Food Inflation

Catherine West Excerpts

Thursday 15th January 2026 Westminster Hall

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Friern Barnet) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the impact of food inflation on the cost of living.

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Dame Siobhain. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate, which I requested in October last year, and to those colleagues who are here today to speak in the debate and supported the application to the Committee.

We know that, whatever our political persuasion, politics at its best is about values. I came into politics to do everything I could to ensure that every single child in every single family has the best possible start in life. How do we measure that? How do we track progress on this fundamental principle, so crucial to who we are as a society? We know that the cumulative effect of inflation meant that UK food prices rose by a total of 38.6% between November 2020 and 2025. An element of that, of course, is linked to energy inputs into food processing.

I hope there is a consensus, right across the political divide, that the most basic indicator of whether every child has the best start in life is whether every single family, whatever their circumstances, can afford decent, nutritious food. Without first applying that most fundamental of benchmarks, how on earth can we even begin to think about ensuring that every young person has the chance to thrive in school, in work and in life?

Surely we can all agree, across the political spectrum, that the existence of food banks for families in 2026 is a stain on our conscience. I pay tribute to the great work of the Middle Lane food bank and all the other food banks in my constituency, with wonderful volunteers—faith groups, charities and local grassroots people, doing their best every day to ensure that every family has access to quality, nutritious food—but why are we having to do that?

I will be asking the Minister to commit to ending the need for food banks for families by the end of this Parliament, to work with colleagues on the possibility of an essentials guarantee in our social security system, to ensure that local housing allowance keeps up with the reality of rental costs and to investigate a publicly backed food hub or wholesale platform that could create more inclusive local communities.

I am so pleased that the two-child cap on universal credit has now been scrapped—a decision made since I lodged the request for this debate. From April this year, that policy change will go to the heart of what we need: a society where everyone can thrive, and the change that people voted for in July 2024.

Why do we not have an economy that works for everyone? Maybe we need to start by looking back into history. During the second world war, as all kinds of items became scarce, the rationing system tried to ensure an equitable distribution of all the essentials, but there was one exception: eating out was off the ration. So long as people could afford to go to the Ritz, the Carlton or another nice restaurant, they did not need to give a second thought to rationing. The Government then, working hard to at least give the impression of equality, decided in 1942 to cap restaurant meals at five shillings—I am told that is £21.70 in today’s money—and limit them to three courses.

Much has changed, of course; in 1945, the Labour Government rebuilt the country, introduced the national health service and built the welfare state. However, if we are to make any honest and thoughtful assessment of how far we have come since 1945, the first thing we need to look at is whether every family can afford nutritious food, without having to make the choice to go without it.

The Trussell Trust’s second “Hunger in the UK” report found that, in 2024, 14.1 million people, including 3.8 million children, lived in food-insecure households. In the borough of Haringey, of which most of my constituency forms a part, 3,938 households are likely to be facing food poverty. The report also found that the risk of hunger can be a lottery, depending where people live; households in the most deprived areas in the UK are three times as likely to be food insecure as households in the least deprived areas.

Some groups of people also face much higher risks of hunger and food bank use than others. In the Trussell community in 2024, three in four people were disabled. One in three children under the age of five are now growing up in a food-insecure household.

There has also been a growth in the number of people in working households being referred to food banks; they now represent nearly a third of referrals. More than two thirds of those working households are on incomes so low that they are also in receipt of universal credit. Most alarmingly of all, hardship is becoming normalised; the report says that 61% of people who experienced food insecurity did not consider themselves to be facing hardship, meaning that they did not really want to turn to a food bank for support. Families going without food no longer even consider themselves to be in hardship.

How did we get here? It is an income problem, a poverty problem and a structural problem, and we need to have an honest conversation about that. Over half of people receiving universal credit experienced hunger last year and 87% of people referred to food banks were in receipt of means-tested benefits. Families struggling to afford food also generally struggle to afford other essentials. For example, people referred to food banks in the Trussell community in 2024 on average had just £104 a week to live on after housing costs—just 17% of what the average household across the UK has. Ultimately, the need for food banks is about incomes, not food; it is an inability to afford food and, of course, other essentials such as rent, clothing and toiletries.

We need to recognise the issues that bring households to a point where they cannot cover the cost of both food and other essentials. Real median household incomes have fallen and wage growth has failed to keep up with the cost of living. Meanwhile, private rents have also risen at record rates, made worse by the failure of housing benefit and the failure—for quite some time now—to have sufficient housing supply to reduce the cost of rent. In 2024, half of all private renters receiving social security for housing costs experienced food insecurity and those households on the lowest incomes have suffered the most. The Food Foundation estimates that since April 2022 the price of a typical basket of food has increased by nearly a third.

We also know that the prices of cheaper food rose at a much higher rate than the prices of more expensive food.

[John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing this important debate. She is right to highlight the issue of inflation, especially food inflation, but does she also recognise that although the price of food is going up, the food producers, predominantly farmers, are not seeing a similar rise in the income they get for producing that valuable food?

[Catherine West]

Indeed; if the hon. Gentleman is a listener to “Farming Today”, which I listen to in the mornings, he will know that the price of milk goes up and down, which makes it very hard for dairy farmers to survive. I agree that there is something there, and I am sure the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has been looking at it.

[Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)]

The hon. Lady is absolutely right in identifying the structure here. The market is one that is ripe for abuse. There are 15 behemoth retailers at the top and 210,000 primary producers at the bottom, leading to a situation where our constituents cannot afford to buy the food and the food producers cannot make a profit in producing it. Surely what we need to do is to look at that supply chain between the supermarket and the farm gate, build on the excellent work of Baroness Batters and her farming profitability review, and come forward with a revised food strategy, which we have been promised.

[Catherine West]

I know the Minister will have much to say on that issue, and I look forward to her response.

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

I shall add a Labour voice to the case for supply and production, but first I pay tribute to the Newcastle-Staffs Foodbank in Newcastle-under-Lyme, which does wonderful work, particularly at the Newcastle Congregational Church on King Street.

The intervention by the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) about supply and production speaks to the importance of the wonderful farmers in Newcastle-under-Lyme, such as the Jones family in Audley and the Williams family in Wrinehill. We can feed ourselves, but we can only do so if we support the farmers in my constituency, and those up and down our country.

[Catherine West]

Indeed, and it is wonderful to hear hon. Members speaking up on behalf of their constituents, particularly farmers—we now have so much more information about farming now than there was before.

Coming back to the point about the prices of cheaper foods rising at a much higher rate than the prices of more expensive food, cheapflation means that low-income families lose out. We know one reason for that is that margins on cheaper food are much tighter than those on more expensive food, so suppliers cannot absorb rising costs and households who are already selecting the cheapest varieties have nowhere else to go.

We also know that food inflation in the UK is generally higher than for our neighbours in Europe. Academic studies have suggested that Brexit has added as much as eight percentage points to food inflation, amounting to an extra £6.95 billion in food costs from December 2019 to March 2023. Since Brexit, the UK has lost the complex network of agrifood supply chains that we had shared with other members of the EU.

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

I wonder whether my hon. Friend heard the testimony of Toby Ovens, the managing director of Broughton Transport Solutions, to the Business and Trade Committee the other day. He spoke about how we have lost that complex network, but gained a mountain of paperwork, which is accounting for much of the costs that are incurred for the food that is coming into our country. That includes 26 different stamps that he now has to get to import food into our country. Does she recognise that one of the ways that we can help bring food costs down is to get that sanitary and phytosanitary deal signed?

