, what this represents is not just a cut in ambition but a withdrawal. In my view, this is a resource-led instrument, and one that we cannot afford. The planet cannot afford it. Future generations cannot afford it. I think I know the Civil Service well enough to realise that there is a potential get-out clause or caveat where, while explaining in its response to the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee

“that a canopy cover target of 16.5% is the most ambitious that can currently be set whilst still being realistically achievable”—

I think it is achievable but it will require leadership and resource—Defra says this:

“The first review of environmental targets will be an opportunity to consider whether the level can be realistically increased”.


Can the Minister give some comfort to colleagues here by saying that, if one can be found, there could be a cross-party way for us to work dextrously and quickly to increase that target significantly to 17.5%, perhaps more, after we decide on this instrument today? Can we work together to see whether the parties can come to a solution on this?

[Lord Roborough (Con)]

I thank my noble friend for the targets that he has outlined today. Before I go on, I should apologise in advance; this is one of my first times standing up so I am sure I will make many errors. I declare my interests in developing new forestry plantations and managing forestry, as well as in carbon offsets, so I have a little experience in this area.

In some ways, I want to echo what has come before me but with a different emphasis. I want the Government to continue to work on these targets by addressing the practicalities of what it takes to plant a new forest. Look at our neighbours in Europe. France has 31% woodland cover. Germany has 33%. They are at a similar stage of economic development to us and have similar climates. The UK’s figure should be much higher, but there are many barriers to getting it higher that need to be addressed. I am not convinced about setting targets; I think that the work needs to be on removing the obstacles to developing new forestry—everything from the invasive grey squirrel, which attacks many of our native broadleafs in an early stage of their development, to the cumbersome and restrictive planning process that places undue weight on perhaps poor quality archaeology as an obstacle to planting new ground. We must also develop carrots for the industry and landowners by encouraging more green finance involvement in developing new forests.

Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I think that we need to work on the basis of some of the recommendations from the Rock review on how landlords and tenants can engage constructively on freeing up more land for planting forestry.

I want to speak up in favour of conifers. One of the tests for developing new forestry plantation is the economic or agricultural impact assessment, which looks at the employment opportunities. If we take land that currently supports low-intensity agricultural practices and put it into forestry, we need to be sure that we are not costing jobs or the economy. Conifers play a critical role in construction in this country. We currently import most of our construction timber, and it is essential that we plant plenty of conifers.

In summary, I would like the Government to continue working on how we can plant more acres and hectares than the current targets incorporate.

[Baroness Parminter (LD)]

It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, with his expertise in this field, and other campaigners with significant expertise. It adds to the calibre of the debate. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Young, I think that this is the SI where I have most concern about the paucity of the targets. I also found it very interesting just how much support there was for increasing the level of ambition, yet the Government have gone down from what they originally proposed.

17:15

The noble Baroness asked what has changed since the Government originally had their consultation and felt that 17.5% was achievable. The Minister keeps saying that they would not have set targets that were not achievable; they would not have set that as the consultation baseline if that was not the case. Yet during the consultation, it went down to 16.5%. She makes a good point, and I hope that he can today say why exactly they felt that they could no longer achieve a target which had seemed perfectly reasonable at the beginning of the consultation. If we as parliamentarians cannot understand that, the Government cannot really go forward in thinking about possible solutions. The noble Baroness mentioned ELMS. It may well be that the delay in getting that up and running has been part of it, but it would be good for the Minister to say, “We had a target of 17.5%, but it went down to 16.5% during the consultation”, and give the reason why.

I will not repeat the many questions from the noble Baroness, Lady Young, but she made one point without a question—on the relationship of this with the Climate Change Committee’s figure of 18% by 2050—so I will add a question to it. I appreciate that Scotland has a role in meeting that figure, because it is an all-UK figure but, by bringing it down to 16.5% the Government are not supporting the balanced pathway, which has been introduced by the Climate Change Committee and is related to the targets that the Government have agreed to on our carbon emissions by 2050.

