Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
High Streets (Built Environment Committee Report)
(2 days, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gascoigne
That this House takes note of the Report from the Built Environment Committee High Streets: Life Beyond Retail? (HL Paper 42).
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure for me, as the new chairman of the Built Environment Committee, to open this debate on the importance of the high street. In doing so, I put on record my own thanks to the then members of the committee—including my predecessor, my noble friend Lord Moylan, who chaired this inquiry. I also thank the team of officials who helped the committee, our witnesses and those who submitted evidence. Thanks must also go to the Government for securing time for this debate.
Emperor Napoleon famously said that we were “a nation of shopkeepers”. By the time he said that, high streets were already well and truly established. Although it was meant as a derogatory slight, it spoke to some truth about our nation at the time and, to some extent, to this day. Over the centuries, high streets have remained a constant, where communities have come together to shop, to socialise and to work. They provide vital economic infrastructure and a space for people to meet and trade, to see and be seen. Yet they have of course evolved over time, reflecting changes in trade, retail, technology and society.
However, in recent years, high streets have faced extraordinary challenges. In 2023 alone, more than 10,000 high street shops closed across the UK. People up and down the country have felt the loss of their local clothes shops, pharmacies, pubs and banks. Although retail will remain a feature of the modern high street, there is now greater demand and, indeed, opportunity for restaurants and leisure activities—as well as for more public services, such as health centres and libraries—in town centres.
What communities want and what can be sustained on the high street is constantly changing, so the committee suggested that a “fixed vision” and a “monolithic approach” to their future should be avoided. Local authorities, communities and businesses need to work together to shape high streets that reflect local conditions and are adaptable and resilient. It is crucial that local businesses are involved and empowered to play a part in the regeneration of a high street, and that residents are involved in the decision-making.
High streets will thrive only if people can get to them easily and safely. Traditional high streets are in competition with the convenience of parking arrangements in out-of-town developments, so access by car and sufficient parking are necessary for commercial sustainability and accessibility, combined with better public transport connectivity, particularly through improved bus networks.
As retail occupancy declines and leaves behind vacant units, cafés and restaurants have taken their place. The committee noted that, due to
“wider economic circumstances, consumer preferences and the rent levels landlords seek to remain financially viable may result in the dominance of certain business types”.
For example, there has been a rise in the number of charity shops, which benefit from substantial business rates relief and often have lower staffing costs, making them better able to afford high street rents. Fast food businesses were also cited as being better able to afford tenancies.
Public authorities are also tentatively moving public-facing services, such as surgeries and libraries, on to high streets. This can both improve access to those civic functions and increase footfall to sustain local businesses. The committee found that, in needing to appeal to all sections of society and ages, people should feel safe through better light, clear sightlines and mixed use of properties; that more green space and an “improved public realm”, while not able to withstand the tide of change, have a role to play; and that there needs to be better access to toilets, especially for older people and those with young children. The committee also noted the importance of recognising and celebrating the local history of an area to encourage pride.
The planning system, taxation and funding can all impact the success or failure of projects to revive local places. The Government’s local growth funding reforms must ensure that high streets are enabled to flourish in the long term, and that those responsible for their future have enough expertise to deliver improvements. The Government should recognise that local authority bidding for central funding has become expensive and wasteful and should consider replacing that approach with a transparent system of funding distribution that commands greater confidence.
There are too many recommendations to mention them all today—many of them seem common sense and, to me at least, easy to implement—but there is one final thing I wish to say. The committee received a response from the Government at the start of the year. While we appreciate their response and stated commitment to high streets, ultimately we felt disappointed that the response did not adequately address all our points. We respectfully urge the Government to look again at our report and do their utmost to enable local authorities and other stakeholders to ensure that the nation’s high streets survive and thrive for the next generation.
As a relatively new chair, as I have said, you inherit the sterling work of others and so you are able to come to past work completely afresh. When I was informed that I would have to lead this debate, I was a little nervous as to what the report said—that I would perhaps have to try valiantly to look for something upbeat and positive to say, hold back my personal views and speak through gritted teeth. But I can say, hand on heart, that I found this report refreshing. It is neither stale nor desperate to cling to some nostalgic world long gone by. It is brutal in its analysis and thorough, but also realistic about the prognosis and how high streets can flourish.
High streets continue to hold a special place in the nation’s hearts and will continue to do so in years to come. Across the country, members of the committee heard about local communities, businesses and authorities working together to respond to societal change and build thriving town centres. With the right support and empowerment, there is no reason why high streets cannot continue to be the centre of communities in future. I personally and sincerely hope that councils, the Government, local businesses and communities genuinely see this as an opportunity not just for debate but for change and local growth. I look forward to listening to all noble Lords’ contributions. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, I am pleased that we have an opportunity to debate last year’s report on the future of high streets from the Built Environment Committee, chaired with such brio by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. It was a very interesting and thoughtful process. We have an opportunity today to consider the Government’s largely positive response. I warn the Minister that I will ask him some detailed questions, although I do not necessarily expect a detailed reply. I am sure that officials will be able to write if necessary.
Most importantly, the Government’s response reflects their sense that the state and prospects of the high street reflect the wider state of the economy and the public realm, and therefore play a critical part in driving, as well as reflecting, national and local growth and renewal. They are part of the national mission. That is very reassuring. I was hopeful for a positive response for the reasons that my noble friend—as he is at the moment as the current chair of the committee—mentioned. Our conclusions are so well evidenced and practical, there should be nothing in this report that is in the “too difficult to implement” box.
The report’s title, Life Beyond Retail?, says it all, in contradiction to the mantra that there is no future for the high street because so much has changed and cannot now be restored. That is primarily in retail, but there are other changes as well. In this context, which is heavy with gloom and doom, we insist that there can be a bright future for the high street, which has evolved over thousands of years to meet changing needs and fashions, but it will take leadership, investment, imagination and innovation.
The Committee will hear a lot in my speech about Lewes, where I have lived for donkey’s years, because it is an exemplar of what is happening, both the worst and the best. Our high street has seen so much change, not to say drama, in its history, which dates back to the Anglo-Saxons. We still have shops with medieval foundations; they were trading in textiles when the Norman castle was being built a millennium ago. We have a 14th-century bookshop. Church, state and law are all physical in our high street. Opposite the county court, in all its magisterial splendour, is the hotel where Tom Paine preached revolution and where people continue to do so—it is that sort of town.
In short, the high street was a stage upon which all dramas played out. It was a marketplace for the community for centuries, but also the place where people met to learn, worship, celebrate, be judged or be improved, both young and old. Much of that community spirit has been retained, but we have lost small supermarkets, butchers, ironmongers, bookshops, post offices and banks. They have largely been replaced, as we have heard, by cafés, charity shops, estate agents, computer shops, hairdressers and nail bars. None of that is unique to Lewes, but it exemplifies in different ways what is happening across the country at different speeds. While the report makes clear that there is no single prescription for a monolithic high street, there would never have been and will never be one.
There are universal explanations for the changes we have seen. The noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, has already touched on retail. My figures show that between March 2020 and March 2022, 9,300 retail units were closed. PwC found that in the first half of 2024 there was a net loss of 2,284. Often, it is the large department stores and chain stores that go first and are most vulnerable. That has been driven by a combination of factors, such as online shopping, which was furiously accelerated by Covid, unaffordable business rates, poor public transport and parking, a run-down and often sordid public realm with few places where people can socialise without paying for it, neglected green spaces, empty churches and a general air of neglect and alienation. It is not a universal condition, but these are universal challenges, and we discuss them all in the report.
This is not a party-political issue. It is a social and economic challenge. The previous Government threw up a host of complex programmes for the medium and short term, which were warmly greeted, but, as the NAO and various reports said, they did not seem to understand what had worked on the high street and the impact of complex funding arrangements. We heard all about that from our witnesses, who said that they have a new funding application to consider every day, and that in the context of a rundown of public capacity.
Our report recognised that the previous Government had made an attempt to plan for the longer term, but in the short term we said that a clear strategy is needed, based on clear leadership, greater local capacity to develop the high street and town centre and ways of involving the community—for example, town centre managers with training and expertise charged with co-ordinating and driving development and more inclusive and engaged partnership for business improvement districts. The report illustrates what we mean by reference to places such as Frome in Somerset. It also needs long-term, sustained investment. The Budget this year confirmed the 75 neighbourhood partnerships and a revised prospectus. Will the Minister say when we can expect the revised prospectus? Why and how will it be different?
We focus on some specific issues, including housing, transport and community engagement. We have had the repurposing of empty department stores or offices for affordable housing under permitted development relaxation, but we have also seen a failure of quality and design and a missed opportunity. We recommended, for example, a review of the use of class E properties. Will this happen? When will we see a review of permitted development rights? We are told that they are in train. What do the Government think they can achieve in terms of good transport and good parking, which they say has a local role? What will be the impact of local government reorganisation on capacity?
One of the core questions is how we support business in the high street. The chain stores are unlikely to come back. The future will lie with those small, necessary, ingenious businesses that we all love and cherish, such as excellent bakers, plant shops or exciting children’s bookshops. These are the reasons people come to the high street. The Government say they will publish their small business strategy. When will it be published? Will it specifically address the issue of the high street? Will the Government maintain the priority given to the town centre-first retail policy within the NPPF? Will they, when they review business rates, have particular regard to the need to consider and simplify the range of business rates relief schemes to support the high street?
We found reasons to be cheerful. We found innovation, leadership and good practice, which can turn terminal decay, if not decline, into a new proposition. The report is full of examples of innovation, such as teenage markets and regeneration through the heritage action zones. Whether it is churches that have lost their congregations or cinemas that have closed, historic buildings are invaluable assets for their social and collective possibility. The ability to buy those to turn them into local markets, child centres, workshops and climate hubs can really engage people in reimagining what the high street could look like.
We were told by young people, businesspeople and local leaders alike to give the community more power to design the future they want. They want to be involved in this new vision for their high street. The Government have said that they intend
“to commence a package of plan-making reforms … to improve the quality of community engagement”.
Where have we got to on that? The Government say they will invest in initiatives to boost town and city centres, including high street accelerators. I do not really know what that means. I would be grateful for a further explanation.
One of the most positive and popular developments is to reimagine the high street as the place where things can get done and not just bought. The opportunities are there to put in place some of those public services which have disappeared from view because they are increasingly online, and the people who lose out are the people who are in greatest need—the poor, the elderly, the young—who want to talk to somebody, who want advice face to face.
For example, my high street now has a brilliant local authority outlet where complicated questions about a new garden waste bin—I will not bore the Committee with the details—can be sorted in five minutes rather than five hours online. The possibilities are endless: housing offices; walk-in surgeries for routine vaccinations and diagnostic tests; toy libraries for young mums with small babies and giant buggies; repair cafés for the things that have to be thrown away because there is nobody to repair them; empty shop windows where the local university can show some of the work it is doing; empty shops that can be converted into pop-up galleries for FE art students to display their work—the ideas are endless and excellent and they are there, in the community, waiting to be put into place with imagination. They are about experience and quality, not retail.
Our report creates an imaginative future for the high street. I really hope that the Government will take it and do something with its recommendations as part of their wider set of policy proposals.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer (LD)
My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, with her knowledge and expertise. I think she put it in a nutshell when she described a high street where things can get done as opposed to just bought. My thanks go to our new chair, the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for so ably introducing this debate, and to our previous chair, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for guiding us through what could have been a very complicated issue and arriving at a pretty succinct report.
We had a lot of discussion about why a high street is important and who should be responsible for its revival. Of course, we found that there is no one blueprint but our report highlights the factors important to success. It is clear from the evidence we received that a proactive local authority is very important, especially in pump-priming, but the role of the wider community after that is critical—businesses big and small and community organisations are all crucial.
We heard from Frome in Somerset. Its town council began that pump-priming process by hiring a town centre manager and engaging with a local entrepreneur. It has a multi-pronged approach to reviving and maintaining the health of its high street, which has been incredibly successful. Especially compelling was its use of markets to increase footfall and provide opportunities for smaller independent retailers, and it recognised the role that culture plays.
Moving from the positive to the negative, I want to highlight the shocking evidence—I was certainly shocked—that we received from the Royal Society for Public Health. It found that one-fifth of the general public do not go out as often as they would like due to their concern about the lack of public toilets. We can guess which fifth that is: the elderly and those with small children, the very groups who may already suffer from isolation and loneliness. They are not going out as often as they would like just for fear of being caught short. For the elderly, this is inevitably an increasing concern and it is a very important concern, too, for parents with children out of nappies but still young. Of course, urinating in public is an offence and one that authorities sometimes have to invoke to deal with public nuisance caused by alcohol consumption followed by wanton urination, but that is a completely different issue. As our report says:
“Public toilets make it possible for everyone to use the local high street with confidence and comfort”.
Local authorities need to be proactive in finding ways to provide such an essential facility. It is one of the most basic health and dignity issues, but there has been a shocking decline in provision of public toilets.
Accessibility was also found to be lacking, by and large. I will not spend a lot of time on transport and car parking, but that was an important issue, as was access for wheelchairs and those using walking frames, for example. I have recently begun to notice how incredibly important this is, since my husband had a stroke. You notice how there are so few dropped pavements, for example, which would make life so much easier.
The timing of the Government’s response was quite difficult because there was an election between publication of our report and the response. Perhaps one of the most disappointing parts of this Government’s response was on parish and town councils. As the local authorities most involved in their community, they are ideally placed to be the most proactive in high street revival, but the Government’s response to our suggestion that they should be able to bid directly for funds was only that they
“will continue to look at”
it. I hope the Minister will be able to say a bit more today and that we will be able to debate this further in the forthcoming devolution Bill.
One of the most compelling sections of our report is that which concerns public service delivery, which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, touched on. We heard that the public are very keen to have NHS services located on or relocated to the high street, not least because the transport links may well be better and because it increases footfall for businesses. We heard evidence from Councillor Vikki Slade, who was the council leader in Poole and is now MP for Mid Dorset and North Poole. She explained how the public services they had introduced to ex-retail space—an NHS out-patient centre, a library and some charity space—had “completely reinvigorated the town”. Of course, the big traditional department stores have closed and the challenge facing many high streets is what to do with that space. We heard from Barnsley, whose local authority had to be pretty dogged, frankly—given its setbacks—to arrive at its Glass Works redevelopment project, which includes open space, an NHS diagnostics centre, a market and much more.
