Daniel Zeichner
MP for Cambridge · Labour · United Kingdom
“I recall, as a shadow Minister, visiting a major institution in the country and sending the management into panic when I asked them where the bus stop was to get back to the station.”
“My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the location of bus stops. I am so frustrated when I have taken the train to Cambridge, arrive at the station, see the bus, but have to walk 200 yards around the platform, come out of the station and walk 200 yards back to the bus stop, to find the bus has gone.”
“Devolution and local government reorganisation are different things. To be honest, they should probably be considered separately, but they have become so interlinked and intertwined in this debate that it is impossible to do so. If we are to have a stronger devolution settlement, it is right to spend more time getting it right.”
“I commend the Secretary of State and his team for their determination and resolve in the transfer to renewables. In the extraordinary and unprecedented weather that we are having at the moment I can assure the House that some shade would be really welcome in parts of the east of England.”
“I commend all the hard work that has gone into both the road map and the profitability review by the civil servants, the ministerial team and so many people across the sector, including Baroness Batters.”
“On that point about speculative building, I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is probably not a fan of big, bold projects of this kind, but does he agree that there is a very good example just down the road in Cambridge?”
The complete record
Every one of 5,991 lines we hold for Daniel Zeichner, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 28 of 120.
“Restoring these key marine ecosystems could lock up billions of tonnes of carbon each year; that is 5% of the savings needed globally. A sustained programme of ocean renewal must be part of any plan to tackle the climate emergency.”
“I thank my hon. Friend; he makes an important point. Certainly there are parts of the country around the coast where fishers complain that their basic problem is a lack of fish, but I do not agree with my hon. Friend that it is not possible to buy fish anywhere around our coast. There are places where the fish continue to be fished and fishers continue to thrive. What we want, of course, is to ensure that that continues to be the case. Healthy seabeds are home to many species and drive richer marine ecosystems, but sadly, marine protected areas currently fail to protect them adequately. We need to see a broader programme of ocean renewal. Globally, saltmarsh and seagrass beds alone can store up to 450 million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year. That is almost half the emissions of the entire global transport industry.”
“We are deeply concerned that the SI will fail to deliver any meaningful reductions in pollution for those who live near the sources of pollution, such as main roads in our cities across England, because the Government will assess compliance with the population exposure reduction target by using only urban or suburban background sites where PM 2.5 “is not significantly influenced by a source or sources of pollution in close proximity to the site”. Communities living near sources of pollution tend to be more deprived, from minority ethnic backgrounds, and less able to mitigate the health impacts of air pollution. This SI will therefore fail to protect the most vulnerable. We will oppose it because it does not grasp the seriousness of the situation facing us.”
“It is therefore a matter of regret that the Government, thorough this SI, have essentially ignored the wishes of the people and the businesses that responded to the consultation. Will the Minister explain why the target is less ambitious than that sought by 90% of the responses to the Government’s consultation? The Government’s proposals to improve monitoring capacity are not comprehensive enough to deliver a full picture of air pollution across the country or ensure that we meet these unambitious targets. For example, by 2028 the whole of London will be legally required to have only 15 monitors to assess compliance with the targets. That really is not enough.”
“I am afraid that we are falling behind internationally. The USA’s legal target for PM 2.5 has been stronger than the UK’s since 2012, having been set at 12 micrograms per cubic metre, and the US Environmental Protection Agency is considering lowering that further to between 8 and 10 micrograms per cubic metre. In Europe, the EU Commission proposed last October a target reduction of PM 2.5 to 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030. A study by Imperial College London shows that an annual mean concentration of 10 micrograms per cubic metre can be achieved across 99% of the country by 2030 using policies already proposed by the Government, coupled with those set out in the Climate Change Committee’s sixth carbon budget, and a similar conclusion was reached in DEFRA’s clean air strategy in 2019.”
“An increasing body of evidence has linked air pollution to the causation and worsening of existing respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, as well as a likely link to cognitive decline and dementia risk. This is a major public health crisis. Despite limited action to reduce pollution levels, there is still so much more that must be done at a national level to reduce the impact on our health and on our economy. The proposed targets for 2040 that we are considering can hardly be considered world-leading or ambitious. The proposed target for the annual mean concentration of air pollution—10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040—is based on the World Health Organisation’s air quality guidelines, which were published as long ago as 2005 and surpassed in 2021 by a new guideline level of 5 micrograms per cubic metre.”