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend is quite right, and is well versed on these issues. UK businesses face more red tape when they want to import from and export to the EU, invariably adding to costs in the sector. On 19 May last year, the UK and the EU agreed an exciting new strategic partnership, including an agreement to work towards a common sanitary and phytosanitary—SPS—area agreement to make agrifood trade easier. The Government estimate that that deal would add £9 billion to the UK economy in the long term. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, who is also Minister for European Union Relations, has said that it will bring down prices on supermarket shelves. I pay tribute to him and his excellent civil servants for everything they are doing to foster a good working relationship with Brussels and secure a better deal for UK food suppliers.

In my constituency, we are blessed with a huge range of small shops and market stalls selling fruit and veg of every kind, but that is not the case across every region of the UK. Fresh food deserts—areas where people rely on convenience stores—are an increasing phenomenon. As research from Which? shows, people who have to rely on smaller supermarket convenience stores are often charged more for the same products, and do not always have access to budget and own brand ranges.

In the same way that people in the 1940s could go to a nice restaurant for a ration book-free dinner, in 2026 people can gain access to cheaper fresh food and budget ranges if they have access to a car so they can go to the out-of-town supermarket. A Sainsbury’s poster from the rationing era acclaims the freshness of their produce due to high turnover of stock and guarantees that there will be no profiteering. I invite every supermarket to produce a 2026 version of that poster and to guarantee that they will not charge more for everyday food items in their small convenience stores than they do in their out-of-town supermarkets, and that their budget ranges will be available at all their convenience stores.

[Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)]

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for calling for this important debate. The Health and Social Care Committee are currently doing an inquiry into food, and supermarkets will be coming in shortly to talk to us about how they operate—we will have a lot of questions to ask. Obesity and nutrition are a particular challenge for people on low incomes. It is more than twice as expensive to buy healthy food. Does she agree that we need a cross-Government strategy to bring the price of food within a range that people on lower incomes can afford, and make sure that good, healthy food is not only affordable, but accessible everywhere in the country? We need Government, business and experts to work together on that. The time is now. The problem is real and needs to be addressed.

[Catherine West]

I look forward to reading the report that comes out of my hon. Friend’s Committee.

How do we build a future without food banks? Let us look at what has worked. As a former borough leader, I introduced free school meals for all primary school children. It was a great equaliser and social leveller. Children were more focused and made better progress; families who were just about managing saved money; there was no stigma, as everyone sat together, and the people serving the food got the London living wage. These meals provide an opportunity for children to sit down to eat a nutritionally balanced meal, have meaningful conversations with adults and learn to eat with a knife and fork. Under our mayor, free school meals for all primary school children were subsequently rolled out across London. More secondary school children will benefit under this Government’s new policies for all families receiving universal credit. I take my hat off to the Government for that change.

I am also incredibly proud of the Government’s Best Start in Life holiday activities and food clubs, something my hon. Friend the Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson) has campaigned on for years in this place, along with other Members. That £600 million investment, over three years, means nutritious meals and exciting activities for half a million children across the country every year, helping children to achieve and thrive. It means consistency for parents, who will not face a cliff edge on childcare when term time ends, and money back in the pockets of parents who would otherwise have to fork out during the holidays just so they can work to put food on the table. Children who attend the holiday activities and food clubs are more likely to take part in sport and exercise, which addresses the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea and Fulham (Ben Coleman), and children feel more confident and social with their peers after attending a club.

Most importantly of all, as I have said, the scrapping of the two-child cap on universal credit will start making a real difference in April this year. It will be the most cost-effective way to lift half a million children out of poverty, and allow them to look forward to supporting their parents at the same time.

The essentials guarantee that I would like the Minister to consider would embed in our social security system the widely supported principle that, at a minimum, universal credit should protect households against going without the essentials. The experts—the Trussell Trust and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation—are calling for an independent process to advise the Government on benefit rates. As the Minister is from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, she may well wish a Minister from the Department for Work and Pensions to answer this point, but it needs to be said again and again that income is one of the key drivers of food bank need. As independent process to set universal credit could advise the Government to ensure that rates are based on need and essential costs.

A protected minimum floor for universal credit would provide a safety net below which no one should fall. It would build on the introduction of the fair repayment rate by limiting all universal credit reductions, including from the benefit cap, to 15% below the standard allowance. It would also provide support to households, both in and out of work, and help over 240,000 children.

The local housing allowance has not kept up with the cost of housing. We know that the Government are straining every sinew to bring on new, genuinely affordable homes, but the local housing allowance remains frozen while we wait for that reality to unfold. If that remains the case over the course of this Parliament, renters will be about £700 worse off by 2029, and 50,000 renters will be pulled into poverty. If we do not re-establish the link between the local housing allowance and actual rents, increasing numbers of people will be forced to turn to food banks because they simply will not be able to pay the rent.

Will the Minister commit to ending the need for food banks for families by the end of this Parliament? We have made other commitments on things we are going to do by the end of the Parliament—for example, on immigration —but what is more important than ensuring that every family and child can afford nutritious food? Will the Minister work with colleagues across the ministerial teams on the possibility of an essentials guarantee in our social security system, and on ensuring that the local housing allowance keeps up with the reality of rental costs in the private sector?

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

On Friday, I visited the Coexist Community Kitchen in my constituency, which does amazing work to get the community in. It runs cookery classes, is accessible and has affordable and healthy food, and sometimes it is free. Quite a lot of people go there on social prescriptions. On the issue of cross-departmental working, does my hon. Friend agree that is not enough for the health service just to issue prescriptions? It needs to support community kitchens so that they can do the cookery classes and make the food available. There needs to be institutional support, as well as the prescribing end of it.

[Catherine West]

My hon. Friend, who is a former Minister, makes an excellent point. I know that the Minister present will look into our idea of a publicly backed food hub or wholesale platform. It could operate on a cost-recovery basis and work with local suppliers to help them to supply food to local schools, households and NHS facilities in their area at stable and affordable prices, thereby helping to develop thriving and inclusive local economies.

When it heard this debate was going to happen, the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union wrote to me to say that despite being in work, six out of 10 food workers say their wages are insufficient for them to meet their basic needs, such as food and energy, while nearly half say they are feeling food-insecure. Three out of 10 say they do not have enough food to feed themselves and their families. Let us make a difference. Let us make the change that we all voted for in July 2024.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West]

We have had an excellent debate and a lot of hope from the Minister in her remarks today. We have seen GDP figures up, the costs of borrowing falling, train fares frozen and cheaper fuel bills announced in the Budget, a pick-up in the housing market and the lifting of the two-child cap in April. There is a lot that we can be hopeful about. There is also the increase in the minimum wage, which has consistently been voted against by the Opposition.

This is not a new debate, but we must all redouble our efforts to reduce the use of food banks, particularly by families. We must also look at an essentials guarantee in social security systems, the cost of housing and how that contributes to poverty and food inflation. The SPS agreement with Europe is a very exciting development. We want supermarkets to pledge to stock budget ranges in their convenience stores. We would also like DEFRA to continue to back the food hub and wholesale platform publicly to develop thriving local inclusive economies.

We have so much to do. We are getting there, and with the excellent work of Ministers, together with thoughtful contributions from Back Bench Members, I am sure that we will arrive by the end of the Parliament.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the impact of food inflation on the cost of living.

