This week the Scottish Parliament will debate one of the most important pieces of legislation of this session, the Housing (Scotland) Bill. 

The Housing Bill was introduced by Patrick Harvie MSP as part of the Scottish Greens’ New Deal for Tenants. It included rent controls, eviction protections and new rights such as the right to decorate homes and keep beloved pets.

At the heart of this bill is a simple but vital principle. That everyone should have a safe and secure home that they can actually afford.

For far too long, tenants in Edinburgh where I live and across Scotland have been at the mercy of a broken rental market. Average rents for a two-bedroom flat in Edinburgh have soared by more than 60 percent since 2010 and in some parts of the city the figures are even worse. 

Families, young people and even those who have lived here their entire lives are being priced out of their communities, forced to choose between rent and other essentials.

This is why rent controls and stronger protections for tenants are so necessary. No one should be spending most of their pay packet just to keep a roof over their head, while landlords make record profits. 

Homes are for living in, not for profiteering.

The Housing Bill is only happening because of the Scottish Greens. From the very beginning, we insisted that rent controls and new rights for tenants must be at the heart of the legislation. The Bill will help to redress the imbalance of power between renters and landlords, making sure that tenants have stability and security.

We are tabling amendments that we believe will make this bill even stronger and allow more security and peace of mind for individual renters and families. We hope that the government will work with us to make it as bold and robust a bill as it can be and that we can ensure Scotland’s renters are the best protected anywhere in the UK.

Rogue landlords have been allowed to get away with ripping off tenants for far too long. It’s easy to say the private rental market is broken, but it isn’t. It is rigged. It is doing what it set out to do which is enriching greedy developers and rogue landlords.

The current system has left renters vulnerable to sudden rent hikes and insecure tenancies. That is not good enough. 

With this Bill, we can finally start to change that, giving people confidence that their homes will remain affordable and that they will not be forced out by unjust increases. We have the opportunity to start fixing a broken housing market that is punishing people all over Scotland. We must not water down or dilute our ambitions by building in loopholes, exemptions and handouts for big developers.

I am proud of the role the Scottish Greens have played in bringing this legislation forward, but passing the Bill is only the beginning. We need to make sure it is implemented properly and delivers the real change that tenants across Scotland so desperately need.

All families deserve financial stability. Nobody should have to worry about losing the roof over their head because their landlord decides to cash in. By backing this Bill, Parliament can take a major step towards making unaffordable rent hikes a thing of the past and creating a fairer, greener Scotland where everyone has a home they can afford.

This week, I urge MSPs from all parties – including the many that are landlords themselves – to support rent controls and protections for tenants. Edinburgh’s families cannot wait any longer.

Featured image via Justin Black / Shutterstock.

Protestors for Unite the Kingdom have congregated around Waterloo station in central London to hear from right wing figureheads like Tommy Robinson and Steve Bannon, Donald Trump’s former strategist.

A counter protest, the March Against Racism, has been organised by Stand up to Racism, with over 5,000 people in attendance.

The Unite the Kingdom protest has been organised in large part as a response to concerns over immigration, with placards and flags seen at the rally calling on the Government to “stop the boats”.

It comes after the nationwide growth of Operation Raise the Colours, which aimed to see flags like St George’s Cross and the Union Jack raised in support of British/English heritage and pride.

While advertised as a promotion of cultural and national pride, it has been seen by some as a symbol of an emboldened far-right, with the operation having several links to far-right groups like Britain First and The Weoley Warriors.

Notable figures including Conservative MP Robert Jenrick joined in by raising flags and posting on social media in support of the outpour of cultural pride.

The Unite the Kingdom protest is the successor to the Raise the Colours movement, with other signs reading “enough is enough, save our children”, a criticism of the Government’s approach to the grooming gangs scandal.

Tommy Robinson, who’s real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, is a prominent voice on the far-right and co-founder of the English Defence League (EDL).

He is set to take the stage outside Waterloo station alongside other figures like TV presenter Katie Hopkins and former UK special forces and potential London mayoral candidate, Ant Middleton .

Prior to the protest, he said that “patriotism is the future, borders are the future”, and that the crowds being drawn to Whitehall and Waterloo Station were proof that “Britain has awoken”, and that the movement is “never going away.”

The Unite the Kingdom protest followed a set route from Whitehall to Waterloo Square, with speeches organised in advance. The police have set up a “sterile zone” between the protest and anti-racism counter protest, with around 1,000 officers in attendance.

The Met Police have said that protestors have attempted to breaxh this line, set up to maintain distance between the two protests and to prevent violence, with a spokesperson saying on X: A crowd of ‘unite the kingdom’ protesters attempted to enter the sterile area on Whitehall that is [in] place to keep the two protests apart.

“Officers were attacked with projectiles and have had to use force to avoid their cordon being breached.”

Tommy Robinson has taken to X in order to calm the crowds, saying: “We understand peoples frustrations at not being able to get near the stage or the PA system.

“We are asking all of you, everyone who is understandably frustrated, to please remain calm and peaceful.Let’s keep things safe and civil.”

The Met Police confirmed at 16:50 that nine people have been arrested after an uptick in “unacceptable violence” which included kicking, punching and the throwing of flares and bottles.

[This article will be updated as more information becomes available].

Featured image via Met Police.

He adds that Reform is “taking seriously the important work of getting ready for government,” with Zia now head of policy, much of this lies on his shoulders.

Working on a voluntary basis alongside three paid policy officials, he has been tasked to build up the party’s governing credentials.

Four more paid policy officials are set to be recruited, alongside a small team of unpaid volunteers working to draft up ideas, particularly in areas like Scotland where the party does not have a strong foothold or paid position.

This small, but growing team is tasked with making Reform UK into a serious candidate for election, with members like Helen Manson, interim chair of the party’s South Cambridgeshire branch saying that when knocking on doorsteps, Reform UK candidates “can’t respond” to the question of how Reform is ready to govern – to many, it appears as though the party has no plan.

The party has laid out a number of bold, often controversial pledges, but questions linger over how it plans to pay for them. While announcing and confirming more policies at the conference, the way they intend to implement them remains uncertain.

Immigration and Policing

The party is best known for its stance on immigration: Calling for mass deportations and an end to the small boats crisis.

Standing in front of the crowd in Birmingham, he announced plans to end the crisis in two weeks, adding to the wave of pledges including removing the UK from the European Convenvtion on Human Rights (ECHR) to repeal laws that block mass deportations, with plans to deport 600,000 migrants over five years.

