MPs to reintroduce bill in name of girl, 9, who died in pollution-linked death
Dubbed 'Ella's Law,' the proposed legislation is named after Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who lived 82ft from the busy South Circular Road in Lewisham and suffered the fatal asthma attack in February 2013.
She became the first person to have air pollution listed as a cause of death following a landmark inquest in 2020.
Sian Berry, Green MP for Brighton Pavilion will present the bill to the House of Commons with a speech on Tuesday July 1, with the aim of making clean air a human right under UK law.
If passed, the bill would require the Government to achieve clean air throughout England by January 1 2030, setting out a pathway to bring the country in line with World Health Organisation air pollution guidelines.
She has so far been backed by cross-party Labour, Liberal Democrat, SNP and Independent MPs but hopes that more will support the bill and it will be picked up by the Government in the next King's Speech.
Ella's mother Rosamund Adoo Kissi-Debrah has long campaigned for the Government to introduce stricter air pollution limits since her daughter died.
In 2022, a similar version of Ella's law was steered through the House of Lords by Green Party peer Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb.
Sian Berry and Rosumund Adoo Kissi-Deborah on the on the boundary of the South Circular Road in London (Green Party/PA)
It was later sponsored by Caroline Lucas MP in the Commons until Parliament was dissolved for the 2024 general election.
Ms Berry said: 'Deaths like Ella's, and the millions of lives blighted by preventable diseases caused by air pollution, can be a thing of the past if Governments start taking the right action now.
'Rosamund's campaign is gaining momentum and communities across the country are raising air pollution as a key problem in their local area, so it is great to have representatives from all parties joining together to press for a legal right to breathe clean air.
'Finally passing Ella's Law will save lives, as it will make sure we get new targets, and the funding for local areas to achieve them by cutting down on the many causes of toxic pollution, from road traffic to wood burning.'
Ms Adoo Kissi-Debrah said: 'I am delighted Sian and the cross-section of MPs are taking forward Ella's Law in parliament.
'Tackling air pollution should not be a partisan issue, it affects us all, in every constituency in the country.
'I believe that everyone has a right to breathe clean air, no matter where they live, the colour of their skin or their socio-economic background.
'We know that air pollution affects most people in this country, but the harshest effects are felt by poorer and marginalised communities.
'I hope this Labour Government will therefore take forward this Bill to protect all children and adults from the devastating effects of breathing toxic air.'
The announcement comes as campaigners, health professionals, local authorities and schools across the country will mark Clean Air Day on Thursday.
In the UK, toxic air pollution is estimated to cause between 29,000 and 43,000 premature deaths every year, according to The Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution.
Sarah Sleet, chief executive at Asthma + Lung UK, said: 'These early deaths represent a failure of government to act as current policies and targets do not do enough to protect public health.
'Toxic air has a detrimental impact on the millions of people living with a lung condition in the UK – with four out of five telling us that it makes their breathing difficulties worse.
'We need action now to protect the public's lungs.'
Ella's estate, over which Ms Adoo-Kissi-Debrah acts as administrator, sued the Environment Department (Defra), the Department for Transport and the Department of Health and Social Care for compensation over her 'illness and premature death'.
In October last year, three Government departments settled the claim brought by law firm Hodge Jones & Allen for an undisclosed sum, and issued a statement telling Ms Adoo-Kissi-Debrah 'we are truly sorry for your loss' and that no child should have to suffer as Ella did.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
'Visitor levy in Glasgow could grow city's tourism offer'
If it gets the go-ahead, the visitor levy will increase the cost of an overnight stay in the city by a small percentage. But in doing so it can raise millions of pounds, which will be reinvested in improving the Glasgow experience for visitors and residents alike. We reckon that if we add 5% to an accommodation bill – that's an average of just under £5 per night – then we could raise around £16 million extra income annually. Given the unprecedented pressures on public finances, that's a decent amount of money to help improve our city and its tourism offer. Visitor levies are common across much of the world. Cities such as Barcelona, Lisbon, Berlin, Hamburg and Paris have all introduced similar schemes in recent years and all have had an increase in visitor numbers. Closer to home, after a few years of preparatory work, Edinburgh's visitor levy will come into force next summer. So, there's an opportunity to learn from our colleagues across the M8 as their scheme is implemented. And I know that most major cities south of the border are also exploring the introduction of visitor levies, so it's important that Glasgow isn't left behind. As you would expect with something as significant as the introduction of new local taxation, the opinions expressed within the 1300-plus consultation responses were many and varied. But what came through was a strong agreement that if we go ahead with Glasgow's visitor levy then it has the potential to grow the city's tourism offer, that we can use the extra finances to ensure our culture and events remain world class, and that the levy can support the promotion and visibility of our city across the world. Ultimately all of this adds up to better supporting employment and opportunities in an extremely important sector of our economy. If the paper which I'm taking to Thursday's City Administration Committee is accepted by colleagues, then Glasgow's visitor levy would be in place from the start of 2027, with the first finances collected by April of that year. Councillors from across the political spectrum have long made the case for new powers that can help us better deliver for our communities and for our city. Now that the Government has given us some of those powers, it's time we put them to good use. The visitor levy is no silver bullet to our financial challenges. But those financial challenges aren't going away any time soon. And with the levy we can deliver for our visitors, our