Oral Answers to Questions

Catherine West Excerpts

Thursday 8th September 2022 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

4. What steps he is taking to ensure that untreated sewage is not discharged into rivers, inland waterways and the sea.

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

10. What steps he is taking to help ensure sewage is not discharged into UK waterways.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr Ranil Jayawardena)]

Thank you, Mr Speaker. The volume of sewage spewed out by water companies is completely unacceptable, and the public have rightly shown their outrage. Yesterday, in my first day in office, I told water chief executives that it is not good enough, and I have instructed them to write to me formally by 21 September with a plan for how they will make significant improvements. I also met the Environment Agency and Ofwat, and I told them that they should use every enforcement power available to them to make sure that there is compliance. I will not hesitate to take further action if I do not see the pace of change that this House expects.

[Catherine West]

Over the summer, I had the pleasure of meeting those from the Hampstead and Highgate Angling Society, who fish in all 32 London boroughs. The River Wandle has had a very bad incident of water pollution, which included human sewage, and in the past the Environment Agency itself has said that the fines meted out to Thames Water were “not sufficient”. What is the Secretary of State going to do to improve this desperate situation?

[Mr Jayawardena]

First, it is this Government who introduced the monitoring that allows us to know what is going on. Secondly, it was this Government who introduced the Environment Act 2021, which allows the Environment Agency to levy unlimited fines on water companies.

COP26: Limiting Global Temperature Rises

Catherine West Excerpts

Thursday 21st October 2021 Commons Chamber

[Caroline Lucas]

Let me just make a little bit of progress, and I promise that I will let others in.

The UK presidency has identified four goals for COP26. The first is to secure global net zero by mid-century and keep 1.5°C within reach, but I want to say to the House that the climate does not actually care much about target dates. What matters is how much carbon has been emitted into the atmosphere and how much will be emitted over the rest of this century. The figures are quite stark, so I hope that the House will indulge me while I go through them.

Based on the IPCC’s calculations, the global remaining carbon budget—the total we can afford to burn between now and the time we reach net zero if we want to give ourselves a two thirds chance of staying within 1.5°C of warming—is just 320 billion tonnes from the start of next year. Given that we are currently burning through that at a rate of 40 billion tonnes a year, it does not take much to do the maths and to conclude that, by 2030, it will be gone if we do not rapidly rid ourselves of fossil fuels. That is the global picture.

To replay that in the domestic picture for our own carbon targets, if we divide the global budget equally on a per capita basis, but also allow for our disproportionate responsibility for the cumulative emissions in the atmosphere—after all, we were the leaders of the industrial revolution—it has been calculated that it would leave the UK a budget of just 2.4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide. That is a vanishingly small amount in the wider scheme of things when we adjust still further to allow for the carbon burned overseas in the service of UK consumption as well as our territorial emissions. Measured like that, our total carbon footprint is about 500 million tonnes a year. Again, I say to the House: do the maths. That gives us barely five years before our 2.4 billion tonne budget is gone. That is the reality. That is the inconvenient truth.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

The hon. Member is making an excellent beginning to this great debate, and it is so good to see so many people speaking. What does she make of the cuts to international aid, which have made the problem for the future outlook even worse?

[Caroline Lucas]

I will certainly be coming to that shortly, because I cannot think of a more damaging thing to have done a matter of months, as it was, before the COP26—a big global summit at which we need to have the trust of the developing countries. I think the idea that one of the richest countries in the world would just slash our aid budget is absolutely unforgivable, and we cannot be surprised that some of the poorest countries do not have confidence in us.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Nicholas Brown (Newcastle upon Tyne East) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex (Sir Bernard Jenkin) in probably the most important debate that we could hold on any topic, notwithstanding what we have been discussing earlier today and all the other important issues that we have to face up to.

I agree with the analysis of the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas), so I will not repeat it; I will get straight to the heart of what must we do rather than discussing what the problems are. Even a former sceptic, as I believe the hon. Member for Harwich and North Essex is—clearly, he is not a sceptic now—has cottoned on that the question is what we do now and what issues we should be addressing.

I freely acknowledge that there are strengths in the Government’s approach, but there are also weaknesses, so I will use my time to focus on a few of those. While I am getting myself into trouble, however, may I welcome the former Leader of the Opposition, my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn)? He has been a constant campaigner on these issues and has led the way for the rest of us.

The weaknesses on the Government’s side include the question of home insulation. I am proud to have been one of the lead sponsors of the Labour party’s Opposition day motion in 2019 declaring a national climate and environment emergency, which made our country the first in the world to do so. I want a green recovery and a green industrial strategy. I want it for the north-east of England, just as I am sure, Dame Rosie, you want it for Yorkshire. There are jobs in this; there is a positive contribution that we can make.

I wish to draw attention to the position of our great oceans in all this. I do not think the effect that we are having on the sea gets the attention it deserves. The oceans act as a natural climate moderator, mediating temperature, driving the weather and determining rainfall, droughts and floods. Crucially, they are also effective in absorbing heat and carbon dioxide.

[Catherine West]

My right hon. Friend mentioned his own track record in relation to the amount of work that needs to be done. Is he aware of the enormous amount of people who need to be trained even to install heat pumps, which is the Government’s current proposal? The umbrella body says that we need thousands more workers to be trained for that. What assessment has he made of the challenge to the workforce and the people who will install all this new technology?

Environment Bill

Catherine West Excerpts

Report stage & 3rd reading
Wednesday 26th May 2021 Commons Chamber

[Rebecca Pow]

What a pleasure it is to be back to continue our consideration of this vital legislation, which will set us on a sustainable trajectory for the future. I know that so many colleagues have been looking forward to today with great anticipation, as indeed have I.

Although the journey of this Bill may have seemed a little lengthy, I assure the House that we have not been resting on our laurels. During this time, there has been a huge amount of constructive, dedicated work, and I will outline some of it: a draft environmental principles policy statement, which will guide the Government in applying environmental principles, was published for consultation on 10 March; and on 24 March we launched consultations on the deposit return scheme and the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging, and these are two key initiatives in the resource and waste measures of the Bill.

We are working at pace to ensure that the Office for Environmental Protection will be operationally ready to stand up as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent. We have also announced that new measures to reduce the harm from storm overflows on our precious aquatic environment will be added in the other place.

At this point, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Philip Dunne) for his dedicated work on this issue. It has been a tremendous joint effort.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Will the Minister also pay tribute to Surfers Against Sewage, which has done a marvellous job of lobbying and achieving a great outcome?

[Rebecca Pow]

I am pleased the hon. Lady made that intervention, because of course I would like to pay tribute to Surfers Against Sewage, which has played a key role in all this for such a long time. Coming from the south-west, as I do, I very much know about the good work done by Surfers Against Sewage.

Today we are debating the nature parts of the Bill, which provide a framework of measures to support nature’s recovery in line with the ambition set out in our 25-year environment plan.

--- Later in debate ---

[Luke Pollard (Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport) (Lab/Co-op)]

Two years ago this month, it was Parliament that declared a climate and an ecological emergency. We were the first Parliament in the world to do so in what was a truly landmark moment in the fight against the climate and ecological crisis. I was proud to work on that declaration and proud that it was a Labour motion. We need more landmark moments such as that if we are to tackle the climate and ecological emergency in a meaningful way. We were promised that the Environment Bill would be a landmark Bill.

