Press Releases

Bright Blue, the independent think tank for liberal conservatism, has today published a new report, Greater and greener homes: more homes, ready for net zero, offering new policy recommendations to both build more homes and deliver net zero.

The report outlines and examines the key changes in government policy since 2010 to build more homes and reduce carbon emissions from new homes.

The report concludes that our complex, discretionary planning system makes it harder to create dense, sustainable settlements, leading to new homes and urban sprawl that are land-hungry, car-dependent and politically unpopular. Meanwhile, the UK continues to build new homes that are emissions-intensive and that will require costly retrofitting in the future.

The report argues that housing policy reform should be guided by five key principles:

1. Environmental regulations should not prevent homes being built affordably or more quickly and efficiently.
2. New development should be consistent with net zero and biodiversity governmental targets.
3. The lifestyles that people lead in new homes are as important for net zero as the fabric of the home.
4. Planning policy and building standards should incentivise communities to accept new homes in their neighbourhoods.
5. Planning reform should ensure that communities can shape development in their area to facilitate local democracy.

The recommendations are grouped into two core policy objectives. First, to speed up the delivery of new homes where development is most sustainable, such as near workplaces, shops, and sustainable transport links. Second, to ensure new homes are compliant with reaching net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

James Cullimore, author of the report, commented:

“Home ownership has fallen to its lowest level in four decades and the homes we do build are not compliant with our climate change targets. Creating and funding a programme of urban Neighbourhood Development Orders would secure local consent for new homes close to offices, shops and public transport in our towns and suburbs. Higher environmental standards in future building regulations are also needed to ensure all new homes are warm, cheap to run and able to consume more secure, homegrown renewable electricity. 

“With the Government due to update planning policies and building regulations for net zero, now is the opportunity to unlock both greater and greener housing.”

Ryan Shorthouse, Chief Executive of Bright Blue, commented:

“The UK is facing both a housing and climate crisis. We are not building enough homes. And the houses we do build are not green enough to support this country’s transition to a net-zero economy. Bolder public policy is needed to support both greater and greener homes.”

John Penrose, MP for Weston-Super-Mare, commented: 

“Creating denser, beautiful urban neighbourhoods won’t just cut our carbon footprints by using brownfield land and letting more of us bus, bike or walk to  shops and offices. It will increase the number of homes that are built and the speed of building too, so housing becomes more affordable whether people want to rent or to buy. A simple, low-risk process to get upfront planning permission will cut costs, risks and red tape, particularly for smaller local builders and developers, to unlock housing delivery.”

Jerome Mayhew MP, Member of the Environmental Audit Select Committee, commented: 

“I welcome this report on greater and greener homes. My Carbon Emissions (Buildings) Bill would regulate the embodied carbon in building materials and construction, which is a bigger driver of climate change than aviation and shipping combined. Building homes with a smaller carbon footprint is an essential part of the mix as we work towards net zero”

Cllr Jane MacBean, Buckinghamshire Councillor and Chesham Town Councillor, commented: 

“In Chesham, we know all too well the public concern that new development can bring. To build greater and greener homes, we are keen to work with the community to build consensus around the ‘gentle densification’ of our town. That’s why Chesham Town Council is working to create new Neighbourhood Development Orders, shaped and approved by residents, to deliver new homes which meet local design preferences and contribute to a vibrant community and thriving high street and local economy, whilst ensuring protection of our precious green spaces. I welcome the proposal in this report to support more civil parishes and neighbourhood forums to bring forward the new homes that their areas need.”

This report recommends ten new original policies to boost greater and greener homes:

Recommendation one: Government should create and fund a Neighborhood Development Order (NDO) Pathfinder Programme to bring forward homes in urban neighbourhoods

Densification of existing settlements is the most environmentally sustainable way of increasing housing supply. To ensure it can make a greater contribution toward meeting housing targets, we need to remove the need for house builders to submit a planning application where development can be shown to have local support. 

NDOs give parishes and neighbourhood groups a chance to bring forward the development they want to see in their areas for approval, rather than waiting for developers to come forward with their own proposals. NDOs are able to set clear rules on the type, design and density of homes, and are approved by residents in a referendum.

However, the current funding to deliver NDOs is limited, so achieving good design at a meaningful scale, such as a whole neighbourhood or area in a town, is challenging. In addition, the process for permitting infill and brownfield redevelopment through an NDO remains ambiguous. Perhaps above all, they are simply little known. 

To make NDOs an established solution to community-led intensification, the Government needs to kickstart a programme of NDO creation in towns and suburbs which already have a local design code in place. These codes specify the local design preferences and other requirements which residents want new homes to meet. This will allow the neighbourhood planning group to move swiftly to public consultation. 

Recommendation two: To ensure there are sufficient installers for the introduction of the Future Homes Standard in 2025, the Government must ensure heat pump training providers can access future waves of Skills Bootcamps, and supply appropriate governmental financial support to those undertaking them

The Government expects heat pumps to be the primary low-carbon heating solution for new homes and intends for new builds to help develop the supply chain for heat pumps. However, without a skills base, new homes could be delayed when the Future Homes Standard is introduced in 2025. Furthermore, substandard installations could undermine consumer confidence in the technology.

Training as a heat engineer takes at least three years so readying for the Future Homes Standard in 2025 will predominantly require the retraining of existing heating engineers and plumbers. To reach the 12,400 heat pump installers required by 2025 according to the Heat Pump Association, we need to train almost 10,000 more. The industry is predominantly made up of sole traders who do not have the training budgets of large companies to prepare themselves. As such, there is a need for government support to upskill the workforce ahead of the Future Homes Standard.

Currently, the Heat Decarbonisation Skills Training competition does not provide long-term funding or sufficient training opportunities to build the installer base for the Future Homes Standard, and the Skills Bootcamps have not been well-tailored for heat pump installation courses. 

Therefore, to ensure there is consistent provision of free heat pump installation training for heating engineers during the remainder of this parliament, the Government should ensure future waves of Skills Bootcamps can be accessed by heat pump training providers.

To further incentivise heating engineers to upskill while the demand for heat pumps remains relatively low, the Government should consider an additional payment to compensate sole traders for their time.

Recommendation three: The new National Development Management Policies (NDMP) should include a hierarchy of options to set higher environmental standards for more ambitious local authorities

To protect local democracy in local authorities, they should be able to continue to set more ambitious planning requirements than the required national minimum on issues such as reducing carbon emissions and providing green infrastructure in developments.