“We are getting there, aren’t we, Mr Stringer? It is probably time to come up for air, and this measure is about air. A key element of preserving our environment is clean air. It is vital that we remember that our ecosystems are damaged by toxic air and air pollution, as are our waterways and the natural habitats of our wildlife. Of course there is an impact on human life—indeed, toxic air contributes to the deaths of many people who we represent in this House—so it is a matter of deep regret that the Minister has missed this golden opportunity to show leadership to clean our air and get things done. Air pollution has been recognised by the UK Government to be the single largest environmental risk to public health, and we agree.”
“It was clear from the response to her remarks that the industry is crying out for change and action in equal measure. This statutory instrument, like all the others—we go right back to where we started—I am afraid suffers from the crucial lack of ambition that makes the targets too easily achievable, frankly. That is a fault not just of the SIs we are debating, but of the Government’s targets in general.”
“The Office for Environmental Protection and environmental NGOs have recommended the Government develop a target in that area that addresses resource use and the associated environmental impacts of consumption, including embodied carbon. Not setting a target for resource use, or for reducing the UK’s carbon footprint, means we will just carry on exploiting natural resources and exporting waste abroad, such as plastic for recycling, which can be an environmentally damaging substitute for meaningful progress towards a circular economy. Will the Minister tell us why no target has been introduced and what she is going to do about it? My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West (Ruth Jones), the shadow Minister for waste, attended the Foodservice Packaging Association environment seminar last Thursday.”
“With Government modelling suggesting that 91.9% of waste is either readily or potentially recyclable—or potentially substitutable to a material that can be recycled—the 50% target falls short of both what is necessary and achievable. Finally, we agree with many stakeholders, such as the Wildlife and Countryside Link, who want to see a target to reduce resource consumption. A target for residual waste alone does not account for the extractive effects of economic activity on the natural environment, and will not prevent them increasing. The Government had been expected to introduce a resource productivity target as part of the Environment Act target-setting process. They have stated that more time is needed to develop the evidence base and assess policies.”
“That means that half of the targeted fall in residual waste is estimated to have been achieved by 2028, with the next 14 years seeing the remaining 25% fall from 2019 levels. That moderate fall over more than a decade can be achieved with minimal measures, a licence for low- ambition waste reduction policies throughout the 2030s. This should be set against the Office for Environmental Protection’s recent assessment of the Government’s progress in implementing the environmental improvement plan, which reports that waste headline indicators have actually deteriorated since 2018. The need for a high-ambition approach to drive meaningful progress towards waste reduction has never been greater.”
“So we get to waste, and the Opposition have three main areas of concern on this SI. First, the waste reduction target omits the majority of waste in England. The 50% reduction target excludes major mineral waste created from construction, demolition and excavation activities. That is a significant oversight, as that type of waste, while easier to handle than other waste streams, accounts for the majority of waste produced in England and carries environmental costs. The construction industry uses more resources than any other sector in the UK, the extraction of which results in high carbon and environmental impacts—and yet we have heard little about that from the Minister today. Secondly, the lack of ambition is an area of concern. Government modelling shows a rapid reduction in residual waste of 25% expected between 2024 and 2028.”
“To return to the beginning, the Minister extols the Government’s progress, but how does she square that with the Office for Environmental Protection’s statement: “We assessed 23 environmental targets and found none where Government’s progress was demonstrably on track”?”
“As we transform and improve our farming systems to address wider environmental and health challenges, I am in no doubt that moving away from antibiotic use will play a key role in improving and safeguarding our health as well as the health of animals stewarded by farmers and vets.”
“I am grateful to the National Office of Animal Health, which issued livestock vaccination guidelines last May to help vets and farmers to improve resilience, for its advice. Will the Minister tell us what support the Department is giving to vaccine development? In conclusion, this is a short debate on a subject that merits much more detailed discussion. Overuse of antibiotics in general, and certainly in farming in the past, has clearly put us at risk from rising antimicrobial resistance. The falling use of antibiotics indicates that we are moving in the right direction, but there is more to do.”
“Let me ask the Minister about the Government’s antimicrobial resistance national action plan in which it was stated, as we have already heard, that the UK would implement legislation along lines similar to those being adopted by the European Union. Is that still the plan? If so, when? Why are we yet again falling behind the EU? This is the second time in this Chamber today that the Minister will have to explain why the Government have relegated the UK to the slow lane. What assessment has been made of the consequences for British farmers who export to the EU? What can the Minister tell us about ensuring in trade deals that we do not risk importing food produced to lower standards on antibiotic usage? A key to reducing the use of antibiotics is, of course, vaccination.”