“Landmark” is what the Government kept saying, seemingly until England’s rolling hills were littered with press releases as far as the eye could see, but, sadly, it is not a landmark Bill.

Let us be clear about what the climate crisis means. If we do not take the bold action now that is required, the freak weather, the destruction of homes, job losses, food shortages, habitat loss and species extinction will only get worse. Since Parliament declared that climate emergency, the Department for Food and Rural Affairs has issued 508 press releases about the environment. The group plural for a set of press releases evades me. It could be a discombobulation, a tedium, or a wafer. None the less, the Government seem to have been more focused on the spin than the substance of the matter. The press releases, ambitions, targets and soundbites are no substitute for the bold action that we need on the climate.

[Catherine West]

What does my hon. Friend make of the World Wildlife Fund’s statement that the Bill does not go far enough to protect the world’s forests and oceans? Specifically, I know that there is interest across the House in what is happening in neighbourhoods and suburbs. In my own constituency of Muswell Hill, Highgate and Stroud Green, there is a lot of concern about trees coming down unnecessarily. How can we make that vision a reality?

[Luke Pollard]

Both my hon. Friend and the WWF are right that we need to see bolder action on forests and the oceans. It is a shocking indictment of this Bill that there is barely a mention of the oceans, which is a really important part of our environment.

Ministers must act in a quicker and more decisive way on the environment than we have seen to date. I hoped that the delay in the Bill would have given Ministers that time to be bolder, but I am afraid that they have not used their time as wisely as I would have liked. I welcome the steps forward that the Minister has announced, but they are not enough. The pace and urgency seem to be absent. Our rivers are polluted. There is not a single river in England safe to swim in. More species face extinction at home and abroad; more bees are dying from bee-killing pesticides, the use of which is legitimised by this Government; more plastics are entering our oceans; and dangerous particulates are entering the lungs of some of our most vulnerable. Where is the vision? Where is the landmark boldness that we were promised? Where is the rock-the-boat carbon cutting innovation? Where is the determination to push harder and harder to clean our air, protect our species, plant more trees and get us back on a course for nature recovery? Where is the World Health Organisation’s air quality targets in the Bill? Where is the boldness on ocean protection? We need that bold action not only to cut carbon, but to step up and protect our natural environment as well. If we have this approach that we can either solve a carbon crisis or an ecological crisis, we will solve neither. We need to solve both of them together, or neither of them at all.

Environment Bill

Catherine West Excerpts

2nd reading: House of Commons & Money resolution: House of Commons & Ways and Means resolution: House of Commons
Monday 28th October 2019 Commons Chamber

[Sue Hayman (Workington) (Lab)]

I begin by thanking the Secretary of State and her civil servants for meeting me last week, and by acknowledging all the work put into the Bill by civil servants, non-governmental organisations and others who have brought it to this stage. We can all acknowledge that it contains improvements on the original draft.

That said, Greener UK, the organisation representing environmental NGOs, has said that the Bill is

“in need of significant amendment before it is capable of guaranteeing that we do not fall below current standards.”

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that leaving the European Union, or the risk of leaving it, puts many of these environmental protections at risk?

[Sue Hayman]

It is vital that as we leave the EU all the necessary environmental protections are in place and equivalent to what we have now.

The Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), has also raised concerns. He said:

“Despite the Government attempting to establish a robust framework for environmental governance, it appears to have fallen short in its own ambitions.”

It is clear that improvements are still needed. Nature is in a worse state than when the Conservative Government came to power. That is shown in the latest RSPB state of nature report, which found that 41% of UK species studied had declined and that no real improvements had been made since its report in 2016. Greener UK is also concerned about the Government’s commitment to resourcing vital environmental work, saying:

“For the bill to succeed, it will require a step change in resourcing of local government, the Office for Environmental Protection and frontline delivery agencies such as Natural England and the Environment Agency.”

Common Fisheries Policy and Animals (amendment Etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019

Catherine West Excerpts

Monday 21st October 2019 General Committees

[Luke Pollard]

The right hon. Gentleman says it is a dream team. One might wonder what type of dream could possibly dream up these people here.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Can the shadow Minister confirm whether anybody from the original team is still in place?

[Luke Pollard]

The Minister is back from the political dead. It is genuinely good to see him back in his place, because a common critique of the DEFRA team under the previous Administration was that there were far too many soundbites and not enough detail, and I know that the Minister was one of the few in the Department at the time who was holding out for detail, and I know that he knows these issues very well, so it is good to have him back.

When scrutinising this piece of legislation, it is important to view it in its context, and the real problem with fisheries regulations that we have under this Government is that there is still no Fisheries Bill. The Fisheries Bill needs to set the framework for all these statutory instruments to sit underneath. This SI is very similar to the other fishing SIs that we dealt with in March, in that it deals with a patchwork quilt—a dog’s breakfast of different SIs being updated and amended, here, there and everywhere. Like nearly every single SI that we have dealt with in this Session of Parliament, it deals with the errors of previous SIs that were hurriedly rushed through the House.

I know that the Minister tried to explain the matter away by saying that these are simple typographical errors, but they are still errors, and the key thing is that we should be taking more time to get this done right. That is a real concern, because in the absence of a Fisheries Bill that could change the fishing landscape and improve the experience of fishing for our coastal communities, some of the measures included in this SI seem to sit like little policy islands that are not really integrated with the other parts.

The importance of fishing cannot be overstated. We need a comprehensive and joined-up regulatory approach, be that for our departure from the European Union or for the everyday operation of our fishing industry in what is a complex regulatory environment.

There were opportunities missed in these regulations for us to amend fisheries legislation but which could be included in a complementary Fisheries Bill, such as increasing quotas for small fishing boats and banning electronic pulse fishing, on which we still need to see the detail. We need a Fisheries Bill for day one of a no-deal scenario, which is still a possibility. Will the Minister come up with his new excuse under this new regime for why we do not have a Fisheries Bill along the way? I am familiar with his excuses from the previous regime and am keen to see whether they have changed under this latest Administration.

During the plentiful sittings of the Committee on the now-dead Fisheries Bill, I tabled numerous amendments to promote the sustainability of the fishing industry. Much of the regulations deal with the industry’s sustainability. There is commonality between the Minister and me in wanting to make fishing more sustainable, both environmentally and—importantly—economically. If over-fishing is allowed to continue, there will not be enough fish left to catch, so there will not be a fishing industry left to catch fish. We need to ensure that fishing is truly sustainable.

Since we met in a room similar to this one to discuss that Bill, Parliament has declared a climate emergency. For me, the regulations provided an opportunity to reflect better the priorities of Parliament in making that declaration. Of course, the climate emergency is about not just carbon, although that is a large part of it, but about water, habitat loss, sustainability of fish stocks, protection of the fragile marine habitat and, to the purpose of the regulations, the careful management of fishing grounds, ensuring there are enough fish for today and tomorrow.

In paragraph 2.2 of the explanatory memorandum, we see the hurried consideration of previous statutory instruments on the common fisheries policy coming back to haunt us again. I am concerned about paragraphs 2.2 (a) and (b). We are starting to create a situation in which we cannot see a coherent legislation set on the common fisheries policy.