Success stories are out there, from small towns to small cities, but sometimes that has been despite the propensity of central government to change funding models so often. The previous Government had a very time-consuming and wasteful bidding process. One of our main recommendations, in paragraphs 173 and 174, is that there is still a role for an appropriate bidding process, but it must be highly simplified and possibly involve a two-stage system with a simple initial bid that would be developed if successful. The Government acknowledged this in their response and mentioned the reform to the long-term plan for towns. Can the Minister tell us any more about that today?
Another issue we heard a lot about was green space. Our evidence underlined the value of having space in which to socialise and spend time without having to spend money—a point emphasised to us by the young people we engaged with. I thank those involved in the House of Lords engagement programme, who produced some very lively groups of young people. We heard that it is not just about prettifying with hanging baskets; it is about usable space.
There is plenty of evidence, too, about the benefit of green space and nature to mental health and physical well-being. Here, I have to praise Lambeth Council, which, in the 20 years that I have had a flat in the borough, has transformed many of its green spaces, including with things such as outdoor gyms. It is fantastic. This does not seem to be controversial until developers realise that green spaces are a cost to them and local authorities could see them as a cost, as they produce no rates or council tax. There is no national statutory green space standard, but it is reasonable to hope that the Planning and Infrastructure Bill might have a genuine element of seeing green space as critical to good development.
Things to appreciate in the Government’s response include high street rental auctions and community right to buy. The Government correctly said in their response:
“High streets matter … because they reflect the wider state of the economy and the public realm”.
That is very true. Valuing the public realm is, to me, the essence of what we should be looking for and enabling in a high street. The private realm has been good at looking after its own and I hope this report makes a contribution to rebalancing that trend.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, it was a privilege to be a member of the Built Environment Committee under the expert chairmanship of the previous chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. Our inquiry on high streets received more than 60 submissions of evidence from many organisations and individuals. I thank our excellent clerk Kate Wallis and her team, our specialist adviser Dr Lucy Montague and our impressive witnesses. I also congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, on his introductory speech for this debate.
I welcome the broadly positive response of the Government to our report. There can be no doubt that high streets have encountered numerous challenges in recent years. There are at least two principal reasons: first, the falling consumer demand for retail shopping and an increase in online shopping; and, secondly, the presence of out-of-town retail parks and shopping centres. In many towns, these have led to shop closures, declining footfall and a general loss of appeal of the high street.
Our committee recognised that local high streets should be at the heart of communities. We set out to elucidate answers to three key questions. What makes a resilient and thriving high street? Who needs to be involved in making it a success? What is the role of government working with local communities in both policy and funding? I will briefly address some aspects relating to these three key questions.
First, what makes a resilient and thriving high street? Our committee found from oral and written evidence that there is no magic formula. Each high street faces different challenges. It was clear that what people want from their high street has constantly evolved and will continue to do so. This means that conforming to a fixed vision should be avoided. There is a need for adaptability and diversity. However, some common themes emerged. Ideally, communities want a mix of retail and services, green spaces and ready accessibility in terms of safe and easy access—the latter meaning good public transport connectivity, nearby parking for car access and careful design of pedestrianisation. Our inquiry emphasised the importance of celebrating the local history and character of a place, conserving and repurposing historic buildings wherever possible. Celebrating the character and heritage of the high street has a highly beneficial effect, encouraging a greater sense of pride in place, and it potentially draws more people in, increasing footfall.
Linked to celebration of local history is the existence of markets. Many markets to this day still operate under historic charters or local laws. We received evidence that around 80% of markets are owned and operated by local authorities. They enhance the vitality of a local high street, increase footfall and can act as catalysts for new businesses. We strongly recommend that local authorities and other market operators should continue to support market traders.
A thriving high street also needs attractive, well-designed and sustainable public space, notably including green areas. We heard about the value of people having space to socialise and spend time—without necessarily spending money—on the high street. Our committee undertook an engagement event with students from Lancaster and Shrewsbury; they told us that they want to see more and safer green spaces, giving them space to hang out and socialise. Ensuring that there are clean and well-maintained places for young people to socialise can contribute to the high street being used by a larger proportion of the community. This, in turn, can improve footfall and hence sustain local businesses and public services.
Secondly, who needs to be involved in making a successful high street? Ideally, landlords, business owners, local community members and local authorities all need to be involved. A sense of community, local pride and belonging—in other words, pride in place—is widely recognised as a vital ingredient for a thriving high street.
A Private Member’s Bill, the High Streets (Designation, Review and Improvement Plan) Bill, introduced by Jack Brereton in the House of Commons and sponsored by the noble Lord, Lord Whitby, in this House, received its Second Reading in this House in May 2024. Unfortunately, the Bill, which had cross-party support, did not progress in time before Parliament was dissolved for the general election in July 2024. It would have required all local authorities in England to designate at least one street, or a network of streets if appropriate, as a high street in their area.
Once in place, improvement plans would need to be reviewed at least once every five years. Consultation would have played a key role in the development of improvement plans. Local authorities would have been required to consult on the designation of high streets, as well as on the plans themselves. Ensuring community buy-in and support for a designated improvement plan for high streets was a particularly welcome feature of that Private Member’s Bill. Will the Minister support this principle and will the Government consider introducing a similar Bill?
Local planning policy is clearly a key determinant in the future of successful and thriving high streets. The previous Government amalgamated a number of use classes within the planning system into a single use class E to increase flexibility in building usage and revitalise city centres. It allows change in use across existing commercial, business and service buildings, without the need for planning permission. For example, a retail shop could be converted into a café, or an office into flats. Our committee noted that the introduction of use class E in the planning system has made high streets more adaptable.
However, too many retail premises converted into flats could have a damaging effect on the success of a thriving high street. If most of the shops were converted into flats, the character and vitality of a high street would change radically. We therefore recommended that the Government should undertake a review of the policy of expansion of permitted development rights to convert use class E properties into homes; there is a need to examine the impact that this is having on high streets relative to the number and quality of new homes delivered.
In response, the Government stated that it was important to achieve a balance—a balance between business owners and landlords adapting buildings and the ability of local authorities to implement improvement strategies for high streets. Consequently, the Government are not currently intending to review the policy regarding use class E properties, but are keeping this position under review. The noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, referred to this. Can the Minister confirm that this is still the Government’s position? Does he agree that the use class E policy potentially risks damaging the vitality of high streets?
Thirdly and finally, what role should government have in funding high street improvements? Our committee received evidence that there is a wide range of different government programmes providing funding to local authorities for high street regeneration, but the wide range is confusing and lacks policy clarity. Moreover, the bidding system for awarding funding has historically been inefficient and costly for local authorities applying for funding. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, this is time-consuming and a strain on already limited resources for local authorities. Our committee therefore recommended that any future programmes created as part of the local growth funding reforms should have a highly simplified bidding process.
We also recommended that the Government consider implementing a two-stage bidding process, with a simplified, cursory first stage. This would ensure wider participation by local authorities in bidding for funds for much-needed and vital improvements to their high streets. Can the Minister give an assurance that a simplified bidding system will soon be available? This would greatly assist local authorities in the often much-needed regeneration of their high streets.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for securing this debate, for taking over as chair of the Built Environment Committee and for his excellent opening speech. I declare my interest as a vice-president of the LGA.
I saw the impact of a can-do council appointing a town centre development officer when I became archdeacon of Stoke some 30 years ago. He would not take no for an answer. When you saw him coming, you got out your tin hat and tried to hide, because he was absolutely determined to develop what became the cultural centre of Hanley. It was an extraordinary transformation. I left some 25 years ago, and I am sure that they need to continue to develop for whatever is required now, but I saw just what the impact of that kind of appointment could be. It was an impressive piece of work.
This report is timely and educational. It is so easy when talking about the decline of the high street to hark back to some golden past, because that is probably what we all remember from years ago. But we must not expect a prosperous high street in 20 years’ time to look the same as it did 20 years ago, and we must not try to revive some version of the high street as we used to know it. The day of the retail-dominated high street, as this report demonstrates, is at least partially over, with reportedly more than 13,000 high street stores having closed in 2024. We need to be creative, innovative and imaginative in our approach to the high streets of the future, as we pivot towards a greater mix of leisure activities, restaurants and public services in our high street offer.
It is not only retail stores that have been closing in vast numbers; we have seen a cutting back of essential services, such as local bank branches and post offices. I recently spoke in a debate on the impact of the closure of high street banking services on SMEs, and the disproportionate impact that this has on the ability to open new businesses in small towns and villages. Can the Minister provide assurances that this is an issue that His Majesty’s Government are seeking to address in the forthcoming small business strategy? I am sure he is aware that some SMEs have been having a particularly difficult time of late, and I know he understands the vital role they have to play in creating strong, vibrant local communities.
I note also that in His Majesty’s Government’s response to the report, they stated that
“a fuller policy response was in development”,
and that they would have more to say on their plans to rejuvenate high streets soon. I hope that this debate can inform and shape that process, as I know there is a great deal of wisdom and expertise here in the Room today.
I will briefly make three points about the challenges of rejuvenating high streets and town centres. First, this is often a crisis that hits rural communities particularly hard, including smaller towns and high streets that may have just a few premises. I made this point in the debate in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on small businesses a few weeks ago, and I believe it is pertinent here too. The Government’s response to the report highlighted how the plan for change will support
“the future success of our high streets … from growing the economy to safer streets”,
as well as by devolving power away from Westminster and back into the hands of local communities through the English devolution White Paper.
However, as I have pointed out on a number of occasions, none of these policy papers or pieces of legislation has come forward with any obvious rural-proofing or evidence that the specific challenges and circumstances facing rural communities have been considered. From the National Planning Policy Framework to concerns raised about the circumstances of devolution, from rural areas subsumed into large unitary authorities to the industrial growth strategy, consideration of the needs of rural communities and businesses is being consistently neglected. This will come at a cost to the Government’s own growth mission.
I have referred in the past to the Pragmatix report commissioned by the Rural Coalition, titled Reigniting Rural Futures. It lays out an economic analysis showing the comparative underperformance of the UK’s rural economy and urban areas, compared with their European counterparts, and that the UK’s rural economy has the potential, with the proper policy framework and investment in place, to contribute a further £19 billion in tax receipts to the Exchequer.
Secondly, I want to comment briefly on the need for us to be imaginative about how we develop town centres. Here I am thinking about something that is close to my own heart: how we can maximise and use our historic buildings—among them, parish churches. Ever since I have been a bishop, I have been on a mission to try to get every one of our parish churches unlocked every day. This is not always easy. In some town centres, it is particularly difficult—you may have groups of young people who are up to mischief—but, generally, we can achieve it. Interestingly enough, Ecclesiastical Insurance, which insures most of our church buildings, prefers open churches in principle because, if a church is locked, it says that there is something valuable to pinch. We need to get people into the buildings; the more they are used, the better.
In the long term, the best solution for all our historic listed buildings is to find good everyday use. There are lots of places where churches have not only managed to open their premises but had a win-win solution, where, perhaps, some sort of glass screen has been put up in a side aisle built on in the Victorian era. I think of, for example, All Saints in Hereford and St Michael’s in Bath, which developed much-needed facilities so that they could have a small café in the back while retaining the church as a place of worship. But to do that, we need a can-do attitude from our conservation officers. Sometimes, we also need helpful pump-priming, because the issues of access and disability are often far more difficult in these ancient buildings. I believe that, if we can only find a way to work together, we can find solutions that will enhance the experience of coming to our high streets.
My third and final point is about betting shops. Some noble Lords will know that I was the person who managed to get this House’s Select Committee on the social and economic costs of gambling, and that I am proud to be a vice-president of Peers for Gambling Reform. Our town centres are full of betting premises. It almost feels as though, every time a post office or WH Smith closes, what pops up is a betting shop; we can debate whether to call them shops as it could be argued that the only product they sell is, of course, debt. Many residents and councils are fed up with them, and the evidence shows that many of these shops are concentrated in our most deprived communities. The honourable Member for Brent East in the other place, Dawn Butler, recently raised the fact that there are more gambling premises in her constituency than there are supermarkets and schools. That is surely an extraordinary state of affairs; I find it hard to believe that such a vast number of gambling premises is in anyone’s vision of an attractive high street.
I remember being interviewed on the radio when there was some threat over the closure of betting shops. I was sitting in a mobile studio outside my house. They were trying to find people; it was in Rochdale, I think. I was surprised that everybody interviewed was against having these betting shops. Afterwards, I said to the editor of the programme, “You’re going to get criticised because you weren’t being unbiased”. He said, “We couldn’t find anybody who wanted to speak for them. We’ve tried. We keep asking people to help us with it”.
The crux of this issue is the aim in the Gambling Act 2005 to permit provision, which places a legal duty on councils to aim to permit gambling. Brent Council, along with 40 other councils, is leading a campaign to reform the 2005 Act so that we can protect our high streets from being swamped by these betting shops. If the Government are serious about devolving power to local government, councils must be empowered to act on this issue.
I would be grateful if the Minister could pass on my comments to his colleagues in the DCMS and the DHSC —arguably, this issue cuts across the MHCLG too. If we are serious about growth and regenerating our high streets, we need to tackle the unprecedented surge in gambling premises, which take money out of those local communities and send it elsewhere. The evidence is that, if you decrease the number of premises, more money will be spent locally. We need to address this issue.
Viscount Hanworth (Lab)
My Lords, I too served on the committee while this report was being compiled. I also commend our chairman and our secretariat.
The report testifies to the decline of Britain’s high streets. They have been suffering from the current economic troubles of the nation, which tend to be described as a cost of living crisis, but there are other enduring factors that have contributed to their decline. Among the recent difficulties affecting high streets have been the impact of the Covid pandemic and the rising proportion of online shopping. A less immediate problem has been the development of large shopping centres that have attracted customers away from high streets. This phenomenon has been seen in neighbouring countries, such as France, where large so-called hypermarkets have been built in out-of-town locations. It seems that the detriment of such developments has now been recognised in the UK and that measures are being taken to restrain them.
