Air Pollution

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I did not want to interrupt the flow of my hon. Friend’s speech, but now that he has been interrupted, I might as well. He too is a west London MP, so he is aware that Heathrow, in my constituency, is one of the most persistent air pollution hotspots. In the previous Government’s assessment, any expansion at Heathrow would have a significant impact on air quality. The latest airports national policy statement says it will have “significant negative effects” on air quality. We are one of the worst areas for nitrogen dioxide pollution, so does my hon. Friend agree that Heathrow expansion cannot go ahead?

[Barry Gardiner]

How did I know that my right hon. Friend would be introducing that subject? I excised it from my speech because I knew he would. He is absolutely right, and he will have seen the assessment that came out just 10 days ago, which said everything he and I have been saying about the pollution caused by the third runway expansion at Heathrow. Whatever we think about the economy—as he knows, the assessment was not too hot on that either—it is a disaster for public health.

I do not decry the real progress on nitrogen dioxide that has resulted from the ultra low emission zone expansion. What the mayor has done has been really significant; the correlated reduction in admissions to hospital has been huge, and we really welcome that. But air pollution action must be targeted at hotspots. Even if the hotspots dipped below the 40 microgram legal limit, that would still be four times the World Health Organisation guidelines.

--- Later in debate ---

[Uma Kumaran (Stratford and Bow) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for leading this debate and, as ever, for his gentle but decisive prose. Members will be pleased, I am sure, to hear that my remarks will be a bit shorter.

Toxic air is a public health crisis—it is also an environmental crisis, but the health element, especially for our children, is what concerns me today. Air pollution can stunt the growth of children’s lungs, hamper foetal development and contribute to cancer, heart disease, dementia and even mental health conditions. Our air can become an invisible killer, but sadly, because we do not see it, we do not quite understand it.

Every single year, an estimated 30,000 deaths are attributable to long-term exposure to dirty air, and, at one point, in Newham—one of the boroughs I represent—1.7 in every 100 deaths were caused by air pollution. In 2013, one of those 30,000 was a nine-year-old girl. We have already heard her name today: Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. She died following an asthma attack. Thanks to the tireless campaigning of Ella’s mum, Rosamund, who demanded answers and pushed for justice for her daughter, Ella became the first person in the UK for whom air pollution is listed as an official cause of death. I know Rosamund from my time working for the Mayor of London, so I saw her tireless work at first hand—her advocacy has been incredible. It was a landmark decision: Ella was exposed to excessive levels of pollution. The toxic air cut her beautiful life short, and robbed a family of their sister and a mother of her daughter. Their lives have never been the same since.

That is the price that our younger citizens paid for our inaction. If the air in Ella’s neighbourhood had been safe, and if she had not been exposed to toxic gases, she would have been in her 20s today—probably a trailblazer in her own right, but we will never know. That is the human cost of our negligence. No child should suffer as Ella did, and no family or mother should have to go through what they did.

We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past by failing this generation of young people. It is clear that, with political will, creativity and resolve, we can turn the tide. I was there for the inception of ULEZ, and I am proud to have been part of the team who worked on it from 2016 onwards. In the five years since it came in, the Mayor of London’s bold approach has reduced London’s nitrogen oxide levels by over 40%—that is no small feat. It has reduced fine particulate pollution levels by around 30%. These are not pie-in-the-sky statistics. That work is driving down hospital admissions, protecting the health of children and pensioners alike, and easing the burden on our NHS.

[John McDonnell]

In London, a large number of individual politicians, including the mayor, had a rough time introducing ULEZ. It is time that we congratulate him on that achievement and on the way in which he courageously faced down the opposition.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)]

It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I congratulate all hon. Members for their thoughtful and wide-ranging contributions. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing this important debate and for speaking with such characteristic passion about this issue.

There is clear consensus that air pollution remains one of the most significant environmental risks to public health and I welcome the strength of feeling expressed today on the need to continue to make progress. I also welcome the ongoing inquiry by the Environmental Audit Committee into air pollution. Scrutiny of that kind plays an important role in strengthening our approach and the Government have been keenly following the evidence received by the Committee. We look forward to engaging further with the Committee, and Ministers will give evidence to it in due course.