I am grateful to the Minister for setting out the updates required since 29 March. We will need to update our fisheries policy regularly, especially because fish do not protect borders. We must ensure that our policy sits closely in co-operation with that of our European neighbours. However, I am disappointed that in paragraph 9 of the explanatory memorandum, the Government state that, on CFP changes,

“There are no plans to consolidate the legislation.”

I gently say to the Minister that there needs to be an opportunity to consolidate many of these changes, because as we have seen from the patchwork quilt of edits in fisheries legislation, it is difficult for those working in fishing to follow the changes and difficult for stakeholders working in the sector to understand the consequences—intentional or otherwise—of changes.

Far too few people in this place follow the ins and outs of fishing policy. I am one of the nerdy few. I like to do so and, while the Minister might not describe himself in that manner, he is also one of those people. We need to spend more time ensuring that no further mistakes are being added to our statute book. The best way to do that is to join up the current regulations in a consolidated fashion so that the industry and stakeholders can see exactly what is changing and we do not risk putting more gremlins into our laws or further polluting our statute book.

The regulations matter, dealing with the size of fishing nets and the size of the fish that those nets catch. With many species of fish in British territorial waters at unsustainable levels, those rules matter. So, too, does the huge increase in ghost gear—the lost plastic fishing gear that pollutes the oceans around Britain’s coastal waters. I am excited about a new campaign we have started in Plymouth to pinpoint the ghost gear lost by fishing boats, using proper navigation tracking. There is an opportunity to do much more about that through regulations on fishing nets and fishing gear. Will the Minister reflect on that, given their mention in these regulations?

There is a lot more that we need to do in relation not just to fishing nets, as mentioned in the regulations, but to the other types of fishing gear that are lost at sea, including car tyres, which until relatively recently were an important part of fishing gear—they helped to weigh down fishing nets. In Plymouth Sound, the country’s first national marine park, we identified nearly 1,000 car tyres, all of which emit microplastics directly into that fragile marine habitat. The Minister has a huge opportunity to make more comprehensive and ambitious remarks on fishing gear, lost or otherwise, to ensure we deal with ghost gear and lost gear and, importantly, are able to return some of it to fishers so it does not simply count as a cost to their businesses. There is an opportunity to do that with these regulations.

Let me turn to some of the concerns from stakeholders. The Minister will know from previous remarks that there has been a certain level of stakeholder fatigue in relation to the tsunami of statutory instruments. The new Whip has managed to avoid many of them, but I understand that 12 more DEFRA statutory instruments are required before exit day. Indeed, we need to ask, if they are required before exit day—currently 31 October, before the extension that the Prime Minister has requested is granted—how could they have been passed before 31 March? That raises concerns about the pace with which these statutory instruments are being introduced and about what more DEFRA is discovering as it looks through the regulations that need to be updated before the SIs become law.

Greener UK has raised concerns about the removal of provisions on the effectiveness of mitigation measures and monitoring amendments in the statutory instrument. I will read out a few, and perhaps the Minister can respond to them. He will be aware that article 5(21)(c) removes article 21(c) of regulation 2019/1241 from the Parliament and Council, on the conservation of fisheries resources and the protection of marine ecosystems through technical measures. Article 21 sets out joint recommendations on conservation measures and the provision of information on the effectiveness of existing mitigation measures and monitoring arrangements. I would be grateful if the Minister can confirm whether he intended to remove that provision. If so, what should replace it? I understand that Greener UK and some of its members have raised that issue with DEFRA, which argued that it has retained most of article 21 to highlight what may be included in regulations made under article 15, but arguably these provisions do not alter the powers available under article 15. I would be grateful if the Minister can set out whether he concurs with Greener UK’s concerns. They all sound quite technical, but the problem with fisheries regulation is that many of the concerns are actually technical, so the detail really does matter. Greener UK’s concern is that the removal could lead to cumulative measures being introduced, with little regard for their impact. I would be grateful if the Minister could deal with that point.

It is unclear from the statutory instrument and the explanatory memorandum that accompanies it what the Government’s approach to the North sea and western waters multi-annual plans is. It seems that we will co-operate with some of them but not necessarily all of them. I would be grateful if the Minister could set out the Government’s continuing commitment to co-operate with our near-neighbours, be that in a pre-Brexit, post-Brexit or no-Brexit world, so that fishing is properly co-ordinated and measures are put in place to ensure the sustainability of our stocks. It is curious that the regionalisation of the western waters plan was omitted from this statutory instrument. I would be grateful if the Minister would explain the reasons for that.

Article 62(4) of the United Nations convention of the law of the sea, which the UK has signed in its own capacity, dictates that we will have to agree on the management of resources. Therefore, we have to co-operate with the EU in that respect, and the regionalisation should be included. I would be grateful if the Minister can set that out in his remarks.

The Minister spoke about how devolved fisheries administrations work together. That is really important, because fishing is rightly devolved to the constituent parts of the United Kingdom, which enables Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales to have greater regard to the fish species that they catch.

I would be grateful if the Minister set out how any changes in the regional nature of fisheries management will be policed and, importantly, how any conflict between the views of those devolved fisheries administrations can be resolved. He will remember that in proceedings on the Fisheries Bill, the Labour party tabled a proposal for a dispute mechanism to ensure that if there was a disagreement—say, between the Scottish Government and the UK Government acting on behalf of England—about the Secretary of State’s fisheries statement, there would be a methodology to resolve those concerns, ensuring that the statement could still be put together, and that we would not enter a logjam. I am not presuming that the Governments of Holyrood and Westminster will disagree about fishing, but it is prudent to look at all possible future avenues. I would be grateful if the Minister set out the SI’s relevant powers in that respect.

Regular watchers of these Committees—I know that many watch Delegated Legislation Committees on Parliamentlive.tv—will know that the Opposition are concerned that statutory instruments are being rushed through with mistakes and gremlins in them that we have already spoken about. In a similar Committee on 25 March, I set out the Opposition’s concerns about the several glitches and gremlins in that instrument that had not been caught because of a lack of scrutiny, and noted that there could be severe consequences for implementation.

I am grateful for the fact that the Minister and his officials have caught a few errors; what concerns me, however, is the number of errors not caught during the implementation of regulations, especially at a time when there are so many fisheries sector SIs coming through. It is really hard for people to keep track of the tsunami of SIs.

The Minister managed to get out of coming to the main Chamber last week. I am very grateful to the Conservative Whips for tabling two statutory instruments for debate in the main Chamber, which enabled both of the Minister’s new colleagues to step up to the Dispatch Box and not quite apologise for the errors of their predecessors in pushing through SIs containing errors. None the less, there was an introduction about making sure that we get this right. Paragraph 2.11 of the explanatory memorandum states that “minor errors” need to be corrected. The Minister mentioned the typographical mistake, but I would be grateful if he spelled out what other errors this SI corrects, just so I am sure.

Hon. Members who have had the privilege of sitting through a Delegated Legislation Committee with me will know of my concerns about impact assessments and the language used in them. This 30-page statutory instrument makes a number of changes, including in relation to new European Union regulations made since the last fisheries SI was passed. I am concerned about the wording of the explanatory memorandum, which states in paragraph 12.1 that

“There is no, or no significant, impact”.

It goes on to state:

“An Impact Assessment has not been prepared for this instrument because no significant changes…are envisaged.”

It is really hard to distinguish between “no impact” and “no significant impact”. As we have seen from previous mistakes, and from the new regulations that the Minister cited, we do not know what impact measures will have if there is no impact assessment. In the past when I have asked about updating the language, the Minister has referred me to the Procedure Committee. I would be grateful if he used his good offices to look at whether explanatory memorandums could be clearer, because “no impact” and “no significant impact” are two very different things.