While he would later reframe these statements, instead pledging to end the crisis within two weeks of a new immigration bill being passed, he maintained that Reform UK would complete it’s mission as “quickyl as possible.”

Another main focus of Nigel Farage’s wide ranging speach was policing: Pledging to “police the streets and not the tweets”, referring to new hate crime laws that saw people like Lucy Connolly, who appeared on stage at the conference, arrested for offensive tweets, with Connolly calling for her X followers to “set fire” to hotels housing asylum seekers.

New pledges to expand stop and search powers were also announced, with Farage hoping to “bring back genuine stop and search on our streets” to tackle knife crime.

Net Zero and Climate

Reform UK’s new mayor of Lincolnshire, Andrea Jenkyns called for the UK to “drill, baby, drill”, an early sign of Reform’s climate policy.

Farage has already pledged to scrap net zero targets, bring fracking back to the UK, and increase drilling in the North Sea.

Two opinions were made clear at the conference: Reform UK’s leadership to do not attribute global warming to human activity, with party deputy Richard Tice calling the idea “absolute garbage”, and the nation’s top priority should be reducing energy bills rather than the focus on sustainability which party chairman David Bull claims has been “against the wishes of local communities.”

A number of Reform UK figures were also calling for the dissolution of Ed Milliband’s Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, aiming to replace it with an “energy security group”, and wide support was seen for repealing the Climate Change Act.

“We will end full subsisdies on renewabke energy” and “reindustrialise Britain, making things we want and need”, Farage told the cheering crowd, pledging that the UK will produce its own oil and gas instead of prioritising “harmful, wasteful” net zero policies.

Tax reform and Welfare

Another policy on the chopping block is welfare, with “some serious cuts to the welfare budget” planned. Controversial historian, made famous for racist remarks about slavery, spoke of the welfare state being “the tragedy of the 20th century.”

Lee Anderson, one of the party’s four MPs was announced as the party’s welfare spokesman, with Farage telling ITV: “There are too many young people being put on disability benefits, being literally cast out of the system, classed as victims, left there. It isn’t good for the economy, it isn’t good for them as human beings. From today, Lee Anderson is going to be our new spokesman on welfare.

“He’s going to work with others and craft policy. And the thing about Lee is that he worked in a Citizens Advice Bureau. You know, he knows there are those that genuinely deserve help, but there are many frankly that don’t.”

Featured image via Reform UK of Youtube.

Across Parliament, ministers, peers, and committees have debated the country’s climate trajectory, with broad consensus on the urgency of action but lingering questions about costs, delivery pace, and how to secure public consent.

Political and Parliamentary Momentum

July saw the first ever State of the Climate and Nature statement delivered in the Commons, outlining a £7.9 billion package for flood defences and ecosystem restoration alongside commitments to expand heat pump installations.

In the House of Lords, peers echoed support for rapid climate action, with particular emphasis on biodiversity recovery and ensuring communities are engaged in decision-making.

Meanwhile, the Energy Security & Net Zero Committee interrogated Secretary of State Ed Miliband, who defended the Government’s Clean Power 2030 goal and highlighted achievements such as lifting the onshore wind ban, delivering the largest renewables auction in history, and reforming solar planning rules.

Alongside these measures, the flagship Great British Energy Act (2025) has established a state-owned company to co-invest in renewable and nuclear power projects.

Delivering on Clean Energy Commitments

The Government’s commitments are ambitious and multifaceted. Under the Clean Power 2030 mission, the UK is pursuing full electricity decarbonisation within five years. Great British Energy is already funding solar installations on 200 schools and 200 hospitals, while the £13.2 billion Warm Homes Plan aims to retrofit five million homes.

Nearly three million families are also set to benefit from the expanded £150 Warm Home Discount this winter. The £7.9 billion nature and flood defence programme represents another pillar of this agenda, promising investment in wetlands, peatland, and coastal barriers, supported by a forthcoming national land-use and energy spatial plan.

Scrutiny and Stakeholder Perspectives

Parliamentary committees have not shied away from highlighting potential risks. MPs and peers have pressed the Government on whether new green jobs will replace those lost in the fossil fuel sector, particularly in the North Sea.

Industry has called for clearer guidance on the future of Contracts for Difference (CfD) rounds, supply chain security, and grid upgrades. Unions, meanwhile, have welcomed the Government’s new recognition agreements in renewables and nuclear, but continue to stress the need for a genuinely just transition. Civil society groups are pushing for a Climate & Nature Act and stricter biodiversity safeguards as planning reforms unfold.

Progress and Ongoing Challenges

There is no doubt that progress is being made. Record-breaking renewable auctions, expanded nuclear investment, and insulation programmes signal momentum.

However, major challenges persist. Grid capacity and planning remain bottlenecks, with risks that deployment will outpace infrastructure upgrades.

The affordability of energy for both households and industry remains under pressure, and there are concerns about how to balance rapid deployment with nature protection.

Equally pressing is the question of workforce transition, as tens of thousands of fossil fuel jobs phase out.

Looking Ahead

The months ahead will be decisive. The CfD AR7 auction closed in August, with the results set to be announced in September, will determine where investment is headed in the push for both onshore and offshore wind production.

The passage of the Planning & Infrastructure Bill, and the initial rollout of Warm Homes retrofits will serve as critical benchmarks of delivery.

Medium-term priorities include finalising the land-use framework, advancing grid reform, and preparing for COP30. Yet risks remain—political pushback on costs, shortfalls in retrofit progress, and vulnerabilities in supply chains could all slow momentum.

Implications for Policy and Industry

For policymakers, the challenge is to balance the urgency of clean energy deployment with affordability, environmental safeguards, and social consent.

Industry players face growing opportunities in renewables, CfD auctions, and Great British Energy partnerships, but must prepare for stricter requirements around supply chain resilience and community engagement. Unions and civil society will be instrumental in holding government accountable on just transition and biodiversity commitments.

Final Thought

The UK’s clean energy and sustainability agenda is moving forward at pace, with net zero still commanding cross-party support.

Renewables expansion and new investment vehicles such as Great British Energy are reshaping the energy landscape, but grid reform, cost pressures, and the just transition remain pressing challenges.

The next 12 months will test whether the Government can turn its ambitious commitments into tangible delivery, and whether the UK can maintain its role as a global leader in the race to net zero.

Featured image via Shahed Mahmud Rifat / Shutterstock.