“For example, the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics advises that 75% of antibiotics used in UK farms are for group treatments, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall pointed out. That stands in contrast to other countries that manage to use antibiotics only to treat individual sick animals. Sweden and Finland are cited as examples. Although exact comparisons are difficult, we should always aspire to the highest standards here. We also heard in the introduction that some farms still use antibiotics in a routine way when others do not. The fear is that in some cases that is compensating for poor husbandry. Again, we should aim higher.”
“Farmers now have open conversations with their peers on the importance of addressing AMR, and the steps which can be taken in their respective areas.” That reference to industry leadership and building relationships across all stakeholders is critical, as it is for so many areas in the food and farming sectors. There are many tensions within our food system today, some of which are understandably a result of the need to maximise output to feed a growing global population. As we have rightly better understood the consequences, we are now trying to find a balance between that output and the environmental, health and animal welfare issues that are so important. Although progress has been made, we still face major challenges.”
“Since 2014, annual sales of veterinary antibiotics in the UK have reduced by 55%, with the Responsible Use of Medicines in Agriculture Alliance—RUMA—playing an important role. That achievement was commended by the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation in a report published last year, which said: “The United Kingdom’s example demonstrates that building trusted relationships across all stakeholders, including between farmers, vets, and government, can lead to sustained behaviour change, and embed practices of responsible use across farming sectors. Industry leadership on the issue has empowered producers to take action.”
“I suspect that many of us are familiar with the 2014 review, chaired by Jim O’Neill, which warned that annual deaths due to antimicrobial resistance could rise to 10 million by 2050. Consequently, it comes as no surprise that the World Health Organisation deems antibiotic resistance to be one of the biggest threats to global health, food security and development. I do not think anyone is under any illusion about the scale of the problem that we face, its risk to human health and how important it is that we reduce our use of antibiotics. In recent years, we have rightly seen considerable efforts made to reduce the use of unnecessary antibiotics in both humans and animals.”
“I am grateful for excellent briefings from a wide range of organisations, including the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology, the Alliance to Save Our Antibiotics, the British Veterinary Association, the National Farmers Union, the National Office of Animal Health, MSD Animal Health, World Animal Protection and Compassion in World Farming, among others. There is considerable interest and expertise. There is no doubt about it: antimicrobial resistance is a challenge that affects the whole world, with—as we have heard—an estimated 4.95 million people losing their lives because of an antibiotic-resistant infection in 2019. According to research published in The Lancet last November, 1.27 million of those deaths were attributed to the antibiotic resistance of the infection.”
“It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Bone. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr Sharma) on securing the debate and on his comprehensive introduction. No one wants antibiotics to be used when they are not necessary, whether in animals or humans, and he made his case powerfully. As I represent Cambridge, it is not surprising that I have been briefed on a number of occasions by clinicians and scientists about the risks of antimicrobial resistance. The issue was brought to my attention soon after I was elected in 2015, long before I took on responsibilities relating to farmed animal health, so I have taken a close interest.”
“I think the Minister will agree that I have been uncharacteristically generous to him this afternoon. Let me press him on the point of group usage. Is that something that he thinks we should continue, or are there plans to change that?”
“We want ELMs to work, but as it stands, the scheme risks going the way of those magnificent elm trees that have so suffered across the English countryside over the past 40 years. The Minister has admitted that the uptake of sustainable farming incentives is low—indeed, the National Farmers Union rightly described last week’s announcement as “too little, too late”. Will the Minister come clean and tell the House how many farm businesses he will allow to go to the wall because of this failing agricultural transition process? Will he sit down with us and work out a simpler way forward that keep farmers farming and secures the environmental goals we all share?”
“It makes it much more difficult for legitimate operators working in the waste sector, and, at the same time, undermines investment, jobs and growth. As on so many other issues, it is time for DEFRA in particular, and the Government in general, to get a grip.”
“Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist), refer to Treasury minutes from December 2022 confirming that the Government largely agree with that recommendation and highlighting that, as part of their review into landfill tax, the structure of the tax will be considered. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed that this is the case. To conclude, the Government need to do much more to get a grip on waste crime, which is endemic, and ensure that the tax system does not lose revenue to criminality and deception. At a time when working people are facing the highest tax burden in 70 years, the Government need urgently to close the tax gap and reclaim the missing revenues owed to the Exchequer by those engaged in landfill tax fraud. Waste crime lays waste to the environment and damages people’s lives.”