Given that the Government will refresh their net-zero strategy in the next couple of months, what contribution will Defra make in light of the fact that it will not now produce the amount of carbon emissions savings it was hoping to achieve through the target, which was initially hoped to be around 18%, was then 17.5% and has now gone down to 16.5%? What else will it do to meet those carbon savings in the net-zero strategy? Will it upweight waste? It does not sound like that will change much, so what else will Defra produce given that it has brought the targets down so that they are not in line with what the Climate Change Committee has said is the balanced pathway to meet the targets which the Government have now legally agreed to?

[Baroness Twycross (Lab)]

I thank the Minister for his introduction to this statutory instrument and declare an interest as London’s deputy mayor with responsibility for resilience. As it happens, I also used to work for my noble friend Lady Young; where I agree with her, it is because she is right, which she generally was when I worked for her.

It is right that the Government are setting legally binding targets for woodland cover and trees outside woodland. I think we can all agree that increasing woodland and trees is vital to this country’s future in the context of climate change. The commitment in this statutory instrument reflects the duty and acute need for active stewardship of our natural environment for future generations in relation to the duties under the Climate Change Act and the country’s target on net zero.

It is disappointing, as has been a key element of today’s discussion, that the proposed target has been reduced.. As my noble friend Lady Young said, this suggests complacency. In response to the previous SI, the Minister made a point about satisfaction that the targets set can be met. Nobody wants unreachable targets, as they become meaningless if everybody knows that they are unreachable, but we need them to be ambitious and not merely guaranteed to be met and ticked off as achieved.

We on these Benches support the principle of afforestation, for the purposes of both carbon sequestration and social, health and well-being benefits. Last summer, we saw significant harm and excess deaths as a result of the heatwave. Trees can play an important part in reducing the urban heat island effect. I agree with many of the concerns raised in the debate; I note the suggestion around the proposed planning framework and echo my noble friend Lady Young’s point that urban tree planting has considerable benefits, as seen in London. The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, noted the significantly higher levels of woodland and tree coverage in Germany and France. In these circumstances, we should definitely aim our targets a bit higher.

I have a few further points and a number of questions to which it would be useful to have responses from the Minister. The Woodland Trust estimates that

“We need to at least quadruple the current rate of woodland creation and increase the proportion of UK-grown native species to help tackle the effects of climate change and give nature a fighting chance of recovery.”


The key question for me is whether the Minister is confident that the targets the Government are putting in place are sufficient to meet this challenge. I note, as others have, that he has rejected the notion that the target should be 17.5%, which itself was insufficient, and arrived at 16.5% as the higher option was considered unfeasible. This is a considerably lower level of ambition than was first proposed and is lower than that proposed by the consultation responses, as was noted, although the Minister said that it is deliverable. This is a concern. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, that it would be good to understand the reasons and rationale behind this and be reassured that it is not merely because the Minister is confident that the lower target can be met.

My understanding is that the current regulatory regime does not require landowners to plant trees to meet the tree canopy and woodland cover target, but that the target is dependent on substantial landowner behaviour change. How are the Government planning to influence landowners to do this and how will they measure whether this behaviour change is happening? Some more detail on what interim targets will be put in place would be helpful, noting that this is a long-term target towards 2050. How will these targets be monitored effectively? At what point would the Minister consider mandating or incentivising change from landowners, rather than assuming that it will happen?

There is broad agreement that we need to ensure that we increase the cover of native trees, but I note that UK and Irish nurseries cannot currently supply sufficient numbers to meet the targets. What are the Government doing to ensure that UK and Irish nurseries can supply more native trees in future and how will they ensure that we do not overrely on coniferous woodland, to the detriment of nature and climate, in the effort to meet this target?

Clearly, monitoring progress will be key to ensuring that this target succeeds. What safeguards are the Government putting in place to ensure that the data collected allows for ongoing analysis? I appreciate that the Minister described quite a complex process in his introductory remarks, so a little more detail would be helpful.

