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.

Draft Littering from Vehicles Outside London (Keepers: Civil Penalties) Regulations 2018

Catherine West Excerpts

Wednesday 31st January 2018 General Committees

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

I am delighted to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Robertson. I welcome the Minister to her place—I also welcome the civil servant to his place; maybe he will give the answers.

This is an interesting, if not worrying, topic. I am a little surprised that we have been through the whole of the Minister’s speech, not to mention the draft regulations and the explanatory notes, but not yet had a number. This is quite a worrying issue, and the number of incidents is increasing. I was involved in the passage of the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, through which the previous Labour Government put this into primary legislation.

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

Does my hon. Friend agree that this proposal would be particularly beneficial for our waterways? A lot of the rubbish that people throw out of cars ends up in our waterways, canals and rivers, and even blocks up drainage —it goes right down to that level.

[Dr Drew]

As the proud possessor in my constituency of the Gloucester and Sharpness canal and, hopefully one day, the completed Stroudwater canal, I totally agree.

Let us put some numbers to this, to give some context for why it is important. In 2016-17 local authorities in England dealt with more than 1 million incidents of fly-tipping—I will use that term because no one else has, and because it was referred to as fly-tipping in the 2005 Act—which was a 7% increase on the previous year. Two thirds of incidents of fly-tipping involved household waste, and the total number of incidents increased by 8% from 2015-16.

There is a consistent relationship between where people tip and how much they tip. Clearly, most of that takes place on our highways—some half of all incidents—and again, that is increasing. Sadly, quite a lot is tipped. That is something I will ask the Minister about. I am a little bit confused by what we mean by littering. If I truck up in my four-by-four and chuck four used tyres in the nearest layby, is that littering or is that covered by some other legislation?

That is the nature of what this is. It is not just chance, although clearly people chuck things out of their car windows. A lot of this is people getting rid of things that sadly they would otherwise be charged for. I know a little bit about this because, as you will know, Mr Robertson, in the good old days Stroud did not charge for the disposing of large items, so the good people of Gloucester used to come and dump them in Stroud. We now charge for them, so there is no reason for people to dump them in Stroud anymore. However, it is an issue, because people will dispose of rubbish, and unless they are prevented from doing so, or fined when they are caught, this will grow.

It is estimated that the cost of clearing fly-tipped waste in 2016-17 was £57.7 million, which is not an inconsiderable sum. Local authorities carried out 474,000 enforcement actions, costing about £16 million. That is staggering, because we think it is difficult to follow up fly-tipping, but there is actually a lot more action by local authorities, which cost some £900,000.

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Coffey]

The draft regulations have obviously exercised hon. Members. I will not say that a lot of rubbish has been spoken. Far from it; searching questions have been asked, and I shall be pleased to try to provide some illumination.

It is true that the powers granted by the regulations extend from those in the Clean Neighbourhoods and Environment Act 2005, but that Act amended and clarified the Environmental Protection Act 1990. It identified smoking-related detritus as litter and gave councils further powers. The draft regulations set out the relevant primary legislation that authorises them.

As I mentioned, fly-tipping is a different legal offence. Councils already have separate powers to issue penalties or prosecute for fly-tipping, including powers to seize vehicles. The Environment Agency has thanked us for granting those powers, which certainly act as a huge deterrent. Littering is defined in section 87 of the Environmental Protection Act, while under the statutory code of practice on litter and refuse, any discarded item larger than one black bag should be considered fly-tipping.

A question was asked about the police and criminal enforcement. Frankly, if littering can be identified and there is sufficient evidence of a criminal offence, that evidence can be used to prosecute the alleged litterer. However, the draft regulations do exactly what councils have asked for: they grant civil enforcement powers, and it is up to councils whether to use them. The origin of the legislation for London was the London Local Authorities Act 2007; we had to make some corrections to that Act in 2012, because it was not working as it should, but London already has the necessary powers. I know that the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green is a former council leader. It will be for local councils to decide to apply their many statutory powers, including those on littering and fly-tipping. I know that some councils are keen to get on with this, and it will be their choice to do so.

[Catherine West]

I thank the Minister for mentioning local authorities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central said, enforcement depends on funding. It would be wonderful to have a special environment fund for boroughs to really tackle the issue, because there is huge public support. There has been a culture change—the Minister may remember that I did some press work on that when I was chair of London Councils’ transport and environment committee in 2007.