Food Security

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Thursday 27th November 2014 Westminster Hall

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hood, and to follow our very knowledgeable Select Committee Chair, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Miss McIntosh), and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse (Jim Fitzpatrick), who is also a fount of knowledge on all things farming and environmental.

I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. The Committee’s food security inquiry was wide-ranging and there are a number of important points to discuss. In fact, once the inquiry was under way, we quickly realised that there are so many issues at play in this debate that considering them all within one report would be a huge task, so we decided to split the report into two parts. Today we are discussing issues around food supply, but I hope that we will also have an opportunity to debate the second report once it is published.

As a member of the all-party inquiry into hunger and food poverty, I have taken part in a number of evidence sessions and visits this year, speaking to food bank charities and to those people who rely on food aid. That aspect of food security is vital to understanding the full picture, since those people are the ones most affected by changing food prices.

As our inquiry heard, falling incomes, benefit cuts and a cruel sanctions regime imposed by this Government are leaving more people at the mercy of rising living costs. It is also fair to say that general public awareness about how we source our food is higher than it has been for some time, not only because of the rise in food poverty and the attention that that has received in the press, but because of the horsemeat scandal and the review by Professor Elliott that followed.

I will make a few points about that review, since it was published after our Committee’s report. It highlighted the lack of co-ordination between different bodies on food fraud, and the confusion of responsibilities when the scandal first came to the public’s attention. The creation of a new cross-departmental committee and the new food crime unit are designed to address that situation. However, as Professor Elliott said in his evidence to the Committee last week, it is essential that that unit has the resources that it needs, and that there are systems in place to ensure that it can co-operate fully with our police forces.

Professor Elliott also stressed the need to clarify the responsibilities of the Food Standards Agency and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, although he stopped short of repeating his interim recommendation that food authenticity be brought under the FSA’s remit. That disappointed many people, including Labour Members. It is true that, as the professor told us in his evidence, this point had become politicised, but I would argue that it was politicised even at the time of his interim report, and I would not be surprised to learn that Government pressure had something to do with the changes in the final report.

However, there are also positives to take from the final report. Professor Elliott reports significant improvements in the way that both the industry and local authorities inspect food. He also reported on a positive change of culture that has made food safety and authenticity a higher priority at all levels, from Government right down to the consumer. Those changes are all very welcome. Before the horsemeat scandal, food safety and authenticity were not issues that were high on many people’s list of priorities. That is not the case any more, and there is a genuine will out there to tackle these issues. What is important now is to make sure that we have the resources and the infrastructure that are necessary to monitor food fraud effectively. Our Committee made clear recommendations about the need to maintain capacity in public laboratories. I hope that, in his response to the debate, the Minister can explain briefly what action the Government are taking in this area.

I now turn back to the Committee’s food security report. It was surprising that the Government did not accept the case for appointing a food security co-ordinator with clear responsibility for food security. If we apply the lessons of the horsemeat scandal, we can see that this kind of leadership really matters. If nobody has clear responsibility for food security, it is likely to become a secondary concern, at least until something goes wrong. Having such a co-ordinator is particularly important when it comes to food security because, as our Committee has seen, the food security picture is incredibly complex, with a huge number of factors affecting both supply and demand. Food security is not something that we can address in a piecemeal way. It needs a joined-up approach that runs throughout our environmental, trade and science policy. I hope that, in his response, the Minister can go into a bit more detail on why the Government did not feel it was necessary to appoint a dedicated co-ordinator for food security policy.

Another point I wanted to raise briefly was about climate change and resilience. Last winter’s floods showed the damaging effects of extreme weather, and although much of the media coverage focused on residential areas, agriculture was a big victim too. As the climate continues to change, the risk to farmers will increase, and that is why our Committee has called for DEFRA to reconsider the way it allocates resources for flood management, so that farmland does not lose out to residential areas when it comes to flood protection.

We know that climate change is happening. Just this morning, it was reported that the impact of flooding is likely to be four times higher in the next century than it is now, so we can anticipate the kind of challenges that we will face in future. Last winter was the warmest in centuries, and it is predicted that what is currently a one-in-20-year rainfall event will be happening every 10 years by 2050.

