Parliamentary Bills, Acts of Parliament, amendments and the lengthy debates that accompany them are all too often dismissed. For some, they are seen as dull, complex, too nuanced and out of date. But, for those of us who are required to live and breathe the legislative process, it can be a thing of beauty. Small steps inching forward national policies for the betterment of the country.
However, these lengthy processes to create, amend and repeal laws are often at odds with the immediacy of the 21st Century. The need for instant gratification or satisfaction means that while lobby groups can flap and fluster about small aspects of a bill the wider implications and benefits are missed.
Take the recent announcement around nutrient neutrality. This caused huge outrage from charitable organisations and environmental groups. Yet, stepping back and reviewing the vast amounts of legislation that have been passed protecting our biodiversity and landscape reveals a very different perspective.
The need for nutrient neutrality comes from biodiverse waterways being polluted by phosphates and nitrates, predominately from agricultural practices. However, it is not just agriculture that is culpable, but also water companies who have failed for too long to invest in their infrastructure. As a result of such pollution, housing development across the country has been significantly curtailed. This despite housebuilding only being responsible for a small percentage of these nutrients which enter watercourses.
The Government has already introduced, passed and enacted a raft of laws that not only uphold and protect the environment but significantly reduces nutrient input into our landscapes. Through the Environment Act, there are now new laws in place to ensure “Biodiversity Net Gain” is ringfenced in law and delivers meaningful reversal in the decline of biodiversity.
Added to this the amendments and changes to the Habitats Regulation as a whole will ensure the polluter pays principles remain firmly in place, holding those responsible to account. Coupled with the measures from the Environment Act holding water companies responsible this creates the most stringent set of measures in Europe.
But what of agriculture, the largest sector contributor of nutrients? Well, while Europe languishes with the outdated Common Agricultural Policy, we have created a new system called the Environmental Land Management Scheme focussed on delivering “public money for public good”. Specifically, biodiversity improvement, landscape recovery and sustainable farming. These measures are already helping to reduce nutrient inputs and change outdated farming habits.
Many have accused the Government of taking a retrograde step that weakens our commitment to the environment, but the facts and the legislation passed tell a different story.
Through the Environment Act, the Agriculture Act, the Habitats Regulation and the Polluter Pays principle the Government has provided a sound and sensible ecological approach to protecting the environment while also ensuring that new homes can be built for future generations.
The cumbersome nature of Westminster and how legislation is passed means that all too often separate pieces of legislation are not viewed collectively, nor are Government announcements considered in cooperation with Acts of law that have already been passed. In this instance, despite the hype and furore of social media, we should be clear about the fact that this Government has not only passed strong measures protecting our environment but that we have also found a sensible and balanced way to build houses while looking after the environment.
As a passionate conservationist as well as someone who recognises that the only way in which a new generation will ever find themselves on the housing ladder is by answering the supply and demand issues it is welcome to consider that we can now build while also protecting our green spaces. Local authorities must now grip this issue and ensure that we are building in the right places, in the local style and that the affordable housing numbers are not reduced.