Having long held an interest in sustainability, The Greenstreams Project was set up in 2009 with the help of a dedicated, core group of campaigners. The purpose of Greenstreams was to clean up the rivers around Huddersfield, with a focus on the area from the source of the River Colne in the Pennines to its confluence with the River Calder at Cooper Bridge. The project also covered the canal systems running through, and around, Huddersfield.
With a history of providing power to the mills and serving as a conduit for the disposal of industrial waste, the water quality had become unsustainable for aquatic life. Greenstreams sought to get local communities involved in the care of the local environment and the river scene, partnering with local companies and most importantly the next generation, in the form of Huddersfield school children. We organised conferences to spread news between local council and local environmental groups and took school groups on class visits to explore the ecosystems of the local rivers and streams. We wanted to show the early years children that if they picked up a stone in the shallow parts of the river that there would be something wriggly underneath, which would serve as food for the trout that swam in the rivers and streams, which would in turn provide food for the birds that preyed on the fish in the river. It served as an important opportunity to teach the next generation about the circle of life and about nature, and how lovely a stream and river could be. Greenstreams was a great experiment, and I’m proud to say that it continues, in a form, today.
Greenstreams fostered a personal interest in the whole river and canal network in the United Kingdom and I have used my position as an MP to point out in Parliament, and elsewhere, over the last seven years, just how endangered and fragile some of our aquatic environments are. One example being the chalk streams in Kent and Hampshire. The chalk acts as a super filter to produce alkaline water that is calcium rich and provides a unique environment. If we are going to successfully rewild these iconic environments, we need to look very carefully at the way in which the streams flow, and the quality of the water. Critically we need to hold those to account who choose to wantonly pollute these precious ecosystems.
I’ve been involved in campaigns with high profile sustainability campaigners on all types of pollutants, but in the case of George Monbiot – focusing on agriculture waste and its effect on the rivers and the streams of the UK. Ecosystems are being endangered by farmers throwing manure and other farm waste into the nearest stream. In support of Monbiot’s campaign, I asked senior ministers in Defra, and elsewhere, why there were so few prosecutions against farmers who dispose of farm waste into the surrounding rivers and streams.
Of course, agricultural waste is only part of the picture, it’s well publicised that we have a huge problem with human waste being pumped into the sea in the UK. Again, many discussions have taken place in Parliament examining the fact that privatised water companies such as Southern Water and Yorkshire Water have increasingly been discharging human sewage directly into the sea, particularly at times of very heavy rain. Our rivers and streams are being polluted in equal amounts. In 2023 Thames Water was fined for pumping 72 billion litres of sewage into the Thames over the course of three years, pollution that flows onwards to further contaminate our seas and oceans.
In addition to human and farm waste, other poisonous pollutants such as tyre wear pollutants from vehicles and general rubbish, particularly plastic, are finding their way into our waters, and infecting the fish we eat. These collective pollutants are having strange side effects on aquatic life. Indeed, the Environment Agency published a report on the feminisation of male fish in English rivers, because of exposure to oestrogenic substances found in sewage. Clearly this is unsustainable and must continue to be challenged.
Furthermore, my experience with the Greenstreams Project has led me to champion the clean-up of the Thames by setting up the Westminster Commission on the River Thames Renaissance. You can find out more about this in my next blog post.
In my article Saving Lives with Seatbelts – with a Little Help from Charles and Diana | Barry Sheerman, I detail the car accident that started my lifelong ambition to reduce death and serious accidents in road crashes, an accident that could have had a very different ending had my young family not been wearing seatbelts. Subsequently, the article details one of my proudest moments as an MP – succeeding in making the compulsory wearing of seatbelts law in 1981, a moment that would not have been possible without the backing of a determined coalition of campaigners.
Following this successful seatbelt legislation our triumphant group realised we had huge potential to secure even greater results in Parliament and elsewhere. Through our joint ambition to further reduce unnecessary deaths and serious injuries in road crashes, we agreed to keep the group together and named it the Safety in Transport Action Group (STAG). After only a few days we felt the group deserved a name with more clout and The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) was born, with Jeanne Breen as our first Chief Executive.
PACTS was motivated to base our campaigns and recommendations on evidence-based research. As a result, the group was well received by ministers, such as Sir Peter Bottomley MP, Parliamentarians and safety experts from the beginning, and steadily grew in influence to become the most respected campaigning organisation on road safety in the UK.