To provide stronger clarification where policies included in the new National Development Management Policies (NDMPs) or building regulations conflict with local policies on the environment, central government should set a hierarchy of more ambitious standards that local authorities can choose to adopt. This would prevent a plethora of different requirements from springing up across the country while respecting the wishes of communities to insist on more sustainable development in their area. 

Recommendation four: Include targets for energy use intensity (EUI) and thermal energy demand limit (TED) for all new homes in the Future Homes Standard from 2025 onwards.

Recommendation five: Introduce through the Future Homes Standard a new testing requirement for all new homes and reform Energy Performance Certificates (EPCs) so they test in-use energy performance.

Recommendation six: Ensure the energy performance targets in building regulations metrics for new homes incentivise energy storage and solar PV in the Future Homes Standard from 2025.

Recommendation seven: Include appropriate reporting requirements for whole-life carbon emissions of new homes by developers in the Future Homes Standard from 2025 onwards.

Recommendation eight: Strengthen minimum water efficiency standards in the Future Homes Standard.

Recommendation nine: Expand green infrastructure requirements in the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

Recommendation ten: Set a requirement in the National Planning Framework (NPPF) for Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) to create Local Development Orders (LDOs) for small- and medium-sized sites to meet a proportion of their housing requirement.

Charlie Rowley, former Special Advisor to Michael Gove at Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, commented:

“I welcome the recommendations in this report to bring forward greater and greener homes. These policies would give communities a stronger role in shaping development their area, reduce planning risk for local house builders, and ensure new homes are consistent with our net zero target. These are key government objectives for the planning system.”

Will Arnold​, Head of Climate Action at The Institution of Structural Engineers, commented: 

“The UK construction industry has all the tools necessary to enable embodied carbon reporting legislation to be introduced this year. As an unregulated 50 million tonnes of yearly emissions, this is an incredible opportunity for the government to show targeted intervention towards decreasing the UK’s carbon footprint.”

Sam Hall, Director of Conservative Environment Network, commented

“This report shows that our climate and biodiversity goals do not need to conflict with housing affordability or delivery. By offering developers greater certainty over the planning process, in return for requiring them to be built to higher environmental standards, these core government priorities can be achieved together. Greener homes will also boost housing supply, by strengthening local support for development, while saving households and Treasury money in the long run.”

Stuart Colville, Director of Policy at Water UK, commented:

“Water efficient homes are greater and greener. To increase our resilience to climate change, leave more water in rivers, and save money on energy bills we should be building homes with a strong minimum water efficiency standard. It is better to build it right first time, and to build it with the future in mind.

“This report shows that with the right policy changes, we can deliver the new homes needed while also protecting the environment and saving people money. Bright Blue’s call to strengthen minimum water efficiency standards is timely and it is critical that their recommendations are taken on board.” 

Philip Box, Policy Advisor at UK Green Building Council, commented: 

“This report represents a strong set of recommendations for how we can build more homes and simultaneously meet our environmental goals. The two go hand-in-hand. Only by building more sustainably, can we truly address the housing and environmental crises we face. Business appetite for these ambitious policies – and the associated green growth – is there; and we hope the Government fully seizes on the opportunities.”

Juliet Phillips, Senior Policy Advisor at E3G and Electrify Heat, commented: 

“Getting on track for net zero homes requires serious attention to scaling up the supply chain, which has been decimated by recent boom-bust policy making on energy efficiency. This requires long-term policy and funding certainty, as well as a laser focus on training and skills. Bright Blue’s new report rightly draws attention to this important issue. We hope to see the government scale up its response to this challenge, taking an Olympics-style approach to training up an army of heat pump and insulation installers.”

Owen Edwards, Coalition Coordinator, Better Planning Coalition, commented: 

“Getting to a net-zero housing and planning system is one of the most important policy challenges of the decade ahead.  James has developed a really innovative suite of recommendations which chart that course. This report is an important addition to the discussion and offers solutions to tackling many of the most difficult issues faced by our industry today.”

ENDS

Bright Blue, the independent think tank for liberal conservatism, has today released a new report, entitled Building up: the future of social security, which examines the adequacy, accessibility and fairness of the social security system for working-aged adults before, during and at the end of the pandemic.

The report uses both subjective and objective measures to evaluate the adequacy, accessibility and fairness of the social security system for working-aged adults, drawing on original data analysis, public polling and focus groups. It concludes with three new policies that will strengthen the social security system in the future.

It is the final report of a multi-year project which was guided by a high-profile, cross-party, cross-sector commission of leading decision makers and thought leaders, including Stephen Crabb MP, Shaun Bailey MP, Baroness Lister, James Johnson, and more.

Anvar Sarygulov, Head of Research and lead author of the report, commented: 

“With the economy in trouble in 2023, the government needs to be proactive about strengthening our social security system. Universal Credit provides a strong foundation, but more work is needed to make the UK’s social security system more adequate, more accessible and more fair, and the right reforms can achieve this without breaking the bank.”

The Rt Hon Stephen Crabb MP, former Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, commented:

“The United Kingdom is going through a period of profound economic challenges. Our social security system continues to do much of the heavy lifting when it comes to shielding families from extreme poverty. But it is clear significant gaps and weaknesses in provision remain. 

Bright Blue’s recent report shines an important spotlight into the current system and points to a pathway of reform. The proposed social security digital platform will improve accessibility to the full range of benefits and a serious discussion about a positive contributory system could open the door to a fairer system overall.”

We propose 3 policies:

Adequacy

Establish a new ‘minimum living’ income, which will be proposed by a reformed and expanded Social Security Advisory Committee, which will also recommend the levels and uprating of different social security payments to help low-income households meet the ‘minimum living’ income. 

We recommend that the Social Security Advisory Committee should have the following new remit. First, to develop and annually update the ‘minimum living’ income benchmark for different types of households, just as the Low Pay Commission recommends different rates for different age brackets. It should be developed as part of a wide-ranging evidence gathering exercise, including both quantitative and qualitative research commissioned by the Social Security Advisory Committee, gathered through a call for evidence and in-person meetings with a wide range of stakeholders, including those who have experience of the system.

Second, the Social Security Advisory Committee should annually evaluate the extent to which the social security system is allowing different types of households to meet the ‘minimum living’ income. It should then make recommendations on the minimum level of uprating needed across the social security system to meet the ‘minimum living’ income benchmark. It should also conduct periodic reviews of various thresholds and caps within the social security system and to examine whether they are affecting people’s ability to meet the cost of living, such as the benefit cap. A benchmark should also be set under which benefits cannot fall below even if a sanction was applied to their recipient. 

Ultimately, the decision on the level and uprating of social security payments for working age adults must remain a democratic one, meaning the body’s role will continue to be advisory.