The issue goes beyond environmental policy. As many Members have confirmed, it is about fairness. The dirtiest air sits over the poorest neighbourhoods. Black and minority ethnic communities and those on low incomes are far more likely to be exposed to air pollution while contributing the least to it. That is exactly the kind of injustice the Labour party and this Labour Government exist to tackle.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) rightly mentioned, it is also about the NHS. We are the party that built it and protecting it means preventing illness, not just funding treatment. Dirty air contributes to about 30,000 early deaths each year, and it drives asthma, cancer, heart disease and dementia. An NHS fit for the future requires action not just inside hospital walls, but on the air outside their doors. I will certainly take the questions my hon. Friend has raised back to the Department.

This issue is also about pride in place. Clean air underpins better neighbourhoods, safer streets, greener spaces and thriving high streets. Making a visible improvement that people can feel is at the heart of our mission to restore pride in the places that people call home. Let me be clear: the Government recognise both the scale of the challenge and the need for sustained, co-ordinated action. We have made substantial progress in recent years. Air quality in England has improved significantly and emissions of key air pollutants, such as nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter, have reduced and are projected to continue to fall.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West mentioned the DEFRA statistics that came out this week, and they all show long-term improvement. The trajectory is promising, but, as I will go on to say later, we need to do much more. The improvements have been driven by major shifts in the United Kingdom, such as the transition from coal to natural gas to renewables in electricity generation, the tighter vehicle emission standards and improved industrial controls. However, there is much more to do to fully unlock the benefits for public health, the environment and the economy. That is why we are continuing to take action to reduce emissions at source, working closely with local authorities and partners across the health system.

A number of Members have made remarks about targets. In December, we set more ambitious interim targets for fine particulate matter, including a concentration target aligned with the level the EU is required to achieve. Overall, our national performance is broadly comparable with the EU for many pollutants. Areas in England are already meeting levels like those that the EU is aiming for by 2030. We will keep other targets under review, but real world improvements need tangible action. As set out in the environmental improvement plan, we are taking practical action in a range of sectors, and that will deliver real benefits for communities across the country.

A number of Members raised the issue of nitrogen dioxide, which remains a challenge, as we recognise. In 2024, five location zones exceeded the annual mean limit and some local hotspots persist. That said, committed policies to tackle nitrogen dioxide, such as increasing the share of zero-emission cars and vans by 2030 and moving to all new sales being zero emission by 2035, will make a significant difference. We will continue to work closely with our partners in local government to deliver nitrogen dioxide reductions.

My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West raised the matter of domestic burning. We recognise that it is responsible for a significant proportion of fine particulate matter emissions; it is comparable with road transport. We must act to reduce the impact of burning on the health of those in households who burn and their neighbours. However, we must do so in a way that does not put disproportionate costs on households or businesses. The policies consulted on earlier this year focused on reducing emissions from domestic solid fuel burning to ensure cleaner burning in the future, delivering health benefits. We received a significant number of responses, which we are considering, and the Government response will be published later in the year and will set out the next steps. We will continue to review our measures to reduce emissions from that source.

A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), mentioned the importance of communication and engagement with communities. The issue of air pollution is complex and often invisible. The challenge is not just about reducing emissions but about making sure that people understand the risks, know what action to take and feel empowered to act. That is why clear, trusted and accessible communications are so important. We have already taken positive steps, including updating the health advice accompanying the daily air quality index, which provides the public with current pollution levels, five-day forecasts and health advice based on pollution levels.

Through a new air pollution awareness coalition, we are working with health and non-governmental organisation partners to deliver clean and credible messaging on air pollution. The coalition will deliver practical and trusted communications to improve public understanding of air pollution and support action to reduce harm. We have also commissioned a co-design project working with local authority officers and directors of public health to create a new air quality communications toolkit, supporting local authorities to disseminate cleaner, clearer and locally relevant air quality information. New resources are due to be published at the end of the calendar year.