The launch of the Fit for the Future: 10 Year Health Plan for England represents a major turning point for the NHS. Launched by the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, Wes Streeting, the Plan sets out to transform not only how care is delivered, but how the NHS is structured, governed and held to account.

The launch even welcomed a surprise special guest, Chancellor Rachel Reeves, who was on fighting form following the memorable tearful episode the previous day.

At its core lies a bold proposition: that the NHS must be redesigned around patients, not institutions. That means care delivered closer to home, powered by data and oriented around prevention rather than cure. In Streeting’s words, “We will build a neighbourhood health service… so the NHS is organised around patients, rather than patients having to organise their lives around the NHS.”

This is not an incremental reform agenda. It is a deliberate, generational shift – and if delivered, it will reshape the fundamentals of health and care in England.

Three Transformational Shifts

The Plan is structured around three foundational shifts.

1. From Hospital To Community

The Plan commits to embedding Neighbourhood Health Centres in every community – integrated facilities housing GPs, nurses, physios, therapists, care workers, and diagnostic services under one roof. These centres will operate 12 hours a day, six days a week, prioritising areas with the poorest health outcomes first.

Same-day GP consultations will become the norm, with digital triage used to eliminate the “8 am scramble”. The Plan also promises to restore continuity of care by “bringing back the family doctor”. For patients with multiple conditions, personal care plans will be co-created to ensure integrated, person-centred support.

Pharmacies will take on an expanded role, managing long-term conditions, screening for disease, supporting obesity and hypertension management, and delivering vaccinations. Dentistry – often cited as the canary in the NHS coal mine – will be rebuilt through reform of the NHS dental contract to increase access and participation.

Notably, more than half of the NHS’s 135 million outpatient appointments will be moved out of hospitals, with funding reallocated to primary and community care.

2. From Analogue To Digital

The Plan commits to a full digital transformation of the NHS. The NHS App will become the “front door to the health service”, offering patients a comprehensive platform to book appointments (for themselves, their children, or those they care for), access specialist referrals, receive AI-supported triage and provide feedback on their care.

Behind the scenes, NHS staff will benefit from reduced administrative burden. Seven-password logins and manual data entry will be replaced by single sign-ons, AI scribes, and interoperable systems. A universal single patient record will mean clinicians have real-time access to accurate, up-to-date medical histories – improving safety and reducing duplication.

The Plan also promises to harness wearable devices for remote monitoring, enabling clinicians to intervene at the earliest signs of deterioration. Robotic surgery will be expanded, and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) and the Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) will be reformed to support faster adoption of high-impact technologies through “Innovator Passports”.

3. From Sickness To Prevention

Public health is given renewed prominence. The Plan pledges to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest areas, supported by direct investment and regulatory reform. School food standards will be updated, and free school meal provision expanded.

The NHS Points Scheme will reward healthy behaviours. Obesity medication – currently often restricted to private payers – will be available on the NHS as part of a “fairness-first” approach. “It should be available based on need, not the ability to pay,” Streeting declared in the Commons.

Mental health will be supported with 24/7 virtual therapy for moderate need, dedicated mental health A&E departments, and new in-school provision to support early intervention.

Perhaps most ambitiously, the Plan aims to offer genomic testing to every newborn by 2035, ushering in an era of truly predictive and personalised care.

Reform With Investment

This transformation is underpinned by the largest investment programme in NHS history. By the end of the Spending Review period, the NHS will receive an additional £29 billion per year. Capital budgets will also be increased, including for new diagnostic and digital infrastructure.

But investment will come with reform. More than 200 bodies will be abolished to reduce duplication and restore direct accountability to the NHS. League tables will rank provider performance. Failing trusts will face intervention, and pay for senior leaders will be tied to outcomes, with a new “earned autonomy” model replacing blanket centralism.

A Patient Power Payment mechanism will allow funding to follow patient satisfaction – incentivising quality and responsiveness. Block contracts will be replaced with outcome-linked, year-of-care funding.

Embedding Equity and Justice

Social justice is the moral core of the Plan. Health inequalities – now described by ministers as a structural failing – will be addressed through the redistribution of resources, the localisation of power, and new regulatory frameworks that elevate the voice of the underserved.

Services will be expanded in the communities with the poorest health. Investment in infrastructure, workforce, and prevention will follow need – not historic allocation. The Plan also announces a national inquiry into maternity and neonatal services, responding to systemic failings and the demands of bereaved families for truth and change.

Streeting’s invocation of Nye Bevan’s original promise – to “put a megaphone to the mouth of every patient” – was not just rhetorical. The Plan proposes real-time feedback mechanisms and visibility over performance data to allow patients to compare services and hold providers accountable.

Challenges Ahead

Despite its scope, the Plan will stand or fall on the discipline of its implementation. Success will require

• Sustained cross-party support and fiscal commitment
• Rapid rollout of digital infrastructure and workforce digital literacy
• Consistency of leadership and clarity of metrics
• Accountability mechanisms that reward improvement and address failure

There are also unresolved questions around social care integration, workforce capacity, and cultural change within NHS institutions – all of which will need active management if reform is to stick.

Chair of Curia’s Health, Care, and Life Sciences Research Group, Rt Hon Andrew Stephenson CBE, said, “The ambition set out in the 10 Year Health Plan is both necessary and welcome – but success will depend entirely on the pace, discipline, and accountability of its implementation.” 

“This is a moment to move beyond policy intent and focus on delivery infrastructure: aligning budgets with outcomes, empowering local systems with real autonomy, and ensuring that staff and patients are equipped to lead change. The reforms outlined here cannot remain aspirational – they must be operationalised with urgency, clarity, and consistency if we are to build the modern, equitable NHS that this country both needs and deserves.”

Final Thought: From Aspiration To Delivery

Fit for the Future is a statement of intent and of belief – in a more modern, personalised, equitable NHS. It reflects a clear break with technocratic tinkering and aims instead for structural and cultural renewal.

“We know the British people are counting on us,” Streeting concluded. “It falls to us to make sure that the NHS not only survives but thrives.”

For stakeholders, system leaders, and patients alike, the next decade will determine whether that promise is kept – and whether this is remembered as the moment the NHS was rebuilt for the future, or simply another missed opportunity.

Featured image via Martin Suker / Shutterstock.

Deliveries will begin in 2030 and create a combined UK–Norwegian fleet of 13 modern ASW frigates operating jointly in Northern Europe.

The agreement is explicitly framed as a long‑term strategic partnership: Both governments stress the ships’ role in defending national sovereignty and enhancing mutual capabilities.