As a powerful advocate for a range of safety measures, and according to our commitment to evidence-based policy, PACTS set up three different working parties, on: road environment, road user behaviour, and vehicle design. The working parties would come up with the latest research, but we also looked to gain experience from countries similar to ours, that seemed to be making significant strides in safety on the roads, such as The Netherlands and Sweden. The ambition, first and foremost, was to have a powerful and cohesive group in the UK. We welcomed new members, all of whom paid membership fees which provided vital funds for PACTS’ work. Individuals and organisations joined us on the basis that they all paid a similar fee as we wanted the group to have one voice, without a majority influence, so that no one member dominated funding in order to persuade us to take any particular line of action. Over the years the group grew in stature and influence and is still regularly consulted by the Department of Transport and Department of Health. PACTS continues to be well respected today and is consulted by governments of all parties, influencing government policy but also educating elected politicians and members of the House of Lords on latest ideas, trends and research findings.
Having achieved our goal of gaining serious credibility at home, we found that, as the UK had joined the EU, much of the regulation of transportation in our country was now powerfully influenced by the European Parliament. The next logical step was to create a common entity with other European countries, so we started a new group based in Brussels, called the European Transport Safety Council (ETSC) in 1993. The leading countries on the subject, at the time, along with the UK, were The Netherlands, Germany, and Sweden, but the group rapidly expanded in membership across the European Union members.
In many ways ETSC was very easy to set up because the European Parliament was willing to oblige the creation of such a body, and subsequently ETSC became as influential in Europe as PACTS was in Britain, bringing together huge amounts of knowledge from Europe and the rest of the world and influencing the legislation on everything from e-scooters, speed reduction, and tackling alcohol-related road deaths, to the standards of car design.
As we became increasingly passionate about the role of influencing the saving of life through transport safety, I was approached by the World Bank to join a new initiative to tackle road safety globally. This organisation was to be called the Global Road Safety Partnership (GRSP). GRSP was set up in 1999 so that nations could share information, innovation, and bring scientists, researchers and politicians together across the world to reduce unnecessary deaths on the road. I flew to New York to attend the inaugural meeting and shortly after was asked to chair GRSP, which I did for a number of years. In the months before I took over as Chair, there seemed to be a degree of confusion and lack of leadership. When I became Chair, I decided that we must appoint a highly knowledgeable Chief Executive, supported by a highly qualified researcher/administrator. Once this was actioned, I was determined to bring in many of the world’s experts on road safety who had been critical of the way GRSP tackled the huge task of making a difference in the high casualty rates, on the road, worldwide.
Prior to my becoming Chair a group of these experts had issued a round robin calling for a much clearer evidence-based approach to international road safety and for the GRSP to have more focus and capacity to affect change. In response all the signatories were invited to become an advisory committee to GRSP, giving the organisation greater authenticity and respect.
GRSP was a promising coalition and we met regularly. However, its greatest shortcoming was that it had to raise funds to run its operation out of the International Red Cross in Geneva, funds that had to come from membership fees. Annual membership was 20,000 US Dollars, with the result that many of the not-for-profit groups, the campaigning groups, and even the research institutions were reluctant to join. Steadily GRSP became very reliant on big business. Only representatives of global companies such as British Petroleum (BP), Shell (another oil company), the alcohol industry, and leading car manufacturers such as Mercedes-Benz, could afford the high cost of participation, causing an inevitable shift in membership away from academics and experts in road safety.
Whilst there were some good people involved, it became increasingly clear to me that I was chairing a committee which comprised more of senior executives interested in corporate affairs than genuinely knowledgeable, experienced road safety researchers or campaigners.
In time, I felt I’d given the GRSP as much time and energy as I was able to give and resigned as Chair. Although I was Chairman of PACTS and a leading member of the ETSC, none of my organisations were able to contribute $20,000 a year in membership. Thus, I parted company with GRSP and hoped it would thrive without my participation. My interest in international road safety continued partly through the ETSC but also with cooperation with researchers, often in universities, working on various aspects of road deaths and serious injuries globally, and how to reduce them.
In 2001 an old friend of mine, David Ward, who was involved with the F1 racing group, set up an independent safety foundation called The FIA Foundation, promoting safe and sustainable transport. David Ward had worked with me in Parliament when we both worked for the former Labour Party leader, John Smith. He was a key person on transport safety, and he persuaded me to join this new group called the Global Legislators for Road Safety. I accepted with alacrity and became Chair of the group, which was later taken over by the World Health Organisation (WHO). I continued to chair the organisation, which like all international organisations entailed much travelling. In these days of awareness of global warming and climate change, travelling for meetings has become far less acceptable as a mode of communication, however, back then, as the group began to work as a team sharing research information, ideas and strategies, I spent some time meeting legislators in different areas of the world.
Unfortunately, the ability to communicate easily was a substantial barrier to the success of the Global Legislators for Road Safety. On one visit to China, I found it difficult to judge the impact my remarks were having on my hosts in a series of meetings. I changed tack, using China’s one-child policy as a theme in my talks. I focussed my speeches on the awful concept, which we all want to avoid, of a policeman or policewoman knocking on the door, to inform you that your child, father, mother, sister, brother, has been killed in a road accident. As I developed this theme, I got much more attention from the audience and built an excellent rapport with many Chinese transport safety experts.