Accessibility 

The DWP should create a centralised ‘Social Security Digital Platform’, for all UC claimants, which acts as a single referral, application and processing platform for all benefits and grants available to low-income working age adults and allows UC claimants to have greater control over the frequency and destination of their payments.

We recommend that following the completion of migration of all legacy benefit claimants to UC, the government utilises the baseline IT system created for UC and expands it into a one-stop Social Security Digital Platform for all UC claimants.

The Social Security Digital Platform will contain the following functions. First, it will act as a single referral, application and processing platform for all benefits and grants available to low-income working age adults at the national and local level. Second, it will notify claimants of benefits when they might be eligible for more social security support, using their Real Time Information (RTI) data. Third, it will provide a significantly greater level of control to UC claimants over their UC award, specifically the frequency and destination of it. 

Fairness

Create a new, higher-level and time-limited Contribution Element in Universal Credit, which is paid out to those who have paid a new additional, voluntary, National Insurance (Unemployment Supplement). 

We recommend that, once the managed migration of UC is complete, the Government introduces a new Contribution Element to Universal Credit. The Contribution Element will be funded through, and its receipt will be conditional on, a new category of National Insurance (Unemployment Supplement) Contributions, which will be a voluntary payment from which employees could opt-out. The Contribution Element will replace the current New Style Jobseeker’s Allowance and Employment and Support Allowance.

Here are the key findings from our polling of the UK public, focus groups with UC claimants, Labour and Conservative voters, and original data analysis of the Understanding Society COVID-19 Study:

Adequacy

• The majority of the UK public support the idea that social security should be “meeting the cost of living”. 72% of the public cited this. This includes a majority of Conservative (68%), Labour (83%) and Liberal Democrat voters (80%).

• The UK public is strongly in favour of almost all claimant groups receiving more financial support through the social security system. Notably, those with long-term health problems and their carers (77%), low-income working parents (69%) and low-income workers who start their own business (61%). 

• A high proportion of the UK public thought a typical benefit claimant received insufficient support during the pandemic for a range of everyday costs. Utility bills are the cost which is most likely to be identified as one for which the typical benefit claimant received less than sufficient support (43%), followed by food costs (38%), costs of replacing broken down appliances (35%), childcare costs (34%), housing costs (24%) and transport costs (21%). 

• A high proportion of the UK public were dissatisfied with the support government provided to particular types of claimants provided during the pandemic. This included those with long-term mental health problems (43%), those caring for someone with a long-term health problem (42%), those with long-term physical health problems (41%) and low-income families with children (37%).

• None of the UC claimants in our focus groups felt the level of benefit payments they had received was adequate. As one participant described the Government’s UC support: “It wasn’t cutting it.”

• The number of existing UC claimants finding it more difficult to manage financially is higher than the rest of the population, but this narrowed towards the end of the pandemic. In 2018-19, 34% existing UC claimants cited this compared to 7% of the rest of the population. In September 2021 – towards the end of the pandemic – 21% of UC claimants found it difficult to manage financially, as opposed to 5% of the rest of the population.

• A significant minority of existing UC claimants reported that their personal debt was increasing over the last four weeks, although this decreased towards the end of the pandemic. In July 2020, 30% of  existing UC claimants cited this, compared to only 5% of the rest of the population. However, this gap narrowed significantly in later months of the pandemic, falling to 11 percentage points in September 2021.

• A sizable minority of new and existing UC claimants report not being up to date with housing payments, although this decreased towards the end of the pandemic. In 2018-19, 27% of existing UC claimants reported this, as opposed to 7% of the rest of the population. However, there is a significant fall in the number of both existing and new UC claimants who report not being up to date with housing payments towards the end of the pandemic: only 13% in both groups report not being up to date on housing payments in September 2021, while 7% of the rest of the population reported being in this position.

Accessibility 

• A majority of the UK public believe people who are eligible for benefits are not receiving them. 57% of the UK public agree that “there is a large number of people who should receive benefits, but are not claiming them”. 

• UC claimants in our focus groups noted they struggled to access social security, blaming the complexity of the system, poor signposting and a lack of information. One participant noted: “People don’t know how to claim benefits… because they don’t know where to get the help from and it’s not made obvious.” 

• UC claimants in our focus groups noted an element of stigma in the burden of presenting proof as part of the application process different benefits. As one participant noted: “It feels like you’re committing a crime” and another stated the process could be “quite degrading.”

Fairness

• There is majority support for a positive contributory principle in the social security system among the UK public (54%). Conservative voters are more likely (66%) than Labour (49%) and Liberal Democrat (40%) voters to support a positive contributory principle – where those who contribute more to social security receive more support. Conservative voters are more likely (66%) than Labour (49%) and Liberal Democrat (40%) voters to support a positive contributory principle.

• Adequacy, albeit narrowly, matters more than fairness, through the concept of contribution, for the design of the social security system. More (37% vs 30%) of respondents choose “the benefits system should prioritise helping people who are in a difficult position, even if they did not previously pay tax contributions into the system” above “the benefits system should prioritise helping people who have paid into the system previously, even if that means providing less help for people in a difficult financial position”. 

• The UK public is divided in their view on conditionality. A narrow plurality of 37% of say that “the benefits system should prioritise helping people who are in a difficult position, even if they did not previously pay tax contributions into the system” comes closest to their view, while 30% say that “the benefits system should prioritise helping people who have paid into the system previously, even if that means providing less help for people in a difficult financial position”

• The UK public is divided on whether there should be conditionality in the social security system for those on a low income but already in work. 35% agree with there being no conditionality for low-income workers, while 33% agree with there being conditionality.

ENDS

Today, Bright Blue, the think tank for liberal conservatism, is announcing that Ryan Shorthouse is stepping down as Chief Executive of Bright Blue after eight and half years leading the organisation. He will step up to become Executive Chair of the organisation in 2023.

Ryan Shorthouse, Chief Executive of Bright Blue, commented:

“Bright Blue is one of the UK’s leading think tanks today because of the talent, generosity and passion of so many people. Together, we have built a small superpower. We’ve published over 100 reports. Raised over £5 million for our work. Employed around 60 people. Hosted nearly 800 events. And, most importantly, seen the adoption of over 50 original Bright Blue policies by the UK Government.

“We make the weather on environment policy in the UK. We have been especially successful in persuading Government to make specific reforms to the immigration system since Brexit. We have ensured that those on modest incomes have benefited from increased opportunities and security – before, during and after the pandemic.