Strengthening relations amid growing tensions

The frigate partnership is centered on co‑owning and co‑operating identical UK‐built Type 26 ships. Both countries emphasize that these warships are “essential” for defending maritime sovereignty and countering submarine threats.

By fielding a common design, Norway and the UK can integrate training, logistics and tactics, while reducing costs and allowing joint maintenance and even crew swaps.

The Type 26 is explicitly designed for anti-submarine warfare (ASW), with both sides agreeing that the frigates will “significantly strengthen” NATO’s ability to patrol the North Atlantic and Arctic, helping to deter Russian threats.

A joint procurement also maximizes economies of scale. Building all ships in UK yards (BAE’s Clyde shipyard) keeps costs competitive, and the UK government notes this largest-ever warship export will sustain thousands of jobs, many of which are set to be in Glasgow, Scotland, supporting the city’s economy and restoring pride in the Clydeside shipyards, once a bastion of Labour support.

NATO and European Defense Context

The UK–Norway deal is explicitly framed as a boost to NATO and collective defense, bolstering the coallition’s northern front.

A united UK–Norwegian ASW fleet enhances NATO’s deterrence posture in the High North. As the MoD states, the joint frigates will enable allied navies “to detect, classify, track and defeat hostile submarines” in northern Europe.

Norway’s new frigates thus bolster the alliance’s capacity to safeguard undersea lines of communication and NATO member coastlines from submarine threats.

The partnership exemplifies NATO’s emphasis on standardized platforms among allies. Norway will be joined by Australia and Canada with their adoption of the Type 26, creating a “highly-integrated force” with shared logistics and training across the globe, expanding NATO’s advanced ASW reach beyond Europe.

The timing aligns with broader Western defense efforts. European NATO members have been urged to boost spending after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

This deal shows Norway meeting its NATO commitments by investing heavily in cutting-edge naval defenses, and the UK leveraging its defense industry in support of alliance security, solidifying its role as the heart of Starmer’s “coalition of the willing.”

Arctic and North Sea Security Implications

The deal has clear implications for Arctic and North Sea security. Norway’s geostrategic position – bordering Russia in the Arctic – makes ASW frigates crucial. Norway is NATO’s designated monitor of the vast North Atlantic patrol area used by Russia’s Northern Fleet submarines. Equipping Norway with Type 26s directly enhances surveillance around Svalbard, the Barents Sea and North Sea approaches.

The new frigates will be tasked with tracking Russian nuclear-powered submarines based on the Kola Peninsula. This supports NATO efforts to contain Russia’s undersea operational reach, attempting to prevent sabotage and espionage.

A major role they will play is contributing to the defence of undersea infrastructure (e.g. cables, pipelines) in the region, an emerging NATO concern after European gas pipelines and telecommunications equipment have been damaged in suspected espionage acts by Russia.

Industrial and Technological Collaboration

The partnership includes broad industrial offsets and tech cooperation, benefiting both defense sectors. Under the draft accord, UK defense companies must commit to work with Norwegian industry equal to the deal’s full value.

This means Norwegian firms are guaranteed substantial roles in frigate maintenance, upgrades and possibly production of parts. British sources note the deal will sustain about 4,000 UK jobs (over 2,000 in Scotland) and involve hundreds of UK suppliers. The agreement also opens opportunities for joint development of future upgrades like new sonar and unmanned or AI powered systems.

Final Thought

Politically, the frigate deal signals deepening UK–Norway alliance ties and a unified message to adversaries. Leaders on both sides frame it as reinforcing a historic partnership.

The UK stresses the deal as evidence of its global partnership strategy and its commitment to Ukraine through strengthening the coalition of the willing – creating jobs at home while bolstering collective security.

Each of these strategic objectives – from bolstering ASW defenses to cementing industrial ties – serves multiple purposes: Strengthening NATO’s Arctic maritime posture, deepening UK–Norway integration, and signaling Western resolve to both its allies, and its potential adversaries.

Featured image via MoD / BAE Systems / Tom Smith.

The UK needs to find some growth, you’ve probably heard.

One of the Government’s key hopes is that investment in AI, and the infrastructure that enables it, will act as a catalyst for improving living standards and a central pillar of our defence strategy.

But current priorities – notably, the focus on data centres and the surrounding AI Growth Zones – risk missing the mark. Two factors are distorting the debate.

The first is a well-intentioned focus on Value for Money (VfM), which encourages public bodies to buy what they need at the cheapest available price, typically from established suppliers, few of them British.

The result is a procurement environment that suppresses domestic investment and fails to build long-term strategic foundations.

The second is a concept of “sovereignty”, inherited from a decade of privacy arguments. It overemphasises where computers are located and underplays who benefits from controlling them.

Technology, harnessed well, offers economic returns in peacetime and strategic leverage in moments of international competition.

The ability to make decisions in these moments is a function demonstrating far more than where data is located, though existing arguments for sovereignty often overlook this.

This tension is coming to a head. The Strategic Defence Review and Industrial Strategy have already made the case for stronger UK AI capability.

An infrastructure roadmap, promised in the AI Opportunities Action Plan, is still to come. Ministers will soon make decisions that shape the future of the UK’s economic resilience and security.

To do so wisely, they will need to expand what counts as an “investment” and rethink what we mean by “returns”. That means backing capacity-building projects, not just those with immediate, measurable outputs.

There are tools available: advanced market commitments, subsidised compute access for UK firms, Strategic Value Multipliers in procurement, and support to retain skilled, security-cleared workers.

Each would mark a shift in approach. But if we want resilience, not just efficiency, we must be prepared to invest for the long term – even when the benefits are intangible or delayed.

It begins with a simple question: what counts as investment in the AI space?

Departments operate within two budgets: Capital (CDEL) and revenue (RDEL). Capital spending must create an asset with a measurable return, typically one that benefits the sponsoring department directly.

The aim is to avoid waste – but in practice, this narrows investment to projects with internal, short-term payoffs.

The result is a structural blind spot. Broader benefits, like building UK supplier ecosystems or upskilling the workforce, don’t show up in departmental accounts, even when they’re critical to national capability.

Yet these are exactly the gains that matter if the UK wants meaningful control over AI.

If the UK were a company, perhaps it would make sense for budget holders to ignore the growth of intangible assets like skills or IP at other firms. But we are not a PLC. We are a country. And those intangible benefits are real. If we allow them to accrue here, they will reduce costs and improve outcomes across the public sector.

