I am delighted to introduce this Adjournment debate and to highlight the need for better protections for mature trees in the UK. Organisations such as the Woodland Trust have been doing an excellent job of drawing attention to this issue for many years, and I thank them both for the work that they do in Parliament for the all-party parliamentary group for woods and trees, of which I am a member, and for their help with the debate. I also want to acknowledge the work of the councillors and council officers in my constituency and throughout the UK who look after our green spaces, and the local residents who care so passionately about the trees that are the green lungs of all our communities.

Across London, hundreds of thousands of trees line our streets, breathing life into busy and polluted neighbourhoods. Street trees have always been a vital part of urban communities. Not only do they provide a source of beauty, but we know that they bring major health benefits by cleaning our air, acting as a critical source of carbon capture and also as a defence against flooding. Research suggests that increasing access to green spaces could save the NHS more than £2 billion a year by reducing the incidence of conditions such as heart disease, stroke, and depression. Trees and woods also do wonders for our mental wellbeing, as was felt very keenly during the coronavirus pandemic. During lockdown, it was a joy to hear birdsong that would usually have been drowned out by the sound of car engines.

Yet many veteran trees in cities across the UK are at risk of being felled. The Government are not doing enough to protect them, which is hardly surprising as they are failing to meet their own tree planting targets—in 2019-20 they delivered under half their target of 5,000 hectares of new trees in England.

Many Members on both sides of the Chamber are concerned by the felling of mature trees in our communities. In my constituency there is a growing problem of street trees being cut down because they are implicated as a cause of building damage and subsidence. Tree roots do not need to be the definitive cause of subsidence—they need only be implicated for the owner to be liable for an insurance claim. Councils that own street trees are then responsible for the exorbitant cost of repair works to the damaged property, which can cost hundreds of thousands of pounds per property. Cash-strapped councils, such as my own, that own hundreds of trees at risk of insurance claims face bills running into the millions and are often left with little choice but to fell the tree.

Unfortunately, this is a particular problem in Hornsey and Wood Green, where the clay soil that most homes are built on has moved during the severe droughts and flooding we have experienced for the past few summers. With the climate crisis worsening, extreme weather events are set to become a regular feature of British summers. The law on foreseeability also means that areas such as the London Borough of Haringey, where shrinkable London clay is the underlying soil, must have proactive tree maintenance programmes for all trees whose roots may cause damage to buildings.

Anyone can see that this needs to change. Often the finger of blame is too quickly pointed at a nearby tree, rather than investigating other causes and solutions. Mature trees help mitigate the worst impacts of climate change, but they are being cut down in the hope of fixing an immediate subsidence risk.

I commend the hon. Lady for securing this important debate. She outlines the importance of trees and some of the difficulties that people have with them. I want to give an example to encourage the hon. Lady. In Newtownards, the main town in my constituency, I have been involved with a planting scheme with children from Castle Gardens Primary School. There are six primary schools in the urban town of Newtownards, and they are all involved in tree planting. If we educate children early and tell them about the importance of trees, they will appreciate the point of trees and we will have a society that looks forward to trying to see how they can keep those trees.

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and I concur with him. At Highgate Primary School and Hornsey School for Girls, where I have been planting trees with the children, trees provide a wonderful message for future generations.

However, there are nuanced and complex issues around felling street trees. Each case needs to be studied on its own merits, but a one-size-fits-all approach to felling is not working and is damaging our environment. Haringey already has the second highest number of tree-related subsidence claims in Greater London. Since 2018, Haringey, a hard-pressed London borough council, has faced 245 tree-related subsidence claims and has paid more than £600,000 to insurance companies during that time. Understandably, my constituents are extremely upset by the number of street trees being felled. For local communities, who reap the many benefits that trees bring, those trees have an emotional value far beyond any price an insurance company could put on them. People are rightly calling into question whether insurance companies can justify their actions before exploring more sustainable options than removing a tree.

For example, I have recently received several emails from worried constituents in Bounds Green who are extremely upset about the proposed removal of a mature oak tree. At 200 years old, this beautiful oak could have another 800 years left. Despite being protected by a tree preservation order since 2010, it is at risk of being felled because of its proximity to a home that is more than 18 metres away. A single oak tree can support more than 2,300 species. As one local constituent has pointed out, when one mature tree is removed, an entire ecological network is disrupted and destroyed.