The emergency funding that the Government provided after last winter’s floods did a lot of good, but we should not just wait for extreme weather to come along and then pay for the damage. We need the Government to be proactive in strengthening our flood defences. That is why I remain concerned that funding for flood defence has gone backwards under this Government, receiving a boost only after the events of last winter. Until that wake-up call, funding for flood protection had been cut by nearly £100 million per year. The Committee on Climate Change has warned that the Government’s spending plans will mean that an extra 330,000 properties will be at risk of flooding by 2035.

We also need to recognise that, whatever action we take to protect our harvest, extreme weather abroad can have a dramatic effect on food prices and our food supply. We also have to be aware that rising temperatures globally mean that some farmers will see their yields decrease at a time when global population is increasing, which means there is even more pressure on our food supply. In a globalised food system, it is impossible to escape the effects of climate change, which underlines just how important reducing emissions and mitigating the effects of extreme weather will be to our security in the decades to come.

This Government need to show that they have a serious, joined-up plan for the future of Britain’s food supply. The last Labour Administration had such a plan. That is why this Government’s decision to scrap Labour’s Food 2030 strategy causes concern. The Government’s willingness to compromise long-term goals, such as improving our flood defences and tackling climate change, in the name of short-term savings will create problems for our food supply in the future. I hope that this report and this debate will encourage the Government to take a more strategic and long-term view on food security. Appointing a food security co-ordinator, as the Committee recommended, would have been a start.

As I mentioned, the Committee had originally planned to publish a single report on food security, before the complexity of the issue made it clear that a single inquiry could not do the topic justice. However, this means that the House has the opportunity to discuss in much greater detail the factors that contribute to our food security, which I think all Members will welcome. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate, and to debating the second part of the inquiry with my hon. Friends next year.

--- Later in debate ---

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend is right. The project was so well worked-up and had the most wide-ranging group of stakeholders possible, from farmers, distributors, retailers, producers, non-governmental organisations: everybody was involved. There were disagreements—that was a tricky enterprise to embark upon and to get agreement on—but, my goodness, there was agreement that that was the right way forward. I will compliment the Government on some good initiatives, but they are not a substitute for that real, coherent, cross-sectoral, binding strategy that says that we are serious about food security, nutrition for children, international development issues and climate change. We would say strongly to the Minister that, if he introduced his own version of a strategy that looked like that—Food 2050, perhaps—we would support him in doing that. However, it needs to bind together all these critical things, because if we get it right for schoolchildren and local supply chains, and so on, it will also be good for producers in the UK. I will mention that in a moment.

It is unarguable that food security is now an imperative, globally and for individual nations, including the UK. As such, it is worth reminding ourselves that food security was defined by the world food summit way back in 1996 as existing

“when all people at all times have access to sufficient, safe, nutritious food to maintain a healthy and active life”.

It was redefined subsequently by the United Nations food and agriculture committee to include, rightly,

“dietary needs and food preferences”.

That definition remains sound, but the context has changed, not least in the scale and urgency of the challenges, summed up so well by Professor John Beddington in 2009, at a sustainable development conference, when he described the

“perfect storm”

that was coming:

“Our food reserves are at a 50 year low, but by 2030 we need to be producing 50% more food. At the same time, we will need 50% more energy, and 30% more fresh water."

This was reinforced by the Foresight report, “The Future of Food and Farming”, led by Professor Beddington, which Professor Tim Benton of the university of Leeds drew upon when he told the Committee in evidence that

“Wars are likely to happen”

in the competition for land and water and scarce resources.

The Enough Food for Everyone IF campaign, which ended earlier this year, brought together more than 200 organisations campaigning to end global hunger. Interestingly, they focused not simply on the efficient production and distribution of food, but on aid, land, tax and transparency. Food security, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields mentioned, is complex and international, but it is very personal for the 3 million children who die of malnutrition each year, in this modern world, or the 1 billion who go to bed hungry every night.

Here at home in the UK, we have seen the hugely accelerated growth in food banks and other types of food aid. I do not want to dwell on this, but I want to state two simple facts, which are both unarguable. Fact one: there has long been volunteer-led informal food aid in this country, going years back, in the shape of the distribution of emergency food, kitchens, and so on. The leading food bank organisation, the Trussell Trust, was providing just over 40,000 allocations of three-day emergency food packages in 2009-10, under the previous Labour Government. It has been there; it was there. That is a fact. However, the second fact is that last year the Trussell Trust provided over 913,000 three-day emergency food allocations. That is, by my rough calculation—and I am not great on maths—a twenty-two-fold increase.