If we don’t, they will accrue overseas; we will be dependent on foreign suppliers to build and maintain the infrastructure on which our economy and security increasingly rely.

Those suppliers will collect the profits, wield the influence and retain the strategic leverage. Over decades, these advantages reinforce each other, compounding to create high-skill and high-wage clusters that the UK sorely lacks. 

Sovereign AI capability won’t show up on a department’s balance sheet – but we can choose to invest in it. That means accepting that some high-ROI projects won’t emerge from usual cost-benefit logic.

Take pathogen monitoring in wastewater, it sits idle for long periods, but becomes critical when a crisis hits.

The same goes for strategic reserves of oil or other assets – low ROI most of the time, but invaluable when it matters. It’s why we subsidise domestic steel – to retain skills and capacity when markets fail.

In the context of building a strategic supplier and skills reserve, this will mean allocating capital to departments that would otherwise buy from abroad, enabling them to buy British instead.

It means funding projects that may be marginal but that strengthen the industrial base over time. This is not an abstract idea.

China captured over 60 per cent of the global EV market in 2023 by investing not just in final products, but in the infrastructure, skills, and R&D that made them globally competitive.

Take the NHS. When it invests in developing AI-powered tools, that investment doesn’t just improve patient services.

It also creates new supplier capacity, helps retain skilled developers in the UK and contributes to the IP base needed for future defence or security applications.

The MoD might benefit from these tools and suppliers. These benefits are not booked to the NHS’s account. As a result, they go unrecognised.

The result is a public investment regime that ignores some of the most strategically important outcomes we could be pursuing.

There are ways to fix this. We can create a new model of ROI that allows departments to access top-up capital when they deliver whole-of-government or national benefits, not just internal efficiencies.

This is not a call for everything to deliver on every priority (a trap Joe Hill has aptly called “Everythingism”). It’s a call for clarity.

If sovereignty matters, let’s be explicit about paying for it. If strategic ecosystems matter, let’s subsidise them. If flexibility matters, let’s be willing to accept some inefficiency in the name of resilience.

A genuinely sovereign AI capability – one that works when markets fail and creates value when they function – won’t come from isolated projects, each assessed on narrow terms.

As the UK prepares to deploy billions in AI-related infrastructure, we must not only choose the right technologies, we must also choose an investment model that rewards national benefit, not just internal efficiency.

That means backing UK supply chains even when they’re not the cheapest, and placing value on things we can’t touch – trust, talent, and time.

The UK has many natural advantages: a world-class university sector, internationally respected regulators, and a strong record of institutional innovation.

However, without the right investment model, those advantages will leak away. A real national strategy would spend not just on machines, but on the conditions for people to succeed with them – and to succeed here.

The future of British sovereignty in AI will not be decided by where our servers sit. It will be decided by who builds, controls and profits from them. Those investment decisions are being made now.

Earlier this spring, Words Matter convened a pivotal event in the House of Commons with a clear and urgent message: If this Government is serious about raising the healthiest generation, it must address one of the most pervasive and damaging threats to children today – verbal abuse from adults.

The scale is shocking. Two in five children in the UK experience verbal abuse from adults in their lives – parents, carers, teachers, coaches, primarily.

Of those, over half endure this harm weekly. Ten per cent face it every single day. This is not an abstract, marginal issue – it is endemic, corrosive, and entirely preventable.

As Professor Peter Fonagy outlined, verbal abuse takes many forms – from overt hostility like name-calling to rejection, terrorising threats, and inconsistent emotional responses – all of which can erode a child’s trust and security.

And yet, verbal abuse remains the silent epidemic of childhood maltreatment – widespread, devastating, and largely ignored by our policy frameworks.

There is no national definition. No routine measurement. No consistent guidance. It falls between the cracks of safeguarding, public health, and education policy – as if words, unlike physical abuse, do not leave lasting marks.

But the science is unequivocal. Verbal abuse rewires the developing brain. As Professor Eamon McCrory put it, harsh words from trusted adults are biologically embedded betrayals.

They shape how children see themselves and how they move through the world, often with lifelong consequences.

Depression, anxiety, PTSD, loneliness, and even romantic relationship difficulties are all linked to repeated exposure to critical, belittling, blaming, or shaming language.

In the words of Professor Andrea Danese, research shows that the psychological and biological effects of verbal abuse are comparable in magnitude to those of physical and sexual abuse.

As Professor Karen Hughes’s analysis of Adverse Childhood Experiences shows, younger generations are reporting more verbal abuse than any other form of harm.

So why does this continue to be overlooked?

Part of the problem is cultural. As a society, we are still far too comfortable minimising the impact of harsh words. We fail to recognise verbal cruelty of children by adults, whether quiet, subtle, or shouting and screaming.

Too often, we expect parents, carers, and educators – many of whom are under immense pressure and may not have experienced emotionally healthy communication themselves – to carry the responsibility for change, without meaningful support.

The truth is this: Prevention is possible. Parenting and caregiving are not just instinctive – they are skills that can be learned, practised and supported.

Evidence shows that parenting programmes are among the most effective interventions for reducing mental health difficulties in children.

They work. But they remain patchily available, underfunded, and often culturally stigmatised.

This is a political and public health issue as much as it is a social one.

At our event, MP Sharon Hodgson spoke candidly about her years in Parliament as Shadow Minister for Public Health and for Children.

She admitted that, across nearly a decade of policy briefings, verbal abuse wasn’t mentioned once. The omission is staggering. But it is also an opportunity.

The Government has pledged to break down barriers to opportunity and to raise the healthiest generation of children in history.

If that commitment is to mean anything, it must include the language we use with our children – and the societal norms we reinforce through policy.

We need a clear, nationally adopted definition of verbal abuse. We need to track it systematically in health, education, and safeguarding systems.

We need trauma-informed training about childhood verbal abuse and how to communicate, so children can thrive with every adult working with children.

We need a national public health campaign to shift the cultural norms that allow verbal cruelty to be dismissed as behaviour management and tough love.

This isn’t hypothetical. In Wales, the new Whole-Society Trauma Framework is beginning to embed this kind of thinking across public services. It’s time for Westminster to follow suit.

Verbal abuse doesn’t just hurt feelings. It derails development, shapes futures and increases the risk of future violence, mental illness, and incarceration.

While we delay action, over 270,000 children in the UK are waiting for mental health care. What’s more, the cost to society is £239 billion globally per year.

Earlier this month, as part of the Spending Review, the Chancellor announced new investment to expand the reach of mental health support teams to all schools.

