The Case of the Disappearing Swift Bricks: A growing case of hypocrisy on protecting nature in Britain?

There’s something deeply symbolic, and deeply telling, in the case of swift bricks and Housing Secretary Steve Reed. Back when he was Environment Secretary, Reed publicly backed a plan to make £35 “swift bricks” mandatory in all new homes — hollow nesting bricks that could provide a lifeline to Britain’s rapidly declining swifts. These are not luxury extras. Swift populations in the UK have experienced a significant decline since 1995, falling by an estimated 66% between 1995 and 2022 (British Trust for Ornithology). This rapid decline has led to the species being added to the UK's Red List of Birds of Conservation Concern in 2021, indicating they are at a very real risk of extinction in the UK.

Fast forward to his role as Housing Secretary, and that commitment has quietly been dropped. The government has backed away from mandating the bricks in favour of mere guidance, a half-measure that many conservationists see as a betrayal.

Here's some further details from an article published in the Guardian last week: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/oct/17/government-u-turns-on-support-for-bird-friendly-swift-bricks-in-new-homes?utm_source=chatgpt.com

A Cheap, Easy, Clever Fix...Abandoned

Swift bricks are not complicated. They cost around £35 a brick, integrate seamlessly into modern construction, and require no maintenance. Hansard Communities and wildlife groups have pushed for their inclusion in every new building, arguing this would be a cheap, simple, cost-effective way to combat a crisis in swift numbers.

Yet, Labour’s reversal has prompted sharp criticism. As The Guardian reports, critics say the back-pedalling is a “betrayal of prior commitments.” Baroness Young of Old Scone, formerly of the RSPB, even voted against mandatory bricks, despite having backed them in earlier debates. Some of the reasoning included:

• A Reluctance to impose regulations on housebuilders*: Labour is focused on addressing the UK's housing affordability crisis with a large push for new homes and is reluctant to impose additional regulations on developers, which they believe could hinder building efforts.

• Preference for local decision-making: Housing Minister Matthew Pennycook stated that the government is "not convinced that legislating to mandate the use of specific wildlife features is the right approach" and that decisions on biodiversity measures should be made by local authorities.

• Concerns about effectiveness of planning conditions: Some Labour members argued that including swift bricks in national planning policy guidance alone is not effective because many local planning authorities lack the resources to ensure planning conditions are met. A University of Sheffield study found that 75% of bird and bat boxes demanded as a condition of planning permission for new housing developments had not materialised.

• Political concerns: There were reports that some within the Labour party felt the measure could appear "woke" and turn people to the Reform party,

*We are still trying to comprehend how a £35 brick creates an imposing regulation on a housebuilder, if anyone can provide some insight we are listening!

Why This Matters for the Bigger Environmental Picture

This is more than a bird-brick issue. It reflects a broader pattern: easy, effective environmental policies are being abandoned when they conflict with developer or political convenience. It is 'build, baby, build' with two fingers stuck up to nature (look at the proposals that will make it easier to build infrastructure on our National Parks as another fine example).

We have to consider the bigger picture:

• Swifts are not just emblematic birds; their decline signals broader ecological harm.

• The government’s U-turn shows a willingness to scramble from simple, low-cost conservation measures when the political cost or regulatory burden, however small, feels uncomfortable.

• It raises real questions about Labour’s environmental credibility. If Reed won’t support a £35 brick that he previously backed as Environment Minister, how serious is the government about more costly or complex policies?

The Hypocrisy Is Staggering

It’s striking: a policy that would have made a meaningful difference for nature, protect the future of one of our flagship bird species, cost next to nothing, and had cross-party backing is being shelved. Meanwhile, grander but riskier environmental promises continue to be made (see Carbon Capture & Storage investment plans).

This isn’t just a missed opportunity for swifts. It’s another example of policy drift, environmental compromise, and political delay, all wrapped in the guise of “developer burden” or regulatory complexity. How can a Minister, one day in charge of environmental decisions change tune so quickly when he moves into a new position where it is easier to implement the measure he was backing 5-minutes ago? It seems a bizarre change in stance,

A Simple Demand: Deliver on Promises

• The government should recommit to making swift bricks mandatory, not optional.

• Building regulations must require swift bricks (or similar wildlife-nesting features) in all new homes.

• If Labour truly cares about nature recovery, this isn’t a “nice to have” — it’s a core test of its environmental convictions.

Abandoning swift bricks may seem inconsequential to some, but to millions of swifts, and the people who cherish them, it’s a betrayal of both promise and purpose. Ministers who once spoke up for nature now need to show they mean it, not with rhetoric, but with bricks. Currently we are really starting to question the government's true commitment to protecting nature across Britain, especially when they promise one thing and then when they are in a position to fully implement that promise they backtrack.