Last February, a much-delayed report commissioned by DEFRA itself into the growth in food aid in the UK found that food aid providers ascribed the food insecurity to problems that have led to sudden reduction in household income, such as job losses, problems associated with social security payments and ongoing underpinning circumstances, such as continual low household income and indebtedness that can no longer support purchase of sufficient food to meet household needs. This analysis has been reinforced by many other analyses of this growing poverty and cost-of-living crisis.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been a 60% increase in sanctions since welfare reform, as we heard in the all-party group on hunger and food poverty, and that is driving people, out of necessity and in their hundreds, to food banks?

[Huw Irranca-Davies]

Yes, indeed, and that illustrates the point that there is no simple international or domestic solution to food security and related food insecurity; it is very much a function not simply of food production and distribution and waste, but of social and economic policy. That is why we need to get the whole package right, including welfare reforms. Certainly, in my constituency of Ogmore, the delays following the move to personal independence payments mean that, out of a population of some 60,000 on the electoral register—mine is a relatively small constituency—I have 920 cases waiting for PIP outcomes at the moment, with delays in payment, assessment, and so on. So getting this right is a real issue.

I mention that because, as we debate this useful report, it is worth reminding ourselves of two important points arising from food security at home and overseas. First, the causes of food insecurity are many and complex and so are the solutions, involving wider social and economic solutions, as well as food production, storage, distribution, and so on.

Secondly, food insecurity is not an abstract construct, but a deeply personal matter that can devastate lives, families, communities and even nations. It is in our gift as policy makers to fashion adequate responses and on that note, I turn to the report and the Government response.

We note that the Committee and the Government draw on much that was achieved or initiated under the previous Labour Government and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse. The comprehensive food security analysis in 2009, which the Select Committee report refers to, bolstered such groundbreaking work as the Food Matters strategy and the Foresight report on land use and how to resolve conflicts on land use, which were drawn together in the landmark Food 2030 strategy. That strategy was being worked up into detailed action plans when we left government. Simply put, it was the most ambitious, comprehensive approach to food strategy, taking in not only food security domestically and globally, but diet and nutrition, climate change and carbon reduction, land-use conflict and resolution and so much more. It looked at how we can encourage people to eat a healthy, sustainable diet; ensure a resilient, profitable and competitive food system; increase food production sustainably; reduce the food system’s greenhouse gas emissions; reduce, re-use and reprocess waste within the sector; and increase the impact of skills, knowledge, research and technology. It brought all that together in a streamlined, joined-up way of thinking across Government, industry and non-governmental organisations.

The industry, NGOs and others are still asking why the Government scrapped that strategy and retreated into government by silos, with DEFRA doing its things on food production, the Department of Health doing its things and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office doing its things. What happened to the cross-Government, cross-sectoral working?

However, there have been some welcome developments. The green food project was good and well-intentioned, but even participants in it described it as too narrow and under-resourced, and it eventually ran into the sand. People were looking for what came next. The Foresight report, “The Future of Food and Farming”, adds usefully to the field of knowledge and to previous Foresight reports, including its “Land Use Futures” report under Labour.

The groceries code adjudicator, which was referred to by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton, is a step forward in ensuring fair play in parts of the supply chain and had cross-party support, although we are still curious about why the Government resisted attempts by Labour and others, from all parties and all sectors, to strengthen the Bill with financial penalties until the Government were backed against the wall and facing defeat in Committee. As the hon. Lady asked, where does the GCA go now?

The fruit and vegetable taskforce action plan, which aims to increase the production and consumption of fresh fruit and vegetables in the UK, is commendable and recognises the huge potential of the sector to benefit the economy and health and well-being. It builds on the work of the previous Labour Government, who established—I think it was under my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Limehouse—the fruit and vegetable taskforce. I am getting a little worried that I am praising him too much.