However, there are other pathologies that have had an enduring effect in the UK. Not the least of these is what might be described as the financialisation of the commercial property market. This process accelerated rapidly in the 1980s and 1990s. The result has been that the ownership of commercial properties is now preponderantly in the hands of financial institutions. These include real estate investment trusts, property companies large and small, pension funds, banks, foreign sovereign wealth funds and many other remote owners.
The assets within the commercial property market are conventionally classified as prime assets and subprime assets. The former include large office buildings and department stores and the latter comprise the majority of the buildings to be found on Britain’s high streets. The salient fact is that the majority of the properties in both categories are not owned by their current occupants. They are owned by parties who are remote from the locations in question and have no day-to-day involvement. The structure of ownership affecting large retail chains and department stores has been revealed in recent years by their financial collapse.
A prime example has been the Arcadia empire of Philip Green, which was created by the leveraged acquisitions of numerous businesses. Existing assets served as collateral for borrowings that were used to finance further acquisitions. In the process, Philip Green accumulated a personal wealth almost unprecedented in Britain. The sources of this wealth were the assets of the businesses that he had acquired. Many of these businesses had owned their own premises. They were sold by Green to the institutional investors of the property market. The consequence was that, when major trading losses arose, the property owners were able to call time on his businesses. There were no resources, other than Green’s personal wealth, available to sustain the businesses during the economic downturn. The truth of the matter was revealed when Green was able to sell British Home Stores for £1, without personal loss to himself, until he was constrained to supplement the pension fund.
The other side of the story concerns much smaller high street businesses that have suffered closure. The committee’s report reveals a startling fact about the landlords and property owners in the high street. A survey of 22 British high streets conducted in 2019 found that only 5.3% of retail and leisure units were owned by their current occupiers. As with much larger businesses, the retailers lacked the capital to sustain the temporary losses occasioned by an economic downturn and the businesses were forced to close.
The properties in question are liable to feature as entries on spreadsheets of large institutional investors, which have little incentive and little ability to quickly find occupants to replace those who are departing. Occupants might be found more quickly if property owners were inclined to reduce their rents; doing so would reduce the number or value of their assets and they would prefer to leave their properties empty for longer.
A further detriment arises from the remote ownership of commercial bodies, which affects their upkeep. Neither the owners nor the current occupants have a sufficient incentive to enhance the properties since any investment undertaken by one of the parties will be to the substantial benefit of the other party. The division of responsibilities for the upkeep of properties is typically determined by clauses in the lease, and these vary widely from case to case.
In Britain, there is a small and diminishing residue of municipal ownership within high streets. If a landlord is a local authority and if they have access to funds, then favourable opportunities for enhancement or the regeneration of a property or the wider environment can arise. However, this is an uncommon circumstance. It is notable that the circumstances are very different in neighbouring European countries. In Holland, for example, large proportions of town centre properties are under municipal ownership, and this is outwardly reflected in the superior upkeep of these locations.
A question to be faced is: what can the Government do to alleviate the distress of our high streets? The answer is that very little can be done, unless local authorities, development corporations and other relevant bodies are given the funds to enable them to undertake significant developments of high street environments. The high streets must be made more attractive, and they must cater to developing circumstances. Amenities must be brought to the high streets to replace the retail outlets that are closing. We have heard suggestions that doctors’ surgeries, libraries, restaurants and leisure activities should be attracted to the high streets. If the high streets and adjacent streets have been cleared of motorised traffic, then adequate public transport must be provided and parking facilities in adjacent areas must be established.
However, the question of funding is paramount. The report criticises the chaotic system of special funds that are available to local authorities, which are invited to compete for them. In many cases, it is too time-consuming for a local authority to make a bid when there is little chance of succeeding. Attempts to reform the system are, I hope, under way. The principal source of funds for local authorities is local taxation, which consists of domestic rates and business rates. We are led to understand that, in the future, 70% of a local authority’s income will be raised locally. A large proportion of this income will come from business rates, of which the councils will keep 50%. This will give them, so it has been said, a real incentive to go for growth and encourage enterprise and job creation.
The problem with rates being raised on properties is that they bear only a tenuous relationship to the income of the householder or to the turnover of a business, and they are often subject to angry resentments. However, it must be a priority to reform the system of local taxation and, in the process, to make it more productive of revenue. This will require the replacement of the rates by local income taxes and local turnover taxes.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I draw the Committee’s attention to my interests in the register. I am president of the Local Government Association, and I have previously been the chair of ukactive.
I welcome this timely and important report. As consumer behaviour continues to shift online, many of our towns are losing their economic vitality and civic identity. I shop online: it is quick and easy, but it is fairly soulless compared with visiting your local high street. As the committee notes, there is no single solution to regenerate our high streets, but we must remain flexible, recognising that no two communities are the same. But if we are really serious about regenerating high streets that are resilient and economically viable, inclusivity must be at the forefront of our efforts.
In 2014, the organisation Disabled Go—now known as AccesAble—audited nearly 30,000 high street shops and restaurants to assess their accessibility. Of the 27,000 retail outlets examined, only 20% were accessible to wheelchair users, largely due to steps and the absence of ramps. Moreover, 91% of the 105 leading high street retailers provided no online information about accessibility at their stores.
The picture is no better in the hospitality sector: around 40% of restaurants had no accessible toilet. I apologise; I am going to overshare. If I go somewhere new, I have to very carefully moderate what I drink, in case there is not an accessible toilet. Nearly half of the restaurant staff questioned said that they had received no disability awareness training.
While an audit on this scale has not been repeated since, the Government’s 2021 UK Disability Survey confirmed that there had been little progress in making our high streets more accessible. The report found that 31% of respondents had trouble accessing public spaces “all the time” or “often”. Of those, a further 78% said that they found it either impossible or very difficult to access shops.
This is not merely a social failure but an economic one. The spending power of disabled people and their households, commonly referred to as the “purple pound”, is estimated at £274 billion—a potential revenue that our high streets are actively losing due to inaccessibility. I recognise what others have said about old shops not necessarily being easy to adapt, but not all access is hard to achieve. It is about being creative, putting a notice outside the shop door or having a buzzer; it is about being open to thinking differently.
A disabled person recently shared an experience with me. He was visiting his local high street and was unable to access a shop due to the steps at the entrance, so his wife had to go inside to ask whether the shop had a ramp. It turns out that it did, but there was no way of knowing this from outside the shop. He told me that, if he had been alone, he would not even have bothered waiting outside or trying to shout through the door; he simply would have moved on. Many shops already have ramps and basic accessibility measures in place, but it is clear that visible communication is missing from our high streets.
I welcome the report’s recommendation to improve transport access to our high streets, but public transport still leaves a lot to be desired. While I greatly support improving bus networks for better connectivity, there is no promise that that will improve the journeys of disabled people.
Just last night, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, was informed when she was trying to get on a bus that the law has changed—supposedly—and that wheelchair users no longer have priority on board. The law has not changed, but this is not an infrequent experience for disabled people.
It is essential to the growth of our high streets that any changes to transport access must consider disabled people. Car parking spaces should account for adaptive vehicles and accessible EV charging. There is a woeful lack of EV charging ports available to disabled people across the country. About two years ago, I tried to change my car to an electric car and I found that there were no accessible charging points within at least a 40-mile radius of my house, so I could not switch.
In certain towns, EV charging spaces have been put on top of existing disabled bays. While there is no legal requirement to have a certain number of disabled bays in a car park, it is abhorrent that access for disabled people is continually being taken away. As such, I urge all local authorities to consult disabled people at all stages of regeneration projects. By including disabled people from the outset, local authorities will not risk having to spend more money down the line to make their towns more accessible.
I am also very interested in how we can use high street regeneration projects to drive growth among the UK’s physical activity sector, as previously reported by ukactive. There is a huge opportunity to integrate physical activity and well-being provision within communities by regenerating underutilised properties—shops, restaurants and vacant office spaces—into new, accessible and budget-friendly facilities.
Regeneration projects will benefit greatly from the inclusion of physical activity and sport; by creating healthier, more vibrant communities you are improving social conditions and making happier citizens. However, under current planning laws, it is easier to open a chicken shop than a yoga studio. If the Government are invested in promoting healthier lifestyles and decreasing obesity rates, why do they continue to make it a challenge for those who just want to improve the health and well-being of their communities?
I value my local high street. I love it: I love the eclectic nature of the shops and how people are trying really hard to make it more accessible, but there is still so much work that we have to do to make sure that disabled people have the same ability as non-disabled people to access local high streets.
Lord Moylan (Con)
My Lords, it was a great privilege to chair the committee during this inquiry and I am grateful for the kind remarks that have been made by noble Lords. The process must have addled my brain to some extent because I had absolutely convinced myself that I had put my name down to speak in this debate, only to realise too late that I had not, so I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution in the gap. I would like to use part of it, of course, to thank the clerks and officer support that we had during the inquiry, in particular our clerk Kate Wallis, our policy analyst Andrea Ninomiya, Sarah Carrington, who organised the committee operations so very well, and Dervish Mertcan, who reached out to our global press audience. I should mention the people we take for granted to some extent: the engagement team and, particularly, the technology team. I have now realised after three years, nearly, of chairing the committee that we take for granted the fact of all these wonderful people organising our room, our technology and everything, and we never thank them, so I would like to do that today. Of course, our external specialist adviser Dr Lucy Montague is an expert on this subject and made a real difference to our deliberations.
This is only a short contribution. The contents of the report and of the Government’s response have been aired thoroughly in the course of the debate, so perhaps I can turn myself briefly to a slightly different topic. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans referred to the degradation of the high street consequent on the presence of so many betting shops. I was watching BBC News only a few weeks ago when it did a report, spread over several bulletins, of even greater degradation on the high streets. This involves the takeover of many of our high streets, not necessarily in pleasant county towns, but in many of our cities, by so-called barber shops, which never have any customers, and mini-markets that never sell anything, or they do because if you want to get some illegal cigarettes, with no tax paid, obviously—that is taken for granted—often imported cigarettes with no recognisable branding, which could contain anything at all, then that is the place to go. You will get them for a couple of pounds a packet, way below the price that you would pay for a legitimate packet of cigarettes. That is their main business —that and money laundering. The fact that they are so inherently profitable on the proceeds of criminal activity means that no legitimate business can compete with them in terms of paying rent.
We see this in the heart of London. You see premises of this character even in Oxford Street, which is meant to be our showcase high street—our showcase retail street—for the nation. The news bulletin on the BBC showed raids being carried out by local trading standards officers, but I think behind them were His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and the National Crime Agency to some extent, so the authorities are aware. These are only the surface—the epiphenomena—of a network that brings crime and misery internationally. I hope that when the Minister replies he will be able to say that the Government are cognisant of what is now a serious threat to many of our high streets and that action will be taken across a broad front, not simply occasionally for the benefit of TV cameras, although I do not mean to deprecate in any sense the effort that was made to bring enforcement on that particular occasion. I hope that this will be carried out on a broad front, because it is a profound threat to our high streets and one that, sadly, the committee did not have an opportunity to explore, so I am glad to mention it now.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I draw attention to my interest on the register as vice-president of the Local Government Association.
The Built Environment Committee’s report makes wide-ranging and thoughtful recommendations to the Government on how best to support our high streets. These include improving bus networks and parking, supporting local markets, encouraging greater business involvement in high street management and simplifying business rates. I thank my noble friend Lord Moylan for chairing the committee and my noble friend Lord Gascoigne for presenting the report today.
Many of the funds and initiatives referenced in the Government’s response, such as the high street rental auction, high street accelerators, the city region sustainable transport settlement and the private parking code, were in fact introduced or legislated for by the previous Government, who had a strong record on supporting high streets. We supported businesses, particularly high street businesses, through the Covid 19 pandemic with a comprehensive £400 billion package. We supported towns through the long-term plan for towns, which the current Government have since withdrawn. That plan committed £1.1 billion to 55 towns across the UK, empowering local communities to develop locally led town plans shaped by community leaders, employers, local authorities and Members of Parliament. We supported high street generation through a suite of wider funds, including the £4.8 billion levelling up fund, the £3.2 billion towns fund, the high street task force and the £150 million community ownership fund.
I turn to the conclusions and the recommendations of the report. These were wide-ranging and covered several key areas relevant to the vitality of the high street. The first recommendation calls for improvements to public transport connectivity, particularly bus networks, and for more efficient and accessible car parking. I note that this was actively pursued by the previous Government, culminating in the launch of the private parking code, which was finalised in May 2024 and came into force in October that year, following significant work with the industry.
The committee also urged continued support for local market traders and recommended that the local authority-operated markets outside London be granted business rates relief. The Government claim that their new approach meets their manifesto commitments, but I must challenge that claim. The manifesto pledged to
“level the playing field between high streets and online giants”,
yet the policy in question levies additional taxes not on online giants alone but also on high street retailers, large department stores, supermarkets, football stadiums and others. These are not online giants. This approach risks further burdening those the Government claim to support. These are the things that keep our high streets thriving and surviving.
I turn to the section of the report concerning local businesses and regeneration. The Government’s first Budget left business confidence at its lowest point in two years. According to the British Chambers of Commerce, only 49% of companies surveyed in the first quarter of 2024 expected an increase in income over the coming year. This should be a concerning indicator. In light of this, the Government must consider how best to support, though not mandate, the development of business improvement districts. BIDs have shown that they can drive local growth and community involvement, but there is a lot of scope to do even more. The Government should explore whether the BID model could be strengthened by expanding participation to include community representatives, ensuring a broader, more inclusive voice in local regeneration.
The next recommendation rightly highlights the importance of public participation, saying that local authorities should ensure that residents are involved in the decision-making. This is essential if regeneration efforts are to reflect the real needs and priorities of local communities. The Conservative Party agrees with the committee’s view that the Government must embed accountability measures into any new regeneration programme. I therefore ask the Minister to set out how the department intends to build on this principle. Specifically, how will local voices be ensured a place at the table in the design and delivery of future regeneration schemes?
We recognise the value of the Government’s funding simplification doctrine. This principle should be expanded to apply to all local authorities receiving multiple funding streams aimed at high street regeneration.