In her response, the Minister will likely point out that the Environment Act 2021 introduced a requirement for local authorities to consult the local community before felling street trees. While that is welcome, councils are still waiting for exact guidance on how to introduce the measure and, importantly, what resources will be made available to ensure that the community’s wishes are acted upon.

The Woodland Trust advises that local authorities are likely to need to hire new staff to carry out consultations and will need access to data and systems set up to help manage urban trees and forests. While this guidance is still being drawn up, I know many councils are hoping that the Government will take this opportunity to redress the imbalance of power between insurance companies and local authorities when it comes to subsidence claims. The insurance industry must be held responsible for its role in protecting urban trees by requiring it to explore alternative measures to stop subsidence damage before considering removing a mature tree.

Last summer, I submitted a written parliamentary question and wrote to the Minister urging the Government to issue best practice guidance to councils on managing subsidence claims. The response advised that advice for councils to produce their own tree and woodland strategies would be provided. This has now been published, and I was disappointed to see no mention of managing the relationship between street trees and urban development. As all local authorities will know, this is a major issue that needs proper attention.

Earlier this year, I wrote to the Minister, urging the Government to provide specific guidance to the insurance industry on expanding sustainable solutions to subsidence. Disappointingly, the Minister’s response confirmed that no guidance will be issued. I urge the Government to look at this again and reconsider their approach.

Steps are being taken by a group of local councils that have signed up to a joint mitigation protocol. The protocol was drawn up after years of input from insurers, loss adjusters, engineers and tree consultants. The aim is to establish best practice for managing subsidence claims, considering the interests of councils and insurers alike. The central focus is to ensure that mature trees are removed as a last resort. This is excellent work, but it is important to note that, after 13 years of austerity and a global pandemic, councils have simply not had the resources to invest in woodland and tree management strategies.

The impact of this is being felt by the local community, who, like me, are alarmed that access to urban woodland is decreasing despite 80% of our population living in urban areas. Friends of the Earth has reported that 45% of neighbourhoods in England have less than 10% tree canopy cover, while 84% have less than 20% coverage. Areas with high social deprivation are likely to have fewer trees than wealthy areas.

That is why I have called for a debate in Parliament on this issue. It is time that the Government properly recognise the critical role that trees play in improving our health and mitigating the worst effects of climate change and nature loss. The central issue here is that our current legislative protections for mature trees do not go far enough in recognising their value in making our communities healthier, happier places to live.

In conclusion, I would like the Government to find a more sustainable solution to preventing and managing this, which does not see our precious street trees impacted any further. There are three key points that I would like the Minister to take away and respond to. First, guidance for local authorities on the new duty to consult is needed as soon as possible, and the resources must match that so that local authorities can actually implement the guidance. Secondly, I urge the Minister to ensure that this guidance makes it clear that responsibility is shared between the insurance industry and local authorities to protect homes and our mature trees. Tree removals must be a last resort after other measures, such as underpinning and root barriers, have been explored. Finally, any guidance produced should set out standards of evidence required to show that it is actually the tree that is directly causing subsidence and that all alternative actions to felling the tree have been exhausted.

I thank the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Catherine West) for raising this issue and I join her in commending and championing all who work to plant, care for and protect trees in our country, and also the 32,000-strong workforce in the timber and tree supply chain, because we need them and more if this Government are to achieve the target of 400 million more trees planted by 2050, which is about 250,000 hectares. To do that, we need to plant somewhere between 7,500 and 10,000 hectares every year. The hon. Lady referenced targets, and we are on course to meet our targets. Some 2,700 hectares of trees were planted last year, and the forecast certainly looks much improved on where we have been over the last few decades. That is a result of the Environment Act 2021, the environmental improvement plan and the legal target to increase tree canopy cover to 16.5%. But while we are doing quite well in England, I am afraid that in 2020 the Welsh Labour Government managed just 80 hectares, against their target of 2,000 hectares a year, so there is much work to do.