“It’s now time for a new chapter for me and for Bright Blue. It’s time to pass on the powerful and privileged role of CEO I’ve had for eight and half years to someone new. I’ve decided that the organisation needs fresh leadership, vision and energy. It will be an amazing opportunity for my successor to lead this brilliant organisation and team. They will have an unrivalled and unique chance to transform public policy and public attitudes.”

Sarah Sands, Former Chair of Bright Blue, commented:

“Ryan created Bright Blue on the principle that politics needs thought through policies based on imaginative thinking. He is an inspirational figure combining integrity, focus, rigour and kindness and it has been a great pleasure to work with him. I particularly appreciated his work on the green economy and social mobility. Public life needs Bright Blue more than ever and Ryan will hand it over to his successor in great shape.”

Matthew d’Ancona, Former Chair of Bright Blue, commented:

“Very few people have the intellect, ingenuity and determination to create a truly new engine of ideas – but Ryan Shorthouse is one of them. In Bright Blue, he has built a community and a laboratory of independent policy that is now a vibrant part of the think tank landscape. It was a complete privilege to work with him.”

Lord Willetts, former President of Bright Blue, commented:

“There are not many people who have successfully created a think tank from scratch. Ryan is one of them. Bright Blue is now established as an effective and influential voice in policy debates. Ryan can be very proud of what he has achieved over eight years leading Bright Blue.”

ENDS

Notes to editors:

• Ryan Shorthouse will remain the Chief Executive of Bright Blue until his successor is appointed and in position, which is likely to be at some point in 2023. The job advert for the new Chief Executive is here.
• Ryan Shorthouse will step up to become Executive Chair of Bright Blue in 2023.

For further comment or to arrange an interview please get in touch with Max Anderson: max@brightblue.org.uk or 07850 684474.

Commenting on the Autumn Statement 2022, Ryan Shorthouse, Chief Executive of Bright Blue, said:

“Britain seems to be going backwards. We are back in recession. Inflation is back to historic highs. We are back to an austere fiscal strategy. These economic woes are largely driven by global factors, but also in part by the policy decisions of Conservative-led Governments: the so-called ‘mini-Budget’ and Brexit, in particular.

“Most of the public are now paying higher taxes, higher mortgages and higher bills as a proportion of their household income. Since all this significant financial hardship is happening after twelve years of Tory rule, they are unlikely to forgive the Tories for yet another round of austerity. Even if there is no other alternative to the broad fiscal strategy that is now being pursued.

“Faced with such dreary economic forecasts, the Chancellor was right to set a plan to reduce the current budget deficit over the next five years, even if the fiscal rules have been softened somewhat. Since public expenditure is reliant on investment in government bonds, it is essential that the Government gets a grip on public borrowing so investors are not spooked.

“The new deficit reduction plan announced today is broadly well-balanced in terms of composition, distribution and timing. Unlike in the 2010s, spending will not be disproportionately cut, although from 2025 onwards the settlements will be particularly stringent, posing problems both for public sector pay and a probable Labour Government. Tax is playing a much greater role, with lots of fiscal drag affecting different types of taxes and taxpayers. The pain is indeed being widely shared, but with those individuals and companies with the broadest shoulders rightly bearing the brunt.

“The Government did miss an opportunity to shift the weight of taxation away from work on to wealth. It could have been bolder on Capital Gains, Inheritance and Non-Dom taxation, which could have softened the increases in payroll taxes.

“Prioritising public money being paid direct to individuals, especially the poorest, rather than through bureaucracies should be a clear overriding principle for a centre-right Government. That is why it was good to protect the value of state benefits and pensions in line with inflation. But promising yet more real-terms increases in funding for the NHS without substantial reform, only promising yet more reviews, is unwise and unsustainable.”

The 2022 Autumn Statement adopted two of Bright Blue’s policies:

• Increasing the value of state benefits in line with inflation

• Increasing the value of the National Living Wage in accordance with recommendations by the Low Pay Commission

Payments for low-income households

• Increasing benefits in April 2023 in line with inflation, which measured 10.1%

• Increasing the benefit cap in April 2023 in line with inflation, which measured 10.1%

• Providing additional Cost of Living payments in 2023-24, with a value of £900 for households on means-tested benefits and a value of £150 for those on disability benefits

• Extending the Household Support Fund for 2023-24 and providing an additional £1 billion of funding

• Increasing the National Living Wage by 9.7% to £10.42 an hour for those aged over 23

Anvar Sarygulov, Head of Research at Bright Blue, commented:

“The decision to uprate benefits in line with inflation is both great policy and good politics. Given the already historically low real value of benefits, and rampant inflation, many low-income households will need this increase in the next year to avoid destitution. Increasing the Benefit Cap in line with inflation alongside this ensures that households can receive an appropriate level of support given rising prices.

“The commitment to additional support for low-income households through the Household Support Fund and the Cost of Living Payments is also extremely welcome given the ongoing pressures they will be facing from inflation next year. This is what compassionate conservatism looks like in action.”

“But the Household Support Fund will now run for two and a half years, the Cost of Living Payments for more than one and a half. The ongoing need for such support, and the ongoing debates over uprating benefits in recent years, shows that the baseline level of state benefits is inadequate. The Government needs to design a systemic and robust way of setting benefit levels that corresponds with the cost of living.”

“The Government is also right to increase the National Living Wage substantially and in line with recommendations set out by the Low Pay Commission.”

Personal taxation

• Maintaining Income Tax and National Insurance thresholds at 2023-24 levels until April 2028

• Reducing the additional rate threshold for Income Tax from £150,000 to £125,140 from April 2023

• Maintaining Inheritance Tax thresholds at current level until April 2028

• Reducing the dividend allowance from £2,000 to £1,000 from April 2023 and then £500 from April 2024

• Reducing the annual exempt amount for Capital Gains Tax from £12,300 to £6,000 from April 2023 then £3,000 from April 2024

• Increasing the referendum limit for increases in council tax to 3% per year from April 2023. In addition, local authorities with social care responsibilities will be able to increase the adult social care precept by up to 2% per year

Sam Robinson, Senior Research Fellow at Bright Blue, commented:

“Extending the freeze on Income Tax and National Insurance thresholds, while reducing it for the additional rate, is a politically astute move. But the Chancellor could have extended more targeted help to those struggling this year by unfreezing the personal allowance to avoid more people on low incomes being dragged into basic-rate Income Tax.

“The changes to the Dividend Allowance and Annual Exempt Amount today are a welcome statement of intent to tax income from different sources more equitably. There is no reason why someone who earns their income from multiple sources should get a much higher effective tax free allowance than someone earning all their income from work. Today’s reforms narrow that gap.