The committee rightly supports the continuation of the long-term plan for towns, particularly as it includes vital resource funding, not just capital. Any future programmes must adopt a highly simplified bidding process, enabling local authorities to focus on delivery rather than navigating bureaucracy. Will the Minister commit to simplifying the funding landscape and providing much-needed clarity on the future of regeneration programmes? Additionally, will he introduce a significantly simplified bidding process for any future high street or town regeneration funding? This would help ensure that local authorities can focus more on the delivery and less on the administrative burden, as I said.
I turn briefly to the commentary from third parties on the committee’s report. In August 2024, the Federation of Small Businesses published its report, The Future of the High Street, calling for greater support and innovative thinking to improve conditions for small firms operating on UK high streets. Notably, the FSB found that good transport links are essential, with almost 43% of small businesses stating this as a key factor for their success. In the light of this, what plans do the Government have to ensure that transport links in our towns are available, frequent and reliable?
The FSB also reported that around 49% of high street small businesses believe that parking facilities are poorly managed in their area. Will the Minister commit to a review of parking provision, particularly in poorly performing areas, so that we can improve accessibility for those travelling to the high street by car?
Finally, I leave the Minister with two further questions that speak to some of the most pressing concerns raised by the committee. First, how do the Government intend to improve the return on investment for high street and town centre projects that are currently underperforming? Secondly, how will the department support local authorities in unlocking the latent resource, expertise and community passion that remain under- utilised in so many of our communities?
I again thank the committee for its diligent and thoughtful report and acknowledge the valuable contributions of all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate or on that committee. I hope that we can continue to draw on the considerable expertise of this House to ensure that we do all we can to both support and revitalise our high streets.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Lord Khan of Burnley) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a privilege to stand before the Committee today to address the important topic of high streets and the findings of the Built Environment Committee. I thank the committee for raising this debate and for its insightful report. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, for his opening remarks, and congratulate him on his appointment, replacing the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, and filling what I see as big shoes. I thank the noble Lord for the work that he did in his role as chair.
This Government are committed to rejuvenating our high streets. We recognise the shifting tides of online and out-of-town retail, as well as the decline of local government funding by the previous Government, which have left our town centres depleted. However, like the committee’s report, the Government do not support a narrative of unmitigated decline, which serves only to sap confidence further. Instead, we should see the opportunities to reimagine high streets and to empower local places to deliver the right plan for their area. We must also recognise that high streets are symptomatic of wider issues in the economy and in society. To boost our town centres, we must address these root causes by investing in a stronger economy and in safer streets, as well as by empowering local leaders and communities to help town centres adapt to a world no longer dominated by physical retail.
That is why this Government are committed to transferring power out of Westminster and into local communities. The English devolution Bill will give local leaders the tools to kick-start their economies, as well as empowering communities to transform their neighbourhoods and high streets. We are expanding and deepening the powers available to mayors and strategic authorities. This includes integrated funding settlements for mayors who have a strong track record of delivery, as well as new powers over strategic planning to give all strategic authorities autonomy to plan for housing growth. Densified housing in our towns can address the need for homes, build new communities and support high street footfall.
We are also providing powers to help local leaders and communities take action to regenerate their area. One in seven high street premises currently stands vacant, yet our communities remain unable to retain vital assets. Community assets such as shops, pubs and community spaces have a significant role to play in developing social networks, encouraging community and promoting civic pride. Our “community right to buy” will empower local people to bring pubs and other important spaces back into the hands of the community, tackling the deep feeling of powerlessness felt by many in our society who care profoundly about preserving communities.
In addition, we are taking action against the familiar sight of shop fronts being boarded up and left empty for too long with high street rental auctions. The powers enable local authorities to tackle decline by bringing vacant units back into use, auctioning a lease to interested bidders and helping to make the high street more accessible and affordable for tenants, including small and medium enterprises, local businesses and community groups.
We recognise that businesses are vital to high street success. It is key that we create an environment in which they can flourish. To that end, we are making progress on reforming business rates. Parliament has now approved an Act enabling permanently lower tax rates for retail, hospitality and leisure properties from next April. This permanent tax cut will ensure that these properties benefit from much-needed certainty and support. We have also established a licensing policy task force to make recommendations to reform the licensing framework in order to foster a vibrant hospitality and night-time economy.
We will also take action to address the rise of anti-social behaviour, which can be so damaging to businesses and off-putting to residents. Through our neighbourhood policing guarantee and the creation of new offences in our Crime and Policing Bill, we will restore order in our town centres and empower the police to act against unacceptable behaviour. We will also provide more than £7 million in funding over the next three years to support the police in tackling retail crime.
I turn to the points made by noble Lords in the debate. I start with the points made by my noble friend Lady Andrews in relation to the plan for neighbourhoods. The Government recently announced the plan for neighbourhoods programme as a successor to the long-term plan for towns, which noble Lords referenced. The prospectus was published in March 2025; I commend it to noble Lords.
We are putting power into the hands of local people with our plan for neighbourhoods; the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, touched on this. This will address deprivation, regenerate local areas and unleash the full potential of places that have been overlooked for far too long. Neighbourhood boards are bringing together residents, businesses and grass-roots campaigners to draw up and implement plans for how they will spend up to £20 million of funding; this could be on repairing pavements in high streets, setting up community grocers that provide low-cost alternatives when shopping for essentials or establishing neighbourhood watches to keep people safe. We want to empower boards to tackle the root causes of disengagement and division, to bring people together so that they can feel proud of their area and safe in their neighbourhood, to restore a collective sense of belonging in their community.
My noble friend Lady Andrews asked me about the high street accelerators programme. This will now end in June 2025, at which point the Government will carry out a review of the programme to help inform future interventions on the high street. We hope that the current partnerships will evolve into sustainable teams that are embedded in the local area and continue to work on projects that help high streets to thrive.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, talked about high street rental auctions. We are proud to roll out this fantastic new tool to enable councils to reduce vacancy rates and the visual blight of empty shops. These powers are available to all councils to use right now, and we encourage them to do so.
To help with the initial implementation of the high street rental auctions, we have set aside a new burdens payment to cover costs, such as those borne through the notice and auction processes. Over £1 million of funding has been made available to support delivery for all local authorities in England to create high street vacancy registers and to support the cost of refurbishing vacant premises.
The noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, talked about accessibility and physical well-being. Accessibility is an important issue. I fully agree with the need for inclusive design embedding physical well-being into high streets. The plan for neighbourhoods offers communities the option to invest in measures to improve access and physical health.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baronesses, Lady Miller and Lady Scott, talked about transport accessibility. Effective transport is key to regeneration and plays an essential role in driving footfall to our towns and high streets. We have provided long-term funding to improve the transport network in local areas to transform and unlock regeneration opportunities. Local leaders will be empowered to choose the bus operating model that works for their area through the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, which was introduced on 17 December 2024. This includes several options to improve bus services, such as franchising and establishing new local authority-owned bus companies.
On the point about funding support for local services, local government is vital for the delivery of the Government’s missions and it delivers more than 800 services to local people every day. This is the front line of public services; it deserves a government working alongside it, as equal partners in power.
Taken together, the additional funding announced by the Chancellor at the Autumn Budget and through the 2025-26 local government finance settlement will provide over £5 billion of new funding for local services, beyond local council tax. This includes an additional £2 billion in grants through the settlement, a guarantee that local authorities in England will receive at least £1.1 billion in 2025-26 from the new extended producer responsibility for packaging scheme and a further £233 million for homelessness services. We are delivering a settlement that aims to strengthen the foundations of local government by providing significant investment and redirecting funds to the services and places that need it most.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mair, about funding, we will set a refreshed approach to local growth funding at the spending review in the spring. This will include more integrated settlements over the longer term, with less central direction and more local choice. This is a point that the noble Baroness asked me about.
On public services and amenities, when it comes to new government services, we already consider broader benefits where appropriate and will keep further options for provision under review. Departmental spending proposals must follow the principles outlined in the Green Book, which is the government guidance on appraisal.
I move on to another point raised in my noble friend Lady Andrews’ comprehensive contribution, and by other noble Lords, about a small business strategy. This year, the Government will bring forward a small business strategy that will set out our plan to support SMEs, including consideration of how best to support our high streets to make sure that they are providing vibrant places for our communities and fertile environments for our businesses. The small business strategy will also boost scale-ups in growing the co-operative economy, making it easier to access finance, opening up overseas and domestic markets, building business capabilities and providing a strong business environment.
We also have a programme called Experience on Main Street, which promotes UK creative businesses that specialise in placemaking to decision-makers responsible for high street regeneration projects; these include retailers, local and regional government, real estate owners and urban planners. This is all to encourage the reimagination and revival of high street spaces by using creative services and products.
The noble Lord, Lord Mair, made some very interesting comments about markets. I agree that markets are an institutional part of the high street and provide local areas with a valuable community space. The Government recognise the role that markets play in providing access to good-quality, healthy and affordable food and in providing local people with opportunities for social engagement and inclusion. They can also help to build the local economy by boosting footfall and providing opportunities for entrepreneurs and start-up businesses to test new and innovative products. It is for local authorities and other market operatives to decide how best to operate and manage their markets. We encourage local authorities and market operators to continue to support market traders as they consider the best path forward to help markets thrive.
My noble friend Lady Andrews asked about business rates. The Government are looking at business rates reform in the round. We have already legislated to reduce tax rates on the high street, and the Chancellor will announce further plans for this in the autumn.
A number of noble Lords, including my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Lord, Lord Mair, discussed the use classes for planning. The commercial, business and service use class—known as use class E —groups together various uses, such as shops, gyms, restaurants, offices, and medical or health facilities, which means that planning permission is no longer required to switch between those uses. This change enables premises to respond quickly to how communities want to use their high streets, giving business owners and landlords the freedom to adapt swiftly to changing consumer demand. To respond to the noble Lord, Lord Mair, and my noble friend Lady Andrews, we will continue to keep planning use classes under review, to ensure that they meet the needs of our communities and businesses.
A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, my noble friend Lady Andrews and the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, asked for more clarification about parking. We know that the practices and behaviours of parking operators need to change. The Parking (Code of Practice) Act 2019 places a duty on the Government to prepare a code of practice containing guidance about the operation and management of private parking facilities. This Government are determined to drive up standards in the private parking sector and will announce their plan for the new code in due course. Parking is the responsibility of local authorities, and this Government are keen to empower them to make decisions about their local areas, since they are best placed to consider how local needs can be effectively met through their local transport plans.
The noble Lord, Lord Mair, talked about arts and culture and about adding colour to our town centres and high streets, which shape and reflect society and are enjoyed by people in every part of our country. We announced over £270 million of investment for our arts venues, museums, libraries, and heritage sector. We also recently announced an £85 million creative foundations fund to help arts and cultural organisations, with varying scales of need, to resolve urgent issues with their infrastructure.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans and the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, discussed parish councils. We absolutely recognise that town and parish councils have an important role in improving the quality of life and well-being of their communities, and in creating places where people are proud to live. They are close to the communities they serve, know their communities’ needs and can champion the priorities of local people and design the right services that work for their places. The Government are committed to building stronger communities where people feel proud of their neighbourhoods and actively contribute to their development.
The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised money laundering. To be profoundly clear, I assure him that we take this very seriously. That is why we are building up local enforcement capacity and smashing the gangs. We will continue to look at what more we can do in this area.
I thank all noble Lords for their contributions to the debate. High streets arouse strong emotions. This Government recognise the challenges that high streets face and welcome the spotlight shone by this report. With the right actions and the right leadership, we can make a different future for our town centres—a future that is more sustainable, more resilient, more connected and more aligned to the way we live our lives today. How will we achieve that? I have outlined some of our policies, but let me summarise them.
From Burnley to Pendle, our town centres need a purpose and a vision, linked to jobs and amenities and tied into a wider local growth plan. This Government are making this possible by pushing powers and funding out of Westminster, delivering the devolution that is required to transform the prospects of our towns. Alongside this, we are fixing the fundamentals: boosting local government funding; giving a permanent business rates cut to retail, hospitality and leisure; deregulating our cumbersome licensing laws; and investing in skills, jobs and infrastructure up and down the country.
We are also wasting no time in showing people real, visible improvements now. That is why we are putting 13,000 neighbourhood officers on the streets, making new laws to tackle anti-social behaviour, giving councils new powers to force open vacant shops and giving communities a right to buy valued assets such as the local pub. Through the plan for neighbourhoods, we are giving the most deprived places funding to clean up their high street or give it a makeover.
In summary, we are committed to fixing the foundations of the economy on which our towns depend, while giving local people the tools to revitalise their communities now. This is an exciting agenda which the Government are so proud to be delivering. My noble friend Lady Andrews referred to “imagination, leadership and innovation”, and that is exactly what the Government are providing.
I thank the Built Environment Committee again for an excellent report, and all noble Lords for their wise contributions to this important debate. I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Gascoigne, who I know will do a brilliant job because he is from a smashing part of the country—Lancashire; he is my neighbour, in Pendle. It is great to be responding to him, as he is chair of the committee.
Lord Gascoigne (Con)
I thank the Minister for his warm words; he is clearly a long-lost cousin or brother from another mother. I thank those on the two Front Benches—the Minister and my former boss, when we were last in Government—for answering the debate from the Dispatch Box. I also thank the former committee members. It is slightly unnerving having my predecessor lingering at the back, but I thank them both for speaking.
I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, who, as ever, was both powerful and striking in the points that she made. I will also say something briefly about the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans: today is not his valedictory speech, but it will be one of his last commitments in this House. I thank him for his service and his time on many debates—this one in particular—and I genuinely wish him well.
It has been a first-rate debate on the back of what I believe to be a first-rate report. There have been some really good points raised, many of which were in the report but are not exclusive to it: the importance of high streets; the complexity of funding; changing high streets over time; rural communities; the use of class E; rates and revenue; and, crucially, the opportunities. My final point is where we ended on the first one, and I am pleased to hear what the Minister said.
I understand that the Minister is very close to Angela Rayner, the Deputy Prime Minister, and on the back of this debate, I implore him to take it back and tell her it was not just another report, it is actually an opportunity that people in this Chamber and beyond care about. Many people have spoken to us about it. There are some really good ideas, and I think there is a huge opportunity here for the Government to inspire and empower, but also to change and put high streets back into the centre of people’s lives once again. With that, I thank noble Lords very much.