Another country of particular interest globally is Thailand, where road casualties are far too high. Too often the casualties are vulnerable road users: pedestrians, cyclists, people using small, motorised vehicles, to get to work. The need for evidence-based policies to tackle this are clear.
I was reluctant to reduce my role in the Global Legislators for Road Safety, but again campaigning costs money and air travel is increasingly unacceptable. I hope the World Health Organisation will maintain its interest in reducing these unnecessary casualties, it should be their highest priority.
I was keen to return to my research-based roots regarding road safety. My work on global road safety, has led me to forge close friendships with fellow passionate campaigners across the world, which is how I met a professor from the New Delhi Institute of Technology, the renowned researcher, Professor Dinesh Mohan. Dinesh and I were unhappy about the present state of awareness of the huge casualty levels of not just children and young people but all vulnerable road users worldwide. We were particularly worried that it was difficult for researchers across the globe, to connect with each other, share information, and work together cooperatively, positively, towards a common goal. We came up with the idea of a system that would link all researchers worldwide, to build up a database not only of current research, but research that had been carried out in the past and we launched The Independent Council for Road Safety (ICORSI).
Many people aren’t aware that the biggest killer of young people worldwide is road accidents. This isn’t always in cars, as evidenced in countries like Thailand. It’s a dreadful waste of life and is a tremendous challenge for transport safety groups such as ICORSI.
Dinesh and I started campaigning together and bringing researchers together. In March 2020, just as COVID was impacting across the globe there was a United Nations meeting of all the Transport Ministers worldwide, in Stockholm. We all thought it wouldn’t take place, but eventually it did, we all attended, and it was the last international conference for a very long time. At the conference ICORSI launched something that we had been developing steadily, systematically, and were extremely proud of. We had, with the help of a huge number of researchers and emeritus professors from across all nations, evaluated every piece of reputable transport safety research from the last 60 years and vetted it for quality. Each piece of research was read at least two or three times and looked at in terms of what it added to the narrative of effective research on transport safety. The great value of this was that we knew every piece of research from the last 60 years, which informed researchers and politicians where research had been carried out, but more importantly where no, or little, research was being carried out, for example, on two, or three-wheeler vehicles in Africa.
When I first attended the conference, I was still feeling frustrated about the inability to communicate freely and conveniently, and whilst we were in Stockholm, in light of the unravelling global situation people started talking about new ways of communication. In short, one positive that came out of the awful COVID pandemic is that it expedited virtual communication. The whole world of campaigning has changed by this innovation of technology which has made serious rapid change in many areas, in our case in transport safety, possible.
After our initial meeting in person at the Swedish conference, subsequent meetings took place on Zoom and Teams, with great success. Sadly, right at the end of COVID my dear friend, Professor Dinesh Mohan, died of a heart attack, just when we thought he was coming through COVID. As part of his legacy ICORSI continues to go from strength to strength. We communicate with each other, can track each other, bounce ideas from one to another, and have new members joining from parts of the world that we’ve not had contacts from before.
I am now confident with continued innovation that the world might be a better place, and we will see greater change in many areas, but in this case, in the reduction of accidents, crashes and deaths and serious injuries on the road. All these deaths are avoidable, they need not happen, too many young lives are being lost unnecessarily. The lives of active, clever, young people and their potential to foster change must be preserved.
In last week’s debate on the Budget Resolutions, I delivered possibly my last speech on the Budget, after 44 years of serving as a Member of Parliament for Huddersfield. It is the 50th Budget I have experienced, delivered by the 14th Chancellor since first winning my seat in The House of Commons in 1979.
When the Chancellor stood to deliver the Budget statement last week, I thought it was rather like a jobbing carpenter, with very basic tools, turning up to the Crooked House pub in Staffordshire, just after it had been burnt down and then demolished.
It turns out that the public feel the same way, with only 10% of the population believing they will be better off due to the Budget and 20% thinking they will in fact be worse off, according to YouGov. Most telling of all, are the 58% of the public who feel the Budget will make no difference to them whatsoever.
When I first heard the Budget, I was shocked at its serious omissions. We live in unprecedented times in which there are two existential threats to our nation and our planet, which the Budget shockingly failed to address. These threats are, of course, global warming and the climate change crisis, and the inadequate defence of our nation in the face of an increasingly febrile world.
Tragically, the theme running across the last 14 years of Conservative rule, is not merely ideological but serious incompetence. During this time, we have witnessed vast amounts of money just thrown away, our national treasure – around £10 billion lost on PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic, and a further £5 billion lost on the resulting Bounce Back Loan Scheme. Lost billions that could have been used to tackle these twin existential threats currently facing the people of this country and this planet.