[John McDonnell]

On the issue of messaging, I wonder whether the Minister could take a message back from this debate with regard to Heathrow: perhaps Ministers could read their own report on the health impact of airport expansion. I am particularly concerned about loss of life in my constituency. The Government’s own paper says that vulnerable groups in our area will suffer significant major adverse impacts from the expansion of Heathrow, which means that more of my constituents will die. The scheme will make things worse and therefore the message is: think again.

[Stephen Morgan]

My right hon. Friend will know that the Government have launched a consultation on the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, which includes the requirement that the development consent must meet measures on climate change and air quality. Likewise, the Government have been clear that any expansion proposals must meet strict environmental requirements on air quality. I will certainly take his concerns back to my Department.

In May, we launched the first iteration of a new alert system, allowing people to sign up for notifications when air pollution is forecast or measured to be high in their local community.

A number of Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), have made points about cross-Government working. Air pollution is not an issue any one department can solve in isolation. It requires co-ordinated action across transport, energy, planning, agriculture and health, and we are working closely with colleagues across Government to ensure that our approach is aligned, evidence-led and deliverable. I can assure all Members that we recognise the importance of cross-Government working, working with our devolved Governments and in partnership with local authorities on these matters.

On a clean air Act, the Government have no plans to implement new primary legislation at this stage, but we are committed to ensuring that there is cleaner air for everyone, backed by a strong legal framework that already holds Government to account and drives down harmful pollution. It is also important to recognise that as progress continues, the choices become more complex. Further reductions often require changes that carry wider financial implications for businesses, households and communities. Looking ahead, we will continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders as we consider the best approach to review our air quality strategy.

This is a complex challenge, but one where progress is possible and essential. The Government are working hard to deliver the commitments made in the environmental improvement plan, including through reforming our industrial emissions regulation, reducing emissions from domestic combustion and improving communications on air quality. We will keep progress under review.

Independent Water Commission

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 21st July 2025 Commons Chamber

[Steve Reed]

I welcome the Liberal Democrats’ conversion; when they were in government, and when the Water Minister was indeed a Liberal Democrat, they commissioned a report that found there was no need to change the model of regulation.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

Many people will find it incredible that Cunliffe was not even allowed to look at public ownership. I also say mildly to the Secretary of State that the £100 billion he cites has largely been refuted by independent bodies and economists. Way back in 2014, I raised the example of Northumbrian Water and its use of various complicated devices for tax avoidance. That became endemic within the industry. Can we have a report on the water companies’ role in tax avoidance on a massive scale, so that we can then look at what further action could be taken against them?

[Steve Reed]

I agree with the right hon. Member on one point—that we should be cracking down on tax avoidance; it is always worth looking into that. On his earlier point, I am much more interested in the purity of our water than the purity of our ideology. The figure of £100 billion as the cost of buying out the water companies if any Government wanted to nationalise them was provided by officials in my Department with no external influence on them. This country cannot afford it, and we also cannot afford the worsening of sewage in our waterways during the years it would take to unpick the current model of ownership.

Environmental Protection

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 21st January 2025 Commons Chamber

That the draft Deposit Scheme for Drinks Containers (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2024, which were laid before this House on 25 November 2024, be approved.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Ind)]

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Speaker and the Deputy Speakers have been helpful and generous in allowing us to raise the case, using various parliamentary mechanisms, of Mr Alaa Abd el-Fattah, a British citizen who is still imprisoned in Egypt. I understand that the Foreign Secretary is to visit Egypt either tomorrow or the day after. Have you heard, Madam Deputy Speaker, whether there may be a written or oral statement from the Foreign Office about the Foreign Secretary raising Mr el-Fattah’s case, insisting upon his release or at least seeking a visit to this British citizen in prison? It is a matter of urgency, because his mother is now beyond the 100th day of hunger strike, and I fear for her life.

[Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)]

I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving notice of his point of order. I have had no indication that the Foreign Secretary intends to come to the House to make a statement, but I am sure that the Table Office will be able to advise him on how he might pursue the matter further.

Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill

John McDonnell Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 22nd March 2024 Commons Chamber

[John Spellar]

I absolutely agree. My hon. Friend has been campaigning on this in Bristol and here in Parliament for many years, from the days when we worked in the Whips Office. She makes a very strong point.

