Food Inflation

Debate between Adam Jogee and Luke Charters

Thursday 15th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dame Siobhain. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Friern Barnet (Catherine West) for securing today’s debate. I know that you have both been consistent voices on food insecurity.

I start by giving a shout out to a local legend. Adam Raffell of the York Trussell Trust has done amazing work for families in York, for which I thank him today. I also thank the Prime Minister for his relentless focus on the cost of living, on which we have to bear down.

The Food and Drink Federation has shown that, since January 2020, food inflation has consistently outstripped non-food inflation. What was the cause? It was when the damaging and disastrous botched Brexit deal came into effect. Over the channel, our European neighbours, to be fair, have also faced rising food costs, but nowhere near as sharply. UK food inflation peaked at nearly 20%, year on year, in 2023 under the Conservative party’s watch, while countries such as Germany and France peaked lower and returned to normal much faster. The UK is worse off, which tells us that we have to work more closely with our European friends.

The Prime Minister recently said:

“if it’s in our national interest to have…closer alignment with the single market…we should consider that”,

and when it comes to food price inflation, I think the answer is a resounding yes. Although Reform and the Tories want to shout at Brussels, that will not pay for people’s weekly food shop. An SPS agreement and closer alignment would strip out so much red tape, checks and delays. Fewer inspections and mutually recognised standards would mean less time stuck at the border, lower costs for hauliers and fewer spoiled loads. All those savings could be passed on to the hard-working families of this country.

Like any toddler, my son Robin’s favourite food item is, of course, the Freddo frog. The famous Freddo index shows that since I was born—in 1995, believe it or not —there has been a 260% increase in the cost of the treasured Freddo. However, we also know of the phenomenon called shrinkflation. A few weeks ago, many of us gathered around the Christmas tree with our families, enjoying a tub of choccies. This year’s tubs of Roses were more than 100 grams lighter than they were in 2018, but the cost has increased by 20%. If shrinkflation is so significant, does the Minister agree with the idea that it perhaps needs to be reflected on food packaging?

Another iconic British institution is the meal deal. We were all devastated when its price tipped from £3 to £3.50 or more—it was £3 in Tesco for over a decade. Can I make a confession to the House? As a tight Yorkshireman, I am always grabbing the three most expensive products—crisps, drink and sarnie—even if I do not really like them, just to get the biggest discount. I have written to some retailers, saying, “Shouldn’t we have a bit of an arms race? Who can be the first supermarket to get the meal deal back down to £3.50?” What a wonderful cost of living measure that would be for the grafters of Britain.

As a northerner, can I turn to another place to get a hearty snack? The Greggs sausage roll is well up there and, yes, I would pick Greggs over Gail’s any day of the week. However, the price of a simple sausage roll has shot up by more than 50% in less than a decade. Something is not quite right there. It has gone up by 53% since 2016—I wonder what happened in that year. If anyone from Greggs is watching, can we have a serious deal on sausage rolls? Perhaps we could have a cost of living week when sausage rolls are just a quid?

What can we do? We need supermarkets and big food brands to play their part. They are making record profits, which should come with responsibility. Initiatives such as a cost of living week could be a start. Discounts on essentials, loyalty schemes that really make a difference and fair pricing on some staples should be the norm. We need more transparency, and labels should provide that.

[Adam Jogee]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. It is not for me to touch on stereotypes, but being his mate and, at Christmas, his secret Santa recipient, I can confirm that he is very generous indeed. We are all enjoying his speech immensely, but I wonder whether he agrees that no farm in this United Kingdom is better than a Staffordshire farm—with Ulster farms running close, of course, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) knows. With that in mind, we should all have a “Buy British” approach. That is good for my people in Newcastle-under-Lyme and for producers, and it will be good for our economy, too.

[Mr Charters]

My hon. Friend is spot on. If I can give a shout out to one of my constituents, I love buying from Grey Leys farm. It produces the most beautiful Jersey milk. Would it not be brilliant if schools and hospitals in the York area bought local dairy products? Speaking of milk, we should have an awareness of food inflation’s impact on gluten-free and similar products for allergy sufferers and those with intolerances.

Tory Britain was defined by misery. Prices were up, wages squeezed and families left to struggle. Today, we are cutting prescription charges, tackling rail fares and easing the pressure where we can, but we must go further on food inflation to support the hard-working families of Britain.