“But the logic of taxing work less and wealth more could have been taken further, in particular by being bolder on Capital Gains Tax rates and reducing the scope of reliefs for Inheritance Tax. Doing so would have mitigated the need to increase payroll taxes, as well as softening the often sharp discrepancies in the way we treat different forms of income.

“Enabling local authorities to increase Council Tax without any attempt at substantive reform is timid policymaking. To keep squeezing revenue out of the current system when the basic design of Council Tax is so regressive is disappointing and punitive for those in lower-value homes. At the very least, the Chancellor should have announced a revaluation and reform of Council Tax bands to make them more progressive”.

Business taxation

• Extending the Energy Profits Levy until 31 March 2028 and increasing the rate to 35% from 1 January 2023

• Introducing a new Electricity Generator Levy with a 45% tax on excess returns from 1 January 2023 to 31 March 2028

• Setting the Annual Investment Allowance (AIA) at its highest ever permanent level of £1 million from 1 April 2023

• Freezing Business Rates multipliers in 2023-24 at 49.9 pence and 51.2 pence, preventing them from increasing to 52.9 pence and 54.2 pence

Sam Robinson, Senior Research Fellow at Bright Blue, commented:

“Extending the windfall tax by raising the main rate is good policy; it mitigates the need for more painful permanent tax rises on workers and businesses. But keeping in place the overly generous deductions for North Sea oil and gas extraction offers firms an easy way out of paying the windfall tax, which will reduce its fiscal effectiveness, and is the wrong priority for the environment.

“Low investment is one of the key drivers of the economic malaise we find ourselves in. Setting the Annual Investment Allowance at £1 million permanently is a welcome move which will give businesses additional incentives to invest in the resources that will set the foundations for future growth.

“Extending support through the Business Rates system will help small businesses to weather the storm over the next year. Over the longer term, the work started in this statement on the transitional relief scheme needs to be continued to ensure Business Rates are fit for purpose.”

Notes to editors:

To arrange an interview with a Bright Blue spokesperson or for further media enquiries, please contact Max Anderson at max@brightblue.org.uk or on 07850 684474.

• Bright Blue is the independent think tank and pressure group for liberal conservatism.
• Bright Blue’s Board includes Diane Banks, Philip Clarke, Alexandra Jezeph, Richard Mabey,
• and Ryan Shorthouse.
• Our advisory council can be found here. We also have 211 parliamentary supporters. Members of our advisory council and our parliamentary supporters do not necessarily endorse all our policy recommendations, including those included in this press release.

[Image: Gov.uk]

Bright Blue, the independent think tank for liberal conservatism, has today released a new report, entitled Work in progress? Supporting the self-employed after the pandemic, which unearths the experiences of self-employed individuals from low- and middle-income households during the pandemic, before suggesting new policies to better support them with the current cost of living and future individual and national crises.

The report is based on new and extensive analysis of 43 semi-structured depth interviews with a broadly reflective sample of self-employed people in gross equivalised low and middle-income UK households and public polling of a sample of 1,583 self-employed UK adults in equivalised gross low and middle income households.

Sam Robinson, Senior Research Fellow at Bright Blue and lead author of the report, commented: 

“With the cost of living crisis coming right on the heels of COVID-19, the self-employed have arguably never faced a tougher economic backdrop. Now more than ever, creative policies are needed to avoid an implosion in self-employment in the UK. 

“The Government needs to act in the short term by improving Universal Credit and doing more to protect self-employed people from sickness, late payments and emergency expenses. In the long term, the Government must seize the opportunity to build financial resilience and entrepreneurial opportunities for the self-employed by widening access to financial products and helping low income self-employed people to build their savings.”

Mark Pawsey MP, Member of the Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy Committee, commented: 

“With a difficult winter approaching, it is important that the necessary support is provided to those who need it, including self-employed workers. Therefore, I welcome this report by Bright Blue into the effect of the pandemic on self-employed workers. Its findings and recommendations provide some thoughtful and insightful suggestions which could potentially extend self-employed workers’ safety net and widen their access to financial support.”

Bright Blue’s main findings on the impact of the pandemic from our fieldwork include:

• A majority of self-employed individuals from low and middle income households changed the type of work they do as a result of the pandemic. Almost one in five (18%) of self-employed individuals in low and middle income households reported that they had ‘completely’ changed the type of work they do, while a further 50% (25% for each option) reported that ‘most’ or ‘some’ of their work had changed. 
• More self-employed individuals from low and middle income households experienced a decrease in their standards of living than an increase during the pandemic. 35% of self-employed workers reported a decline in their standard of living during the pandemic compared to 16% who reported an increase.
• The most common negative impacts on the general lives of self-employed people in low and middle income households were difficulty connecting with friends and family, and worsened personal finances. Both were cited by 26% of those polled. Almost one in five (19%) also cited deteriorating mental health as the single biggest negative impact of COVID-19 on their life. 

Bright Blue’s fieldwork also revealed the views of self-employed individuals from low- and middle-income households on governmental, commercial and personal financial support during the pandemic:  

• A majority of self-employed individuals in low and middle income households used governmental financial support during the pandemic. Such governmental financial support comprised the Self-Employed Income Support Scheme (SEISS, used by 22% of respondents), Universal Credit (UC, used by 25%), business grants (used by 12%), the Coronavirus Business Interruption Loan Scheme (CBILS, used by 11%), Bounce Back Loans (used by 10%) and deferred self-assessment (used by 8%). 
• There were issues with newly self-employed workers accessing support during the pandemic. 14% of low to middle-income households in our polling reported wanting governmental financial support during the pandemic but being unable to access it. The top two reasons for wanting but being unable to access governmental financial support were being too newly self-employed (33%) and being ineligible due to savings or income (32%).
• The self-employed from low and middle income households are divided on the taxes they pay and benefits they receive. A significant minority (41%) were in favour of raising taxes on self-employed people in exchange for more state support, whilst 32% of self-employed workers want taxes and state support to remain the same. Just 16% wish to see taxes decrease in exchange for less state support. 
• Most self-employed people in low and middle income households used their savings during the pandemic. 51% cited this. 30% also relied on family financial support and 16% relied on friends.

Bright Blue recommends the following policies to better support self-employed people through future crises: 

Support and encourage flexible savings

Introduce flexible auto-enrolment for the self-employed.

Government should extend private pension auto-enrolment to the self-employed. The overall contribution rate should be lower than for employees, starting at 1% of qualifying earnings before rising to 4% after four years. The self-employed should pay annually through their tax return, or quarterly through Making Tax Digital. Above and beyond such contributions being tax-free, low-income self-employed should receive a top-up from the state for their contributions.