The argument that says, “We are killing these animals in order to save them” is a bit like saying, “We created a desert and called it peace.” I really do not buy into that and, importantly, neither do the British public.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

There has in the past been the argument that trophy hunting performs the role of culling for protected species. We have always been able to negate that argument. There are times when there is a strategy for culling certain species, but that is done on the basis of scientific fact rather than inhumane delight at the killing of animals.

[John Spellar]

My right hon. Friend makes an important point. Vastly excessive numbers, such as in certain parts of this country where there are problems with deer, have an impact on woodland and the very proper campaigns by the Government to reforest the country. In many cases professional hunters do the cull, rather than having people firing crossbows at animals, which can then linger for several days. Cecil the lion was mentioned. That case caught the attention and imagination of the British public, and it focused them on this issue and they made it clear that they do not want this practice to continue.

My right hon. Friend is absolutely right, but there is another factor to consider. The elephants taken out are the big leaders of the tribe. That has a significant effect on the gene pool. There is already some evidence that elephants with smaller tusks are surviving and therefore, contrary to natural selection, changes are taking place to their appearance. Also, some hunters do not seem to accept that, although some are solitary, many animals live in social structures. We saw that with the death of Cecil the lion and we see with elephants that the social structure and cohesion of elephant herds are completely disrupted. That applies to other creatures as well. Hunting is to the detriment of gene selection and the development and maintenance of groups of species.

Groceries Supply Code of Practice

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 22nd January 2024 Westminster Hall

[Greg Smith (Buckingham) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Murray, and to follow the powerful speech by the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake). I thank the hon. Member for Neath (Christina Rees) for the powerful way in which she opened today’s debate on behalf of the Petitions Committee. As has been mentioned, the petition has been signed by over 112,000 people. Although I have no formal declaration of interest, I draw the House’s attention, for transparency’s sake, to the fact that my wife’s family are farmers and I chair the all-party parliamentary group on farming.

In fear of replicating some of the arguments that have already been made by other hon. Members, the point I really want to land today is that this is fundamentally about fixing a broken market. It is about ensuring that there can be a functioning market between our farmers and those that buy their produce—be that food processors, retailers or the supermarket giants. It is clear that we have a market that has become broken in many respects, and which needs extra regulation so our farmers have an extra tier of safety. The groceries supply code of practice should be a cornerstone of fair dealing in our agrifood supply chains.

Before I come on to those arguments, it is important to recognise the indisputable impacts of the covid-19 pandemic, coupled with the effects of Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. Those have resulted in a storm of challenges that have tested the resilience of all our farmers and our agrifood supply chain, and posed an existential threat to the very fabric of British agriculture. I see that in my own constituency: 335 square miles of north Buckinghamshire, where 90% of the land is agricultural. I talk to farmers regularly, and I have seen at first-hand the impacts that some of those hard-working farmers—deeply rooted in agriculture—are grappling with. The surge in input costs, not mirrored by a rise in prices from processors and retailers, has pushed many to a tipping point.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

I declare an interest as well, as I am a Riverford customer. The hon. Gentleman mentions the recent impact of external events, but does he recall that the adjudicator’s code was tested before these events, particularly with regard to below-cost selling and marketing in the baking sector, which had its ramifications for farmers as well? Although there were interventions by the ombudsperson at that time, the code was nevertheless found wanting in that instance, as evidenced by the submission made by the Bakers, Food and Allied Workers Union to the EFRA Committee last year.

[Greg Smith]

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I do fundamentally agree with him that this problem predates covid and the war in Ukraine. The market has been broken in some sectors for a very long time; perhaps from even before the right hon. Gentleman’s time in this House, let alone mine. This code was meant to—I highlight the phrase “meant to”—fix some of these problems. However, it has not, and that is why we are in Westminster Hall this afternoon arguing, with a fair deal of consensus across the political divide, that action needs to be taken.

