(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
Let me begin by thanking organisations including the Woodland Trust, the Arboricultural Association, the Forestry Commission, Highways England, the Horticultural Trades Association and the National Forest Company, and Ness Champion, founder of the Biophilic Design Conference, for their engagement ahead of the debate.
I think most people like trees. I go around saying they are great—tree-mendous, indeed—so much so that my mum and dad got me an “I Spy Trees” book for Christmas, which I think will become somewhat easier to complete in the spring and summer months. Trees are woven into the very fabric of our nation, our culture and our heritage —the apple tree that sparked Newton’s revolutionary thinking on gravity; the Tolpuddle Martyrs’ tree, a symbol of solidarity and the birth of the trade union movement; Sherwood forest, immortalised by Robin Hood; and the famous 100 acres, home to Winnie-the-Pooh, Tigger and co. Trees are place-makers.
I recently visited a new development called Linmere, where trees are quite literally used to sell the place, with marketing material suggesting that residents
“stroll through tree-lined avenues and take in the nature around you.”
Everyone moving in gets their own new tree in the garden. Trees improve our lives. They improve our health, both physically and mentally. Urban trees, shrubs and hedges reduce exposure to air pollution by dispersing and capturing pollutants such as particulate matter and ozone. Collectively, urban woods in the UK do a brilliant job of removing an estimated 7.5 kilotonnes of pollutants every single year. Trees can also be lifesavers. Research suggests that increasing green space by just 1% in the most deprived urban neighbourhoods in England is linked to 37% fewer preventable deaths.
Trees also reduce flooding. I was struck when I visited a local school on a soggy day last year, when many homes and businesses had experienced flooding, and asked the headteacher whether the school had had any problems, and it had not. She pointed to the trees on the surrounding playing fields, which had intercepted the rainfall and absorbed so much water. Forest Research estimates that trees deliver over £400 million a year in flood protection. In the summer, the same trees offer vital shade. Crucially, our trees lock away carbon for decades or even centuries. UK woodlands store around 1 billion tonnes of carbon.
Despite all those brilliant benefits, as a nation we are under-treed—we are well below the European average. That makes us the second largest importer of timber in the world. I am delighted that the Government have pledged to plant three new national forests. The first, in the west of England, is under way, and next the Ox-Cam growth corridor will see growth of a different kind—from seed to sapling to forest. With £1 billion of investment in tree planting and forestry support over this Parliament, and tree planting at its highest rate in over 20 years, with 10,000 football pitches-worth planted last year, “plant, plant, plant” is a good mantra.
But we also need to think about something rather less catchy: “establish, establish, establish”. The first three to five years of a tree’s life are critical. That is when trees are most vulnerable to drought, damage, disease and death. Of course, tree and woodland creation will always involve some risk. There will be years when the weather means more trees do not make it, even when best practice is followed, but what we are seeing goes far beyond unavoidable loss—to the planet and the public purse.
University of Sheffield research found that only 61% of the trees meant to be present on new developments were there.
Alex Mayer
The research found that 39% of the trees were missing or dead. Along the A14, National Highways planted over 860,000 trees in 2020, but the failure rate was 45%. More detailed evidence comes from the evaluation of urban tree planting across four cities—Bristol, Birmingham, Nottingham and Leeds—covering trees planted between 2012 and 2022. The team says that just finding out what was planted and where was far harder than it should have been. Record keeping is not good. Even freedom of information requests did not yield data. “Do the trees exist?” they kept asking. Of the 820 expected trees, they discovered that only 687 were actually planted, so 23% of funded or required trees were never planted at all. Of those that were planted, only 42% were in good condition. Around one in five had died or been removed—we might call that a trage-tree—and nearly a third were in poor condition, showing stress, damage or inadequate growth. Very few were growing as we would want them to.
The National Audit Office reported that £48 million of Government investment went into the urban tree challenge fund. If these outcomes are representative, around £10 million of that investment may already have been lost—literally dead wood. This is not a marginal issue; it is a systemic value-for-money problem.
Why are these young trees dying? The research consistently points to similar causes: the wrong tree in the wrong place. I am struck by how often, especially in new builds, the trees are the responsibility of landscape gardeners. There can be a tendency to over-prioritise aesthetics, or even a rightful desire to create a sense of place, over choosing trees that will survive and thrive.
We need better species selection—the right tree in the right place for the right reason—with climate resilience built in. But even if it is in the right place, research shows that young trees are prone to damage from poorly managed stakes and ties, strimmer damage, soil compaction and, sadly, vandalism. Staking in particular is an issue. It should be a temporary support, not a permanent restraint, but there are too many examples of trees literally being strangled by ties that are far too tight and so restrict the natural expansion of the trunk, so as the tree grows, the ties cut into the bark, disrupting the flow of water and nutrients. Sometimes it simply is not anyone’s job to remove the stakes and ties after a year or so. We see on new developments that landscaping and management fees often do not translate into tree care at all and, in some cases, actively contribute to tree loss.