Methane (Environment and Climate Change Committee Report)
(2 days, 12 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sheehan
That this House takes note of the Report from the Environment and Climate Change Committee Methane: keep up the momentum (HL Paper 45).
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, it is indeed a pleasure, as chair, to debate the findings of the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s report, Methane: Keep Up the Momentum, about a devastating greenhouse gas 80 times more potent than carbon dioxide and one that is responsible for about 30% of global warming to date. Yet the evidence we gathered shows that the story is one that offers hope because methane, although very powerful in its warming impact, is short-lived and, therefore, if we can reduce emissions, we can substantially slow down global warming within decades, and with greater ambition we could start to cool the planet. Professor Piers Forster, interim chair of the Government’s advisory body, the Climate Change Committee, stressed that rapidly reducing methane emissions alongside addressing carbon dioxide could reduce the current trajectory of global warming from 0.25 degrees Celsius per decade to 0.1 degrees Celsius per decade, and that is a goal worth achieving.
The good news is that we already know how to capture, bottle and sell the emissions from two of the highest emitting sectors globally: oil and gas, and waste management. Emissions from agriculture are more challenging to capture, but there is light on the horizon to reduce them, as highlighted in the report. The key thing about methane, otherwise known as natural gas, is that it has value. We use it to heat our homes, cook our food and produce electricity. It is the transition fuel that will bridge our move to renewable energy, so why vent and flare it when we could harness and use it? This is what makes this report so important and one that the Government must not leave to gather dust, which is the fate of so many excellent Select Committee reports, but instead to use it to lend momentum to the already excellent, but currently stalled, record of reducing methane emissions in the UK and, importantly—and this is the crux of the report—to use our know-how, experience and ambition to leverage action internationally, as we have undertaken to do in the Global Methane Pledge.
We heard evidence that there is potential to scale up cutting-edge products of UK companies as they deploy innovative tools to measure, monitor and verify emissions. In short, with the right policy and regulatory framework we can support growth in our economy and generate jobs, while reducing methane emissions and keeping warming within the goals of the Paris Agreement to limit global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels and pursue efforts to limit it to 1.5 degrees Celsius. I hope that the Minister will agree to meet me so that I can introduce him to one such company in the space sector, where huge strides are being made to measure the intensity of methane emissions and locate them with pinpoint accuracy. This will be a game-changer.
The purpose of the report was to evaluate progress made on the domestic side to tackle the sources of anthropogenic methane emissions that are within the scope of the Global Methane Pledge and to get to grips with the potential for the UK to do more both at home and internationally where there is so much low-hanging fruit. Will the Minister state whether he has fully bought into the commitment of the Government led by Boris Johnson, when, at the COP 26 summit in Glasgow, they wholeheartedly supported the launch of the Global Methane Pledge to reduce global methane emissions by at least 30% by 2030 from a 2020 baseline? If the Minister is fully signed up to support the Global Methane Pledge, on what basis can he justify the Government’s refusal to publish their own methane action plan to provide clarity on priority actions for each sector? I hope he will not point to an as yet non-existent carbon budget delivery plan because that will not suffice. We ask for a clear, stand-alone document to encourage other countries to produce the same. Such an important intervention to combat the climate emergency cannot be buried in a wide-ranging document such as the Carbon Budget Delivery Plan, where one has to dig hard to discern the Government’s intent. The Minister may also point to these country’s co-chairship with Brazil of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition, the UN-affiliated organisation that provides a secretariat for the Global Methane Pledge. I am truly delighted that Minister Kerry McCarthy has taken up this role discarded by the US in January.
As my committee’s methane report makes clear, domestically we have made good progress in reducing methane emissions from the waste management and oil and gas sectors, but less so in agriculture. Residual emissions may be more stubborn and therefore more costly. However, it is the Government’s role to balance the cost of action with the cost of inaction over the long term. That point is made throughout the report.
I turn to the waste sector. The UK’s success in reducing methane from the waste sector was driven in large part by the landfill tax. Together with incentives from the renewables obligation scheme, which improved landfill gas capture, the UK saw a 76% decrease in emissions between 1990 and 2022. Colleagues speaking after me may wish to say more on the important issues of waste crime, the renewable obligation scheme, anaerobic digesters and other matters. I hope the Minister, however, will take this opportunity to reiterate his Government’s determination to bear down on upstream measures such as reducing food and packaging waste, given the greater stress that this Government are placing on moving faster towards a more circular economy. Our technical ability to tackle emissions from landfill sites is world-beating. There is much that we can share internationally. Later this year, COP 30 is taking place in Brazil, where there is opportunity to leverage our knowledge and expertise to work with Latin American countries as they consider their policy options for landfill gas capture. I hope we will lean into this with gusto and lend our expertise.
Moving to agriculture, almost half the UK’s methane emissions can be attributed to agriculture, all of it from livestock. The 15% reduction in emissions since 1990 can be attributed largely to reduced consumption of red meat. However, the committee heard that there are other viable methods for further meaningful cuts in emissions, such as improved animal welfare, selective breeding, methane-suppressing feed additives and better slurry management. Can the Minister assure me that Defra takes the issue of methane emissions seriously? Defra is not the responsible government department for greenhouse gas emissions and, therefore, methane reduction just does not seem to be high on its list of priorities. In their response to recommendation 10—that low-cost, long-term solutions must be prioritised, with supermarkets playing their part in reducing emissions from the food sector—the Government said:
“Alongside the upcoming food strategy and farming roadmap we will deliver a credible plan to decarbonise food and farming”.
Will the Minister say when can we expect to see the food strategy and farming road map?
Similarly, the Government are reviewing the regulatory framework that they inherited—thank goodness, because our report highlighted grave shortcomings in the existing framework. For example, I hope that the review will address the fact that there is no regulatory oversight of agricultural methane, apart from in some aspects of agricultural waste.
I move on to energy. In my view, one of the most important recommendations in the report is to,
“demand greater transparency and accountability of industry commitments to end the routine venting and flaring of methane”
by
“a publicly accessible roadmap and transparent data”.
This is something that the industry has committed to do, as was restated by the NSTA when it gave evidence to the committee. However, the Government’s response did not address the points about transparent data or a road map for the industry; perhaps the Minister could take this opportunity to do so now.
I say this because international emissions from the oil and gas sector continue to grow, yet the gas that is routinely vented and flared could be captured and sold. Professor Steven Hamburg of Environmental Defense Fund told the committee that oil and gas have “enormous potential” for methane reduction globally. He also said:
“That is not low-hanging fruit; that is fruit lying on the ground”.
Can the Minister provide an update on progress in how methane from the upstream oil and gas sector could be included in the ETS scheme? I hope that progress is being made on that.
In concluding, I stress that the report would have been challenging to get over the line in the best of circumstances. However, during it, we lost our policy analyst, Flo Bullough, midway; we then lost our clerk, Emily Bailey Page, towards the end of the report’s finalisation. Such talented people will always be in demand. I would like to put on the record my gratitude to them for their sterling input. I must thank wholeheartedly all those who stepped into the breach, including Tom Wilson, the principal clerk of Select Committees, the incoming clerk, Andrea Ninomiya, and our policy analyst, Lily Paulson. They were magnificent in picking up the baton and ushering the report over the finish line, and I thank them all once again.
This report holds the dubious record of being the longest-debated report to be produced by any House of Lords committee, which will give your Lordships a flavour of the divergent views of the committee. I wholeheartedly commend my colleagues on the committee for the unfailing courtesy with which all discussions were undertaken. There is real value in bringing together the threads of different viewpoints in a report that all members felt able to sign up to and one of which I, for one, am very proud. I beg to move.
Lord Grantchester (Lab)
I open my remarks today by thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for the excellent way in which she chaired the committee throughout a rather tricky period over the election and change of Government last summer. The committee also changed its policy adviser and support clerks during this inquiry, yet its coherency hung together with its themes and approach. I thank Flo Bullough, who set off with the committee as its policy analyst, and Lily Paulson, who saw us to a safe conclusion. I also thank the clerks to our committee, Emily Bailey Page and Andrea Ninomiya. I declare my interests as recorded on the register, notably activities on a dairy farm, with agriculture featuring prominently and extensively in the report.
The committee benefited from a very divergent membership—not only in being cross-party, of course, but from hearing a wide range of experiences and opinions regarding climate change and the role of the Government in mitigating methane emissions. I am told that the number of meetings needed to resolve drafting issues set a new record high and certainly prolonged publication, yet I am pleased that the committee was able to agree unanimously to a final wording, despite many reinterpretations. This was in no small measure due to careful handling by our excellent chair.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, has given an excellent account of the committee’s findings and recommendations. We received many detailed scientific papers and had many interesting witnesses give evidence. I draw attention to the important contribution given by Professor Myles Allen from the University of Oxford on understanding the different nature of methane as a greenhouse gas, the importance of how it differs in its effects from carbon and, therefore, the importance of various methods of measuring and reporting on it between GWP100—that is, global warming potential 100—as against GWP* and GWP20.
Understanding this, I found it disappointing that the Government chose to reject our important recommendation 2, to publish a methane action plan in support of other government plans and strategies, stating that this was covered already in the existing five-year carbon budgets. The proposed updated plans for the latest carbon budget, with the 2030 NDC—nationally determined contribution—contributing to the Global Methane Pledge, will certainly be meaningful. However, it would also have been worth while to outline in a comprehensive individual action plan vital steps that could be interpreted as methane actions.
Part of this focus that such an action plan could embrace would be the improvement in monitoring and verification, both nationally and internationally. The Government’s action here is welcomed, in their response to the committee’s recommendation 3 on the establishment of an international body to assess and report the methane action plans of the pledge’s participants. Nationally, a more concerted structure proposal for sector monitoring is beginning to take shape, especially in the agricultural sector. That agriculture is beginning to look exposed, as the sector finds it most difficult to make meaningful reductions and progress, became a large part of the committee’s investigations for solutions.
While the committee examined other sectors in the report, I will concentrate my remarks on the agricultural sector. The Minister will be aware of the important work being done by his department on emissions measurement, monitoring, reporting and verification improvements. Within agriculture, the levy-funded pilot project to showcase the importance of an on-farm environmental baseline is being undertaken by AHDB—the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. The aim is to create a nationwide standardised dataset across the various sectors within agriculture to enable more accurate reporting of emissions from the bottom up—that is, at farm level—in the environmental impact of agriculture. This is important to reveal the true net carbon position on the balance of emissions and carbon removals through farm coppices, woodlands and other features, which would also include carbon sequestration potential.
The outcome could be instructive as a dataset to show the range and variety of results from individual farms to allow the industry to move away from relying on national and international averages. Does the Minister agree that, in targeting agriculture as being most in need of methane reductions, providing a more accurate reflection of its position and progress towards net zero is an important part of his department’s greenhouse gas emissions monitoring and verification programme? Can he confirm that agriculture’s progress is part of the GEMMA—Greenhouse Gas Emissions Measurement and Modelling Advancement—programme?
Farming’s impact on the environment is amplified by the lack of accurate farm-level data. The evidence to the committee from Professor Dave Frame, professor of physics at the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, that all farmers should “know their numbers”—namely, have data on their farm’s impact—was very revealing. Here, I draw attention to the go-to guide produced by the Innovation for Agriculture on behalf of WWF and Tesco. Valuable information could be provided through farmer data collected as part of the NFU’s Red Tractor assurance scheme. I request that the Minister feeds this to his Defra colleagues in their review of the sustainable farming incentive, which is relevant to our recommendation 15. For example, Tesco was also involved in the research of the feed additive, Bovaer, and runs important carbon footprint monitoring of farms.
ForFarmers also undertook research on Lintec made from a Pacific variety of linseed to enhance bovine health, fertility and sustainability. Costs are prohibitive for livestock producers at the moment. Can the Minister update your Lordships’ House on the dairy demonstrator project, which is in our recommendation 12? I am also aware of the UK Dairy Carbon Network project, which is also funded by Defra and being undertaken by AHDB and AgriSearch. How do these complement each other?
I am grateful for the evidence about the selective breeding improvement programmes provided by Drew Sloan of Semex. Costs and risks are already being shared appropriately across government and industry. It is now imperative that the Government look to improve communication, through the proposed land use framework, to integrate the rural dimension with wider challenges on the demands for infrastructure, housing and growth. The report also embraces methane in its wider applications, with waste management and emissions extending into the offshore oil and gas industries. It underlines the importance of not only reducing emissions but capturing them for beneficial use.
This is a very important report to which the Grand Committee will need to return as progress continues towards 2030 and beyond.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to be a member of this Select Committee and to speak here today. I thank our chair and our excellent staff who support our committee; they really have been outstanding. I have no major interests to declare except that I am a veterinarian and a co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Animal Welfare. I have no financial interests of relevance.
I will concentrate on the contribution of UK agriculture, and specifically ruminants, to methane emissions, because they are such a significant part of our total anthropogenic methane emissions. We have already heard that methane is an extremely potent greenhouse gas, but it is short lived: it remains in the atmosphere for about 12 years, compared with CO2, which remains for hundreds if not thousands of years. This is critically important: constant emissions of CO2 accumulate and increase global warming, whereas constant emissions of methane stabilise at equilibrium after a few years and warming stabilises. Crucially, reducing methane emissions results in cooling, so major global reductions in methane emissions provide a unique opportunity to slow the pace of global warming in the short term, while CO2 reduction and removal technologies can be further developed.
Globally, methane emissions are rising, which is very disturbing. However, I am pleased to say that in the UK our methane emissions are not rising; in fact, there has been a significant reduction of over 60% since 1990. However, reduction within agriculture has been relatively small. Agriculture is now responsible for approximately 50% of the UK’s anthropogenic methane emissions, virtually all of which is from ruminants, particularly cattle.
Different metrics are significant in understanding the impact of methane and formulating policy. Internationally, the metric GWP100 is used to quantify the global warming potential of different greenhouse gases over 100 years within different sectors. However, it can misrepresent methane’s warming impact by not considering its short-lived nature in the atmosphere. In a nutshell, GWP100 overestimates the impact of constant methane emissions by threefold to fourfold, underestimates the impact of newly emitted methane by fourfold to fivefold and fails to account for the cooling effects when methane emissions reduce.