The agri-tech strategy is welcome, as it applies that collaborative approach to innovation and research and development across industry, academia, NGOs and Government. That was pioneered by Labour in such programmes as the marine science strategy. The agri-technology strategy needs to ensure that productivity gains and genuine environmental sustainability are simultaneously achieved and that there is full buy-in, not only from the UK, but from global partners—that is the nature of the beast—but it is the right approach. We are glad to see the Government taking forward and building on some of the pioneering achievements of the previous Labour Government, to help build food security and to introduce some logical additional programmes to help deliver some of the wider benefits of a sustainable and resilient food sector, but their piecemeal and disjointed approach is not a substitute for a coherent cross-Government, cross-sectoral plan of action. I am delighted that that point was echoed today by Government and Opposition Members in their different views.

I will ask the Minister some questions that arise directly from this Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report—this is part one of two—and on which the Government response is still unclear. Specifically, does he believe that the increased costs, including the environmental costs, and the global demand for meat protein mean that we will consume less but higher-quality meat in the future? If so, how do we get there? Does he believe that UK farming is increasingly vulnerable to the rising costs of animal feed, and what is he doing to bring forward specific measures to deal with that? That might involve alternative modes of farming.

What measures can the Minister take to extend the access of food producers, including small farmers, to the highest quality of meteorological prediction as part of our climate change adaptation programme? Does he agree that horticulture has the greatest potential to improve diets, boost food production sustainably and create employment? If so, what more can the Government do to accelerate growth in the sector? What specific measures does he have to promote social enterprises in horticultural growing and food distribution and in local food networks, as well as to promote greater links among people, communities and the food we eat and grow? What measureable, tangible progress has been made on increasing the production and consumption of fruit and vegetables since 2010 and on the taskforce established under Labour?

In the light of the decision by EU Environment Ministers to enable member-state decision making on genetically modified organisms within an EU framework, when will the first commercial applications for GM cultivation in the UK take place and for what products? Why, if the Government agree that pillar two is the better use of common agricultural policy money than pillar one, as they state in their response to the Select Committee report, did they retreat from that position and not ensure 15% modulation? Why, if they see direct payments to farmers under pillar one as an ineffective use of public money and a distortion of the market, did they see fit to place no additional demands on innovation, farm entry, public benefits or environmental benefits on the largest recipients of direct payments, who receive in excess of £150,000 a year or even £300,000 a year? Over the last couple of years, the Government have appeared in statements from the very top of DEFRA to be a little gung-ho in their advocacy of GM. How will the Minister take forward a balanced argument to the public, based on science and evidence, robust safety controls and labelling for consumer transparency?

Those are just some of the questions, and I suspect we will have to return to them in future debates. I thank the Select Committee for a well-informed and excellently argued first part of a two-part contribution to this essential debate on food security. I thank all members of the Committee for their expertise and for asking questions, as well as proposing some possible answers. We look forward to the second part of their report, where we can examine other issues in more detail, just as we now look forward to the Minister’s response.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Thursday 12th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

That is an important point and we must ensure that dog owners are aware of those proposals. We are working with veterinary practices across the country to ensure that they know about them and are passing the information on to dog owners. We will also run a communications exercise in the press to raise the issue.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

3. What steps the Government have taken to respond to recent flooding.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

The Government have committed more than £560 million in support of those affected by the recent flooding. That includes an extra £270 million to repair and maintain critical defences that were damaged in the winter storms, targeted help for households through the repair and renew grant and council tax relief, and help for farmers and fishermen with funding for repairs through existing schemes. We have also provided businesses with business rate relief and a £10 million hardship fund.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the Minister for his response. Despite the lessons of this winter, the Environment Agency is still set to lose hundreds of front-line staff because of DEFRA budget cuts. The agency’s chief executive has admitted that that will mean fewer resources for maintenance work. Does the Minister think it is responsible to cut the agency’s resources at a time when flood risk is increasing?

[Dan Rogerson]

The Secretary of State and I work closely with the Environment Agency and talk to it about its key responsibilities. I met the chief executive yesterday to discuss issues of waste crime, and so on. He was clear that front-line vital services provided by the agency are protected, and it will use the expertise of more than 10,000 staff who will be in place throughout this year to do their work. They do a fine job.