Another cause of early tree death is insufficient water because young trees are thirsty. Newly planted trees need to be watered two to three times a week. They knock back 50 to 100 pints each time. They need deep and regular soaking. Establishing trees need water once a week in dry weather. Watering in the first one to two years is one of the most important factors in whether a tree struggles long term or goes on to thrive.
What needs to change? I know that this Government are committed to early years, so do we perhaps need a best start tree hub as well where everybody learns about watering, mulching and formative pruning?
As I have outlined, the data is patchy. How do we do better as a nation? Does the Minister support mandated record keeping, minimum three-to-five year aftercare plans and reporting requirements tied to planning permission, grants and public contracts? In housing developments, should tree planting and aftercare contracts always be bundled together, so responsibility cannot be passed away? How do we better implement those planning conditions relating to aftercare?
I do not expect the Minister to be able to give me answers to all this; she may direct me to other Departments. That is important, as the issue of trees is not just for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; it is also about housing, communities, transport, health and more. However, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government currently lacks an in-house tree expert. It has been over a decade since the Department had an arboriculturist role, which previously provided expertise on urban trees, including tree planting and tree preservation order regulations. The sector says that it feels that gap keenly. Will the Minister reassure me that the welcome England tree action plan will have cross-departmental buy-in? Will it contain best practice, including clear schedules for watering, mulching, pruning and monitoring?
Of course, much of that already exists, for example in the Arboricultural Association, which I know stands ready to support the Government, and Highways England, which learned from its A14 debacle—the survival rate for trees in its 3 Million Trees project now stands at 85%. Maybe there could also be a section on performance-related tree payments—bonds with sums released only when trees are established so that the reward comes not for trees that are planted, but for trees that thrive, so that aftercare can no longer be treated as an after- thought.
For the Government’s ambitions to flourish, we will need thriving tree nurseries. The excellent “Strong Roots” report has many recommendations to nurture the sector and increase the number of British-grown trees: for example, to better align tree supply with planting grants to give nurseries confidence to invest, so that we avoid situations like the Scottish Government cutting their forestry grant scheme budget by 41% back in 2024, and to boost training, apprenticeships and skills development in tree production. One thing that stood out to me was that the report suggests introducing a British-grown tree certification logo to strengthen market identity. I can very much imagine the Minister launching the “Great British Trees” logo, so I would love to hear her comments on that.
Tree planting without establishment is not climate action; it is waste. However, with simple policy changes, we can ensure that young trees survive, thrive and deliver the economic, environmental, social and economic benefits that we all know they promise.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
What a pleasure it is to stand in this glorious room panelled with English oak cut down in the wake of world war two to refurbish this great Chamber of democracy, and at this Dispatch Box, a gift from New Zealand crafted from its native puriri wood, which I see every time I stand here. I passionately agree with my hon. Friend’s opening speech. I am so grateful to her for bringing this topic to the House today.
Across England, trees and woodlands are more than just part of our landscape; they are intimately woven into our national identity. They cool our air and our cities and shelter our wildlife. Whether it is on a walk through an ancient forest or for a moment beneath a single tree in a city park, trees have a remarkable ability to restore us. They help us with anxiety, grief and loneliness and give us space to breathe. They are woven into our shared national culture. They have stood as symbols of endurance, wisdom and renewal. They are centuries-old sentinels—witnesses to our history. Growing up in Coventry, I played every weekend in Coventry’s War Memorial Park, a great city’s act of remembrance for those we lost in world war one. Every tree has a plaque beneath it remembering the people who died. It is a living memorial to the lost. Our woodlands are places where childhood memories are made and where Christmas strolls and new year’s day walks become traditions, where children climb, and occasionally fall, where dens are made and where dogs are walked—hopefully on a leash.
As the Minister with responsibility for forestry, I have the privilege of regularly seeing the majesty and benefits of our woodlands up close, and I reassure my hon. Friend that we are taking the necessary steps to ensure that we have woodlands and trees for the future. Just last year, I opened Forestry England’s Delamere seed processing centre—a net zero building made of timber—which is named after long-serving Forestry England team member Vernon Stockton. The centre will process up to 4 tonnes of high-quality tree seeds, providing the starting point for the forests of the future.
I have stood in Kielder forest with the people who manage it. I have visited the Community Forest Trust, which sent me home with two Scots pines and two hornbeams. Three of those trees have survived three London droughts. Of course, back in 2011 I led the fight against the Conservative party proposal to sell off the public forest estate; I am passionate about trees.
My hon. Friend is right to list the benefits of trees. Tree-planting in England is at its highest-recorded rate for 20 years—7,000 hectares last year. We will boost that further through our manifesto commitment to create three new national forests. What a privilege it was to plant a tree as part of that establishment. We will plant 20 million trees over the next 25 years to create that new western forest. On Monday, we opened the expressions of interest process for the planned forest in the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor. We will launch the competition for a new national forest in the north or the midlands by July this year. These new forests will bring peace, shade and joy to millions around the country, and the Ox-Cam forest will bring forestry much closer to my hon. Friend’s constituents.