To address these limitations, scientists, in particular at the University of Oxford, have developed GWP*, which better accounts for the short-lived nature of methane in the atmosphere. Experts differ on the pros and cons of GWP100 and GWP*, but comparisons emphasise how significantly the way in which data are analysed and presented can influence policy and priorities. For example, the emissions warming potential of a unit of beef estimated using GWP100 is three and a half times greater than when utilising GWP*. For this reason, our report recommends that
“the Government should … consider how additional metrics can be robustly employed at the sectoral and the business level to improve understanding of the UK’s emissions”
and
“move towards unilaterally implementing an auxiliary metric to better reflect the warming impact of methane”.
However, in their response to our report, the Government remained unconvinced on fully supporting the use of GWP* to assess agricultural emissions, which I regret; I think that it has a role to play in understanding the problem we have.
A second metric of importance is methane intensity—that is, the amount of methane or its CO2 equivalent per unit of productivity. Data based on FAO figures show that, for example, a kilogram of protein can be produced from cattle in the UK at a quarter of the CO2 equivalent emissions of the global average. In general, although our beef and dairy industries are significant emitters of methane, they are lesser emitters compared with other countries from which we may import beef and dairy products. The issue of importation is particularly relevant in relation to the recent US-UK trade agreement, for example, and other agreements to be negotiated; our Select Committee report makes these important points very clearly.
I turn to mitigation, where there is good news. There is a lot more that we can do in the UK to further reduce methane emissions from our ruminants. We have some of the world’s best experts in methane monitoring and abatement, as we have heard, and we have highly innovative and progressive farmers. However, as our report highlights, the Government have a role in setting this as a priority for agricultural support. It is regrettable that the sustainable farming incentive has been paused, especially since the Agriculture Act 2020 explicitly provided that, in the transition from the CAP, the Secretary of State could support climate change mitigation measures.
This is not just about finance, although that is important. Much could be achieved by the Government setting clearer goals, providing consistent advice and technical support, and encouraging peer-to-peer knowledge transfer to address methane emissions and to ensure that all of our farmers are adequately equipped with both knowledge and a desire to something about it. In their response, the Government acknowledged that there may be benefits to a targeted approach for agriculture to better incentivise methane reductions; we look forward to seeing evidence for this. Most measures to increase productivity will reduce emissions per unit of production. Improved health and disease control, smarter management such as reducing calving intervals, nutritional measures and breeding for reduced methane emissions—methane output is a heritable trait—are all achievable means that increase profitability and productivity, as well as reducing methane emissions per unit of production.
With reference to breeding, new genetic technologies, as provided for in the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Act 2023, could rapidly advance progress. As was referred to earlier, feed additives such as Bovaer show promise. This product has recently been approved for use in the UK by the Food Standards Agency, and I note that some governments in Europe already subsidise farmer application of this product.
The Dairy Demonstrator project—now branded as the UK Dairy Carbon Network and launched in February by the current Government—will include support for participating farms to investigate and trial various emission mitigation methods. It is to be welcomed; I congratulate the Government on that.
Substantial improvements in endemic disease control —for example, better application of current vaccines—are technically possible now that we have the necessary products to improve emission intensity. The introduction by the previous Government of the animal health and welfare pathway is to be welcomed; it can make a positive difference.
Impacts on slurry and manure cannot be ignored as they are responsible for about 7% of the total anthropogenic methane emissions and affect all livestock species. A number of abatement technologies are applicable, including covering slurry tanks and anaerobic digestion of the waste. Given that farms are often small or medium enterprises, major capital improvements require co-operation among farmers—and, probably, some financial support—but those investments could yield significant benefits in reducing methane release.
In conclusion, in the UK, ruminants fed mainly on grass in one form or another produce healthy and nutritious food but also about half of all of the UK’s anthropogenic methane emissions. However, the estimate of the warming potential of these emissions varies by more than threefold depending on which metric is used. Moreover, current data show that greenhouse gas emissions per unit of production for both beef and dairy are substantially lower in the UK than most other countries. However, there is much that we could and should still do to reduce our methane emission intensity. In many cases, the technology exists but there needs to be consideration of cost-benefit ratios to achieve full implementation.
The bottom line is that we must guard against destroying our own livestock industry, which is relatively environmentally efficient, and the inevitable consequence: importing more meat and dairy produced with poorer environmental efficiency and greater emissions elsewhere.
The Earl of Leicester (Con)
My Lords, I had the honour of joining the Environment and Climate Change Committee just as it embarked upon this inquiry into CH4, which, as we heard from many of our American witnesses, is something called methane.
Let me share a useful analogy with noble Lords. In January 2020, I attended the Oxford Real Farming Conference, where one of the seminars discussed methane emissions and cattle. Methane was like the school bully who, on your first day at school, punches you in the face: Christ, it hurts, but you soon get over it. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, was more like a malevolent teacher who takes an instant dislike to you on day one and plagues the rest of your educational career throughout your time at school.
We should be proud that our country has led the world on methane reduction; indeed, between 1990 and 2020, we reduced our methane emissions by 62%. Currently, the UK is responsible for just 1% of global emissions—and falling, albeit slowly. That is about 1.5 megatonnes of methane. China is responsible for nearly 70 megatonnes, and rising fast.
Before I go any further, I should pay tribute to our wonderful clerks, who, as our chair elaborated, had to change. They were always professional, hard-working, diplomatic and ready to listen to committee members’ suggestions as to who might be invited to give evidence as expert witnesses. This is an important factor because, too often, it is tempting for clerks to invite those who make the most noise: lobbyists and activists; or, perhaps, their own kith and kin, in the shape of civil servants in government departments whose work is centred around the inquiry’s subject matter. Of course, for obvious reasons, it is essential to invite academics who study the said subject.
Make no mistake, I am very happy to listen to all of the above; indeed, their evidence was essential. However, sadly—for it is often they who can provide the solutions—all too often it is the people who do not get invited who are those folk at the sharp end: the practitioners. They are the people who actually undertake the work, and whose experience of what works and what does not is the most valuable.
I was very grateful to the clerks and the chair, who supported my suggested witnesses, often from the private sector, agriculture and the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board, particularly Professor John Gilliland, who is an innovative farmer in Northern Ireland. I state my interests, as set out in the register, as a regenerative farmer and landowner in north Norfolk, with a large herd of suckler beef cattle and the ownership and management of the largest, and arguably most important, national nature reserve in the country, Holkham NNR. I shall return to that at the end.
As agriculture is the largest source of domestic methane emissions in the UK, at 49%—and is the sector I understand most—I shall limit my comments to this area. Some 85% of these emissions come from the enteric fermentation process within a cow’s stomach. For the sake of clarity, the vast majority of methane is emitted from the front, not the back, end of a cow, and then a further 15% is emitted from slurry manure. As our chair has mentioned, it is also important to note that we are harnessing methane very successfully in agriculture through the increasing number of anaerobic digesters in the UK, which mimic a cow’s stomach on a much larger scale, capturing the methane and pumping it into the national grid. Crucially, given what happened in Spain recently, this provides a baseload form of energy supply.
It is important to note that globally between 1990 and 2020 it is believed that agricultural methane emissions increased by approximately 12%. Most of this came from less developed countries where populations have increased rapidly and where a gradually improving economic situation has increased the demand for meat in people’s diet. The inquiry looked at various solutions for reducing emissions. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned diet, feed additives, such as Bovaer, and cattle health, which are very important. Two weeks ago, on a field trip to the Netherlands for our nitrogen inquiry, we saw some really good manure and slurry management which reduces methane emissions.
I have difficulty with the recommendation to reduce the number of large ruminants—by that, obviously, I mean cows. It is true that in the West and the emerging East we all eat too much meat, but we get into very dangerous territory when we start telling people how much meat they can eat. We should, of course, try to educate people on these matters. We must also question the figures emanating from the UN on the standard UN cow used in all methane calculations. A feedlot Hereford bullock eating a diet of maize is very different from an extensively grazed Galloway heifer eating grass all its life, which itself is very different from a Brahman cow in India. There are huge differences in diet, size, length of life and doubtless many other factors. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, made very important points regarding the differences between GWP100 and GWP*.
It is also true that Henry Dimbleby, in his national food strategy, showed that the total biomass of farmed animals has increased by a huge factor since 10,000 BC, when only 2.5 million humans were a tiny proportion of the total biomass of wild animals. That was at the start of the Holocene epoch, when global temperatures entered an unprecedented period of stability and agriculture became possible. Today, the combined weight of all livestock bred for human consumption dwarfs that of the combined weight of all wild mammals and birds, and even adding the combined weight of the now 7.8 billion human population and our domesticated animals, such as pets and horses, it is still much smaller than that of the livestock that we are producing for human consumption.
We clearly have a number of problems: a burgeoning population, leading to a problem of how to feed the world, which we are pretty good at—although we are doing it in perhaps too intensive a way that is not helping biodiversity, et cetera; some of the food is grown in the wrong place; and we have plenty of inequality. Some 50% of the world’s habitable land is put down to agriculture, but of that, 77% is down to either livestock or, pertinently, the production of crops to feed said livestock. In the UK, that figure rises to an astonishing 85%, according to Dimbleby’s food strategy report, although that is partly down to our hilly topography, high rainfall in the west and our temperate climate, which promotes exceptional grass growth. Let us not forget that well-managed, diverse grasslands are very effective carbon sinks, pulling carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere and sequestering free nitrogen in the ground. Grassland is an important tool in the fight against climate change, and we should be careful when we recommend excessive tree-planting schemes— I apologise for the slight diversion.
With regard to methane emissions from cattle, we heard from some eminent academics who favoured beef cattle reared in huge feedlots in the USA and Australia, suggesting that because they were being reared on protein-rich diets and thereby putting weight on quicker, and thence being taken to slaughter quicker, over their shortened lifespan they emitted less methane. That is true, but only in isolation. Where did all that food come from? I have just mentioned the percentages of land use—vast acres growing cereals and maize in the USA, and vast quantities of soya being imported from South America. All those feedstuffs are grown with huge tonnages of nitrogen artificially produced using the Haber-Bosch process, which is heavy on energy consumption, with resultant carbon dioxide emissions leading to excess nitrogen pollution, the subject of our current inquiry. Some 50% of nitrogen applied to fields is lost through leaching into watercourses and into the atmosphere. Further, all are cultivated with large machinery emitting another pollutant, nitrous oxide.
In Britain, where we rear beef cattle for human consumption, the vast majority of animals are extensively reared outdoors for six to eight months when the grass is growing, which is all they eat during that time. Hardier breeds such as Belted Galloway, Blue Grey and Highland cattle spend all year outside. They are an essential component in the carbon cycle and the facilitation of healthy biodiversity.
I return to the nature reserve and the cattle. At home, we have to manage the NNR within strict parameters given to us by Natural England. Yes, the cattle are emitting methane while they chew the cud, but they are also chomping the grass to the correct sward lengths—through careful management as to how long they stay on a particular freshwater marsh, how much grass they eat and how low they eat it to—by which these differing heights and conditions of grassland allow a rich assemblage of differing visiting breeding birds, such as waders, waterfowl and raptors, including marsh harriers, to breed. Of course, their muck returns natural nitrogen to the ground, among other organic matter, and provides essential habitat for dung beetles and all manner of insects at the bottom of the food chain to breed, thereby starting the whole cycle over again and supporting all life.
As we are learning in our current inquiry into nitrogen, reducing emissions is a complicated job. If one concentrates too hard on one reduction, then the law of unintended consequences often leads to an increase in another area.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to be a member of the Environment and Climate Change Committee under the excellent and expert chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. I joined the committee just as the report was being finalised, so I regard myself as a methane learner rather than as a serious contributor to this excellent report. However, I was struck by two things. The first, as some others have mentioned, was the sheer potency of methane, which is 80 times more potent than CO2 but with a much shorter lifespan, remaining in the atmosphere for around 12 years compared to CO2 remaining for up to 2,000 years. This means that curbing methane production is a highly effective way of reducing global emissions overall, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, has eloquently said.
The second striking point was how much methane emissions had already been reduced in this country and how much harder it will be to reduce emissions in future—hence the report’s title, Methane: Keep Up the Momentum.
As for our recommendations, I want to focus on only two things. First, I really do think that it would help if the Government were to publish a methane action plan in order to show clearly, both here in Britain and to others, our determination to take the necessary action. It disappointing that the Government have rejected that recommendation. Can the Minister confirm that the updated plan for carbon budgets will set out in detail key methane policies for the period up to 2030?
Secondly, we must do all we can to encourage other countries to reduce methane emissions. In particular, it is disappointing that, since the 2021 Global Methane Pledge was launched under the UK’s COP presidency, global methane emissions have continued to rise; and that the 2021 methane pledge looks increasingly unrealisable. Reversing this trend will be all the harder now that the Americans have left the field; indeed, at times, they seem to be tearing up the pitch. The Minister will, I hope, confirm that the UK will reinforce its efforts to persuade others to honour their objectives, working with like-minded nations and groupings—including the EU and New Zealand—in particular at COP 30.
I shall now focus on a slightly broader point. The overall context for countering climate change has become quite a bit bleaker since we wrote our report. Wars proliferate. The United States has, as I said, left the field. But the challenges are as difficult and important as ever. The Climate Change Committee’s recent assessment that the UK’s preparations for climate change are inadequate gives us all at least pause for thought. I hope that the Minister will give us his views on that assessment as he winds up. In a democracy, it is never easy to take tough decisions now to benefit future generations, but that is the responsible thing to do. Future generations will not look kindly on us if we fail. Can the Minister confirm that the Government remain utterly committed to reaching net zero by 2050 and to meeting the new target in this year’s nationally determined contribution?
I have one final point to make. This morning, a friend asked me what I was going to do today. I said that I would be speaking in a debate here in the House of Lords on methane. “Oh God, how boring”, she said. I disabused her, of course, but she hit on a rather crucial point. There is a huge gap between the readily understandable goal—cooling the planet over the next 50 years or so, saving millions of lives—and what are for many people the numbingly boring details needed to achieve that goal, including aerobic digesters and changes in cattle feed, important though they are. Can the Minister confirm that the Government will do all they can to close that gap and, in their communications, to link the measures with the goal?