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Thursday 27th March 2014 Commons Chamber

[Stella Creasy (Walthamstow) (Lab/Co-op)]

1. What steps he is taking to reduce the effect of rises in water bills on the cost of living.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

7. What steps he is taking to reduce the effect of rises in water bills on the cost of living.

[Mr Speaker]

I call the Secretary of State. Welcome back.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Paterson]

We believe this is an issue that should be decided locally by local companies consulting local consumers, and I am very pleased at the progress being made by companies in the current review.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

The WaterSure scheme helps vulnerable households to pay their water bills, so will the Minister explain why he did not support Labour’s amendments to the Water Bill, which would have made information about WaterSure prominent on customers’ bills?

[Mr Paterson]

We are absolutely clear that this issue should be decided locally by local companies. There is already a huge amount of information on bills, and there is a limit to the amount that can be given on one particular document.

Water Bill

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Monday 25th November 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

The Bill does not excite people or generate much interest outside the House. Right hon. and hon. Members who have been involved in previous debates on this issue have shown that they have a depth of knowledge that spans time frames that go back much longer than I have been in the House. However, my constituents have concerns about their rising water bills, and because of their worries and sleepless nights, I am speaking in this debate.

The Bill provides an opportunity to introduce measures to help those who are struggling to pay their water bills and measures to toughen the regulatory regime under Ofwat. In announcing the draft Bill, the previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Meriden (Mrs Spelman), said that it would ensure

“that the water industry continues to provide an affordable and clean water supply”.

Earlier this month, a spokesperson for No. 10 said that the Prime Minister takes the price of household bills seriously:

“The Prime Minister wants to see household costs across the piece being reduced as low as possible. The intention is to try to reduce the burdens on hard-pressed families.”

It is therefore reasonable to ask why the Bill delivers so little for those people. It will not help families who are faced with rising water costs; nor will it empower Ofwat to become the champion for the consumer that it needs to be.

For those who, like me, are new to Parliament, I will remind the House of some of the history of water affordability. The only time when water charges have been reduced was under the last Labour Government. The average water bill in my constituency is now £359 per year and has increased nationally by almost 50% since privatisation was introduced by the Conservative Government in 1989. At the same time, regional water companies made £1.9 billion profit last year. I and my colleagues in the Labour party have been campaigning hard on energy prices, but the situation with water bills is no better—indeed, some would say that it is worse.

Although households spend less on water as a flat figure, the proportion of a water bill that goes towards company profits is three times higher than for an energy bill. As with energy prices, the rising cost of water far outstrips both earnings and inflation. Water is a natural resource; it is essentially free; and it is essential for our survival. Management of that natural resource therefore needs to be conducted with some kind of social responsibility.

During a cost of living crisis, affordability must be the absolute priority, and the Bill must do more to ensure that water companies’ profits are not put before the needs of consumers. The coalition agreement clearly stated that the Government would

“examine the conclusions of the Cave and Walker Reviews, and reform the water industry to ensure more efficient use of water and the protection of poorer households”.

That is one statement that they have not been able to delete.

In 2009, the Consumer Council for Water stated that

“many low income customers continue to pay their water bills even where it becomes unaffordable to do so”.

It claimed that people tend to

“cut back on water usage or sacrifice other essentials such as food or heating in order to ensure their bill is paid”.

The problem now in my constituency is that people are already cutting back on food, heating and water. Since the Government continue to legislate in a way that exacerbates poverty, what are my constituents supposed to do? What should they cut back on next—fresh air perhaps? They have nowhere left to go.

[Miss McIntosh]

I am following the hon. Lady’s contribution with great interest, and she is a leading member of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Water, however, is not free. Drinking water must be processed, as must the foul water that comes from every home. I hope that she will take the opportunity to go to a waste water treatment plant and see the full gamut of where a lot of the costs come from.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

I thank the hon. Lady for that intervention and I will take up that offer. I was being glib when I said that water is free. I meant that to most people, including my constituents, water falls from the sky and is therefore free, but I understand the hon. Lady’s point.

People in my constituency are clear in the knowledge that water bills are likely to rise in the future due to a growing population, climate change, the replacement of water infrastructure and additional environmental standards. Under the previous Labour Government, the Walker review, which was published in 2009, advocated affordability and made a number of recommendations to ensure that water remains affordable for all. Two years later, the current Government published a consultation on those proposals and rejected universal discounts, which they cited as “unaffordable”, for people on low incomes and minimum discounts for low-income households with children. Instead, the Government opted for WaterSure and social tariffs, and repeated that intention in the “Water for Life” White Paper.