On defence, even the Chancellor’s own colleagues and former defence ministers have described the Budget as a disaster, as it will result in an overall cut of £2.5 billion in the core defence budget – a £2.5 billion defence deficit despite the volatile global state. I was born during the Blitz of London, around the same time that the House of Commons Chamber itself was bombed and destroyed. I did not know my father for six years, because he went off to serve in the war. Those of us who come from that generation look at our present defence spending and preparedness with fear and trepidation.
In the very week of the Budget, it was reported that global temperatures had risen for the ninth month in a row, with this February the hottest ever on record, showing what a precarious situation our planet is in. Despite this deeply worrying news the Chancellor failed to even mention the term ‘climate change’ when setting out this Budget.
There is also nothing in the Budget about getting manufacturing going again, or about linking our wonderful university researchers with small businesses to tackle climate change, develop hydrogen power, and look at the ways in which clever human beings can, and will, if given the chance, ensure that this planet is safe to live on for us and future generations.
When the people of this country look back on these 14 years of Conservative rule, they will see a period in which they were cheated, deceived and betrayed. It is now time for a new government with high moral values and integrity which will meet these twin challenges with competence, vision and purpose.
Ever since I was a child of 10 or 11, I have held a deep interest in transport safety. At that age I was lucky enough to win a prize at school for passing my Cycling Proficiency Test. The prize was a trip up to London to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents (RoSPA) HQ, which ignited a long-term passion for me on the subject.
Fast forward some years to my early career as a university lecturer at Swansea University. My wife and I had a young family, and one weekend we were driving back from my younger daughter, Madlin’s, christening at St Mary’s Church in Sunbury-on-Thames. I was driving, my wife Pam was in the back with Lucy, who was 3 or 4 at the time, and Madlin was in her cot in the front passenger seat, with the seatbelt wrapped around the cot, something of course, I wouldn’t dream of doing today. We were in South Wales, on the A4 heading towards Newport when our Vauxhall Cresta, which was fortunately an extremely large and heavy car, was crashed into by another car, causing both cars to leave the road. When we came to a stop, I could see that the other driver wasn’t injured, our baby, Madlin, was fine, as was Lucy, in the back seat, but Pam, was unconscious, as she’d hit her head on the internal light of the car. An ambulance took us to the nearest hospital where my wife soon recovered, and the children were fine, but I have never forgotten how lucky we were to be wearing seatbelts. Just before the accident, Pam had taken Lucy out of her harness, to use the toilet in the car, so I was very aware that the crash could have had far worse consequences if she hadn’t put the harness back on in time.
From this point on my interest in road safety turned into a passion to bring about positive change. I became more attuned to other accidents that I witnessed whilst driving, such as a young couple laying badly injured by the side of the road having been thrown out of their car. When I became a Member of Parliament some years later, I became aware of the fact that children were allowed to be carried in cars without restraint, leaving them very vulnerable. A casualty surgeon informed me around this time that until a certain age a child’s head is as fragile as an egg, and it became clear to me that the law wasn’t adequate to keep children safe whilst travelling in cars. So, I introduced a Private Members’ Bill, and it was the first, and only, time I came so high in the ballot, in the top 10. With this came a great deal of interest. Many people got in touch, including my old friend Jean Gaffin, who had been at the London School of Economics with me and had gone on to become the Chief Executive of the Child Safety Trust. Of course, she echoed my concerns that children could travel in a vehicle without a seatbelt lawfully and wanted to use my Bill to introduce a law that would require every child to wear a seatbelt when travelling in a vehicle. I got the Public Bill Office working on it and we came up with, what we thought was, a good and credible piece of legislation. Unfortunately, at this time, there was a very hostile atmosphere to seatbelt regulation in the Houses of Parliament. There had been 13 attempts to introduce compulsory seatbelt wearing and each time it was defeated. This Bill, designed to protect children, was looking like an uphill journey. However, with all the campaigning I’d done over the years, I knew that persistence was key and strong partnerships vital. So, we built a strong campaign both inside and outside of Parliament.
Photo: (fb.com/larryjdotphotography)
At that time, both Margaret Thatcher and Michael Foot were opposed to adult seatbelts, as well as many senior Members of Parliament. However, there was less hostility to a Bill that would protect children, and as I introduced the Bill on a Friday morning, I thought things were going quite well. Sadly, I was too optimistic! A Conservative Member of Parliament, for one of the Buckingham seats, who was ideologically very much opposed to what he regarded as unnecessary red tape and regulation, shouted “object” to my Bill, which of course, meant that the Bill was lost. I was very angry in the Members’ Lobby afterwards, confronting him with the words “you do realise that because of your actions today, many children may well die?”