businesses and our communities without the onus falling on Glaswegians. Child poverty remains the most acute challenge currently facing Glasgow. If we're to meet these inequalities head-on then we need a collective effort across all levels of government in partnership with our colleagues in the Third Sector. Of course, the UK Government has always had the powers and resources to make the biggest impact. Scrapping the Two Child Cap, for example, would lift nearly half a million children across the UK out of poverty. I'm delighted that colleagues in the Scottish Government will scrap the cap in early 2026. And that alongside the Scottish Child Payment, we're making real inroads into tackling this scourge here in Scotland. The council has its role to play and tomorrow I'll bring a paper to the City Administration Committee asking for approval to release £510,000 to support those families, households and communities who are most vulnerable to the effects of child poverty. The money means we can continue to fund our pioneering financial inclusion officers who are based in schools across Glasgow. These officers provide face-to-face advice on benefits and money to parents of school-age children, as well as guiding them to additional support via the new Glasgow Helps service. And some of the resource will also fund a project that refers people in need to local social enterprise partners so they can access pre-loved clothing, including school uniforms. It can be disheartening that here in 2025 we continue to have to confront the long-standing consequences of inequalities on our city. But the SNP here in Glasgow and across Scotland will not shirk our responsibility in standing up for our poorest and most vulnerable.
Scotsman
an hour ago
- Scotsman
Pilot of ‘transformative' minimum income proposed after Scottish election
Charities, campaigners and academics call for 'fundamental change to the social contract' Sign up to our Politics newsletter Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... An expert group commissioned by ministers has set out a 'road map' to implementing a minimum income guarantee in Scotland, saying it will be a 'fundamental change to the social contract'. The group of charities, campaigners and academics say there should be a pilot of the policy following next year's Holyrood election. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A minimum income guarantee would establish an income level below which nobody is allowed to fall, through reform to social security, work, and services. In a suite of recommendations, the group says the Scottish child payment should be doubled to £55 per week by 2031 and sanctions in the welfare system should be effectively ended. They say an interim minimum income payment could be established by 2036, in line with the relative poverty level. A homeless person and their dog on the Royal Mile in Edinburgh | PA Some of the group's welfare changes would cost £671 million per year by 2030/31, in today's prices. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad However these would require just over £300 million of additional spending if the UK Government scraps the two-child limit and ends the five-week wait for universal credit, the group said. The costs have led the Conservatives to describe the policy as 'bizarre and unaffordable'. Work on a minimum income guarantee was first committed to in the Scottish Government's 2021 legislative programme, under Nicola Sturgeon's tenure as first minister. Russell Gunson from the Robertson Trust chaired the expert group. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad He said: 'A minimum income guarantee could be transformative, putting in place a universal guarantee that's there for everyone in Scotland. 'Given the levels of poverty and inequality we see, we must act urgently. 'With technological change and an ageing population, we need to build security for all to make sure we can take the economic opportunities in front of Scotland. 'A minimum income guarantee could future-proof Scotland.' 'Affordable and doable' Addressing questions about the affordability, Mr Gunson added: 'The first steps we set out over the next five years are affordable in the current context, and doable within existing powers. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'We can't wait – and we don't need to wait – to begin to make the changes outlined in this report. 'We know poverty, inequality, and insecurity costs us dearly in financial terms and in lost potential.' However Conservative finance spokesman Craig Hoy was dismissive of the proposal. He said: 'The SNP have made no serious attempt to rein in wasteful public spending and a soaring welfare bill. Now this report shows that a minimum income guarantee would cost billions – when Scottish taxpayers are already footing the bill for spending that is simply unsustainable and unaffordable. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Recommendations include doubling the Scottish child payment to £55 per week by 2031 'The SNP's existing plans involve benefits spending £2 billion higher than other parts of the country by the end of the decade – and it's Scottish workers that will be saddled with the cost, when they are already paying the highest rates of tax in the UK. 'The SNP should immediately rule out this bizarre and unaffordable policy and reverse their reckless spending plans.' Social Justice Secretary Shirley-Anne Somerville said the Government would consider the group's report and respond in due course. She said: 'The legacy of the financial crash, Brexit, and more than 10 years of UK Government austerity has meant that living standards across the UK are stagnating – pushing households further from an acceptable standard of living. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'We are already taking action in a number of the areas highlighted by the Group, while operating within the limits of the devolution settlement and responsible management of the public finances. 'This includes providing the Scottish Child Payment, which is only available in Scotland and which it is forecast will support the families of around 330,000 children this year. 'Meanwhile as the UK Government refuses to act to end the Universal Credit two-child limit, the Scottish Government has committed to ending this limit next year.' Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad She continued: 'The Scottish Government is of course committed to ensuring that finances remain on a sustainable trajectory. 'We will continue to take forward our programme of work for doing this, which will be updated in the next Medium-Term Financial Strategy to be published later this month, alongside our fiscal sustainability delivery plan.