This is really welcome, but we must see this cash investment met with a political investment.

We must stop ignoring verbal abuse when we are talking about children’s wellbeing and future prospects.

It is a central, modifiable risk factor for the crisis in children’s mental health. It deserves to be front and centre of any serious national strategy.

Words matter. They stick. They shape who we become. It’s time our politics caught up with what every child knows instinctively: How we speak to children matters as much as how we care for them.

Let’s raise a generation who are not just safe, but seen, respected, and believed in

Poem film and campaign details:

In June, Words Matter released a powerful new film across its social channels to spark national conversation about the lasting impact of adult language on children.

Featuring a moving poem by Tally Gilbert, performed by 13-year-old Ethan, the film was viewed over 300,000 times on Instagram within 24 hours.

Shot in a single take at dawn on Hammersmith Bridge, Ethan speaks directly to the camera about the unseen scars harsh words can leave on children – wounds that can last a lifetime.

Part of Words Matter’s ongoing campaign to end childhood verbal abuse, the film delivers a painful truth many adults will recognise – the words spoken to us as children, whether kind or cruel, echo for years. 

 .Jessica Bondy is the founder of Words Matter, the first charity in the world dedicated to ending childhood verbal abuse by adults – www.wordsmatter.org.

Governments rarely apologise, but the Secretary of State, Peter Kyle MP, has expressed his regret.

He has committed to working collaboratively with all sides in the copyright debate to find solutions, exactly what UKAI has been calling for.

Credit where credit is due. We welcome the opportunity to move forward with the working groups and timelines that they have proposed. Rebuilding trust has never been more important.

The main problem always centred on the Government presenting a preference before their own copyright consultation had ended.

Now, they have said that they do not have a preferred position and are willing to review the consultation submissions before establishing a preference.

They want to actively engage with both the creative and AI industries in working groups to find solutions. These commitments are crucial.

UKAI is uniquely positioned to help with this collaborative approach. We went on a journey, listening to all sides, hosting roundtables, attending debates.

In the end, we realised that the interests of the UK’s AI industry are the same as the interests of the creative sectors: we all want UK businesses to be successful and we all recognise that the UK has unique qualities and assets that we need to value and protect.

The conflict has been unnecessary, it has wasted time and dissipated energy. Working together, we can achieve so much more. However, the first step will be to identify workable solutions, find compromise and build agreement.

The copyright debate centres on how generative AI businesses can access training data. Current copyright law protects rightsholders, requiring GenAI developers to obtain permission for any copyright materials they wish to access as training data. As a principle, this remains sound.

The Government has outlined four possible alternatives: do nothing; strengthen copyright; broad TDM exception; opt-out. Previously, they had preferred the opt-out position, meaning GenAI developers would have default access to materials unless copyright holders opted out. This caused deep concern amongst the creative industry.

Now, the Government has no stated preference and will review consultation findings while actively engaging all parties. In some ways, we are back to square one, but now, the Government understands the strength of support for copyright and genuinely seems willing to engage.

As we scope out the challenges ahead, we must consider two different timeframes: the past and the future.

We can determine what the future looks like and should actively consider the principles we want to uphold to build an industry that is responsible and fair. However, we have limited control over what has already happened. Much data has already been scraped by GenAI companies.

Some argue we should treat these as historic cases “forgiven” in an amnesty to secure future agreement and transparency. This will be one of the major debates we need to address, combining pragmatism with responsibility.

There are several major technical areas our working groups must address, including the below.

Detection: How can rightsholders tell when their copyrighted materials have been used as training data?

Attribution: When copyrighted materials have been used, how can this be attributed back to specific rightsholders?

Remuneration: How does a rightsholder get paid when their material is used by a GenAI company?

Transparency: The ability to see how specific copyrighted material is used in training processes.

Accountability: How will rules and regulations be enforced?

I believe we can find technology-based solutions for detection, attribution, and remuneration. Our members are already building tools to address these areas.

However, transparency and accountability may require governmental and international agreement, and regulation. Whilst this is not simple, it is important.

We believe that building a responsible industry is the only way to build consumer confidence in AI.

Trust matters. Consumers choose products from companies they trust.

If we want the UK’s AI businesses to grow and win customers for their innovative, world-leading products, we need to work together to educate and engage the public. Building consumer trust is fundamental to economic growth.

UK businesses need to trust each other as well. We are partners and customers sharing the same resources, wanting the same economic success. This is why the polarised copyright debate was so disappointing. When we brought people together, we found more common ground than disagreement.

The creative sector uses technology extensively, and the technology sector is inherently creative. When we outlined challenges around detection, licensing, and attribution, people leaned in.

Humans want to find solutions: this truth is at the heart of the creativity that powers both creative industries and technology entrepreneurs. 

Trust is also important for the Government. Getting this right could be the ‘big-bang’ moment for the UK’s AI industry, a once-in-a-generation opportunity for the UK to lead globally, establishing the UK as a global centre of responsible and ethical AI.

Just as the EU’s GDPR put Europe at the centre of global data regulation, leading in responsible AI could make the UK a global centre in the next wave of AI development.

This plays to our historic strengths in language, culture, education, law, and globally respected service industries.

The economic growth that the Government wants from AI is possible, but they need to better understand the UK’s domestic AI industry.

UK businesses are building services and tools on top of GenAI. To drive adoption, we require broader AI literacy and consumer trust.

Success relies upon building trust between all parties. If the Government is serious about finding solutions, UKAI is here to bring all sides together.

We are ready to support the Government, the creative industry, and our members to find workable solutions, compromise, and agreements. Let’s make the UK the global leader in responsible AI innovation. 

Featured image via Steve Travelguide / Shutterstock.

It started with headline grabbing moves: Scrapping the onshore windfarm ban, confirming its base in Aberdeen, and securing government funding, but critics argue that, nearly a year after its creation, the government’s flagship clean-power company is still searching for the kind of breakthrough project that would prove its transformative potential and value for money.

The background

Great British Energy (GBE) was set up under the Great British Energy Act 2025, with an £8.3 billion budget and a promise to deliver up to 8 GW of new generation by 2030. 

Headquartered in Aberdeen, with hubs in Edinburgh and Glasgow, it forms the cornerstone of the government’s pledge to make Britain a “clean energy superpower” while spreading investment across the UK, beyond London and the South East.

However, the project has faced hurdles, like the Spending Review which diverted £2.5 billion of GBE’s capital to small modular nuclear reactors, leaving just over £6 billion for its core renewables mission. Ministers insist private capital will be sourced to fill the gap; sceptics see a flagship weakened before it’s had a chance to shine.