A glimmer of hope came in the form of the 1981 Transport Act, which was, at that time, going through both houses. Norman Fowler was then Secretary of State and Ken Clarke was his young junior minister, who dealt with road safety. Ken Clarke alerted me to the fact that the Government was minded to accept my Bill if I amended the legislation as it went through the committee stage, and of course I was happy to do so.
However, with adult seatbelts we campaigned very vigorously and managed to get a reasonable amount of support in the House of Lords, in particular from Lord Howell of Guildford who having previously been a Junior Transport Minister under Margaret Thatcher was very active in transport safety.
In addition to this we had a young American intern at the time, who did a marvellous job of ringing up anyone who had a contact in the House of Lords, on medicine, health, or safety, and asking them to be supportive of an amendment in the House of Lords on the Bill. The amendment was passed in the Lords. However, we had to get the support of the House of Commons on the Lords’ Amendment, right at the end of the Bill’s journey through Parliament.
As luck would have it, the chosen day for this Bill to come back to the House of Commons for a vote was the Friday of the royal wedding between Charles and Diana. We tried to not make much of a show about it, but quietly begged people to stay around to vote. Many MPs were inclined to get away early as it was a bank holiday on the Monday, so quite a substantial number of Members weren’t around to vote one way or the other. We had organised well and conducted a vigorous debate.
However, there were still dissenters, such as Professor John Adams from UCL London, who believed that if people felt safer in a car, due to wearing their seatbelt, they would be more likely to speed and generally drive more dangerously, leading to more accidents. His theory was known as ‘risk compensation theory’, however, fortunately for us, there was little evidence to support this theory. In our camp we had a wonderful coalition of casualty surgeons, one or two motoring organisations, some of the police forces, road safety experts, academics, and some solid support from children’s charities – a formidable group, with their MPs campaigning across the country. In short, we had a winning campaign!
But what really clinched it was the fact that on the day of the vote they didn’t keep their people in the House of Commons, and we did. And so, we achieved a majority in the House of Commons for compulsory seatbelt wearing. That night after the vote, we went on top of the roof of the Houses of Parliament (which we can’t do now) to celebrate with a glass of wine and a wonderful fireworks display in honour of Charles and Diana. The fireworks felt very fitting for all involved in changing the law on seatbelts.
After the law came in, all the records showed that injuries and deaths due to serious accidents declined sharply. It remains one of my proudest achievements in my career as an MP and led to the inception of The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety (PACTS) in 1982.
You may wish to watch my video from 2021 explaining this journey.
I regularly see commuters on the London Underground standing on the platform and staring up at the screen that announces the time of the next train. Very often they have a look of irritation on their face. I understand what they’re thinking, I see them mouthing the words “four minutes” to their friends and shaking their heads in annoyance – why four minutes? Why the delay? Why not two minutes or one minute? Why isn’t it here right now? What’s more I share this irritation and frequently annoy friends, colleagues, and constituents in Yorkshire when I explain that this is a common reaction amongst Londoners. Such is the enviously high standard and regularity of public transport in London, and indeed much of the South of England, that these expectations are very reasonable. However, everyone in the rest of the country thinks, quite rightly, that they should have an equally efficient and reliable transport system. It is an ambition I share for this to be the expectation for commuters and travellers throughout the UK, not just in our capital city.
Convenient, reliable and safe public transport has long been regarded as a fundamental element of a civilised society. However, until the late 18th century humans the world over travelled on foot, or were pulled by horses, heavy loads went on the back of human beings or beasts of burden. Undoubtedly, the most efficient way of carrying goods and people was by the brilliant ships built in the ports and harbours based in our country. In global transportation terms, Britain certainly ruled the waves. On land, the challenges were much greater, but our clever engineers, such as James Brindley, were responsible for the revolutionary era of canal building, and 1770 – 1830 saw the ‘Golden Age’ of the highly profitable canal network in the UK. However, the brilliance of Isambard Kingdom Brunel and his circle of engineers, the invention by George Stephenson of the steam engine, and the successful trial of Robert Stephenson’s Rocket in 1829, meant that the hapless investors in the canal network invariably lost their money as the rail network took over.