Strengthen the safety net for self-employed workers

Introduce a ‘Business Crisis Loans’ (BCL) scheme available for self-employed people eligible for UC who experience a week or more of illness, late business payments, or an urgent one-off expense. 

Government would underwrite these loans to reduce risk to lenders. Claimants would, over time, have to pay the BCL back. The specific repayment terms should be subject to review, but government could allow repayments to be interest-free for a certain period, for example the first six months after claiming, after which interest would accrue on the loan. 

Financial incentives for Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs) to set up local community peer-to-peer finance networks for the self-employed.

These kinds of networks exist in Europe, particularly the Netherlands, in the form of ‘bread funds.’ Should LEPs demonstrate that they have successfully facilitated bread funds in their local area, and that this has helped self-employed people on low incomes or from other marginalised groups, a small amount of additional governmental funding could be awarded to them.

Widen and ensure access to financial support

Create a fund to provide starting £10,000 of starting capital for self-employed mutual insurance schemes. 

Mutual guarantee societies (MGSs) are groups of small businesses that support each other to access low-interest loans from banks by using their cash assets as collateral to guarantee each other’s loans. Government should create a fund for small businesses and sole traders – explicitly including self-employed people as well as SMEs – to access £10,000 of starting capital to set up a mutual insurance scheme. To strengthen confidence in MGSs, the scheme could be delivered by established Community Development Financial Institutions (CDFIs). A trial could be delivered using the Financial Conduct Authority’s regulatory sandbox. This fund would be open for a five year trial period and limited to 100 successful applicants only. 

Government should allow self-employed people on low incomes to pause repayments on their Start Up Loans (SULs) for up to six months across the lifetime of the loan. 

It should also regularly review the effectiveness of the SUL scheme by regularly monitoring and reporting longitudinal data on outcomes for self-employed people on low incomes. The government should work with key stakeholders that have access to the newly self-employed to design and enable greater mentoring support through the SUL programme. SULs should also not count towards the surplus earnings rule for self-employed people on UC.

A government-backed ‘finance portal’ for self-employed people and other workers

Government should develop a central online hub where self-employed people can review their financial pots. Self-employed people would be able to see the status of their assets – in particular, their auto-enrolled pension, as well as its linked ISA or savings account, and their liabilities: their outstanding balance for products such as Start-Up Loans and BCLs. The finance portal could also signpost self-employed people to support providers such as their Local Enterprise Partnership as well as commercial financial options, in particular invoice factoring and invoice discounting. 

Richard King, Director of Corporate Communications at Provident Financial Group, said:

“Provident Financial Group welcomes this research and insight it provides into how best to extend and enhance support to the self employed.  As a leading specialist bank focused on underserved markets, PFG has a keen interest in supporting a better understanding of groups, such as the self employed, who could benefit from better-tailored financial products, advice and public services.”    

Bright Blue, the independent think tank for liberal conservatism, has today published a new research report, Picking up the pieces: tackling littering and fly-tipping in England, analysing the recent rise in and current policies to tackle littering and fly-tipping in England, before recommending original policies to better help tackle them.

The report finds evidence which indicates that littering and fly-tipping has risen in England in recent years. The total number of fly-tipping incidents between 2018-19 and 2020-21 reported to local authorities increased by 18% from approximately 957,000 to 1,134,000. As recent Bright Blue polling from 2021 showed, the public consider fly-tipping and littering to be the third most significant threat to the country’s natural environment (25%), behind climate change (36%) and plastic pollution (40%).

The report identifies five different types of public policies, implemented both nationally and internationally, to tackle fly-tipping and littering: regulatory: punishments; behavioural: incentives; and educational.

Joshua Marks, Senior Researcher at Bright Blue and co-author of the report, commented:

“Fly-tipping and littering ruin neighbourhoods and cost the taxpayer millions to clean up every year. Littering ought to be a higher priority for both local and central governments. Ensuring that we enforce our current littering laws more forcefully is necessary to protect our high streets.”

Ryan Shorthouse, Chief Executive of Bright Blue, commented:

“If you want to restore civic activity and pride in local communities, a key aim of the Government’s levelling up agenda, then reducing littering is often a crucial step.

“The public are furious about fly-tipping and littering. This really is a major public policy problem, causing significant economic, environmental and social problems to communities across the country. It’s time to be tougher on litter louts.”

In the past, Bright Blue has proposed a number of policy recommendations to reduce fly-tipping and littering. These include: higher fines through Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for littering; ring-fencing revenue from FPNs for local environmental purposes; and totally waiving the costs for DIY waste disposal at household waste centres, a policy which was adopted by the Government in April 2022.

This report goes further, proposing original and credible policies to tackle littering and fly-tipping:

Recommendation one: Task the Office of Environmental Protection with inspecting local authorities to ensure they are enforcing the law on litter and mandate the use of third-party enforcement services when they fail to do so. 

Many local authorities are failing to enforce the law on litter, or are doing so very lightly. A recent Freedom of Information request about how many FPNs they had issued on a weekly basis, 56% of those who responded had issued less than one FPN per week and 16% issued none at all.

Currently, there are no official inspections into whether local authorities are enforcing the law on litter, nor are there repercussions for failing to do so. The Office of Environmental Protection (OEP) should be tasked with inspecting local authorities to ensure they are applying the law on litter. Where they are failing to do so, the OEP should mandate the use of third-party enforcement services to apply the law on litter within a local authority’s area.

The use of such third-party enforcement services can be cost effective for local authorities as they can generate revenue from the fines they issue. This also incentivises third-party services to actively enforce the law on littering and issue FPNs.

In 2018, the 73 local authorities who employed private, third-party enforcement services to issue FPNs issued an average of 2,940 fines each per year. By comparison, the 230 local authorities who did not employ third-party enforcement services to issue FPNs issued an average of 157 each per year.

Recommendation two: Update National Highways’ Key Performance Indicators to include litter, with an accompanying ambitious target for reducing it.

National Highways are responsible for keeping the motorways and strategic roads under their management free of litter. But littered verges along motorways remain a common sight for motorists in England.

National Highways’ Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) focus on the activities and outcomes which are most important to the organisation, broken down into several different categories. One category is ‘Being environmentally responsible’, where KPIs include noise reduction, no loss of biodiversity, air quality targets, and a reduction in carbon emissions, but with no mention of litter. Instead, litter is mentioned as a Performance Indicator, but unlike KPIs, Performance Indicators are not seen as a critical measure which must be achieved and generally do not have targets.