Early progress: Solar and local growth

GB Energy can already point to a number of tangible wins that have gone under the radar.

Rooftop solar on around 200 schools and 200 hospitals, with the first panels installed by June 2025 are predicted to save £25,000 per school and £45,000 per hospital each year, and another £10 million fund for community facilities such as libraries, fire stations and care homes, are already helping to support local councils and health boards struggling with strained budgets.

Missing the big win

Yet these are still incremental steps, not the transformational projects many expected. Three challenges stand out.

Funding dilution: With part of its budget redirected to nuclear, GB Energy must prove it can stretch the remaining capital far enough to shift the dial.

Slow job creation: Initial promises of thousands of roles have so far translated to a plan for 200–300 jobs in Aberdeen over five years, with a total of 1,000 spread over two decades.

Administrative drag: Even Ministers admit Whitehall inertia is slowing project pipelines, from grid connections to planning consent.

What’s next?

For GB Energy to graduate from small wins to a big-ticket victory, it has to turn its promises into shovels in, and boots on the ground while ensuring its now weakened budget is spent effectively to deliver its five key pledges for renewable energy and job creation.

Final Thought 

GB Energy has shown it can make an immediate difference to schools, hospitals and local facilities. But without significant progress towards a headline goal, it risks being remembered for tinkering at the edges.

The government needs GB Energy to prove that its model of public-led, locally rooted clean power can deliver at national scale. Until then, Britain’s state-backed energy champion remains a work in progress: Visible, useful, but still waiting for its defining victory.

Featured image via DESNZ.

The Government has laid out its ambition to transform the UK into a global leader in renewable energy by 2030. This is a vision that merges industrial strategy with economic resilience, placing energy at the heart of the UK’s long-term economic survival.

This transition is not an abstract policy debate; it has real, tangible consequences for communities across the UK. Coastal towns are poised to benefit from the growth of offshore wind jobs, while the nation seeks to alleviate the pressure of rising energy bills and an insecure energy market amid growing global tensions.

But the energy revolution is not simply a shift from one system to another, it “isn’t just about technology, it’s about capital. It’s about building a new system before we dismantle the old one.

“This takes trillions and it takes trust in markets. Markets aren’t perfect, but they are powerful. And when stewarded wisely, they remain our best hope for a faster, fairer and more resilient energy future.”

At a recent Chatham House dinner, chaired by Bill Esterson MP, chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Select Committee, and organised by Curia in partnership with Intercontinental Exchange (ICE), policymakers, industry leaders, and academics discussed how the UK should push forward and answer some of the most challenging questions of our time:

• Can we create a truly flexible and resilient energy market?
• How do we ensure that communities are fully engaged in this transformation?
• When do we leave markets to flow freely, and when do we intervene?

Thought leaders attending the dinner included Managing Director Utility Markets and Global Head of Environmental Markets at ICE, Gordon Bennett, President of ICE Futures Europe, Chris Rhodes and academics including Professor of Energy & Environmental Sciences, Alona Armstrong. The dinner also welcomed Energy Minister, Michael Shanks MP and representatives from the Department for Energy Security & Net Zero, GB Energy, and Low Carbon Contracts Company.

Balancing the ‘pressure to act’ in the short-run with long-term stability

In the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the ever increasing threat of climate change, “the pressure to act” and to intervene in the energy market has been “immense”.

But the “UK held its nerve”, this trust, and careful stewardship, is what energy experts argued must be prioritised and maintained when looking forward to the UK’s energy security. We must become comfortable with “letting the market do its work”, one expert said, avoiding reactionary actions that mask long-term problems with short-term fixes.

Despite good intentions, implementing measures like price caps does little to solve the root problems of energy insecurity and rising energy costs. 

“The price is the signal”, one expert said, “when scarcity drives a crisis, hiding the price doesn’t solve the problem, it hides the signal”, making the decisions on “where to send supply, where to reduce demand, and where to invest” more difficult and less informed.

The UK has proven it can be a responsible steward of markets, resisting the urge to intervene when times are tough, understanding that markets don’t “cause volatility, they help us survive it.” by “giving participants the tools to hedge, to plan, to invest” in the areas that require it.

Technological Innovation: The Core of the Transition

The UK remains at the centre of the energy transition: It possesses immense natural potential for high levels of efficient clean energy, the technical expertise to create safe and efficient infrastructure quickly, what it requires now is sensible and focussed governance to guide the transition. 

The guests agreed that Britain’s energy future rests on a diversified portfolio of emerging technologies, from floating offshore wind and tidal energy projects to next-generation nuclear reactors, the UK could harness various sources of energy, creating not only a secure energy grid, but also creating new high-skill jobs across the country.

In the process, the Government must also consider job displacement in traditional energy sectors like coal and gas. While the transition opens new high-skill job opportunities in the green economy, it is essential that these are paired with retraining programmes and geographical mobility support to ensure that communities are not left out of the benefits of the energy transition.

Market Dynamics: Navigating Complexity

One expert spoke on the important role that everyday people, emotions and actions have on markets. They explained that energy markets are not just economic systems; they are the beating heart of the transition, charged with uncertainty and volatility. 

The reaction of the market mirrors the reaction of its buyers and sellers: “They respond to fear, to policy, to weather, to war. Markets capture that human complexity in real time”, they said.

The shift to a renewable energy market means that not only will capital be moved in the most efficient way, but also “in the most sustainable way”. This will require substantial investment, both public and private, but more importantly, it demands a marketplace that is flexible, transparent, and able to absorb the volatility of energy prices while maintaining stability, it requires trust to be built between the markets and its consumers, between businesses and individuals.

The Broader Societal Impacts

The energy transition is not a purely economic matter: “It’s not just about paying your energy bill; it’s also about your food bill”, one expert said.

The price question is central to the debate. How can the Government reassure a public increasingly concerned about escalating energy bills that renewables are going to improve their lives more than fossil fuels when “it may not be cheaper”.

As energy prices continue to rise, the cost of living for many households is becoming increasingly unsustainable. For a successful and just energy transition, it is not enough to simply shift to renewable sources. The public must feel that the transition is fair and benefits them directly.

One expert explained the Government’s strategy, saying: “The key thing about the clean power missions of the Prime Minister is that it doesn’t exist in isolation. 