The Promar report of December 2023 attests to the severe cost increases within the horticulture sector: energy costs have soared by 218%, fertiliser by 47%, and labour by 24%. In addition, in 2023, for example, egg production in the poultry sector fell to its lowest level in over nine years, culminating in the evident shortage of eggs on the shelves in 2022 and 2023. Meanwhile these spikes—and this is the important bit—are not being reflected in the prices the tertiary sector is willing to pay. That blatant mismatch has all but erased profits, leaving consumers with stark consequences: a diminished output, shelf shortages and the regrettable loss of over 8,000 agricultural businesses in recent years.

The groceries supply code of practice was instituted with the aim of promoting a functioning market—a fair market. But, as I think we have all agreed this afternoon, its reach falls short, and its grasp lacks the precision needed for effective oversight. As it stands, the GSCOP regulates entities with a turnover exceeding £1 billion. That threshold, as others have said, is disproportionately high, leaving countless suppliers—and by extension, our farmers—unprotected. An adjustment is desperately needed. It is imperative that we prioritise lowering the threshold to, I would suggest, the NFU’s ask of £500 million; although we can always debate the precise numbers around that. That change would increase accountability and ensure more comprehensive coverage.

To secure our agricultural backbone, we must also adamantly support the extension of the GSCOP’s reach, if not for the sake of fairness in our markets and the wellbeing of our invaluable farmers, then for the preservation of our nation’s food security and rural economy. The reach must expand beyond supermarkets to encompass processors, the hospitality sector and manufacturers, which are key players in the supply chain that can exert just as much pressure on our farmers as the largest retail giants. The foundation laid by the Agriculture Act is robust, but it is not the only solution. It is but the ground upon which we must build that fairer market, and we must not falter in doing so.

Draft Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2023

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd May 2023 General Committees

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Can I give the Minister some more time?

[Rebecca Pow]

No—I am fine, honestly.

[John McDonnell]

I have a question anyway.

[Rebecca Pow]

Shall I begin, and then I will be delighted to answer the right hon. Member’s question? I am very grateful to the shadow Minister for her comments, and for being helpful and constructive in allowing me to say a bit more about one or two of the items that I mentioned.

The measure will optimise the regulatory tools available to us for managing and protecting groundwater quality. It will not reduce protections; indeed, it will strengthen them, giving the EA a greater range of tools. That is something that business and industry have come to us about in many different areas. The new tools will be more proportionate to the risk. If matters are deemed to be very low risk, the EA will be more generic in its approach. Other more complex areas will continue to be bespoke, as at present with the mines and so forth. Some responses will therefore be less costly, and potentially more speedily delivered. For example, if the EA has to react to a discharge, it might speed up its response. There are an awful lot of positives in improving the hierarchy of regulatory controls for groundwater. Including extra pollutants such as heat will be of great benefit.

On the mobile plant question, again, this is something that business and industry asked for particularly in the consultation. It is a well-recognised term used for waste activities. It is long established, and a lot of discussion went on with industry about it.

Reference was also made to cemeteries. Exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester described, a new cemetery will not need to get a permit unless there are deemed to be specific reasons for one, in which case the Environment Agency will work with the cemetery operator to ensure that the right conditions are met. A permit might be needed if the cemetery were near a vulnerable aquifer, or if there were a significant number of burials. Say there was a terrible incident, or something like that—no, I will not say that. Also, if a cemetery were in close proximity to vulnerable water users, public water suppliers, private water suppliers or chalk streams, a permit would be considered. I hope that that gives a bit more clarity.

[Rebecca Pow]

We have a well-established process for the regional monitoring of groundwater. Any long-term trends in quality and in what is found in the groundwater are monitored, and we have research programmes looking into the impact at regulated facilities. I hope that helps to clarify that that is an important part of checking that what is in place is doing the right thing. Just out of interest, areas that might not need a permit are clay areas or areas where there are very small numbers of burials. I hope that that has dealt with the death section of this SI.

The shadow Minister asked about the onshore oil and gas industry’s surrendering of permits. An oil and gas operator can send a notification to the Environment Agency stating that it no longer requires a permit for its discharge. An application to surrender the environmental permit will require evidence to demonstrate that there has been no impact on the environment from that discharge at the onshore oil and gas site. This amendment will ensure that there are no ongoing risks to the groundwater environment at the point of decommissioning, or any future likelihood of pollution occurring. I hope that that answers the question.