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, first, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis. I thank the committee’s chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for all her work in steering the committee through this inquiry and for her excellent introduction to the debate. I also thank the committee and its staff, who worked really hard to produce an important report that sheds light on an important and often underappreciated facet of climate policy.
Methane is actually a really interesting technical problem due to its impact across many sectors and one that the UK has had considerable success in tackling, as other noble Lords have said. Given the comprehensive remarks from other noble Lords, I will focus on only a few areas.
To begin with, it is worth restating some of what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said about metrics and measurements: they are central to the consideration of methane because of its nature as a flow gas rather than a stock gas. If a constant amount of methane is being emitted into the atmosphere, the warming impact will be a one-off hit. To a first approximation, the methane breaks down in the atmosphere as quickly as it is being replaced over the medium term. This is different from the nature of CO2, which remains in the atmosphere for centuries, and therefore warming will increase over time for a constant source of emissions.
This leads us to problems with trying to apply a global warming potential to methane as a comparison to CO2 by using a single metric, which has been the approach undertaken so far. Currently, the UK uses Global Warming Potential 100—GWP100—which is a comparison over a 100-year horizon. Analysing methane using this metric leads to a GWP of 28 for methane; in other words, it has 28 times the warming impact of CO2. However, this figure misses the complexities in methane being a flow gas rather than a stock gas. It is worth restating what Professor Myles Allen said during our inquiry, that
“expressing methane emissions as a carbon dioxide equivalent using GWP100 overstates the warming impact of a constant source of methane by a factor of three to four and understates the impact of any new methane source by a factor of four to five”.
That illustrates that having a more nuanced view of the impact of methane emissions than GWP100 is critical for policy-making. Factors of three to five are not small discrepancies.
How the UK responds to climate change depends on a balanced assessment across emissions sources, so having a true understanding of the actual warming impact of emissions is vital. It is for that reason that the Select Committee recommended, in its recommendation 7, that the UK should unilaterally implement an auxiliary metric to better reflect the warming impact of methane and help shape effective policy in the UK. In my view, this is the key recommendation of the report, on how we view that data and how we look at those metrics. I hope that the Minister and his team can look again at the recommendation for an auxiliary metric, which would help us respond to the challenges around methane and other gases by ensuring that they are balanced effectively.
My second point is about regulation. We heard witnesses describe the complex picture around methane regulation, with overlaps between four separate regulators—the Environment Agency, the Health and Safety Executive, the North Sea Transition Authority and the Offshore Petroleum Regulator for Environment and Decommissioning—which cover agriculture, waste management and oil and gas. That is a complex regulatory picture, and in our questioning of the regulators we uncovered overlap and areas that are falling in the gaps between the regulators.
A good example of that is the Environment Agency. Witnesses from the EA stated:
“To be absolutely clear, we have no statutory duty around methane”.
It was clear from their evidence that this is a significant gap and affects how the sector is regulated. Looking more widely, this also chimes with the excellent Corry review recently commissioned by the Defra Secretary of State, which recommended that the statutory duties, principles and codes of Defra regulators should be consolidated to a core set, reflecting the Government’s priorities. If the EA and other regulators had a clear net-zero duty, this would provide important clarity and close gaps in the regulation of methane. It would also have wider benefits across the sector; for example, by streamlining the build-out of clean energy infrastructure. Can the Minister say what consideration the Government are giving to the important area of consolidating the regulators’ duties? This builds on the work that was done on Ofgem under the previous Government and through the Energy Act 2023.
The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, talked about complexity. My final point is about the importance of bringing in a systems approach to net zero to ensure that all departments and regulators are fully joined up in pursuit of this goal. Some important steps forward have been taken in this area, particularly in energy, but a 2020 report by the noble Lord, Lord Vallance, Achieving Net Zero Carbon Emissions Through a Whole Systems Approach, remains as relevant as ever. As well as recommendations on duties for regulators, as I have touched on, it includes proposals for an operational group to drive delivery across government and departments and, on the data side, for the establishment of an analytical hub. The methane issue, touching as it does many sectors and areas of the economy, is an excellent illustration of why a systems approach is required. I urge the Government to return to some of the points in the 2020 report to ensure joined-up delivery in this space and to build on the great progress being made.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the opportunity to say a few words in the gap. I congratulate the committee on its report and the chair on her opening speech and on securing the debate.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Jay, I am a methane learner. I remember first discovering its importance in the late 1980s, when I talked to Sir Jack Lewis, who had been appointed by Mrs Thatcher as chair of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and who later became a Member of this House. It struck me at the time that this concentration—80 times, as has been mentioned several times—was very powerful stuff. I think it is a 45% reduction that would help meet our Paris climate change target of 2030.
On the other hand, I am encouraged by some recent research. Last year, I came across something by Professor Vincent Gauci of the University of Birmingham. Apparently, microbes in tree bark in the world’s forests absorb much more methane than previously thought. Tree bark has previously been overlooked for its climate contribution. Apparently, if all the tree bark in the world was laid flat, it would cover the surface of the earth, so it represents a vast area for gas exchange between bark and atmosphere.
Scientific research these days is often about vast quantities of data generated in a wide variety of areas, of which climate change is one. Last Friday, I happened to visit the Harwell Space Cluster. Believe me, the sheer amount of data it deals with from earth observation satellites is phenomenal, as I am sure the Committee will appreciate. I make the point to my noble friend the Minister and others that it is vital to continue to collect this data. I will direct my remarks towards chapter 3 of the committee’s report, recommendation 7 and the Government’s response to it.
Ordinarily, to say something like “collect the data” would be neither unusual nor particularly interesting. However, we live in a time when things are changing. On 16 April, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration announced a whole list of datasets regarding ocean monitoring that will be removed by the middle of this month. On 23 April, the BBC reported:
“Swathes of scientific data deletions are sweeping across US government websites—with decades of health, climate change and extreme weather research at risk. Now, scientists are racing to save their work before it’s lost”.
This is a tremendously important point. I can give the Committee further examples. Apparently, somebody researching the history of the Greenland ice sheet is afraid that all the data related to it will be deleted by the American authorities one way or another. It may be that the data shows a different pattern of Greenland’s ice sheets in the past that would affect our calculation of the future.
My time is almost up, so my plea to my noble friend the Minister is that, when he takes part in discussions with other countries on behalf of the British Government—I believe there is a UNFCCC conference in June 2027 on the horizon—he will do everything he can to ensure that we continue to collect the data without which debates like this are not possible and without which we cannot measure and make the progress we need to make on climate change.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, before I start my speech, I will reflect the comments that we have just heard. I did not manage to get into the noble Viscount’s Oral Question today, but I am deeply concerned about what the Americans are doing to the fundamental scientific basis for our understanding of climate, so I echo those comments.
As a member of this Select Committee, I speak in support of the report, and I thank our excellent clerks and researchers and everyone who made it possible, including our witnesses and our chair. If the noble Lord, Lord Jay, is a climate methane learner, at times I felt like a methane mediator. This was a difficult report to get over the line, but I am very pleased that we managed to do so. I also thank the Government and the Minister for their response. I note that we have a shared ambition in this area, if somewhat different approaches.
I will speak on the need for urgency in the global fight against climate change and on the need to buy time in our fight for survival, which can be brought about only by cutting our methane emissions now. I want to see the Government become the global champion that the pledge deserves. The UK has a real opportunity, having joined Brazil in co-chairing the Climate and Clean Air Coalition. The one thing that we do not have is time. As Bill McKibben has said:
“If we don’t win very quickly on climate change, then we will never win … It’s what makes it different from every other problem our political systems have faced”.
As we have heard, methane is the second-most significant greenhouse gas. While it has a short lifespan— I like the analogy between the bully and the teacher—compared to carbon dioxide, its potency as a heat-trapping gas is far greater: it is some 80 times more powerful than CO2 over 20 years. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said, in that way, it is a devastating gas. Methane emissions contribute to one-third of global warming. Tackling methane is rightly recognised as one of the fastest and most cost-effective ways to limit the near-term global temperature rises.
Professor Forster, in his evidence to the committee, said that such actions
“could lower the trajectory of global warming from 0.25 degrees celsius per decade to 0.1 degrees celsius”.
Cutting methane emissions rapidly does not just limit future warming; it slows rates of warming over the coming decades to buy time to implement the deeper and far more complex decarbonisation actions that we must take. Methane cuts are essential in reducing the immediate, devastating and costly real-world impacts of extreme weather and crop loss that we face now and will experience much more going into the 2040s. We have no other policy options to buy time—this is the only one.
The noble Earl, Lord Leicester, said that we should rightly be proud of what the UK has achieved to date. We achieved a 62% drop between 1990 and 2020, a larger percentage than any other OECD country. The UK rightly played a pivotal role in the Global Methane Pledge at COP 26, where 150 countries signed up to reduce their methane emissions by 30% by 2030.
I welcome the Government’s engagement with our recommendations—that is beneficial. The Government point to the existing delivery plan for carbon budgets and the framework for tackling methane. They highlight ongoing work across sectors and are leveraging the UK’s expertise internationally. However, our report argues that the Government must go further if the UK is truly to solidify its role as a global leader and champion the methane reductions required. The Select Committee recommends publishing a dedicated UK methane action plan providing clarity and focus for all sectors, including sector-specific targets and plans. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, it is disappointing that the Government have disagreed with this recommendation, saying instead that they are covered in existing budgets. While methane is indeed part of the broader net-zero strategy, the unique nature of methane and the opportunities it presents warrant a specific, transparent and dedicated plan outlining priority actions, costs and benefits.
I will just say a quick word specifically about the sector. Farming is now the key sector: it is the largest UK source, contributing half of all our methane, 85% of which comes from cattle. As the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, said, farming is perhaps more exposed than any other sector in the UK. Indeed, as we move forward, we have very difficult choices ahead. It is important that we have a balance in these things, but there are certain quick wins that we can do. We need slurry management, selective breeding and the farming and food road map. As the noble Lord, Lord Trees, said, farmers have the knowledge but need the power to do something about this.
In our energy sector, we are wasting enough energy from venting and flaring to power 700,000 homes. Venting and flaring need to end. I point out the recommendation for urgent transparency and accountability in these sectors.
Turning to waste, we need to do more and make sure that we have food collection across the country and enough anaerobic digesters to make that target a reality. We need to do more on landfill and about the fact that waste crime is out of control in this country, with 18% of our waste ending up in the hands of criminals.
The Government mention the UK Emissions Trading Scheme Authority and are considering including methane emissions from the upstream oil and gas sector. This is welcome, but it is not the commitment needed to align with our international partners, who are developing robust standards, including for imports. Robust MMRV is critical for both domestic progress and international accountability. I hope that we will see a UK-EU ETS alignment soon and that the UK will meet EU standards in this area.
The report called for the UK to use its expertise to encourage the establishment of an international body to verify the methane pledge participants’ action plans. The Government’s response points to the Climate and Clean Air Coalition as being a well-placed body. We recognise that it is valuable, but we call specifically for a body focused on verification to ensure accountability and the transparency of data. Data from the UN’s alert system, highlighted at COP 29, showed a stark gap: more than 1,200 alerts about large oil and gas plumes were issued, but only 1% of those resulted in mitigation steps. Data is helpful but if nothing is done with it, it is no better than having no data at all.
The UK, having co-launched this, has a real opportunity. We should go beyond domestic action and do more in the international sphere. We should not be content with just keeping our work at home. We now have 25 satellites orbiting the world; super emitters have nowhere to hide. Abating leaks needs to be done on an international scale. As somebody in the UN said:
“It’s plumbing. It’s not rocket science”.
Abandoned fossil fuel infrastructure now emits more methane than Iran and is fourth-largest global source. The International Energy Agency’s Global Methane Tracker 2025 report, just issued, shows that global methane emissions are stubbornly high. There were nearly 120 million tonnes of methane emissions in 2023, and the global energy sector may have emissions that are 70% higher than officially reported.
I call on the Government to do more with our international oil and gas expertise, particularly in leak detection and repair, and to do more to help countries that are struggling to repair their leaks. This is one way in which the UK Government could demonstrate their leadership in this area and provide a very useful source of help to the globe.
To conclude, a dedicated methane action plan is necessary for clarity and focus, particularly for harder to abate areas. I call on the UK to go further and really be the true champion this treaty requires. Deploying our technical expertise to help identify and fix large leaks internationally is a powerful example of how we can drive action, slow the immediate pace of global warming and keep up the vital momentum on this crucial climate issue.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, on securing this debate, and all members of the Environment and Climate Change Committee on their excellent report Methane: Keep up the Momentum. In particular, we on these Benches appreciate the detailed and pragmatic approach and the opportunity to learn so much about methane emissions and management.
I draw the Grand Committee’s attention to my register of interests, in particular as an extensive grazing-based dairy and stock farmer and an investor in Agricarbon, Circular Algorithmic and Data Systems, Cecil Earth, Valaris and Noble Corporation.
The issues of methane emissions and their continued rise have been ably explained by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble Lord, Lord Jay. I fully associate myself with those remarks but do not intend to repeat them.
We on these Benches understand that environmental responsibility means striking a balance between affordability and necessity. For Governments and individuals to have a realistic probability of success in preventing greenhouse gases causing disastrous climate change outcomes, we must forget pursuing fantasies of the perfect with high-cost, headline-grabbing technologies and instead make pragmatic, and affordable choices every day using cost-effective solutions and innovations.
This is why we welcome the committee’s emphasis on such practical strategies to reduce methane. We also welcome the opportunity to reflect on how we as a country can go further by building on past achievements, supporting innovation and placing trust in our industries, farmers and communities.
The UK has made remarkable progress. Since 1990, we have reduced our methane emissions by more than 60%. This is more than almost any other major economy. That achievement should be a source of national pride. In fact, as president of COP 26 , the UK played a central role in launching the global methane pledge, an international effort to reduce global anthropogenic methane emissions by at least 30% by 2030.
Domestically, we have led by example in key areas. In energy, we have seen methane leaks from oil and gas production reduced significantly through strong collaboration between government and industry and through smart, proportionate regulation. In agriculture, we have introduced initiatives such as the slurry infrastructure grant, helping farmers reduce emissions while continuing to feed the nation and remain globally competitive. In waste, we have seen dramatic reductions in landfill methane emissions, largely thanks to better waste processing, energy recovery and recycling infrastructure. We must sustain this momentum, and there are several areas where action is clearly required.