National Highways should establish litter as a KPI. This would ensure that litter is treated as a critical measure which must be prevented, thereby embedding it within the strategic direction of National Highways. Furthermore, it should be accompanied by an ambitious litter reduction target for England’s motorway verges.

Recommendation three: Introduce imprisonment as a minimum sentence for those fly-tipping asbestos.

Currently, those caught fly-tipping face penalties ranging from unlimited fines and seizure of the vehicle used to commit the offence through to imprisonment, irrespective of the material being fly-tipped. Given the strong link between asbestos and mesothelioma – a form of cancer with an extremely high mortality rate – those caught fly-tipping asbestos should face imprisonment as a minimum sentence.

Recommendation four: Defra should re-establish the Litter Innovation Fund on a long-term basis with annual funding grants.

The Litter Innovation Fund ran for two years from 2018 to 2019 and gave £450,000 worth of funding to various charities and organisations to trial novel anti-littering methods.

Defra should re-create the fund on a long-term basis with new grants available annually for local authorities and other third party organisations for initiatives to effect positive behavioural change around littering.

After the Litter Innovation Fund has been evaluated to demonstrate efficacy and value for money, it should be committed to on a long-term basis with local authorities and third parties allowed to bid for grants annually.

Recommendation five: Establish a Litter Intelligence Programme within the National Citizen Service so young people can become UK ‘Citizen Scientists’

The National Citizen Service (NCS) is a government-sponsored voluntary initiative for 16-17 year olds where they engage with a range of extracurricular activities that include outdoor team-building exercises, independent living, and social action projects. Currently, the scheme offers placements during school holidays in spring, summer and autumn.

During the second week of the scheme the children “design and implement a social action project which will have a long-lasting impact in the local community.” While litter collection is already an option, the NCS should create a more formalised Litter Intelligence Programme mimicking that of New Zealand’s during the second week of the programme for student groups who choose litter collection as their social action.

The groups of students who choose to participate in this programme route in the NCS will be given a local area to adopt and then trained on how to collect data on litter. Once students have completed this one week course they can become labelled as Citizen Scientists or equivalent based on the level of training they received. Additionally, the data collection aspect of the training can be put on both their CVs, university applications, and if the scheme is successful form an additional source of litter data for national analysis.

ENDS

Notes to editors:

To arrange an interview with a Bright Blue spokesperson or for further media enquiries, please contact Max Anderson at max@brightblue.org.uk or on 07850 684474.

• This report is kindly sponsored by John Ellerman Foundation. Bright Blue has had complete editorial control over the report. The report does not necessarily reflect the views of our sponsor.
• Our advisory council can be found here. We also have 211 parliamentary supporters. Members of our advisory council and our parliamentary supporters do not necessarily endorse all our policy recommendations, including those included in this press release.

For further comment or to arrange an interview please get in touch with Max Anderson: max@brightblue.org.uk or 07850 684474.

Commenting on The Growth Plan 2022, Ryan Shorthouse, Chief Executive of Bright Blue, said:

“The Chancellor wants to send dramatic signals that Britain under a new Conservative Government is changing course and going for growth.

“The most controversial policies – cutting the additional rate of tax, corporation tax and the cap on bankers’ bonuses – are unlikely to have substantial economic effects, but they are politically potent: reinventing the Tory brand, winding up the Left and showing this Government unashamedly means business. 

“The dramatic tax cuts announced today show a steely determination to get money moving to catalyse economic activity, regardless of the starkly poor distributional effects. Balancing the books is now seen as a Treasury fixation that will become secondary to the aim of going for growth. The new Chancellor is borrowing big, basically. 

“This strategy is not particularly conservative; last decade, the Tories were all about fiscal discipline. But, with no qualms about tax cuts that will disproportionately benefit high earners and large companies, this Government is not especially socially democratic either. Most of the tax cuts could have been better targeted, as they were – admittedly – for today’s Stamp Duty cuts.

“There is real risk in all this radicalism. As interest rates rise, the cost of servicing government debt is becoming more expensive. The value of sterling has plummeted. If the historically high borrowing becomes seen as unsustainable, market confidence in Britain will fall and taxpayers will pay a painful price. There is a historical warning here: when the Conservative Chancellor Anthony Barber pursued a similar tax-cutting, growth-getting budget, inflation soon spiralled and Britain became the ‘sick man of Europe’ in the 1970s.

“After twelve years of running the country, the Tories desperately need to establish a record of delivery quickly if they want to cling on to power. Knowing this, the Prime Minister and Chancellor are going for broke.”

The Growth Plan 2022 adopted five Bright Blue policies:

• Planning constraints on onshore wind will be relaxed. 
• The rise in employers’ National Insurance Contributions, and the employer’s element of the Health and Social Care Levy, have both been cancelled. 
• The generosity and availability of the Seed Enterprise Investment Scheme (SEIS) will be increased. 
• The Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) and Venture Capital Trusts (VCT) will be extended.
• The Green Levy will be maintained but paid for via taxpayers.
• Stamp Duty was cut for nearly all first-time buyers.

Income Tax

• Abolishing the additional rate of Income Tax in April 2023.
• Cutting the basic rate of Income Tax to 19p in April 2023.

Sam Robinson, Senior Research Fellow at Bright Blue, said:

“Today’s cuts to Income Tax add yet more to the already enormous bill that the Government’s policies are racking up. There is at least a clear logic behind this: taxes on work should be cut. This principle is right. But when it comes to Income Tax, it would have been far better to do this by raising the starting threshold for the basic rate.

“Abolishing the additional rate will make Income Tax notably less progressive. The Government is betting that this will turbocharge growth to the extent that this doesn’t matter. But the assumption that this will substantially expand working hours and boost spending among high-income individuals is highly optimistic.

“The politicised and untargeted approach that the Government has taken on cutting Income Tax stands in stark contrast to the considered and targeted approach taken to cutting Stamp Duty. The Government should really be looking to maximise the economic benefit per pound of tax revenue cut, and it’s not at all clear that it is doing this with its reforms to Income Tax.”

National Insurance

• Cancelling the Health and Social Care Levy from April 2023.
• Cancelling the interim rise in National Insurance.

Sam Robinson, Senior Research Fellow at Bright Blue, said:

“There is nothing inherently wrong with cutting National Insurance. In fact, government should aim to reduce taxes on work as a matter of principle. But this needs to be done in a fiscally responsible and targeted way. A tax cut on this scale should be at least partly funded by changes elsewhere. What we currently have is a £13 billion giveaway that does little to help households most in need of extra money this winter, since earlier in the year the Government raised the Primary Threshold for paying National Insurance which meant that the lowest earning 70% of payers wouldn’t pay more as a result of the introduction of the Health and Social Care Levy. 