“According to findings from the National Audit Office in 2022, the most common action taken is to issue advice and guidance. I rather share my right hon. Friend’s view about how likely that would be to be effective. There was advice and guidance in 52% of cases, and warning letters to 37%—that is hardly likely to be a major deterrent to some of the criminal operations that we have been hearing about. It is important that all relevant Government agencies work together to develop a proper plan for making enforcement more effective. The Committee recommended that DEFRA work with the Treasury and HMRC to ensure that the ongoing review of landfill tax “takes account of the incentives that the tax as currently designed creates to commit waste crime.” We heard a number of Members, including my hon.”
“The Committee’s report went on to outline that, over recent years, the landfill tax regime has “increased the incentive to commit waste crime”— that is a strong charge— “with HMRC being too slow to prosecute offenders.” That highlights the lack of a deterrence posed by the current sanctions regime and rate of prosecution. As confirmed by the Committee and in response to written questions to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham, it is extraordinary that there has still not been a single successful prosecution into landfill tax fraud. We have heard about the huge, staggering cost to the public purse of Operation Nosedive. We have heard also about the fact that sanctions are not nearly punitive enough to be a real deterrent against future offending.”
“The NAO reported that 60 organised crime groups monitored by the JUWC have extensive involvement in other types of crime, with 70% involved in specialist money laundering. We have heard that issue raised here, particularly by my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham. Given the scale of the tax evasion, it would be helpful if the Government could tell us about the actions being taken to address the prevalence of money laundering, and publish specific revenue recovery figures and detail the number of investigations being undertaken. Frankly, the Government need to get a grip on this. Last year, as my right hon. Friend quoted, a Public Accounts Committee report concluded that the regulatory regime for waste crime is considered to be close to decriminalisation, with fines seen as a mere business expense for waste criminals.”
“So to give us a sense of the real scale of the problem, will the Minister indicate whether the Government have any plans to include other categories of tax fraud into future estimations of the landfill tax gap? On that £125 million tax gap identified in 2020-21, will the Minister tell the House exactly how much of the due tax has been recovered by HMRC and what resources have been allocated specifically for its recovery? We heard earlier about the joint unit for waste crime, which brings together law enforcement agencies, environmental regulators, HMRC and the National Crime Agency to tackle waste crime, but the National Audit Office has suggested that the Government still do not have the data they require to assess the true scale of waste crime.”
“According to HMRC’s most recent annual estimate of the tax gap, the gap between landfill tax due in the tax year 2020-2021 and the revenue collected in that same year is a staggering £125 million; that is a gap of 17.1%; which is much higher than the overall tax gap for this year. According to HMRC’s own report, the uncertainty rating for the landfill tax gap estimate is “high”. Again, as has been said, it is therefore reasonable to conclude that the actual tax gap is even greater; other things could have been included, for example, fly tipping. That is reported by local authorities to have risen year on year to more than 1.13 million incidents reported in 2020-21, which is an increase of 16% from the 2019-20 figure, according to the ONS.”
“Illegal methods of evasion include the misdescription of waste; the operation of illegal waste sites; the burning and burying of waste; fly-tipping; illegal exports; offences relating to producer responsibility obligations; and abuse of exemptions to the requirements for waste permits, to name just a few. In response to a Treasury call for evidence last year, the misclassification of waste was described by the Chartered Institution of Wastes Management as “an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen.” As we have heard, it also said that the differential between the lower and standard rate of tax was a “massive incentive to misclassify” waste.”
“I want briefly to quote a traumatic account referred to by the Environment Agency’s chief executive last year from an anonymous victim: “Last Wednesday, they invaded our home. A peaceful night shattered by the roar of engines and the glare of headlights. I opened the front door and was confronted by a large group of men who declared they now lived here. We were harassed. Our safe was smashed. Our keys were stolen, and a new lock was put on the gate, trapping us. They dumped piles of waste and trash. We were threatened: ‘I’ll smash your face in.’ By midday they were gone, leaving behind tonnes of rubbish, boasting it would cost £50,000 to remove.” That shocking account from a victim demonstrates not only how unpleasant these people are, but the lengths that some criminals will resort to.”