WaterSure intends to cut costs for households that have a water meter and more than three children under 19 years old and that claim a range of benefits including council tax benefit, housing benefit and employment and support allowance. The scheme ensures that those families pay only the average for their region, so adding approximately 40p to the bills of those customers not on the scheme. Water Direct is another scheme whereby the Department for Work and Pensions subtracts money from the benefits of those who are in debt to their regional water company and sends it direct to that water company. What is not clear, however, is how such schemes are likely to be affected by the introduction of universal credit, and that creates uncertainty for a number of families.

Social tariffs allow water companies to develop tariffs in consultation with customers, with the intention of helping the most vulnerable. However, the Government’s implementation of those tariffs falls a long way short of dealing with the scale of the problem. In evidence to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Consumer Council for Water estimated that to “effectively address the problem” of affordability would cost anywhere between £162 million and £447 million. The Walker review’s estimate was £340 million, yet it predicted that social tariffs would generate only £36 million a year, adding that that was

“significantly short of what is needed to address affordability”.

Even that limited impact may not be felt in the majority of regions.

Rather than take strong action to ensure that companies have a duty of affordability, the Government introduced tariffs on a voluntary basis from April this year. So far, only three companies have taken that up. Northumbrian Water—my local provider—certainly found little appetite among customers for the implementation of a social tariff. That is hardly surprising when so many people are already struggling to afford bills with stagnating wages. In constituencies such as mine, such a tariff would make water less affordable for even more people.

It is no surprise that the Government’s light-touch solutions have done little to help consumers. Citizens Advice has expressed disappointment that the Government’s guidance for social tariffs is “lacking in detail” and that water companies have been given freedom to ignore it completely with little or no justification. It is no coincidence that Citizens Advice has reported increasing numbers of people coming to it with inquiries about water debt. It is not only Citizens Advice that recognises the problem. This afternoon, I spoke with Northumbrian Water, which is anticipating a rise in debt over the next year, linked to the severity of public sector cuts in our region. It now works closely with Citizens Advice, recognising that if someone is struggling with their water bill, they are likely to be struggling with other bills as well. In short, it is a wider problem than just water bills—it is a cost of living crisis.

The Government clearly do not recognise the need for decisive action. Last week at DEFRA questions, the Secretary of State said that he had written to water companies, calling on them to consider the pressure on household incomes and advising that the Government encourage water companies to introduce social tariffs. As Secretary of State, should he not be doing more than just encouraging and advising? Is simply writing to the water companies the best he can do?

The United Nations recognises water as a basic human right that should be

“available, accessible, safe, acceptable and affordable for all without discrimination”.

Why then are the Government not committed to ensuring just that—that water is affordable for all?

Oral Answers to Questions

Emma Lewell Excerpts

Thursday 10th October 2013 Commons Chamber

[Mr Paterson]

Policing issues are not for me. There will be legitimate protests because we live in a democracy and we respect that, but there is a grey line and we do not support obstruction of a policy that was endorsed by both parties in opposition and in government and has been endorsed by this House.

[Mrs Emma Lewell-Buck (South Shields) (Lab)]

3. What timetable he has set for the completion of the England coastal path.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Dan Rogerson)]

We have not set a timetable for completion of the English coastal path. We will be implementing coastal access step by step by tailoring the amount of activity to the resources available. Natural England is currently working on a programme to deliver coastal access on a number of stretches of the English coast.

[Mrs Lewell-Buck]

At a cost of £1 per metre, the coastal path represents excellent value for money. However, the Minister’s predecessor showed little enthusiasm for the project, leading to fears that it would be shelved. Will the Minister confirm that the coastal path budget will be protected during deliberations on the Department’s future spending, and give a date for final completion?

[Dan Rogerson]

I thank the hon. Lady for her question: it was a pleasure to serve alongside her briefly on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee following her election. The key issue for us is pushing forward this project, but we have to be honest about the fact that we are in a time of restricted resources. We must therefore be efficient in working with landowners and others to streamline the process and to deliver the coastal access that everyone in the House would like to see.