Urban trees, which is what this debate is all about, are certainly an asset to any community. The hon. Member set out clearly how trees benefit our communities and our physical and mental wellbeing. They create healthier communities and cool our communities; and as she said, the thousands of species supported by an ancient tree are indeed incredibly special and must be protected, so I hope I can answer some of her questions. We also know that the right tree in the right place can sequester carbon, manage flood risk, improve air quality, provide shade and support biodiversity, and of course they are incredibly beautiful.

Trees are at the forefront of the Government’s plans to achieve net zero emissions by 2050, bending the curve on biodiversity loss and creating more jobs. That is exactly why we introduced the target to increase tree cover to 16.5% by 2050. Urban trees are already an important part of our plan to meet that target and will absolutely continue to be. Through technical guidance on tree planting and protection, and also tree planting grants, which we have on offer through the nature for climate fund, more and more trees are being planted in urban areas. Over 850,000 trees have been planted in urban areas. We have also introduced a new duty on local authorities to consult the public before felling street trees. The hon. Member is keen to know the timescale for that; I can confirm that we are seeking to commence the duty this year. We are currently developing appropriate guidance for the new duty to consult, which will be in place by the end of 2023.

I also thank the hon. Member for writing to us about community consultation guidance and guidance for the insurance sector. To clarify, the Forestry Commission will be working, as per the England trees action plan, to speak with engineers, developers and arboriculturists to get more trees on streets and in developments. We will do that by revising “Manual for Streets”, and also the National House Building Council’s foundation guidance and the London Tree Officers Association’s risk limitation strategy, and in other ways, to ensure that the right tree is planted in the right place and—more to the point, perhaps—that the right house is built in the right area.

I understand that the particular tree that the hon. Member referred to is around 120 years old—much older than the house that it is potentially causing harm to. That reinforces the need for a national planning policy that recognises that trees make an incredibly important contribution to the urban environment, helping our communities to mitigate and adapt to climate change. The national planning policy framework states that trees should be incorporated in new developments and that all new streets should be tree lined. Newly planted trees should be maintained and trees should be retained wherever possible. The national model design code now includes design parameters for the placement of street trees.

Tree preservation orders are used by local planning authorities to protect individual trees and woodlands that have high amenity value, including many urban trees. Consideration is given to the visibility of the tree, its rarity and its historical and cultural value. Local authorities can also consider a tree’s importance to nature conservation or to the response to climate change.

We are also looking at our environmental impact assessment regulations to ensure that they protect against the negative impacts of the removal of trees. We are using the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill to progress reforms to the environmental impact assessment process, to help ensure that it remains an effective tool for environmental protection. We will be tabling new secondary legislation after the passage of the Bill to align with the new environmental outcomes report system.

There is another huge risk to our trees and environment, and it feels particularly topical because this week is National Plant Health Week. The biosecurity threats to our trees are significant and growing, so I emphasise the critical need to protect our urban trees from pests and diseases. Ash dieback, for example, has now spread to all parts of the UK, and oak processionary moths are threatening the closure of parks and green spaces across London and the south-east. Through our grant schemes, we are providing support to help local authorities manage these risks and restore urban treescapes affected by pests and diseases.

I reassure the House that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has an incredibly robust regime in place to protect trees. Since leaving the European Union we have strengthened import controls, introduced a ban on imports of the highest-risk trees and stopped the import of many native species from outside Europe. Our border inspectors carry out more than 80,000 physical checks on controlled plant material each year. Trees permitted for import require a phytosanitary certificate and must be pre-notified to allow for official inspection.

In January 2023 we published the new plant biosecurity strategy for Great Britain, working in partnership with the Scottish and Welsh Governments. The strategy sets out our five-year vision and action plan to secure national biosecurity, to protect native species and to drive economic growth.

The Minister always comes to the Chamber with positivity, and it is always a pleasure to hear her speak. She mentions Scotland and Wales, but has she had any contact with the Northern Ireland Assembly? We want to be part of this project.

I will ensure that I reach out to my counterpart in Northern Ireland. I am sure those conversations are happening at official level, but I will endeavour to have them at ministerial level. I will respond to the hon. Gentleman and I thank him for his intervention. With England and Northern Ireland being such close neighbours, we must work together, although this matter is devolved, to ensure plant biosecurity across the UK.

