Friends of the Earth has accused the Conservatives of offering “free rein to polluters” after the party used its conference in Birmingham this week to pledge the abolition of the Environment Agency and Natural England and to restate its plan to repeal the Climate Change Act.
Sienna Somers, senior campaigner at the environmental group, said: “The Conservatives’ latest attempt to cling onto relevance by taking a sledgehammer to our climate commitments and environmental protection agencies would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous.”
The proposals were set out on Monday by Andrew Griffith, the shadow chancellor, as part of what the party has called “the most ambitious deregulation project in a generation”. The Conservatives said the functions of both bodies would be brought into the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, “moving to a more streamlined regulatory landscape to protect our environment”.
The Environment Agency, established in 1996, has more than 13,000 employees and is responsible for regulating major industry and waste, water quality and managing flood risk in England. Natural England, the government’s adviser on the natural environment, has about 2,800 staff.
What the Conservatives have proposed
The party also said it would scrap the Future Homes Standard and replace Section 106 agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy with a single levy on developers. It said its housing proposals could cut the cost of a new-build home by up to £50,000.
Other measures reported by the trade title Envirotec include ending the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging, which the party estimates would lift a £1.5bn burden from businesses, and withdrawing the UK from the Aarhus Convention on access to environmental information and justice. Griffith has said the Conservatives would “legislate to sweep away the blockers to getting the infrastructure our country needs built”.
Kemi Badenoch, the Conservative leader, told the party’s 2025 conference: “We will get rid of the Climate Change Act and replace it with a proper strategy that actually works.”
The conference also heard from Jeremy Clarkson, the broadcaster and publican, who asked why anybody would set up a business in Britain, Business Matters reported yesterday.
Somers said: “The party is pitching its assault on environmental action as an offer to big business, which would give free rein to polluters. In the midst of a rapidly accelerating climate crisis this is clearly nonsensical, with this summer’s successive, searing heatwaves and the increased risk of severe flooding over the coming months evidence enough of the need to act.”
She added: “What’s more, it would also turn back the clock to a time when the UK was the ‘Dirty Man of Europe’, where our rivers, seas and air were even more polluted than they are now.
“These are policies that serve the interests of greedy corporations and those who profit financially from them, not the communities who will pay the ultimate price of weaker environmental regulation. It’s a cheap political ploy from a party which has a legacy of some good – although increasingly long-forgotten – leadership on the environment.”
Craig Bennett, chief executive of The Wildlife Trusts, said in comments reported by Envirotec: “In an age when climate change and nature loss are a growing security threat, abolishing environmental regulators and safety standards amounts to gross negligence from any party that aspires to Government.”
Lawrence Turner, director of the planning consultancy Boyer, said in comments reported by New Start magazine that the plans would “resonate with the development industry”, but questioned whether they would speed up building.
“Abolishing Natural England and the Environment Agency would be a significant change, but many of the requirements developers have to address arise from the underlying legislation,” Turner said. “If those requirements remain, transferring responsibility to Defra will not necessarily remove the delays our clients currently experience.”
On the £50,000 figure, he said “a reduction in the cost of building a home wouldn’t necessarily translate directly into the same reduction in its sale price”.