Before concluding, I am unclear why this comes under the levelling-up agenda—it is obviously the theme of the week—as alluded to in Defra’s impact assessment. It appears to have been suggested simply because a reasonable proportion of the trees might be planted in the north-east. I can assume only that this relates to jobs, but there is information in some of the documents provided indicating that these may not be new jobs; they may just be changed jobs. However, if this relates to jobs, what are the Government doing to ensure that the skills pipeline supports the target, in relation to the skills required in both nurseries and forestry?

I will end on that point, but I am keen to stress that the target included in this statutory instrument cannot be a mere paper target. Through this discussion, we have understood that this is not a particularly ambitious target, so it must have the resources and commitment of this and future Governments to drive it through. I hope that we become more, rather than less, ambitious in future and I seek the Minister’s assurance that the Government truly understand and are committed to increasing woodland and tree cover.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank noble Lords for their valuable contributions to this debate. The Environment Act 2021 grants these Houses the power to make targets that tackle the challenges facing our environment today. This target does exactly that. To achieve the tree and woodland canopy cover target, we will need not just action from the Government, but effort across the country from the private sector, NGOs, and people up and down this country. I know many of us have fond memories of planting trees as a child. I am old enough to remember “Plant a Tree in 73” and being furiously dragged by my father to plant a tree, which died last year because of ash dieback, not because of my lack of skill in looking after it.

We want this target to be relevant to future generations. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, manages rage in a way that I need to channel at times. If her calm demeanour conceals rage, she has incredible self-control.

Let us look back at history. We have doubled woodland cover since 1924, but that is no reason to be complacent. As has been pointed out, it is a fraction of what exists in other countries, in which, I have to say, there are many fewer people. In 1086, when data collection was maybe a little vaguer, it was 15%, so our ambition is to take it to record highs. It is not just the Government saying, “Go there and plant a tree.” We can do that on publicly owned land, and we are in conversations with other departments that own a lot of land. The Government can contribute to this by directly increasing planting on land such as Ministry of Defence training grounds, but we are trying to encourage private sector businesses to plant more trees. That means a combination of incentives, regulations and conditionality on various things, and it is a complex ambition to achieve when you do not have direct control.

The noble Baroness talked about this as if was the only tool in the box. Through environmental land management, the opportunities of green finance, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Roborough, could change quite dramatically in coming years. One of the greatest disincentives for land managers to plant trees is that they receive around £85 an acre from the EU for just farming it. Now with the shift towards environmentally incentivised schemes, some areas of a field will be uneconomic to get a piece of expensive tackle into and in order to use diesel, plough points, sprays, fertilisers and all the other paraphernalia of agricultural production. It is in those areas that we see great potential. We have a specific scheme in riparian planting and in a number of other areas, some of which will not come into these statistics, such as hedgerows—some areas of agroforestry do—and short-rotation coppice, which is a key part of our delivery to hit our carbon budget 6, and I will come on to talk about that in a minute.

I love the Woodland Trust. I think it has an important part to play in delivering these statistics. Apart from anything else, it has lots of money and is able to buy land and plant trees, but what I cannot understand about the Woodland Trust, and I have had this discussion with the noble Baroness before, is its fixation with native species. It is really not a very good long-term resilience policy because, with climate change and the prevalence of tree diseases approaching these shores that I see every day in my job, to be totally obsessed with just a few species of broadleaf trees is incomprehensible.

Therefore, I totally defend our 70/30 target—that is, 70% broadleaf and 30% species such as those that lock up carbon. For example, more carbon is retained by a softwood tree rather than being burned into the atmosphere, so it is better for that carbon to continue to remain in structures, such as roof beams, and other areas of our economy. We need ever more diversity of trees. I am excited by what foresters are doing all around the country, where I see new species. I am intensely proud of some of the trees that I have seen planted on land for which I have had responsibility, and where I have done this for other landowners.

17:30

Many of those species are not native but they have been on these islands for a great many—sometimes hundreds—years. We have not only to plant them but to look after them. It is no good the Government, private landowners or NGOs being able to talk about hectares of trees if we are not looking after them. The greatest threat with respect to biodiversity and carbon is that a lot of the trees planted—particularly broadleaf trees—will not grow to maturity because they will be destroyed by squirrels or disease.