The 20th century ushered in the total dominance of the internal combustion engine fuelled by petroleum. In some countries, such as the United States, this convenient and personal mode of transport rapidly supplanted rail travel. In other countries, the process was slower and indeed happened in a much-reduced form – the railways still play a significant part in the transport system in many countries. The ubiquitous presence of the automobile, powered by fossil fuels – petrol and diesel – led to the creation of a massive worldwide search for oil reserves under land and, eventually, the sea. In the present century, as we become increasingly aware and concerned about climate change and global warming, reliance on fossil fuels becomes ever more problematic. However, our carbon-dependent economy has a powerful grip on modern mobility, whether it be passenger cars, or trucks and planes of every type. In recent times the alternative to petrol and diesel has been to switch to battery-operated vehicles and electric vehicles are becoming common on roads across the planet, with complex supply chains and shifts in production resulting in a radically reconfigured motoring manufacturing sector. Until recently, it seemed that batteries and electric cars would dominate the transport systems of the most advanced economies. But, just as the canal system was superseded by trains, it is becoming increasingly clear that batteries and electric vehicles may well be overtaken by a hydrogen-powered future which will dramatically reduce our dependence on fossil fuels and will deliver cleaner, less polluted air in our towns and cities.
Whilst the earliest and most successful hydrogen innovation has been in heavy vehicles due to the weight of batteries proving insurmountable, increasingly this technology is spreading to other vehicles. JCB in Staffordshire have already switched their heavy machinery to hydrogen and Northern Ireland-based bus manufacturer Wrightbus, who built the world’s first hydrogen-fuelled double decker, has received yet another order from Germany for a fleet of 12 of its zero-emissions Hydroliners. It’s not just transport and industrial vehicles, it’s also service vehicles – in February 2022 Aberdeen City Council added the UK’s first hydrogen fuel cell refuse truck to its fleet.
From my visit to the JCB, driving a hydrogen-fuelled heavy machinery.
Many in the transport sector who have invested heavily in batteries, electric vehicles, and complex global supply chains, now worry that they are in the same place as those in the early canal industry. Those with vested interests will fight tooth and nail against hydrogen energy but as leading scientists and engineers tackle the challenge of providing cheap and green hydrogen, the future is, in my view, inevitable. The future is here, and it’s powered by hydrogen.
The other day I had the pleasure of attending the pre-launch event of the Libraries for Primaries report being published by the National Literacy Trust. The event was a celebration of a cause that deeply resonates with me: ensuring that every primary school child has access to a library at their schools.
At the event, I had the honour of meeting the beloved author Jacqueline Wilson and some amazing and inspiring pupil librarians. The pupil librarians kindly guided me towards their favourite books that I could gift my grandchildren. They’re well used to receiving books from me; a fact you might not know is that my cat Hobbes was the inspiration for the Tower Bridge Cat series by author Tee Dobinson, so reading has been a special part of our relationships.
Picture with Jacqueline Wilson and the wonderful people running the Libraries for Primaries event (Libraries for Primaries 2023).
Primary school children’s access to books
Libraries for Primaries highlighted that 1 in 7 state primary schools in the UK lack a dedicated library or reading space. When in our country, only 1 in 10 children from disadvantaged backgrounds have a book of their own at home, primary school libraries play a crucial role in bridging this gap.
As the former Chair of the Education Select Committee and someone with a life-long interest in our education system, I firmly believe in the profound importance of ensuring that every child, regardless of their background or location, has access to the wonderful world of books. Libraries play a core role in shaping our kids’ futures. As author Malorie Blackman has put it “I wouldn’t be an author, or indeed the person I am today, if it hadn’t been for my primary school library.”
I am thrilled to witness key initiatives such as Libraries for Primaries that aim to foster a love for learning and literature in young people. With 4 in 5 children saying that they want to use the library more, 86% of parents saying that they would support making primary school libraries mandatory, and cross-sector experts rigorously demonstrating the necessity of libraries in primary schools through their report, it is clear that a governmental action is overdue.
The Conservative government must act
The Conservative Government has highlighted the importance of reading for pleasure and set an expectation of 90% of primary school children reaching the expected reading standard by 2030. Beyond these suggestions, the government is yet to take action to ensure our kids have access to books as early in their lives as possible. How can a government make such claims when 750,000 of our children do not have access to a library in their schools?
I urge the Conservative government to endorse the Libraries for Primaries campaign, and commit to match-funding the necessary investments for our children to have access to books regardless of their background.
Posted at 10:52 am by barrysheerman, on Apr 17, 2023
Why Grassroot Movements are Important
Over the course of my parliamentary career, I have been a keen and active social entrepreneur, this includes environmental and sustainable initiatives. These include Sustainable Huddersfield, the Westminster Commission for Road and Air Quality (WRCRAQ) and Urban Mines.
I am very supportive of social enterprises because the impact that grassroot initiatives have on shaping policy is immense; and they are also very active on the ground in making a practical difference with limited resources and finances.
All too often, I have seen movements fail because they do not take stock of the cares and interests of people on the ground. Without understanding the true issues at the foundation of the cause, movements can fall flat because their leaders leave the volunteers and grassroot activists behind, rather than listening to these groups, to understand the real issue. When conducting social enterprises, I always look for individuals with knowledge, passion, and experience – these are the secret ingredients to a successful grassroot campaign.