[John McDonnell]

Before I vote on these things, I do occasionally try to understand them. Paragraph 7.22 of the explanatory notes clarifies the defence of sewerage undertakers who are in breach of permit conditions. That relates to regulation 7(c), which inserts new sub-paragraph (5A) into schedule 22 to the 2016 regulations. New sub-paragraph (5A) states that a sewerage undertaker is not guilty of an offence, first, if it did not do it —understood—and, secondly, if it

“could not reasonably have been expected to prevent the discharge into the sewer or works.”

Understood. But sub-paragraph (5A)(b) states that the undertaker is not in breach if it

“was not bound to receive the discharge into the sewer or works or was bound to receive it there subject to conditions which were not observed”.

That seems to be a huge blanket exemption from the sewerage undertaker’s responsibility for ensuring that discharge is leaked properly and complies with any conditions attached. If the Minister wants to clarify the answer to that question in writing, I am happy for her to do so.

[Rebecca Pow]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that, and he is absolutely right that it is important to understand what we are talking about. This is very detailed. I do have some notes here, but if it suits him, I will put the answer to his question in writing, and I will share it with the shadow Minister as well, because I think it is important to clarify that. We have done so, because we have updated that particular section of the explanatory notes, but I will get back to him on that.

I think that brings me to the end of my points. I thank the shadow Minister for supporting this SI, albeit with some testy questions, and I commend it to the Committee.

Question put and agreed to.

Government Food Strategy

John McDonnell Excerpts

Monday 13th June 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

We have different levers for different parts of the public sector. With core Government Departments, we can give exactly that kind of clear direction; indeed we do, through the agreements they have with organisations such as the Crown Commercial Service, they must pursue our policy. We want to work with the wider public sector on this, including schools and hospitals, but it is fair to say that they too want to support healthy, nutritious, locally produced food.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

Recent surveys have demonstrated food insecurity among the workforce within food production itself. In other words, many of the workers producing the food cannot even afford to pay for it themselves. Recent surveys have also demonstrated increased dependency on food banks among food workers. Although there is a reference in the strategy to improving productivity and pay, working with the industry, that will take time. What emergency measures is the Secretary of State looking at to boost levels of pay so that the workers in food production can afford the food they produce?

[George Eustice]

The Government have already increased the national living wage to £9.50 an hour. We have stipulated that those coming in under the seasonal worker visa scheme must be paid at least £10.10 per hour. The right hon. Gentleman should also note that in food processing generally, because it is quite a tight labour market, we have seen significant increases in wages for the lowest paid in this country.

Food Price Inflation

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 19th May 2022 Commons Chamber

[George Eustice]

My hon. Friend raises an important point. Ukraine is a very large producer and in particular it is the world’s biggest producer of sunflower oil, which is the principal agricultural commodity we were importing from Ukraine. On cereals, Ukraine accounts for around 9% of wheat exports, a lower percentage of global production. In answer to his question, as I said in my statement we have a very high level of food security in this country, with high levels of self-sufficiency in wheat, producing 88% of the wheat we need. Of course, we are also mindful of the impacts on other countries around the world, in particular those in north Africa that import significant quantities from Ukraine.

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

In crises on this scale, Governments of all complexions, Conservative and Labour, have looked at ensuring people have the resources coming in so that they can afford basic foods. At the moment that means inflation-proofing benefits, pensions and wages, but they have also looked at price controls. The Government are looking at price controls for energy. Will they now look at price controls on a basketful of basic food stuffs, so that we do not see what we have seen in recent surveys, which is people actually now on the edge of hunger?

[George Eustice]

I would simply point out that the ferocity of retail competition in this country at the moment means that two of the big companies, Sainsbury’s and Tesco, are in a price match war with Aldi. That will actually do far more to constrain prices in some of those categories—not all, but in some of them—than any regulation the Government can bring in. I would point out that the last time we saw a spike in food prices of this size, with household spending on food exceeding where it is today, was 2008. The Labour party did not choose at that point to introduce price controls.