Our ambitions outlined in the England trees action plan are supported by the nature for climate fund’s tree programme, and they make it even easier to plant trees. Never before has so much Government money gone into planting and protecting trees. We are also supporting local authorities, which we see as a vital part of the programme to achieve 16.5% tree canopy cover in England.

In December 2022 we launched the tree and woodland strategy toolkit, which provides step-by-step guidance to local authorities on developing an effective tree and woodland strategy in order to realise the multiple benefits, as we have heard this evening, that trees can deliver to their communities.

Like the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green, I have heard from schoolchildren. I think we all visit primary schools on our constituency Fridays, and I never cease to be surprised and delighted by the enthusiasm of schoolchildren who are embarking on eco-projects or forest schools, and they all certainly value the benefit of trees. That is perhaps supported by a wonderful recent BBC documentary where Sir David Attenborough reinforced the need to look after nature.

The urban tree challenge fund has planted 155,000 trees to date and is now open for applications all year round. The fund provides 80% of the standard costs of the planting of and caring for trees in deprived urban and peri-urban areas. Another fund, the local authority treescapes fund, is open to local authorities and it is also open all year round. It is there to restore tree cover impacted by disease, habitat degradation or ageing tree stock in urban and peri-urban areas. So far, 77 local authorities have been successful in the two rounds of the fund, but I encourage all Members to challenge local authorities that are not one of the 77 to look into the fund on the Forestry Commission website and consider making an application.

The £9.8 million woodland creation accelerator fund has provided much-needed financial support to two thirds of England’s upper-tier local authorities, bringing in specialist skills to ramp up tree planting and woodland creation. We also have community forests, which are a real asset to our country. England’s national network of community forests are planting thousands of hectares of new trees and woodlands in and around our major towns and cities. I was able to see for myself the difference that that is making. They give urban local authorities tangible expression to their declarations of climate and biodiversity emergencies, bringing trees to people and empowering communities to transform their local landscapes. We have also contributed towards the £9 million levelling up parks fund, which will create and improve parks in deprived areas. I am sure that the hon. Lady would agree that one way to improve a park is by planting more trees.

I thank the Minister for her full response. Sometimes a Minister just gives a sentence and that is the end of the debate, so I appreciate the detail she is giving. Perhaps an official could write to me about which of the programmes she has cited a London borough could be eligible for. I am very aware that some of the schemes she has mentioned will be more relevant for applications from outside London. If she could arrange that, it would really help. Will she also outline whether any extra resource is available for a couple of extra officers for a large borough such as Haringey, which has nearly 300,000 people and £1 billion in turnover? Given the current economic picture, it is hard for a large London borough to take officers from other areas and put them into this important area of work. Obviously, councils are very hard-pressed at the moment, as she is aware, as she also represents a very poor part of the country.

I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her intervention, not least for the length of it, as it has allowed me to get some clarification for her from my officials in the Box. I am delighted to tell her that all the funds that I have listed are eligible in the way that she mentioned. I urge the hon. Lady to work with her local authority and to consider using the local authority toolkit that we provided last December to maximise the benefits of tree planting.

In closing, I thank everybody involved in this area, including nurseries, tree planters, protectors, maintenance, and the 32,000-strong workforce, which will grow. I am particularly grateful to those who are developing strategies and roadmaps for timber use. I hope that we see many more buildings in our communities made out of wood. It is a little known, often forgotten, or insufficiently considered fact that building with wood—timber construction—is also an incredibly important way to reduce our carbon footprint and achieve net zero while producing beautiful homes. I think we all have fine examples of beautiful timber being used in construction.

Urban trees are an essential part of the urban infrastructure. Never before has that been more important to me than the day that we hit temperatures of over 40° in the centre of London. In Westminster, walking along Millbank, I appreciated the shade that those beautiful plane trees provided. I wish to thank the hon. Lady for giving me the opportunity to wax lyrical about our tree-mendous policies. This is why we have given tree planting historic importance, both through financial and policy support, as trees are a fundamental part—I would say the best part—of the Government’s pledge to leave our planet in a better condition than when we inherited it.

Question put and agreed to.