Why the Environment is Important
At the Labour Party Conference, Keir Starmer launched the Party’s Greener, Fairer Britain policy. This will see massive economic and infrastructure investment in green technologies, that produce renewable energy materials and production. This is a key Party pledge for the next election, which means that the environment is an important political agenda that has opportunities to be influenced in a positive way.
Labour will get us to Clean Power by 2030 and bring in a nationwide home insulation programme, retrofitting 19 million homes, this will save energy, money, and most importantly, reduce our fossil fuel emissions.
And this could not come a moment too soon, with global temperatures warming, and more and more Climate Change Summits. COP26, then COP27, and yet all we hear is more words, and less action. Whilst finding agreement on these issues is complicated and difficult, the reality is that the global average temperature has risen by 1.5 degrees already, and this will continue to rise without action.
The planet that we are fortunate enough to call home, is under threat, and we are the ones killing it. We will succeed if we do not act soon. Therefore, we need grassroots activism to achieve our goals, and save our home.
Why Grassroots are the Solution
Grassroot activism is a core aspect of environmental justice. It can provide action for marginalised groups and communities that are all too often excluded from usual decision-making processes. They also heighten awareness of environmental issues that would ordinarily go unnoticed and remain unaddressed.
This is why Grassroot environmentalism is so important. These movements provide real action on current issues and ensure that action is taken. They address the key issues of the day, not what leaders think that the environmental problems are, but what people, at the ‘grassroots’, see and experience daily.
One such person is Great Thunberg, who on her to first visit to the UK, I heard her speak on her successful grassroots activism. We all know who she is, which is demonstrative of the ground-breaking difference that grassroot activists can have on worldwide policy, including environmental policy.
One simple act by a schoolgirl, at the grassroots of society, has blossomed and incentivised a worldwide movement.
This month we have seen the Government dragged into a crisis of integrity yet again. The Chairman of the Conservative Party, Nadhim Zahawi, has been found guilty of mismanaging his tax accounts whilst chancellor, having to pay back millions of pounds. Boris Johnson, once again, is found wanting after the BBC Chairman allegedly helped to fix a loan for the former PM and Rishi Sunak has become the only Prime Minister to receive two fixed penalty notices. This time for not wearing his seatbelt.
The Tories have shown that they lack the good character and integrity required for Government. Labour will Govern with honesty and respect the ministerial code.
Whilst the Conservatives are preoccupied with their own internal chaos, the Labour Party is a government in waiting, outlining positive policies and ideas that will build a fairer, greener Britain.
Activities in Parliament
This month in Parliament, it was a pleasure to take part in the Westminster Hall debate on improving driver safety and to raise the brilliant work of charities like Brake, based in Huddersfield. As President of the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, this is an issue of deep importance to me. You can watch my remarks here.
I also led a Westminster Hall debate on air pollution. It is estimated that up to 36,000 people die prematurely each year from the effects of air pollution in our country. The total cost to the NHS and social care will be £1.5bn by 2025 and £5.1bn by 2035. The cost of inaction is fatal. This is why I’m calling for the introduction of particulate matter testing in the MOT test. Particulate matter are tiny invisible solids and liquids that can permeate through our bodies. They have a harmful impact on human health and mainly come from vehicles, plant equipment and industry. Increased particulate matter testing during the MOT would ensure we identify faulty DPFs that are not picked up by the current testing regime. I’m pleased to see the Government is wanting to adopt Particulate Number Testing in its open consultation on the MOT, that was published last week.
In Parliament, the Labour Party has been consistently raising the cost-of-living crisis facing families and individuals up and down the country. We have raised the forced installation of pre-payment meters with the Secretary of State. It is shameful that forced installation of prepayment meters is cutting off people’s heat and power, including some of the most vulnerable people in our society. We need immediate action to halt this scourge of blackouts by the back door. Labour is calling for a moratorium to stop even greater misery this winter, while the government, regulator and energy companies get a grip on this problem, to tackle the hardship millions are facing.
With our long-term plan, Labour will get us to Clean Power by 2030 and bring in a nationwide home insulation programme, retrofitting 19 million homes – keeping bills low, creating good jobs, and growing the economy. Right now, Labour would be bringing in a proper one-off windfall tax on energy giants – something which the government still fail to do – and spending that on a package of support for energy bills.
Ongoing Industrial Action
The Government’s failed approach has led to the worst strikes in decades. At every stage they’ve sought to collapse talks and thrown in last minute spanners. Now with this new Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) or ‘sacking nurses’ Bill, they’ve gone from clapping nurses to sacking them.