“According to the Office for National Statistics, although this tax has had a positive effect of a 65% reduction in recorded waste reaching landfill sites—I emphasise “recorded”—between 1997 and 2014, it is clear that the regulatory framework needed to protect those positive environmental objectives has been piecemeal, slow and unable to react to the changing circumstances. In October 2021, the Environment Agency estimated that waste crime costs the English economy more than £900 million a year alone, with its 2021 national waste crime survey describing waste crime in England as endemic. As we have heard, this crime is also associated with other criminal acts, including offences against persons.”
“Back in 1996, when I was a councillor, landfill tax was much talked about as an innovative policy instrument that aimed to divert waste away from landfill and towards more environmentally friendly management options, including recycling, reuse and recovery, but specific issues of concern were identified right from the beginning, including the potential cost to local authorities, the tax’s impact on fly-tipping and the whole issue of perverse unintended consequences. Over my seven years in the House, I have been struck by our complete failure to follow through with enforcement on the legislation we pass, which is a source of endless frustration to us and, more importantly, to our constituents. Clearly, the issues we are discussing today are not a new phenomenon.”
“I suspect there is considerable agreement on both sides of the Chamber on these issues, and I am sure all Members will be disappointed to hear that I am duty bound to reprise some of the arguments that have already been made. I gently say to Conservative Members that, although it is not in my remit to defend the Environment Agency, there will inevitably be consequences to cutting the agency’s funding by half over a decade. Although it is not just a question of resource, that might have played a part. Landfill tax fraud is a blight on communities across the country. It causes lasting damage to the environment and, of course, deprives the Exchequer of revenue.”
“I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr Davis). They make a formidable partnership, and I suspect they have been talking about this subject for quite a long time. My right hon. Friend described himself as an anorak, but I would say he is very persistent and determined. He should keep on going. We have had well-informed and passionate contributions from everyone who has spoken in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Liz Twist) outlined the problems that her constituents have faced over many years through the unfortunately named Operation Nosedive, and I say to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Aaron Bell) that the shadow DEFRA team is well aware of the dismal saga of Walleys Quarry.”
“It’s an absolute travesty of fairness and common sense.” She also said: “The few extra tonnes of whitefish in the Norwegian zone won't come close to offsetting the loss in Svalbard due to the reduced TAC. Defra knows this, and yet it simply doesn’t seem to care about the English fleet.” That was borne out at the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs a couple of weeks ago, when the Secretary of State appeared to be unaware of the problems facing the English distant fleet. So perhaps the Minister can explain today why the English distant fleet has fared so badly, and what he plans to do about it.”
“The statement has been welcomed by the Scottish Government and fishing sector, but can the Minister explain how much of the increase in catch will be available to the hard-hit English fishing sector? What will be the overall impact on jobs and economic opportunities in our English North sea fishing ports and surrounding communities? The Minister mentioned the distant fleet. Jane Sandell, the chief executive officer of UK Fisheries Ltd, which is based in Humberside and operates in distant Arctic waters, did not react with any positivity about this outcome. She called it “yet another body blow for fishers in the North East of England. While the government is gloating over its ‘success’ in the Norway talks, we are having to make skilled people redundant in the Humber region.”
“In general, we will, of course, want to see the detail of the outcome and understand the potential environmental impact, but not everyone in the industry is quite as happy as the Minister says. Therein lies a fundamental problem that we have identified in the new architecture, including in the latest version of the joint fisheries statement, something also recently published and not discussed in this House. Although the Minister speaks for the UK Government, the devolved Governments of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland also play an important role in fisheries management, so we ask again: who speaks for England? Labour has consistently pointed out that no one fights the corner for English fishing in these negotiations.”
“I remind the Minister of the continuing anguish that is being caused to many in the inland fleet at the hands of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency; the Minister really needs to work with colleagues to get a grip on that. On the recent negotiations, it is clear that many industry players have welcomed the outcomes of the various sets of talks, and that is positive, but may I ask the Minister about the status of the Faroe talks? What efforts were made to ensure that the deals made with the EU and other coastal states included a commitment to keep Russia’s fleet out of their waters? Although we welcome the promise to stop the fishing of sand eels in our waters, will the Minister tell us when that will take effect and whether we have secured commitments from others during the negotiations?”
“I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney (Peter Aldous) on securing the urgent question. I share the hon. Gentleman’s frustration that it took an urgent question to hear about the negotiations. I hear what the Minister said about the timeframes, but there was a convention under which each year the House had a proper discussion about the outcome of the negotiations. I hope the Minister will promise today to return to that convention so that we can have proper and full discussions. I pay tribute to the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and other charities, as well as the fishers, who last week intervened so effectively to save human life in the channel.”