Finally, I will raise a few questions about Northern Ireland and the territorial application of the statutory instrument, which covers the entirety of the UK. I would be grateful if the Minister set out whether he anticipates that the Prime Minister’s deal, which was secured since the publication of the statutory instrument, means any changes for the implementation or future corrections of the instrument. The SI was published before the deal came about, and there are particular concerns about the proposed border down the Irish sea.

The deal gives rise to a number of concerns about Northern Irish fishing. As that is slightly off topic, Mr Howarth, I will not go into that now, but the territorial application of the common fisheries policy raises some concerns that are within the scope of this statutory instrument. Some of those concerns relate to the export of fisheries products from Great Britain to Northern Ireland and vice versa, and the landing of fisheries products in Northern Ireland. For instance, if a British fishing boat lands in Northern Ireland and there is a separate tax regime there, would the refund on red diesel continue to apply? Would catch certificates need to apply? Would landing into a third country also create a requirement for prior notification and additional paperwork? Some of those things relate to elements of the statutory instrument. Some people are concerned that the detail of regulation on fishing, particularly between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, is being overlooked. Will the Minister say whether any changes would need to be made following a deal? Have any of them been discussed?

The Minister made a number of comments that I want to touch on. I liked his phrase about the “luxury of time” that the extension gave us. The Minister and I are regular attendees of the BBC’s “Sunday Politics South West”; I am sure that viewers in the south-west will be pleased to hear what he said. He might wish to share that with the Prime Minister.

The discard ban and the landing obligations, which are covered by the statutory instrument, are causing significant concern to fishers across the country, particularly those who fish in mixed fisheries. The majority of the south-west counts as a mixed fishery. The Minister will know that since their implementation earlier this year, there has been significant concern about whether the discard ban and the landing obligations are being honoured, the perverse consequences, and whether the amount of fish caught, landed and discarded is correctly recorded. The parliamentary questions I have tabled on that have not quite produced clear answers from the Minister and his predecessors, so I would be grateful if he set out whether the discard ban and the landing obligations are due to be updated, as there is genuine, sincere concern about how they operate, especially on the part of fishers who do not possess a huge amount of additional quota for those fish stocks they are catching as bycatch and in mixed fisheries.

Bass fishing has been raised a number of times by stakeholders. I imagine Members from all parts of the House will have heard from recreational anglers about the new requirements that mean bass fishing is included in the quota arrangements. The Minister said that the SI means that current regulations will not fall at the end of the year. Will he say slightly more on that? Recreational anglers in particular have concerns.

Sir George, you will be pleased to hear that I am not an expert on transporting horses, so I will not comment too much on that element of the statutory instrument. However, it causes me concern that a statutory instrument mainly on sea fisheries should have provisions relating to the transport of horses. It should cause us concern us that these separate issues, as important as they are, are being mangled together in a dog’s breakfast—a patchwork quilt—of an SI that is not getting the scrutiny it needs, either in the parliamentary process or from stakeholders, who have to deal with a tsunami of SIs.

I am genuinely happy to see the Minister back in his place. He knows that I take the detail of statutory instruments seriously, because I represent a constituency with 1,000 jobs in fishing. If we are to do Brexit—that seems to be the Minister’s current position—it is important that we get the detail right. When it comes to fisheries, and the transporting of horses, it is not the soundbites but the details that really matter.

Environment and Climate Change

Catherine West Excerpts

Wednesday 1st May 2019 Commons Chamber

[Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House declares an environment and climate emergency following the finding of the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change that to avoid a more than 1.5°C rise in global warming, global emissions would need to fall by around 45 per cent from 2010 levels by 2030, reaching net zero by around 2050; recognises the devastating impact that volatile and extreme weather will have on UK food production, water availability, public health and through flooding and wildfire damage; notes that the UK is currently missing almost all of its biodiversity targets, with an alarming trend in species decline, and that cuts of 50 per cent to the funding of Natural England are counterproductive to tackling those problems; calls on the Government to increase the ambition of the UK’s climate change targets under the Climate Change Act 2008 to achieve net zero emissions before 2050, to increase support for and set ambitious, short-term targets for the roll-out of renewable and low carbon energy and transport, and to move swiftly to capture economic opportunities and green jobs in the low carbon economy while managing risks for workers and communities currently reliant on carbon intensive sectors; and further calls on the Government to lay before the House within the next six months urgent proposals to restore the UK’s natural environment and to deliver a circular, zero waste economy.

Today the House must declare an environment and climate emergency. We have no time to waste. We are living in a climate crisis that will spiral dangerously out of control unless we take rapid and dramatic action now. This is no longer about a distant future; we are talking about nothing less than the irreversible destruction of the environment within the lifetimes of Members.

Young people know this. They have the most to lose. A few weeks ago, like many other Members on both sides of the House, I was deeply moved to see the streets outside Parliament filled with colour and the noise of children chanting “Our planet, our future”. For someone of my generation, it was inspiring but also humbling that children felt that they had to leave school to teach us adults a lesson. The truth is that they are ahead of the politicians on this, the most important issue of our time. We are witnessing an unprecedented upsurge of climate activism, with groups such as Extinction Rebellion forcing the politicians in this building to listen. For all the dismissive and offensive column inches that the protesters have provoked, they are a massive and, I believe, very necessary wake-up call. Today we have the opportunity to say, “We hear you.”

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

As my right hon. Friend’s constituency neighbour, I congratulate him on, many years ago, giving up his vehicle and on using mainly his bicycle for years as an MP. [Interruption.]

[Jeremy Corbyn]

I fear that my hon. Friend has unwittingly provoked lots of strange thought processes among Conservative Members.

--- Later in debate ---

[Edward Miliband (Doncaster North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Truro and Falmouth (Sarah Newton). Her eloquent words on climate change show that the Front Bench’s loss is the Back Benches’ gain and this House’s gain.

The tone of this debate has been largely good-natured and about shared objectives, and that is important. This debate matters, and the emergency matters, because, contrary to what the Secretary of State implied, we are not doing nearly enough as a country. It is true that we have made a lot of progress in relation to the power sector, but 75% of the gains we have made overall since 2012 have been in that sector alone. The latest report of the Committee on Climate Change in 2018 says that emissions in the building sector, the agriculture sector, the waste sector and the fluorinated gases sector have been flat for a decade.

The emergency matters because it says to not only the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs or other Departments—the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy is also on the Front Bench—but the whole Government that this matters to everyone and that this is not just another issue we have to deal with, alongside all the other issues we face. Every issue has to go through climate change and what we do about it. It is the whole basis of our politics for generations to come. I hope that the Secretary of State will support the emergency, because it will focus minds in the Government.

I do not want to speak for long, but I do want to talk about political persuasion and in particular about how we carry the public with us on this journey. Nice words were said about me, and I am grateful to both Front Benchers for that, but the truth is that I feel a sense of guilt. I feel a sense of guilt that I have not done more on this issue and that I did not do more when I was leader of my party. I talked about the issue, but I did not do more.