COP26 and Air Pollution

John McDonnell Excerpts

Tuesday 2nd November 2021 Westminster Hall

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

At the moment, the Prime Minister is still at COP. There will be a major discussion around air pollution and what can be done globally, but we need to ensure we are acting locally as well, so I want to raise the issue of air pollution in London overall, particularly in relation to Heathrow airport.

In the 1970s, when we agreed to the expansion of Heathrow airport through a fourth terminal, it was about jobs. At that point, we had our first inkling of what air pollution could do to the overall environment, as well as to individual health. Since then, we know so much more, which is why the inspector in the fifth terminal inquiry recommended that there should be no further expansion at Heathrow on environmental grounds. Yet the Government still have the potential for a third runway at Heathrow on their policy cards.

The latest information is that Heathrow and the area around it is the second major hotspot for nitrogen dioxide pollution in London. It breaches the legal limits, and has done for many years. To be frank, the roads around Heathrow are above the legal limits, including for PM_2.5 and nitrogen dioxide, and have been for at least the last decade. We now know much more about the impact of that on the health of people in the west London area, with links to respiratory and heart conditions, and, thanks to work in the United States, we know that this is linked to cancer as well. We cannot go to COP and argue with other countries about the need to tackle air pollution while we allow such polluting expansions as the third runway. It is a stark example of the impact on people’s health.

I have raised in this Chamber before the fact that children in my local schools have to hand their puffers into a special box and our teachers in Hillingdon have to be specially trained to deal with respiratory conditions in those children. If we are talking seriously about COP and the impact we are having on our environment, there has to be a time when we draw a line under Heathrow expansion. I believe that this is it.

We have never had a full health impact assessment of the third runway expansion. We have had some health impact analyses, all of which have said that there will be an increase in mortality and morbidity linked to respiratory and other conditions.

[Dr Poulter]

I agree with much of the sentiment of what the right hon. Gentleman says. He and I may disagree about some of the issues and merits or demerits of the recent Budget, but I am sure we will agree that the cut in air passenger duty for short haul flights was a slight disappointment. Does he agree with me that that is something that the Chancellor might want to reconsider?

[John McDonnell]

I made that point in the debate on the Budget, and I do not want to be repetitious. The issue for me is that any tax relief or tax reduction that either promotes further emissions or supports those polluting our environment is clearly contrary to Government policy, as far as I can see. On that basis, I hope that, as a result of COP, in the next few weeks or perhaps months the Government will firmly come down as opposed to further Heathrow expansion.

[Sir Gary Streeter (in the Chair)]

I call Peter Dowd, who has until 5.10 pm.

Oral Answers to Questions

John McDonnell Excerpts

Thursday 4th March 2021 Commons Chamber

The hon. Member for City of Chester, representing the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—

[John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)]

If the Electoral Commission will investigate the potential merits of strengthening regulations on third-party campaigners.

[Christian Matheson (City of Chester)]

Third party campaigners are a vital part of a healthy democracy and play a significant role in providing voters with information, but it is important that their spending and funding are transparent. The Electoral Commission continues to support the introduction of imprint requirements for digital campaign material and changes that would strengthen its ability to access information quickly about who has placed campaign material online. These changes would help provide transparency for voters and ensure that third party campaigners and others complied with the political finance laws established by Parliament--.

[John McDonnell [V]]

May I ask my hon. Friend to convey to the Electoral Commission, on behalf of a number of us in the House, the need for an urgent, more serious and in-depth inquiry into third party campaigning, particularly in respect of its role in the last general election? Will he refer the Electoral Commission to the report by openDemocracy that exposed groups such as Capitalist Worker and Campaign Against Corbynism, and the roles of Thomas Borwick, the deputy chairman of the Cities of London and Westminster Conservative Association, and Jennifer Powers, a former Conservative intern, who spent large sums on a social media advertising campaign smearing my right hon. Friend the Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) without declaring the source of their funds? This warrants a full inquiry and reform.

[Christian Matheson]

The Commission is aware of occasions and allegations in the past where people who might not have been expected to have a certain amount of resource were suddenly able to spend that resource. It assures me that it monitors the activity of non-party campaigners and where there is evidence that the law has not been followed, it will consider the matter, in line with its enforcement policy. I assure my right hon. Friend that I will pass on that message to the Commission.