We need to tackle that and get everybody from the NGO world—even those who have an absolute horror of killing anything—to understand that species such as squirrels are destroying biodiversity, trees and trees’ ability to sequester carbon, as well as diminishing our landscape. If there is a bit of verve in what I say, it is because a 44-acre plantation that my father planted has about 4,000 oaks in it, not one of which will grow to maturity because of the effect of grey squirrels. The only thing you can see growing up there is the nurse crop of Scots pine.

This is why I am determined—as are other Ministers—to take this forward. We need everyone’s support, particularly those who have good connections with those who might be wary about such thing as the contraceptive that we are producing or, in future, a gene driver that might limit the ability of the grey squirrel to rampage across our countryside and get rid of our native red squirrel, which we want to see thrive.

I have a lot of admiration for the Forestry Commission. It is well led and has a crucial role to play in relation to the ambitions of this Government, whether in achieving our net-zero targets, complying with the Climate Change Act, supporting biodiversity or the health and well-being agenda, of which trees are an absolutely fundamental part. We ask it to face in every direction; I make no apology for doing that. We want it to encourage more public access and help the forestry industry with greater understanding of what it needs to make its woodlands thrive. What is happening at Alice Holt and the new laboratory that I opened there some time ago is absolutely at the forefront of science. Of course, there is also the importance of timber production and security, reducing the carbon footprint that comes with moving timber all over the world. If we can grow more of it here, we will be helping future generations.

I agree entirely with the noble Baroness about the Rock review. We want to make sure that, in our incentives to farmers to plant more trees, we do not forget that about half of farmers are tenants. They need to be able to take part in this and work with their landlords to make sure that happens. We are looking at the report very carefully.

I have said in other fora that I used to be very opposed to the land use framework. I thought that it was an entirely wrong thing for the Government to do—I thought that it was Soviet, like with 10-year tractor plans—but I have been totally converted for reasons that have never been more apparent to me than now. When we are trying to produce food in a hungry world, reverse declines in nature and get to net zero, and when we have a growing population and growing demands on our economy, there has never been a more important time for government to work with industry, with farming, with people who mind about conservation and with other bodies to try to make sure that we are getting this right and giving the right incentives.

Leading on from your Lordships’ excellent committee report, the Government have said that we will take this forward this year, but we do not need to wait for that; we already have clear policies on, for example, the connection that woodlands can provide from one nature-rich area to another. Sir John Lawton’s Making Space for Nature report, which said that we need bigger, better and more joined-up environments, is fundamental to this work and the kinds of incentives that we will give through a variety of different schemes, not least of which is ELMS.

I entirely agree with the noble Baroness about urban trees. We have provided some money—I think £4.4 million—for trees outside woodland areas, including urban trees. I heard the other day of some bone-headed council that had said that it wanted street trees that impeded street lights to be cut down. That sort of thing makes me want to put my head in my hands. Trees in urban areas are vital for taking heat out of the environment, as the noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, said, and they enhance our sense of place and pride. We want to see more urban trees. What happened in Sheffield has stuck in the collective memory. In fairness to Sheffield, it is now going berserk on planting urban trees—all credit to it for that—and we want to see more of that.

The noble Baroness asked whether our target is somehow timid in terms of what we want to achieve and in preventing the OEP saying, “You haven’t achieved it”. I refute that; the OEP’s comments on many of our targets have been complimentary. I think we can exceed this target, but at this moment, with all the interactions we have with the people we want to plant those trees, this is the target we know we can achieve. It is a record high for woodland cover in this country, but it is not the sum total of our ambition, and the target will be reviewed in 2028. It is not a question of marginally missing something; it is about doing more. We want to see more agroforestry, and much of that does not fit in with the international definitions of what constitutes woodland or forestry cover.

I will try to address some other points quickly, because I have been talking a lot today. In some cases, the consultation responses suggested that they wanted a more ambitious target, but they want one that is realistic and therefore in line with the legal requirement of the Act. We have to remember that that is a key requirement.