“Focussing on cutting employer NICs more deeply would be a better way than what has been announced today of reducing taxes on work, since it would help businesses by reducing staffing costs and support workers, especially the lowest paid, through increases to their pay packets or by creating more jobs over the long term.” 

Corporation Tax

• Cancelling the planned rise in the headline rate of Corporation Tax, maintaining the rate at 19% from April 2023.
• The temporary £1 million level of the Annual Investment Allowance will be made permanent from April 2023. 

Sam Robinson, Senior Research Fellow at Bright Blue, said:

“Cancelling the planned Corporation Tax rise is, ultimately, betting a great deal of foregone tax revenue on very uncertain economic gains. At a cost of £17 billion a year it comes with a hefty price tag. But the evidence that lower headline Corporation Tax rates spur business investment is, at best, mixed.

“It is also worth noting that, since small companies were unaffected by the planned rise in Corporation Tax, the changes announced today will mostly benefit larger companies.

“There are better policies for encouraging business investment. Rather than cutting the headline rate of Corporation Tax, the Government could instead move to the full immediate expensing of capital investment in new plants and machinery, enabling companies to write off capital expenses against their tax bill. This is a much more targeted way of achieving what the cut to the headline rate aims to do.” 

Stamp Duty

• Doubling the level at which all people begin paying Stamp Duty from £125,000 to £250,000.
• Increasing the level at which first-time buyers start paying Stamp Duty from £300,000 to £425,000.
• First-time buyers will be able to access relief when they buy a property costing less than £625,000 rather than the current £500,000.

Sam Robinson, Senior Research Fellow at Bright Blue, said:

“Today’s changes to Stamp Duty are certainly not without risk, but they are welcome. Stamp Duty is one of the most ill-conceived taxes in the country, so cutting it is a step forward in improving property taxes. This has, rightly, been paired with substantial and targeted support for first-time buyers – considering their affordability constraints, they need extra support to compete against property investors in the purchasing market.

“But changing Stamp Duty should be the start and not the end of the Government’s ambition on housing policy. In the absence of other policies to boost supply, cutting Stamp Duty risks raising house prices further, even when they have never been less affordable. Today’s cut needs to be followed up with an ambitious drive to increase the supply of housing, whether or not that involves targets from central government. And we cannot keep ignoring the meaningful and necessary reforms that should be made to Council Tax to ensure it is much more progressive.”

Investment zones

• Businesses in designated areas in investment zones will benefit from 100% business rates relief on newly occupied and expanded premises. Local authorities hosting Investment Zones will receive 100% of the business rates growth above an agreed baseline in designated sites for 25 years.
• Businesses will receive full stamp duty land tax relief on land bought for commercial or residential development and a zero rate for Employer National Insurance contributions on new employee earnings up to £50,270 per year.
• There will be a 100% first year enhanced capital allowance relief for plant and machinery used within designated sites and accelerated Enhanced Structures and Buildings Allowance relief of 20% per year.
• There will be designated development sites to both release more land for housing and commercial development, and to support accelerated development. The need for planning applications will be minimised and where planning applications remain necessary, they will be radically streamlined.

Sam Robinson, Senior Research Fellow at Bright Blue, said:

“If designed well, new Investment Zones could provide an effective Truss twist on levelling up. But investment zones are not a new idea, and the evidence on their effectiveness is mixed: to some extent, they relocate rather than generate economic activity.

“If anything, a better approach would be to take the best policy ideas from the proposed investment zones, particularly reforms to the planning system and enhanced investment allowances, and apply them more widely. These particular policies have the potential to energise businesses up and down the country, not just in specific areas.”

EU regulation

• Automatically sunset EU regulations by December 2023, requiring departments to review, replace or repeal retained EU law.

Sam Robinson, Senior Research Fellow at Bright Blue, said:

“Applying sunset clauses to EU legislation is a good idea to bring rigour and discipline to policymakers, and to make the most of Brexit. There is no reason why this approach shouldn’t be applied more generally, in particular to tax reliefs, which are incredibly expensive yet subjected to shockingly low levels of scrutiny. As with EU regulation, every few years tax reliefs should be subject to a concrete decision: review, replace or repeal.”

Welfare

• Increasing the Administrative Earnings Threshold to 15 hours a week at National Living Wage for an individual Universal Credit claimant (and 24 hours a week for couples) from January 2023.
• Strengthening the sanctions regime.
• Providing additional work coach support to new, eligible over 50s claimants.

Anvar Sarygulov, Head of Research at Bright Blue, said:

“Strengthening conditionality requirements for some people already in work will have a marginal impact on the labour market. It is inactivity, not underemployment, that is the main economic challenge. The increasing number of working-age adults not being able to work because of health issues must be addressed at the root of the issue, not by the time they start claiming benefits.”

Onshore wind

• Bringing onshore wind planning policy in line with other infrastructure to allow it to be deployed more easily in England.

Joshua Marks, Senior Researcher at Bright Blue, said: 

“A lack of any substantive onshore wind development since 2015 is bad for our energy security and sustainability. The current rules have allowed a single dissenting voice to obstruct plans and stop development. The Growth Plan’s commitment to changing this, so it is in line with the planning rules of other infrastructure projects, will energise onshore wind development and solidify our path to net zero. However, care must be taken to ensure that other environmental issues, such as the impact developments have on local habitats and biodiversity, are not sacrificed in the process.”

Green Levy

• The government will temporarily cover environmental and social costs, including green levies, currently included in domestic energy bills for two years.

Joshua Marks, Senior Researcher at Bright Blue, said: 

“The Government’s decision to fund the Green Levy through the public purse rather than scrap it from bills completely is welcome in order to continue our investment into green energy measures that support the poorest households. Making taxpayers rather than billpayers through a flat fee pay for it also makes the Green Levy much fairer.”

Notes to editors:

To arrange an interview with a Bright Blue spokesperson or for further media enquiries, please contact Max Anderson at max@brightblue.org.uk or on 07850 684474.

• Bright Blue is the independent think tank and pressure group for liberal conservatism.
• Bright Blue’s Board includes Diane Banks, Philip Clarke, Alexandra Jezeph, Richard Mabey,
• and Ryan Shorthouse.
• Our advisory council can be found here. We also have 211 parliamentary supporters. Members of our advisory council and our parliamentary supporters do not necessarily endorse all our policy recommendations, including those included in this press release.

[Image: Gov.uk]