It is bad thing that in the 2015 TV debate, which I do not like to recall too much, not one question was asked about climate change, and that tells us something about the fact that Brexit—it is bad enough, given how it sucks the political oxygen out of all the other issues—is not the only reason why this issue has not been more salient, or rather that it goes through peaks and troughs. I think that the reason is that this is the ultimate challenge for politics, because the decisions we make now will have impacts in generations’ time, but less so today. The electoral cycle, if we are honest about it—and we respond to our voters—is five years, or perhaps less, not 20, 30 or 40 years.

[Catherine West]

I make a very quick intervention just to say that my right hon. Friend does not need to apologise, because he did write the emissions trading scheme when he was very much part of a Labour Government beforehand.

--- Later in debate ---

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

May I first put on record the excellent work of the Hornsey and Wood Green climate emergency activists—they invited me to a meeting well in advance of Greta Thunberg’s visit and were ahead of the protesters—and the schoolchildren from schools in Hornsey and Wood Green who marched on London to demand change?

Transport is the most emitting sector of the UK economy, responsible for 27% of greenhouse gas emissions, and the figure increases to a staggering 40% if we include our share of international shipping and aviation. That is the one we can really do something about at the three levels of government. First, the Government must fund bus services—end of—and there is an election tomorrow where that will feature in big style.

Secondly, at local level, I was the council leader when we introduced the first 20 mph speed zone in London. At first it was considered ridiculous by the local papers, but it has now become rather fashionable. It is very much welcomed, for the sake of their lungs, by many young people and families.

Thirdly, I want to put on the record the work being done by the Mayor of London. That is not easy, as a lot of people will be affected. The ultra low emission zone in central London went live earlier this month. It is a very brave move, which later we will consider normal although at the moment it is a little uncomfortable. Well done to the Mayor and all our councillors who work so hard, day in, day out, on recycling, transport, cycling and all the things that make our environment better.

Finally, I want to put on the record the work being done on children’s asthma and respiratory health by Ella Kissi-Debrah’s mother, a constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham East (Janet Daby). She has worked so hard to convince others of the importance of climate change and transport.

UK’s Withdrawal from the European Union

Catherine West Excerpts

Wednesday 13th March 2019 Commons Chamber

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

The responsibility of any Government is to protect its citizens against threats to society, whether they concern national security, the health of the economy or community cohesion. In 2008, the then Government were quick to respond to the global financial crisis that sadly plunged so many into despair. A decade on, many on the Government Benches actually advocate a no-deal Brexit that I believe would make people even more despairing—a destination that, according to the Bank of England, could plunge us into a situation far worse than the 2008 crash.

It is unusual for the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress to speak with one voice, but they are both against a no-deal Brexit. This time it is far worse than 2008, because the Government would be consciously and deliberately inflicting the outcome on the UK economy and, by extension, on our communities. It is truly shocking that the Chancellor claimed merely a few hours ago that the Government’s approach to Brexit was pro-business. So many of their statements appear to be the opposite.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer) has detailed the devastating impact that a no-deal scenario would have across sectors, from transport to medicines to public finances. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Jack Dromey) and the right hon. Member for Meriden (Dame Caroline Spelman) made clear the impact that no deal would have on the manufacturing sector in both the excellent meetings they held in the House.

I wish briefly to mention small businesses, because they are affected too. A woman in my constituency runs a fashion business. Let us not forget that fashion accounts for £35 billion, while fishing accounts for £1.8 billion—just a small comparison. She wrote to me:

“Dear Catherine…I thought I would share with you another email that I received…from a client in Denmark – who no longer wishes to trade with us... it’s self explanatory.”

The email she shared reads:

“Dear Sandra

Thanks for your email.

With England leaving eu we have decided to focus on distributors from eu to avoid issues at the border.”

It was from Martin in Denmark. Up and down the country, small businesses are coping with this, day in, day out.

We have seen companies, trade unions, charities, the NHS and watchdogs all coalesce around the view that a no-deal Brexit will inflict chronic economic hardship on us all. Not only that, but it will fray even further the delicate fabric that holds us all together. The tone of the national debate has plummeted since Brexit became the national conversation around dinner tables. That is why I am proud to have co-signed amendment (a), and I am still keen to move it unless others can persuade me otherwise. I recognise that many Members on the Government Benches are not actively advocating a no-deal outcome, but with days to go before we crash out, we must all recognise that declining to vote for amendment (a), or at least to take it seriously, will make us complicit should such an outcome occur.

We have 373 hours left until the UK leaves the EU. I hope all Members will reflect on the specific ways in which a no-deal scenario will impact on households, businesses, schools and workplaces, and recognise that damage. I hope that with that knowledge they will vote to avert this chaos.

Draft Air Quality (Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles Database) (England and Wales) Regulations 2019

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 26th February 2019 General Committees

[Dr David Drew (Stroud) (Lab/Co-op)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Owen. I make two apologies. First, my voice is terrible, so please bear with me. Secondly, the shadow Minister would normally lead on air quality, but she is otherwise engaged, so she has passed the mantle to me.

May I say at the start what a pleasure it is that we are not talking about our EU withdrawal? Three times last week we did that, so I thought that this Committee must have something to do with Europe. However, it appears that this is very little to do with Europe for once, although European standards are something I presume we should wish to concur with, as EU standards are as high as ours, although we have a long way to go.

Sadly, on air quality, the Government have a long way to go, and have been in the courts on numerous occasions. In April 2015, the Supreme Court ordered the Government to draw up an air pollution plan, owing to breaches of the law. In November 2016, the High Court ruled the Government’s plans unlawful and imposed a deadline for drawing up a new plan. In April 2017, the High Court ordered the Government to publish that plan, after they tried to delay doing so. Last year, the High Court once again ruled the Government’s plans unlawful.

It will be interesting to know whether the Government have a lawful plan that is unchallengeable by those who take this issue very seriously, as we all do. We all have seared on our minds the death of Ella Kissi-Debrah from asthma in 2013, which is an ongoing case.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the increase in deaths, particularly of children and very old folk with respiratory illnesses, is alarming? Does he also agree that the Mayor of London is being brave and bold and—with very little resource—is acting, through his policies, in the interests of the lungs of Londoners?

[Dr Drew]

I do. To my mind, this is climate change here and now. We sometimes think of climate change as 12 years away and something we can do something about. Sadly, many of our constituents already experience the degradation of the climate because they live in areas that regularly fail decent air quality tests. We should be careful that we do not ignore that and fail to do something about it.

My starting point is that the database, useful as it may be, is a database. It will not actually deal with the problem of how to bear down on some of the issues of poor air quality. We need a much more ambitious transport strategy that deals not only with taxis and private hire vehicles but vehicles in general. I will ask the Government several questions on that.

It is vital that these statutory instruments are not a matter of paying lip service to this issue but are a means by which we can do something fundamental. The Government will say that it is up to local authorities, but if the local authorities do not have the means, they cannot do anything about air quality. It is beginning to disturb our constituents. People ask me, “What are you going to do about the air quality?” This is in Stroud, which is supposedly a rural area, but in parts of it the air quality regularly fails a decency standard. We ought to do something and be seen to be doing something.

Two non-governmental organisations are most concerned about air quality. Friends of the Earth has made countless reports on local air quality monitoring objectives, to check which local authorities are doing something about that and which are not. It is good to hear about the Mayor of London but, sadly, too many local authorities do not have the facility to get on top of this issue. It is astonishing the number of places with an air pollution problem. It does not affect just some people some of the time, but an awful lot of people all the time.