Student Finance (Review of Payment Schedules)

Debate between Adam Jogee and Luke Charters

1st reading
Wednesday 7th January 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mr Luke Charters (York Outer) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to review the scheduling of student finance payments to undergraduates; to require the review to consider advance provision of certain student finance payments in certain circumstances; and for connected purposes.

Today, I introduce the Student Finance (Review of Payment Schedules) Bill. A former civil servant—one of the designers of the current student finance system—once told me that the loan system has become a Frankenstein’s monster. Maintenance loan payment dates simply do not line up with the reality of students’ lives. Rent and bills are due monthly but student finance arrives in infrequent, uneven chunks, forcing students to budget against uncertainty or rely on overdrafts simply to get by.

The system assumes a level of financial resilience that many students simply do not have—and even once students graduate, the problems just do not stop. Repayment is needlessly complex and riddled with ludicrous features, such as charging higher interest rates to those who go on to earn more. The result is a system that adds stress during study, confusion after graduation and long-term financial insecurity for an entire generation. As one of the youngest MPs, who is still repaying a plan 2 loan, I recognise many of those challenges.

I work with the University of York students’ union, whose representatives are sat in the Public Gallery, on cost of living issues such as bus fares for students locally. Today’s Bill, however, seeks to make student finance work better for the over 2 million undergraduate students in this country, and it would build on the work of this Labour Government to reintroduce targeted maintenance grants for students from the lowest income households. We need to change the way maintenance loans are distributed. Scotland’s student finance system administers monthly maintenance payments. Long story short, that is the model that needs to be explored for England and Wales. It comes at no extra cost and is a no-brainer.

Many students face financial strain because maintenance loans are paid termly. For a student receiving the maximum £10,200 outside London, that creates three lump-sum payments of approximately £3,400 each. Let us imagine receiving four months of salary all at once; that is the system we expect students to navigate. Many are at the point in their lives when they are still learning those essential budgeting skills. The termly payment schedule fuels cash-flow challenges, leading to students maxing out overdrafts—nearly one in three with an overdraft have maxed out their facilities at some point—and creating problem debt, pushing them to other forms of credit simply to get by.

There is also a particularly acute pressure point as students transition between years at university, when rent deposits are due before their student finance payments arrive. Students should not be pushed into financial worry, especially after a stressful period of sitting their exams, simply because of a payment scheduling mismatch. That is why I believe that we should move to monthly payments. Not only would it give students greater financial stability and reduce stress, but it would better reflect the world of work once students leave uni and start getting their first full-time payslips. For second and third-year students, being able to access finance from July, when rent often begins, would be genuinely transformative.

At the moment, we force families to step in, or we force students who do not have that safety net into overdrafts. Student finance can also act as a barrier for working-class students from the moment they get their A-level results because of the up-front costs before they even go to university. Pots and pans, rent deposits, books, software, travel passes, course subscriptions—the costs all stack up. The reality is that by the time a student sets foot in their first lecture, they have already navigated a stressful and uneven financial landscape.

I heard of a student who could not afford the train ticket to get to university because their student finance had not arrived. Starting uni should be memorable, not miserable. Another student who was a care leaver wrote to me saying that they had experienced the “just about coping” stage at first hand. They recalled the “genuine terror” of not knowing how they would pay their rent because their loan had not landed. Research by Student Minds, covered by the Money and Mental Health Policy Institute, showed that nearly half of students felt the rising cost of living was impacting their mental health.

The simple but transformative fixes I have outlined today would make a huge difference, and student unions across the country, including the National Union of Students, agree. Just some of the SUs that are backing my Bill include Manchester, University College London, Leeds, Birmingham, Exeter, Sheffield, Liverpool, Greenwich, Newcastle and Bath Spa, and these represent around 350,000 students. When we add in Durham, Derby, Bath, Buckinghamshire, Staffordshire, Lancaster, Essex, Leeds Trinity, Chester, Royal Holloway, Bradford, Roehampton, Worcester, the University of Law, Winchester, University College Birmingham, Liverpool Hope, the Arts University Bournemouth, Buckingham and of course York, we have student unions representing a third of all the students in the country supporting this Bill and these small tweaks today. Thank you! I am still getting letters of support even now. I want to give special thanks to Amira Campbell, the president of the NUS, who is also backing my Bill. She says:

“Student finance is in dire need of reform and a review into the payment plan is a great place to start. We’d strongly support this review and a move to monthly payments which would allow students to better budget their income, particularly over the summer where bills come in, but their income does not.”