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Keir Starmer's grooming gang cowardice
Photo by Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street A prime minister who only acts when forced to do so by others inspires neither confidence nor respect. But this is something we have seen repeatedly with Keir Starmer and this Labour government. The latest – and arguably most egregious – example is the U-turn on holding a full national inquiry into grooming gangs. In January, Starmer accused politicians calling for such an inquiry of jumping on the 'bandwagon of the far right'. Robust debate, he said, 'can only be based on the true facts'. But the facts today are as they were six months ago; as they have been for years. Thousands of vulnerable girls have been groomed and raped by groups of men, disproportionately of Pakistani heritage. We knew from Alexis Jay's report in 2014 – 11 years ago – that 1,400 children were sexually exploited in Rotherham alone between 1997 and 2013. And that was a 'conservative estimate'. Stories first appeared in the media in 2007, by Julie Bindel in the Sunday Times Magazine. The late Andrew Norfolk of the Times published hundreds of articles from 2011 on child rapes perpetrated across England. Some of those closest to the Prime Minister privately warned him last year in stark, emotional terms about the scale of the collective failure to protect the most vulnerable girls; that some of the responsibility lay with Labour-run or Labour-dominated local authorities – in Rotherham, Rochdale and elsewhere; that this was one of the most shameful episodes of British history. And yet. As Louise Casey points out in her National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, released on 16 June, 'we are talking about multiple sexual assaults committed against children by multiple men on multiple occasions; beatings and gang rapes'. Earlier this month, survivors of the abuse spoke to BBC Newsnight. Kate (not her real name) was raped 'almost daily' by 'multiple men a day'. Fiona was plied with drugs and violently raped from the age of 14, shortly after she was taken into care. Chantelle was also in the care system when she was first abused and drugged at 11 years old. The perpetrators of these crimes were all gangs of British Asian men. That Starmer had to ask troubleshooter-in-chief Casey to decide whether a national inquiry was needed is cowardice. For the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, to declare on the day Casey's report was published that the systematic rape of girls marked 'a stain on our society and a failure of those who were meant to protect them' – only after someone else gave the government permission to say so – was pure chutzpah. Even when confirming his change of heart, the Prime Minister made no compelling case of his own for why these crimes needed proper examination. Rather, Casey had 'come to the view there should be a national inquiry' and he would 'accept her recommendation'. But this shameful U-turn is part of a wider pattern of this government effectively subcontracting out difficult decisions to others. It looks weak, directionless and lacking in conviction as a result. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Having refused to take a consistent position on the clash between women's rights and the rights of trans people, it was left to the Supreme Court to rule that 'sex' in the Equality Act meant 'biological sex'. The official Labour line had been that no clarification was needed, even when the case was scheduled to be heard. Senior party figures saw the issue as a 'distraction'. The best Starmer could muster in response to the judgement was to say he was pleased it had brought 'clarity'. But what about the issue, Prime Minister? Where do you stand? Do you support the judgement, or does it prompt a rethink in the law? If Starmer and senior cabinet ministers think the ruling was wrong, they should say so. Stop hiding behind process. Lead. Into this mix of inaction, we can throw in the decision to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius. Had the government not done so, the Defence Secretary, John Healey, said, 'Within weeks, [it] could face losing legal rulings.' Framing it this way – in effect, 'the courts made us' – hardly screams political conviction. It's the same on Palestinian statehood. Recognition of a Palestinian state is a manifesto pledge, but according to Sky News's Sam Coates, 'the UK will only recognise a Palestinian state once other countries also do so'. And then there's the cut to pensioners' winter fuel allowance: despite insisting it was the right thing to do – for 11 months – Chancellor Rachel Reeves later bowed to public pressure to reverse it. Politicians must be allowed to change their minds. Admitting you were wrong, being open-minded and receptive to new evidence are signs of strength. But that is not what's happening with this Prime Minister and his government. Time after time, they seem unable to make a positive argument for either action or inaction. Each Labour government since the war has made a strong moral case for its reforms. Attlee and Bevan with the NHS. Wilson and Jenkins on decriminalising homosexuality. Blair and Brown on international development and child poverty. When will this government do the same? The danger is that into the void come others – Reform especially – who seem more 'authentic', better in touch with what many Britons think and feel. With a big majority, Labour can afford to be bold and principled. To govern is to choose. But those choices should be choices of direction and policy – not of who to ask to make those decisions for you. [See more: Is Trump the last neoconservative?] Related