“Why, when type 2 diabetes is rising faster in children and young adults in Britain than anywhere else in the world, has implementation been delayed until 2025? I doubt we will get any answers today. I wish the Minister and his colleagues a merry Christmas and a happy new year, but my sense is that on the cost of food—a very real issue facing every family in the country this Christmas—this Government have nothing to say, and frankly they show little interest. As always, their message is, “Leave it to the market; it is nothing to do with us. You’re on your own.” For too many this Christmas, that is exactly how it will feel.”
“What discussions has he had with Department for Education colleagues on the impact on children of real cuts in the nutritional value of school meals? Caterers try to provide meals, and yet they are handed just a few pence to make up the loss when costs soar. What are the health consequences of the changing buying patterns, as people move to cheaper options? What discussions has the Minister had with colleagues at the Department of Health and Social Care; or has he succumbed to his Secretary of State’s clear intention to dump any plans to tackle the obesity crisis that Henry Dimbleby highlighted? There are plans to ban adverts for foods that are high in saturated fat, salt and sugar before 9 o’clock.”
“Although we all accept that there are big cost pressures, a more active Government would be using their convening power to make a difference. Will the Minister tell us how often he meets the major players in the industry? What are they telling him? What is he telling them? Is it down to just the big retailers to decide the nation’s food policy, or does anyone else get a say? Perhaps he can tell us how often the Food and Drink Sector Council meets and what it has achieved to tackle this crisis. Its website says that it last met in February, although I understand there was a more recent meeting. What did the Minister get from it? Can he tell us? What assessment have the Minister and his colleagues made of the impact of the rising cost of food?”
“Growers are not planting, the sow herd is smaller and poultry farmers are not restocking. Are the Government concerned? Do they have a view? Can he even tell us whether we are more or less secure than we were a year ago? I am grateful to the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds for pointing out in its briefing for this debate that the Government said the biggest medium to long-term risk to the UK’s domestic production “comes from climate change and other environmental pressures like soil degradation, water quality and biodiversity.” What have the Government done to address that challenge, other than miss their own so-called legally binding date to publish the targets promised under the Environment Act 2021? Has there been any progress on the Government’s half-hearted food strategy from a few months ago?”
“Friend the Member for Swansea West will recall, she made clear it to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee last week that she does not think it is the role of the Government to hand out free food or make price interventions. That prompts this question: if it is not for the Government to intervene when people go hungry, then whose role is it? Ministers may be surprised to find that many people in this country do think that the Government have a role—just not this Government. My big question for the Minister is: what does he think his role is as the Food Minister? What is he for? It is almost exactly a year on from the Government sneaking out the food security review under the Agriculture Act 2020. Can he tell us what the situation is today? Farmers tell me that we are less food secure than we were a year ago.”
“The excellent and widely reported research by Sustain last week shows just how fine the margins are for many producers, and how, when they are locked into fixed-term contracts, they are blown away by sudden and dramatic rises in costs. For probably the third or fourth time in these debates, I ask the Minister for an update on the dairy code, the pork code and the fate of the Grocery Code Adjudicator. I do not expect any answers. I could not help smiling at the comments by Minette Batters of the National Farmers Union at the weekend, when she told The Times that the Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Suffolk Coastal (Dr Coffey), was “asleep at the wheel”. I thought that was a bit unfair; the Secretary of State does not even think she should be at the wheel. As my hon.”
“Friends the Members for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport (Luke Pollard), for Leeds East (Richard Burgon) and for Swansea West (Geraint Davies). I am not going to repeat the points they made because time is short. I will go straight to a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton and Devonport, who observed the effect of food prices on primary producers. We have seen with rising egg prices that the issue has been well rehearsed but not resolved. Consumers pay more but producers do not cover their costs, so they stop producing, leading retailers to turn to lower standard imports.”
“It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Gray. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Ian Byrne) on securing this timely debate. He is a hugely passionate and determined campaigner on this issue who speaks up for people across the country who are left hungry as prices soar. It is striking that, with one honourable exception—the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Dr Poulter)—the Government Benches are empty, while the Opposition Benches are overflowing with Members who have spoken passionately in this debate. I have been impressed by the contributions from my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne), my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), and my hon.”