The agriculture sector is now the UK’s largest source of methane emissions after the reductions achieved in other sectors, primarily from livestock and manure. The committee rightly highlights the potential of innovation; feed additives, selective breeding—accelerated by precision breeding as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, highlighted—and improved animal health all offer effective ways to reduce emissions without cutting production, but we must be clear: our farmers are not the problem. They are stewards of our land, providers of our food and vital players in restoring nature and reducing net greenhouse gas emissions. We must not burden them with unrealistic or punitive targets. Instead, we must provide them with the tools, certainty and support they need to innovate and invest.
Farming is a business, and like any business, it must remain viable if it is to be sustainable. We must be careful not to place the blame on farming for global warming, when farmers are simply responding to economic pressures from their customers for wholesome, affordable food. Any measures that we require farmers to take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will lead to higher food prices and these have to be affordable for hard working families. We must also be careful not to place our farmers at a competitive disadvantage to overseas farmers, as this will simply lead to a greater reliance on higher emissions, lower cost imported food and undermined viability for our farmers, as the noble Lord, Lord Trees, warned.
The NFU has outlined the importance of promoting sustainable practices, and many farmers are ahead of the curve, but they need clarity. They need policy frameworks that empower rather than restrict and financial incentives that are practical and accessible. I fully support the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, and his comments about assessing the holistic farm picture, including carbon sequestration when calculating the net farm greenhouse gas emissions footprint. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, highlighted with the bark example, this is still likely to be inaccurate as science is still developing.
On the oil and gas sector, we on these Benches believe in an affordable energy transition, incorporating continued development of our own gas resources in order to make energy bills affordable for consumers, restore our industry’s competitiveness and reduce our dependence on imported energy. We must ensure that any such development is done with best practice around management of methane emissions, including restricting flaring and venting. Our North Sea energy sector has led the world in technology adoption. For example, our offshore wells have been hydraulically fractured or fracked since 1980, and we can do so again in methane management.
Our energy sector has already reduced methane emissions by 70% since 2002, including a 48% reduction in flaring since 2018—remarkable achievements. Given how clean our North Sea fossil fuel sector has become, I ask the Minister whether it is better to continue to develop our oil and gas resources, rather than import dirtier products from overseas. I also heartily endorse comments from the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, in his call for more digestate gas entering our gas network.
We need better data and more accurate emissions accounting. It is clear from the comments of Professor Hamburg that we in this country have world-leading expertise in monitoring and evaluating emissions, putting us in a strong position to drive international understanding. This means embracing a dual approach that many Lords have mentioned, including both GWP100 and also GWP*, which better reflects the warming profile of short-lived gases such as methane. It also means recognising the nutritional value of food and the central importance of cheap energy to our economy, alongside their carbon footprints. We must not fall into the trap of measuring environmental impact in a vacuum, neglecting wider considerations like food and energy security, affordability and trade competitiveness.
We must avoid adopting ideological arguments and look to pragmatic, evidence-led decision-making. The reduction in methane emissions should be achieved not through arbitrary targets but through investment, innovation and science-based policy. On reading the report and listening to noble Lords in this debate, I was particularly struck by the opportunity that we have to share best practice and technology that we have learned and developed since 1990 with other countries. The Green Alliance highlighted the opportunity in Latin America to help shape its policy on landfill gas capture. I ask the Minister what this Government are doing to promote the export of our expertise to these other countries.
A number of noble Lords mentioned the emissions trading scheme. I should strike a note of caution in the desire to include methane within the ETS, as its shorter duration is unlikely to fit comfortably with the persistence of carbon itself. In a way, we are talking about two different things and it becomes a confusing picture if we put methane into the carbon trading system. I am most interested in the Minister’s view on this matter.
In conclusion, the committee’s report is not just a reminder of what we must do but a testament to what we have already achieved and a call to build upon that success. Methane mitigation is not a fringe issue; it is central to achieving our climate goals. It is an opportunity to protect our environment and support our economy. I commend the committee for its work and urge the Government to act with clarity domestically and with energy internationally.
The Minister of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath) (Lab)
My Lords, it has been an interesting debate. Like members of the Grand Committee, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for initiating the debate and her chairmanship of the Environment and Climate Change Committee. The committee’s report on methane emissions has shed light on one of the most pressing challenges we face in the pathway to net zero. I thank all noble Lords who took part in the production of the report, as well as those who participated in this well thought-out and thorough debate.
I go back to the beginning, the noble Baroness’s speech, when she referred to the outcome of the Select Committee report as being a message of hope. I agree. I should also go back to what the noble Lord, Lord Trees, and other noble Lords pointed out about the reduction in methane emissions, which must be counted. While there can never be complacency in this area, this has to be counted as a significant achievement by this country.
I also accept the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, that we need to keep up the momentum. As noble Lords have said, the science on this is unequivocal: methane is responsible for almost one-third of global warming since the Industrial Revolution. However, as the noble Baroness explained, it remains in the atmosphere for only a fraction of time—approximately 12 years. Therefore, reducing those emissions is one of the fastest ways that we can avert one of our most acute climate change risks and keep the Paris Agreement in reach, which is a fundamental global challenge that we face.
The independent advice from the Climate Change Committee ahead of our next carbon budget sets a cross-economy pathway to reduce emissions, including measures that contribute to the reduction of methane emissions. We are considering the recently received Climate Change Committee’s report and we are bound to respond by summer 2026.
Let me make this clear. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, asked whether we are absolutely committed to net zero. The answer is yes; we have to be: the science about the impact of climate change is so convincing. We have to stay determined. One of the tragedies of current political discourse is that there have been so many attacks on net zero. The ludicrous idea that the measures being taken on net zero have led to damage to our economy is so nonsensical, because the one thing on which I am clear is that the big issue on energy prices has nothing to do with the policies that have been taken on net zero but everything to do with our vulnerability to the international fossil fuel market.
In February, the CBI produced a report on what I think was described as the green economy. A 10% increase in the green economy in 2023 compares to a very modest increase generally, and nearly 1 million people are employed in the green sector overall. One can make a very convincing argument that investing in net zero, which we have to do, is actually a way to kick-start growth in the economy. We have this mission statement and I have taken part in a number of cross-government discussions over the last few weeks: the Government are absolutely committed. I take the point from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, that we need a practical approach to making progress, but there cannot be a let-up in the drive to net zero.
This is the context in which we need to consider the recommendation of the committee to which noble Lords have referred and the question of an action plan. It is obvious that the response given in our written report is disappointing, and I am sorry that I am not in a position to overturn that in the light of your Lordships’ contributions. However, we basically believe that this is covered in our existing delivery plan for carbon budgets. The point I make is that carbon budgets are the very engine room of our pathway to net zero. We are absolutely committed to including key methane policies in the carbon budgets plan, covering the period up to 2030, which will contribute to the Global Methane Pledge.
Under the Climate Change Act, legally binding carbon budget targets require domestic reductions across all greenhouse gases, including methane, to keep us on track to meet net zero. As I have said, we are committed to a progress report in relation to the fourth, fifth and sixth carbon budgets, and we have just received the advice from the Climate Change Committee in relation to the seventh carbon budget.
On the EU and UK trading emissions system, at this stage all I can say to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, is that we understand the importance of what he is saying. We are in discussions at the moment, but I am afraid that I cannot go any further at this point.
We had very interesting insights into agriculture. It is the largest source of UK methane emissions, and we were treated to expert interventions from my noble friend Lord Grantchester, the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, who all made important points. I very much take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, about the impact of measures on food prices. This is clearly a tension that Governments have been facing for many years, which also relates to the issue of welfare standards, as well as comparisons between this country and others, and it feeds into discussions on trade. It is a very difficult and challenging issue.
It is right to place on record my gratitude to the National Farmers’ Union for its valuable contribution to the Select Committee. I certainly appreciate the efforts of farmers in this area and find no attraction whatever in a punitive approach. When I was a Minister in Defra—I had a joint ministerial job across Defra and DECC, as it was called in 2008—I took part in discussions with the NFU on reducing emissions in the agricultural sector. I think it is right to say that it gladly took part in those discussions, and that co-operation has continued.
We are committed to introducing a land use framework, which will make environmental land management schemes work for farmers. Defra is also looking at a number of other measures to reduce emissions from livestock, alongside the upcoming food strategy and farming road map. I am afraid that I cannot give a definite date to the noble Baroness, but we think that this will be a credible plan to reduce food and farming emissions by working closely with stakeholders.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, made a number of comments about accurate reporting, and other noble Lords added to those discussions. There was reference to recommendation 7, in which the Select Committee asked the Government to move unilaterally to an auxiliary metric. It also asks us to play an active role in international discussions as the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change considers the need to review those common metrics by no later than 2028.
There are two points to be made here. It is clearly important that we have international reporting and that there is consistency in that. I take the point that some noble Lords here are critical about some of the standards of that reporting. However, I say to noble Lords—including my noble friend Lord Stansgate—that we will take an active role in UNFCCC discussions on common metrics. The agenda item will be continued in June 2027, and we will continue to be led by the best available science and international consensus. I have taken note of a number of comments made today by noble Lords.
On my noble friend Lord Grantchester’s comments on the dairy demonstrator project, I cannot go further than our response to recommendation 12. However, that project has now commenced, following the signing of the contract, and we will obviously watch its progress with a great deal of interest.
On the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, I take his point about the important role that anaerobic digestion has to play in meeting net-zero goals. We think that, with the right standards of controls in place, it presents opportunities for improved nutrition management, nutrient management and a nutrient circular economy. There are, as he knows, challenges in relation to the risk of improper management, which can lead to issues with environmental risk. However, we certainly think that it has a role to play, and I will take note of the noble Earl’s comments.
The noble Lord, Lord Ravensdale, made a number of interesting comments too. I was especially interested in the points he made about regulators. Clearly, in a field where a number of regulators come into play, the key is to make sure that they work together and that there is no overlap or duplicated approaches. We have announced plans to conduct an internal review of regulations and regulators at Defra, which should help the noble Lord in that area.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, on fossil fuels and the role of the North Sea, that clearly this has been a crucially important sector of our economy for many years. We still have many highly skilled people working there, but we lost 70,000 people in the last 10 years under the previous Government. It is called a super-mature basin, and it is declining. Oil and gas have a role to play in the future, but we are right to go for a balance between different technologies. The emphasis we are making on nuclear as a baseload and putting huge effort into renewables, while having gas as a strategic reserve, is the right way to go forward.
On venting and flaring, which noble Lords have raised before both in the Chamber and here, my understanding is that the regulator is already taking action to increase transparency and accountability. In March 2024, the North Sea Transition Authority published its emissions reduction plan, requiring industry to reduce flaring and venting.
I am not sure for how long I am allowed to speak here, but I will just turn to international leadership. Noble Lords have said that the UK is in a great position to exercise international leadership, and I agree with that prospect. It is on a par with the country being the first major colony to establish a net-zero target in law, and I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady May, for her leadership, which her party unfortunately seems to have forgotten in its fast retreat from net zero. I regret that, because the loss of consensus is a serious matter for the country and the future. We saw that at the local elections recently, during which net zero was attacked by some political parties.
It is important that we maintain our leadership. During the COP 26 presidency, as the noble Baroness said, we were one of the first countries to join the Global Methane Pledge. We are stepping up our efforts to deliver on the pledge through funding to support developing countries. We were one of the 30 signatories to the Declaration on Reducing Methane from Organic Waste at COP 29. Now, of course, we are thinking about COP 30 in Brazil, which is only a few months away, and we are working very hard with the COP 30 presidency, as noble Lords have suggested.
From the Government’s point of view, this is a very interesting report. I know that noble Lords are disappointed with one or two of our responses, but the overall response accepts that this is a thoroughly prepared and researched report. As the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, said, the witnesses came from a wide variety of backgrounds. It is clear that the committee had to give a great deal of thought to the recommendations; we should acknowledge that. We accept the core thrust of the report. Although I have disappointed noble Lords again tonight in relation to the action plan, there will be no lack of action by the Government in responding and in making sure that we make progress on methane reductions, but we think that the carbon budget process is the right way to go forward.
In conclusion, I thank noble Lords for what has been a really fascinating and helpful discussion; I can assure noble Lords that it will inform policy development in future.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I thank all contributors for their valuable and well-thought-out responses to this report; they are very much appreciated. I expected no less from my esteemed colleagues on the committee because their participation in the discussions, as well as the engaged way in which their contributions were made during our deliberations, left me in no doubt that we would have a very good debate today.
I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, for his contribution in the gap. His point—and that of the noble Lord, Lord Jay—about the disturbing international scenario in which we now find ourselves will prove a challenge in terms of tackling not just methane emissions but carbon dioxide emissions. I was a bit heartened by China’s recent announcement that it will not ease up on its efforts to tackle climate change. Indeed, at a UN summit as a precursor to the COP 30 meeting, it announced that its NDC, which will be due some time before COP 30, will encompass sector-wide emissions across the economy; that was heartening to hear. Not only will they cover the whole economy: they will cover all greenhouse gases, including methane. We will wait with interest to see the detail.
I will not detain noble Lords too long—I am sure that we all need to move on—but I stress the need for better communication to farmers, which the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, mentioned. There was consensus on this from the NFU, the Nature Friendly Farming Network, and the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board. Without farmers on board, we will not get to grips with methane either at home or abroad.
I am not going to go into detail on the other contributions, save to say that I was heartened by what I heard. Let me just leave noble Lords with the thought that carbon dioxide concentrations are increasing in the atmosphere. The Mauna Loa Observatory—I hope that NOAA does not get to erase all this data—has been monitoring carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere. It has not been monitoring it for the past 800,000 years, but we have data from ice cores in Antarctica that shows that from a steady baseline of 280 parts per million of carbon dioxide before the Industrial Revolution, we have seen, in terms of ecological time, a straight-line increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide to today’s average of 426 parts per million.
We are in uncharted territory, so tackling the short-term but powerful greenhouse gases, such as methane and nitrous oxide, are our route to avoiding some of the disastrous tipping points that we are otherwise hurtling towards. We have an opportunity to buy time, and we should take it. I beg to move.