This shoddy Bill is unworkable and impractical – the Transport Secretary admits it won’t work, the Education Secretary doesn’t want it, and it will put intolerable burdens on employers. This isn’t about public safety – the Bill doesn’t mention safety once. We all want minimum standards of service and staffing in the NHS and on our railways, but Ministers are failing to provide it at all. This is about Rishi Sunak playing politics with yet another sticking plaster, distracting from the Conservative’s economic mess and NHS staffing shortages. You can’t legislate your way out of 13 years of failure. Labour strongly opposes this fundamental attack on working people’s freedoms on the principle – and we’ll repeal. In power, we’ll end the Tories’ strikes chaos with a new partnership of cooperation between trade unions, employers, and Government – meaning issues are resolved before strikes.
Holocaust Memorial Day
Holocaust Memorial Day takes place annually on 27 January. The date marks the anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp in Poland, which took place on 27 January 1945. In addition to Holocaust Memorial Day, 27 January also marks the International Day of Commemoration in Memory of the Victims of the Holocaust. The resolution also called on United Nations member states to develop educational programmes “to instil the memory of the tragedy in future generations to prevent genocide from occurring again”.
2022 has been a challenging year for so many. Whether recovering from the impact of the COVID pandemic, witnessing the war in Ukraine, or feeling the bite of the cost-of-living crisis, I know it has been tough for many. That’s why this year #GivingTuesday is more important than ever.
Giving Tuesday is a global day of giving which in 2020 saw over £20.2 million donated by people in the UK to good causes. It’s a day where people come together to give what they can – be that money, time, goods, or a voice – to the causes that make a difference in all our lives.
Huddersfield especially has been an extremely generous town for many years. From raising almost £1 million for the Tsunami Appeal for the Boxing Day Tsunami, to donating over £3,000 to a family in need. I am very humbled by your generosity, and I am so pleased with the way that we have supported many charities in the local area. Home-start Kirklees and DASH Kirklees are a few of the many local charities that I am proud to have in our constituency, that support local people in need.
This is only possible with the generous support of constituents like you, who tirelessly volunteer time and finances to support the most vulnerable and in need throughout our community.
This year on Giving Tuesday, I am joining countless others in celebrating the amazing generosity that we see all around us, and the incredible work that our charities do, day in and day out, helping to make our lives and the lives of our friends, families and communities better.
Let’s support one another in Huddersfield this Giving Tuesday.
In this blog I want to talk about Labour’s Green Growth plan. The planet is getting warmer, increasing the risks of flooding and extreme weather.
Labour wants to take the country forward by harnessing British manufacturing whilst also promoting green energy, to make Britain 100% carbon-neutral by 2030.
The challenge
Currently, and under previous Conservative governments, there is not enough investment in renewable energy sources. U-turn after U-turn on fracking, and a lack of investment in home insulation, has left British households exposed. Not just exposed to the cold; but exposed to global warming. Climate change is becoming ever-more apparent, and increasingly impacting on our daily lives which I have seen across my lifetime in Huddersfield. Flooding is becoming more frequent and more severe.
This environmental challenge has been worsened by our dependence on imported energy. Currently, we still import around 35% of our energy [1]. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brutally exposed this problem. Energy prices soared, and the cost of living spiralled, pushing many families and households into poverty. This is unacceptable and has not been resolved by the Tory government. It’s time to solve the energy crisis, to ensure the long-term stability and viability of our national energy security. This is what Labour will deliver.
The solution
For years, the Tories damaged our countryside and nature through climate inaction, but they have also made us ever-more reliant upon fossil fuels and energy sources outside of the UK. This means households are exposed to extremely expensive energy costs and feel the worst effects of climate change.
Why not produce home-grown energy in the UK, that can provide jobs, and security for millions of people? And protect us from the worst effects of climate change before it’s too late.
Why not begin manufacturing wind turbines, solar panels, and investing in carbon capture within the UK?
This will create jobs across Northern England and truly stimulate economic growth.
A further solution is offshore carbon capture. The UK’s exclusive economic zone in the North Sea presents an excellent opportunity to utilise our natural resources for good. To store carbon, instead of releasing it into the atmosphere.
Why Labour?
Labour’s plan is to work in tandem with the UK’s geographical strengths, offshore wind and infrastructure capability. The green transition is not just desirable but an unmissable opportunity.
Labour will launch Great British Energy, investing in a sovereign wealth fund, to give the British people a stake in our energy. GBE would invest in new factories to produce lithium batteries for electric cars; plants to make solar panels and manufacturers to produce wind turbines. Labour would also insulate 19 million homes across the UK.
The benefits of the green transition can make Britain’s industrial towns and cities world leaders in decarbonisation and the green industries of the future.
Will you help me, and the Labour Party, solve our energy crisis and invest in our green energy plan?
If so, get in touch with me with any questions, concerns, or thoughts at barry.sheerman.mp@parliament.uk, or write to me at the House of Commons.