“Things like long duration energy storage, things like building the network grid. This is all about trying to reduce some of the costs we’re currently paying out. We’re currently paying out in constraints. All of these things are important, they don’t immediately lead to reductions and bills”, but building a whole new system, one that is better for the world, will eventually lead to more stability and lower prices.

“So price does matter. What consumers pay equally matters. It matters at the ballot box. But so too do some of the other things we’re trying to build in terms of jobs and investment. Action on the climate does matter”, they add. 

Global Implications

The UK’s energy revolution is not unfolding in isolation. Across Europe and beyond, countries are increasingly viewing clean energy not just as an environmental responsibility but as a matter of national security and economic survival.

From Ukraine to the Baltics, nations are recognising the strategic importance of a secure and sustainable energy future, positioning themselves as key players in the global clean energy transition.

Final Thought

The implications of this transition extend far beyond the energy sector. This is about securing Britain’s economic resilience, creating high-quality jobs, assuming leadership in technological innovation, and fulfilling climate commitments.

The UK stands at a pivotal moment. The decisions made in the coming years will determine whether the nation’s energy revolution becomes a model for global transformation or remains a well-intentioned but ultimately inconsequential policy initiative.

Securing the UK’s energy future will require bold leadership, strategic foresight, and political will. The Government must be comfortable favouring long-term stability over short-sighted intervention. 

Our energy security requires that the price signals of markets are understood as signs that attention is required in underperforming areas, rather than being an excuse to implement politically popular but unsustainable measures that do little more than burrow our head in the sand.

Featured image via Nordic Studio / Shutterstock.

We never expected to see anything like this. With a single piece of legislation, decades of hard-won protections for nature could be cast aside. Every person in England and, to a lesser extent, Scotland and Wales, could feel the impact in their town, city, or housing estate.

The Planning and Infrastructure Bill has caused the utmost alarm amongst the environmental NGOs and their members. Why? Because it has become clear that without amendments, Part Three of the Government’s Bill effectively eliminates the “mitigation hierarchy”, the central principle of our protections for nature during development. 

The “mitigation hierarchy” – which has been the central tenet in environmental protection legislation in the UK for the past 50 years – requires developers to avoid tearing down and building over vital and irreplaceable habitats by first looking elsewhere for suitable locations on which to build their projects.

Where avoidance is impossible, the focus then shifts to minimising the negative impacts of their project on nature and wildlife, and then, if that is not possible, they must take steps to restore any habitats they damage as best they can.

Only when all these options are ruled out can developers “offset” destruction, usually by paying money to do something for nature elsewhere. 

Part Three of the Bill, if it proceeds without significant amendment, throws this long-established and vital safeguard into the fire.

It hands over to developers a “license to destroy” any habitats in the name of accelerated housebuilding, as long as said developer has deep enough pockets to pay into a new, generalised Nature Restoration Fund.

What is more, nobody, not even the Government, has shown any evidence that it will speed up house building one iota, or that the mitigation hierarchy is the thing currently slowing it down.

We know from our own evidence that far too many ancient woods are threatened under existing protections – this will make them far more vulnerable. 

This creates the prospect of an existential crisis for nature, and communities throughout the country are rightfully panicked about what it will mean for the ancient trees, chalk streams, woodlands, and green spaces in and around their towns and cities. 

Trees and woods face a major threat from the Bill. Even our oldest and most special trees often lack specific legal protection from damage.

Recently, we saw – with the felling of the Whitewebbs Oak in Enfield – how quick and easy it was for a company to cut down a 500-year-old tree, beloved by Londoners, and how appalled the entire nation was that this priceless piece of our heritage was taken from us in such a fast and fumbled fashion.

Research done by the Woodland Trust last year shows how important the biodiversity of UK woodlands is to the health and wellbeing of our communities.

Allowing developers to take the axe to ancient woodlands and old trees, teeming with life, to build developments devoid of the sound of birdsong or the rustle of leaves, will not solve the housing crisis. It will create a new one. 

How do tree saplings, planted – thanks to the Nature Restoration Fund – miles, perhaps counties, from a new development, help the communities who will live in it?

And what good are they to the hundreds of species of plants, beetles, lichens, birds, and dormice, established over centuries in the woodland mowed down for it to be built?

This type of offsetting also cannot replace the ancient trees, with their rich soils, that are locking in carbon from the atmosphere and giving us all clean air to breathe.  

Our ancient woods and trees are irreplaceable. They cannot be compensated for with cash. They must be protected. We need sufficient safeguards in place, including the mitigation hierarchy.

Decision-making must be underpinned by robust, environmental data – including site-specific surveys – that help us understand what the impact of every development will be before anyone gets behind the wheel of a bulldozer. That is why we, as a nation, fought to have these protections in the first place.

They aren’t strong enough as it is. They cannot be tossed away altogether, without serious repercussions for us all.

The unamended Bill also threatens local democracy and scrutiny by tightening judicial review timescales and limiting opportunities to appeal planning decisions.

It not only reduces opportunities for communities to challenge big infrastructure projects but also removes the need for developers to consult communities on their large infrastructure projects before applying to the Government for permission. 

So, what can be done? We at the Woodland Trust support the four priority amendments proposed by Wildlife and Countryside Link.

These include ensuring, where significant damage is expected, conservation measures are delivered before harm occurs. If the Government does not dramatically improve Part three of the Bill, we will call for it to be removed entirely. 

At the point of writing, the Government has rejected amendments to the Bill, from all parties, that would help address our concerns, while tabling its own amendments.

The findings of the Government’s own impact assessment, the recommendations of its own watchdog the OEP, and the concerns of constituents voiced by MPs across the political spectrum have been ignored. At Report Stage in the Commons, we did see the Government indicating a willingness to consider how greater certainty can be given around outcomes for nature.

This is encouraging, but it must result in amendments along the lines of the above. Without them, Part three of the Bill should not proceed.  

We do need new houses, but everyone deserves the opportunity to live close to nature and the benefits that provides in terms of health and wellbeing, air quality, and resilience against flooding. All we are asking is that nature is embedded in development design, not sidelined.

This is possible and already happening in the best developments. Nature, and woodlands in particular, must sit at the very heart of community development, and we must ensure clear and strict protection for ancient woodland and trees. 

Already, thousands have signed the Woodland Trust’s petition and written to their MP about the Bill. We are calling on the Government to listen to the British public and add amendments to the Bill that will protect our priceless, ancient trees and woodlands, while delivering the sustainable development we need.

We can have both, and it is time for the Government to show it is serious about this, before it is too late.

Featured image via Lois GoBe / Shutterstock.