ClientEarth, which has taken the Government to court on a number of occasions because of their lack of an effective plan, welcomes this statutory instrument and sees the database as necessary, but there is not as much detail as it would like. We have the database, but what do we do with it? It is all right having this information, but someone has to compute it and ensure that someone is acting on it. Will the Government impose standards on those local authorities that fail to do what they should do as a result of the database? The statutory instrument allows the Secretary of State to set up the database, but there is no duty to pursue it.

I have some questions for the Minister. First, where does this statutory instrument fit in the Government’s overall strategy of moving towards non-polluting cars? That was the aim by 2040. Are the Government on track to meet that target? In some ways, it is an incredibly ambitious target, but in others it is disappointing, given the scale of the problem.

Dealing with air quality makes long-term economic sense. Some global estimates talk about a cost of £20 billion —I suspect that is a gross underestimate. It will be interesting to know what resources central Government intend to give to local authorities so that they begin to track what is happening—admittedly, with a small number of vehicles, but if it can be done with taxis and private hire vehicles it can begin to be done with private cars. I hear what my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent Central said; at what stage does a vehicle become a public vehicle rather than a private vehicle?

Do the Government really intend to crack down on illegal air pollution? There have been numerous reports from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee on the means to do something about this. We sometimes use exaggerated terms, but here we do not—it is a public health emergency for those whose lives will be cut short. That requires us to do something drastic.

On Highways England, what are the Government doing with their road strategy to ensure that where there are areas of very high pollution, there are means by which we can control vehicles? I do not know if hon. Members saw what happened in Addis Ababa a few weeks ago; the Government banned vehicles for a Sunday. If anyone has been to that city they will know how polluted it is. They felt that that at least made the point that people can find ways of living their lives without the petrol or diesel engine, that makes their lives that much worse.

What is the target date for the database being up and running? How does that deal with what local authorities are involved with in their own clean air zones in the interim? It would be useful to know where the joined-upness of the overall strategy is.

The original SI was introduced on 8 January 2019 but was then mysteriously removed, which is not unusual with SIs at the moment. This one, however, has nothing to do with Europe, yet it was removed and a slightly different version was retabled. It would be interesting to know why that happened and why we have a different SI before us.

I ask my usual question about Plymouth—it is good to have one of the Plymouth Members here, the hon. Member for Plymouth, Moor View. I am always intrigued when Plymouth appears in such regulations. Regulation 2(c) mentions

“section 5 of the Plymouth City Council Act 1975”.

Why does that one local authority always get mentioned? I have been in Committees before where Plymouth is mentioned. Either it is more advanced than any other part of the country or it operates under a very different legal framework from other local authorities. I understand there are different terms regarding the City of London, but I never quite understand why Plymouth features.

I hope the Minister can answer my questions, or will write to me. DEFRA should pay a lot more attention to this subject. Air quality is a deciding factor in people’s quality of life. For me, it is the start of climate change and we ought to pay much more attention to it. That is why I welcome the small step of the database. I hope it will not just sit on a shelf somewhere; I hope it is a measure through which local authorities, working with central Government, can really begin to make sure that polluting vehicles are dealt with.

[Dr Coffey]

It is a pleasure to respond to the hon. Gentleman’s questions. I would say first that air quality has been my top priority since becoming Environment Minister. There will be Members on this Committee whom I have met in the last two and a half years to discuss the air quality challenges in their areas. There are several Members here whose constituencies are in areas where local authorities are proactively considering the introduction of charging clean air zones. I remind Members that it is their local authorities that have said that the database is necessary.

In terms of our work on non-polluting cars, the hon. Member for Stroud will be aware of our policy to see the end of the sale of conventionally fuelled cars by 2040. On illegal air pollution, he is absolutely right to say that roadside nitrogen dioxide is a challenge. We are working on that and we believe that the database will help councils to tackle some of the more polluting cars that are driving around, particularly in urban centres.

The database is in beta testing at the moment. It will be ready by the second half of this year. Leeds City Council is expected to be the first council to start using it in earnest, with charging coming into effect on 6 Jan 2020.

We want to ensure that Highways England and the strategic road network are very much connected with the air quality challenge that we face. The chief executive of Highways England chairs a fortnightly meeting with his team to go through the different issues of air quality on the road networks, as well as the new innovations they are taking forward and considering on how to improve air quality. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that a lot of the issue is down to traffic flow. I am conscious of the challenges of air quality, and I am sure he will welcome the clean air strategy that we published just last month. It has been welcomed by the World Health Organisation as world leading, and it is something for other countries to follow.

One particular element of the road strategy does need to be carefully considered, and we will carry out an assessment of the effectiveness of speed limits, based on the Welsh Government’s work on the speed limits that they introduced on part of the M4. Certain councils, such as Basingstoke and Deane for a particular stretch of the A339 that has a speed limit of 70 mph, are considering reducing limits to see if that will help with traffic flows and lower vehicle emissions. As I say, in every part of the country where we have funded councils to do studies and localised modelling, and to undertake local action, they come up with solutions that by and large they think fit best to help their local communities to improve air quality and effectiveness.

[Catherine West]

Based on the evidence being set out by the Minister, will she consider giving more money to councils so that they can do more such research for their own local solutions?

[Dr Coffey]

More than £3.5 billion has been set aside to tackle air quality—TfL was given money for that as part of its last settlement—and more money has gone to the Mayor of London and many other councils to make the changes necessary, such as retrofitting buses.

I am conscious that the Mayor of London would like more money, and the Secretary of State has agreed to support a spending review bid to tackle air quality in London. For example, the ultra-low emission zone charge, which will come into effect in a couple of months, is a significant step. The policy was initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson), but the current Mayor has taken it through. I also encourage TfL to think about its rules for taxis and how they can more quickly be made air-quality-friendly. TfL has made a good start; I am sure that it could go further.

The hon. Member for Stroud asked specifically about Plymouth. That question has come up once before, in an SI on air quality last year, but I am afraid that my officials and I cannot remember the answer precisely, so I hope that he will forgive me if I write to him and the Committee on that specific point. Nevertheless, I am sure that the Committee will consider the draft regulations important in giving local authorities the database that they believe necessary to tackle air quality in their local areas.

Water Supply Disruption

Catherine West Excerpts

Tuesday 6th March 2018 Commons Chamber

[Dr Coffey]

Social media can be a useful way to communicate, but I recognise that it is not the only way. Part of Ofwat’s review will look at communications, and that might be a role for Ofwat or other media sources, such as broadcast. We recently introduced the 105 number for electricity disruptions, and I have asked officials and Water UK whether we could perhaps do the same for water disruptions so that reporting leaks or getting help are less complicated. We need to make sure that help comes more quickly than perhaps the hon. Lady’s residents have experienced in the last few days.

[Catherine West (Hornsey and Wood Green) (Lab)]

The N8 and N4 areas have also been badly affected. Not a week goes by without a large flood and now we do not have enough water. Will the Minister please make representations to Thames Water? The regulator is toothless: £20 compensation will not cut it for most of my constituents, many of whom have had to miss work, incur extra childcare costs and so on.

[Dr Coffey]

The hon. Lady describes difficult issues that are affecting her constituents as well as other parts of the country. That is why I have made the point to the water companies that they have the opportunity to offer discretionary compensation. I would welcome their doing that, especially in areas where the issue has been prolonged, in recognition of the frustrations in daily life that are caused by the lack of this basic service.