Just briefly on loan repayments, plan 2 borrowers, including me, were never clearly told that higher graduate earnings meant higher loan interest. As a former Financial Conduct Authority regulator, I can tell the House that, although the regulations do not apply to student loans, my honest view is that the communication around student loan repayments, where income is linked to interest rates, feels like a mis-selling scandal waiting to unfold.

In summary, the under-30s have been forgotten about in British politics for far too long. You may not believe it, Mr Speaker, but it was only a few months ago that I left that age group—

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

Surely not!

[Mr Charters]

Yes, I know—my grey hair and tired eyes from my two amazing young boys make me look just a little bit older. It is this Labour Government who are giving younger people a better deal: votes at 16; better wages and rights for student workers; and bringing back targeted maintenance grants. Of course, on the latter, we should always be looking to go that bit further. Reform Members just do not care about young people. They want to cut their wages—

Crown Estate Bill [Lords]

Debate between Adam Jogee and Luke Charters

2nd reading
Tuesday 7th January 2025 Commons Chamber

[Mr Charters]

I always agree with my hon. Friend. He will recognise the impact the Bill brings not only to the Crown Estate but to GB Energy, which was one of the first initiatives implemented by the new Government. Taken together with the Great British Energy Bill, these are two pieces of thoughtful, complementary legislation that will support our green energy transition and economic growth—what a stark contrast to the previous Government, who not only ran out of ideas but failed to make the few ideas they had work in the first place.

The interaction between the Crown Estate Bill and the Great British Energy Bill is vital. In York Outer, we have a number of exciting projects that are ready to go and exemplify how these changes can drive forward our ambitions for a clean, secure energy future. For example, proposed battery storage facilities in York Outer could become critical national infrastructure for our local energy network, and Hessay solar farm was awarded funding from the contracts for difference scheme a few months ago. I welcome the exploration of wind projects, such as the Harewood Whin green energy park and the North Wigginton onshore wind project. Just today, we discovered that wind power was Britain’s largest source of electricity in 2024, topping gas-fired power plants for the first time in history. With the Crown Estate Bill, we can make even more projects like those in York Outer possible, unlocking clean energy for my region and beyond.

That takes me to the issue of energy security. Conservative Members, wherever they are, continue to oppose our publicly owned clean power company. Perhaps they have forgotten why it is so crucial to transfer power back into the hands of the British people. The myopic and naive approach of the last Government left our energy portfolio far too exposed. The Bill supports Britain’s flexibility and freedom to secure our own energy supply. It enables British households to be supported by British power—produced, owned and delivered by the British people. That is what Great British Energy is all about. We have all seen the cost of relying on foreign oil and gas. Families and businesses paid the price of our energy supply being dictated by foreign powers. Under this Government, that needs to stop—and it will stop. This Bill is a huge win for our energy independence.

But the benefits of this Bill go beyond energy. The Crown Estate is already a significant contributor to the public purse—last year it generated over £1 billion in net revenue profit, much of which was returned to the Treasury. By giving the Crown Estate the freedom to reinvest and modernise, we can grow that figure even further. That is not just a win for Government revenues; it is a win for taxpayers, as the money can be reinvested in public services and infrastructure in York Outer and across the UK.

I know that some Conservative Members, wherever they are, may worry about fiscal rules. I reassure them that although the Bill is radical in what it achieves, it does so in a sensible manner. By allowing the Crown Estate initially to use its cash reserves for investment, there is no immediate need to trigger new borrowing powers. This is therefore a measured approach that creates confidence for investors, while keeping fiscal discipline intact. It is not about ripping up the rulebook; it is about using the rulebook more effectively.

[Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, which I am sure those on the Front Bench are enjoying. He mentioned sensibleness and moderation—both words I would use to describe my constituents. Will he join me in urging the Crown Estate, as it enjoys its new freedoms and powers in looking to invest for the future, to give a thought to the people, the place and the economy of Newcastle-under-Lyme?

[Mr Charters]

I was half-expecting my hon. Friend to mention Walleys quarry, although I cannot conceive of how he would link it to the Crown Estate Bill. He will agree that the additional revenue raised by the Bill will benefit his constituents as much as mine.

Over the past decade, the Crown Estate has returned £4.1 billion in net revenue profit to the Treasury. Just imagine how much more it could achieve with the freedom that this Bill provides—not just for the country, but for constituencies such as York Outer. This is what smart, forward-thinking legislation looks like: supporting businesses, securing energy and driving growth. I urge Members on both sides of the House, and particularly Conservative Members, wherever they are, to back this Bill and help us deliver a brighter, greener and more prosperous future.