As my hon. Friend says, without maintenance in the early years to help establishment of the trees, the impact of the investment can be reduced. That is why the Government fund establishment and provide expertise and advice to keep trees alive. All Government-funded woodland creation must be designed and planted to the UK forestry standard—a world-leading technical standard for sustainable forest creation and management agreed between all four UK nations. At its root is planning and design. Good planning grows strong woodlands and gives our trees the best start in life. Paying for planning is not a cost; it is an investment in resilience. That is why we offer the woodland creation planning grant—thousands of pounds to fund the groundwork before the first sapling goes in.
Of course, once they are in the ground, young trees are vulnerable and need maintenance to establish. Maintenance includes checking young trees for disease, replacing dead trees, and sometimes even watering during periods of drought. That is why we also fund ongoing maintenance through the England woodland creation offer. Capital payments cover the planting essentials, followed by £400 per hectare per year for 15 years, to support maintenance tasks that give the trees the best possible chance of survival.
We do not rely on planting alone; we back nature’s own hand. Funding for natural colonisation lets woodlands expand organically, allowing species to establish where conditions suit them best. It may appear tatty and scruffy to some, but nature thrives in the mess and wild—it thrives best when we let it go. It is unrealistic to expect 100% survival rates, because that does not happen in nature, as we have seen during recent storms.
Last autumn we witnessed a great spectacle of nature: a mast year in which the overproduction of seeds and acorns meant that they blanketed woodland floors. After woodland species have gorged themselves and are ready for winter—the squirrels in my garden are absolutely fat as butter—there is still more than enough intact material to produce the next generation of trees.
Nature knows that not every seed is going to make it. We mirror that approach. The schemes that we fund as a Government dictate that trees are planted at a higher density than would be seen in mature woodland, to take into account the natural level of tree mortality. Some trees do die, and some are lost to tree disease—a risk to both established and newly planted trees and woodlands. We have seen what can happen with ash dieback and now with Ips typographus, the eight-toothed spruce bark beetle—that is quite a mouthful.
The Government have a robust regulatory regime in place that minimises biosecurity risks from imported material while meeting World Trade Organisation standards. Recipients of many Government grants are required to source trees from suppliers that meet the plant health management standard. Healthy saplings stay healthy because we prevent pathways for harm. My hon. Friend got a book about trees for Christmas. I am the lucky owner of a brand-new almond tree that I got for my birthday, which is going to do battle with the olive and the bay tree. Let’s see what happens—I shall report back next year.
Species choice is ever more important in a changing climate. Today’s species and the trees of the past may not thrive in the near future. For example, I have been told that as we have hotter, drier summers and warmer, wetter winters, cherry trees are a species that may not be climate-resilient in the future. Forestry England has published a list of 30 priority tree species selected for ability to withstand extreme weather and resist pests and diseases. It is crucial that those who want to plant trees and create woodlands do so with an eye on the future.
I said at the beginning that I agreed with most of what my hon. Friend said. I, too, am furious when I see parched trees lining motorways or streets on new developments where the trees have been left to die. I encourage local people who care about their trees to water them, particularly in the early days and during hot summers. My hon. Friend mentioned the urban tree challenge fund. Like our woodland creation grants, that fund did not simply fund planting; it provided multi-year establishment costs alongside the up-front capital costs.
In our urban tree planting grants, we require evidence of good establishment rates, and we withhold payments where that has not been met. That is not always the case for planting that is not funded by Government—for example, on the new housing estate that my hon. Friend talked about, where, despite planning conditions, the same effort towards tree survival is not always made. Developers must do better. Those trees are not decorations; they are an investment that will bring future residents the benefits we have talked about today. Aesthetics cannot take priority over survival.
There is a wealth of guidance provided by organisations inside and outside of Government on what the right tree for the right place is, and I urge people to use it. We are improving that guidance. Our Trees Outside Woodland project compared the survival rates of different establishment approaches. That project concluded last year, and the findings are feeding into our grant designs for tree establishment.
We have invested over £150,000 to investigate in greater detail the causes of mortality in recently planted trees. That work is ongoing. Of course, we have globally leading science down at Kew Gardens. I had the pleasure of spending an hour with Kevin, the head of tree collections and arboriculture, who has been going over to Kazakhstan in central Asia to collect tree seeds and do the research to work out which trees are going to work in the future. The upcoming tree action plan is being developed in partnership across Government and with the sector, and will emphasise the importance of using best practice. Last year, as part of our procurement changes, we recognised the “grown in Britain” timber standard.
We fund tree establishment because it is good government. It is climate security, it is local pride and it is economic sense. We know that great people are working in our community forests. The Forests With Impact programme is working with prisoners at His Majesty’s Prison Haverigg in Cumbria, and 250,000 seeds have been produced there to create the forests of the future. The organisation works with prisoners to ensure that social justice reparations for their crime also offers them a route out of crime and hope for their future when they leave prison. Those young trees will grow into the woodlands we promised—into greener towns, resilient farms and thriving forests.
I want to conclude by thanking everyone who loves trees: thank you for believing in the power of trees and in the potential of people, and for your commitment to a greener, fairer Britain. This Government will work with those who love trees, and we look forward to creating and amplifying the impact they make.
Question put and agreed to.