We have decided to take forward a target of 16.5% of England. This will deliver an increase in tree cover of around 250,000 hectares, equivalent to the size of Cheshire. That sounds not timid or modest but quite ambitious as a starting point. It is a very stretching target which will be challenging to achieve, but it is a key part of our net-zero strategy and of delivering our manifesto commitment to plant 75,000 acres of trees across the UK. We will review the level of ambition in future, in close consultation with all stakeholders.

The Government are not currently tracking their tree planting manifesto commitment. There have been challenges in the past few years, not least the pandemic, which saw an entire planting season missed, but we are making good progress. Since October 2019, we have planted an estimated 11.5 million trees. I said “we”; I made that classic mistake that politicians and people in government make. We have seen 11.5 million trees planted, to the credit of those who planted them, not just to the Government who incentivised them. I have addressed the point about conifers as a percentage.

[Lord Watson of Wyre Forest (Lab)]

I feel grateful to the Minister for giving me one last roll of the dice. Could I make my offer to him again? I am absolutely convinced that he is across this, but I am prepared to do everything I can in my party to join his nascent squirrel execution pledge. If we could work together afterwards, we are likely to agree this or would at least restate or work towards the case for 17.5% politically, in what I think could be an agreement across the main parties’ manifestos for the next period. There may be at least an opportunity to review those targets prior to the 2028 review, as currently addressed in this set of arrangements.

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I thank the noble Lord for that helpful and honest appraisal about where we want to get to. I want the highest possible ambition. We are setting targets that we think we can achieve within the current framework. Farming is going through a massive transition. I have spoken about the need for a land-use framework for the future and, as the next few crucial years go by, the kinds of incentives and encouragement will become more apparent, as will our success or otherwise. The private sector green finance that my noble friend Lord Roborough was talking about is already seeing tree planting, to the criticism of some people. This could be hugely effective in exceeding our target. I am certainly happy to work cross-party to achieve that.

The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, asked me a number of questions, not least about nursery capacity, importantly. We have launched the nature for climate fund, which is spending £750 million on trees and peat-land restoration over this Parliament. It has seen progress on not just tree planting but building long-term capacity within the sector. We will commit around £28 million of this fund to projects to support the domestic seed and sapling supply sectors.

Other questions were put by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, who correctly set this within the context of the Government’s net-zero ambitions. They are not just ambitions but comply with the Climate Change Act. The Climate Change Committee is very clear about where we are and how we can get on track with the sixth carbon budget. I can tell her that, as part of the Government’s response, we are looking across the range of Defra’s responsibilities and to recent court cases. We want to make sure that we are not only saying the right thing and that something is deliverable but backing this by real fact.

This makes for difficult choices, because we want our relatively small country to continue to be able to feed itself and for it to be secure that that production is sustainable. We can achieve this. I have seen that from the scale of the farm to now talking about it for the nation. It takes courage to make those decisions and to argue them with sectors that may be very suspicious about what they mean for them and their businesses, so we must do it in the right way.

I take the key point about skills. We are training people to manage a different kind of environment. That might be about producing more energy crops or managing more wilder spaces. In terms of nature and its recovery, it is certainly about having more people working in forestry. That is why I am pleased that the Forestry Commission training scheme is now up and running, and that more foresters are being taken on and trained. Actually, it is not just for the Forestry Commission to do this; it is for local authorities and the private sector, as well.

The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, asked me some questions about the targets, which I hope I have answered. So far, the Government have trebled planting rates to 7,000 hectares a year. This is the first step to hitting the target. I have talked about nursery capacity. Our £270 million farming innovation programme is seeing money going into a variety of different things, including skills and improving the market for timber products. This is very different from growing a crop of wheat, where you can have a discussion with your bank manager because you know you are producing something that may vary by 15% up or down every year, depending on the weather. You need to take a much longer-term view with trees, but there is business to be had in forestry and we want to make sure it is successful. We can really enhance our forestry targets if people realise that there is a future in it.

These targets, as part of the suite of Environment Act targets, will drive action to deliver our commitment to leave the environment in a better state than we found it. I commend these draft regulations to the Committee.

Motion agreed.

Committee adjourned at 5.45 pm.