Nitrogen Reduction, Recycling and Reuse (Environment and Climate Change Committee Report)
(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)
Read Full debate
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, on securing this debate. I thank the whole committee, chaired by the noble Baroness, for its thorough inquiry into a very complex environmental challenge that touches on so many aspects of our society.
I confirm that the Government very much welcome this report and the recommendations it contains and are grateful to all those who provided evidence and contributed to the vital discussion that we have had today. Having carefully considered the committee’s findings, I also welcome the opportunity to be able to respond and to explain the Government’s approach to addressing nitrogen pollution, while maintaining our commitment to economic growth and supporting our farming communities.
It is important at the start to acknowledge the scale of the challenge that we face. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, talked about the witness who described nitrogen pollution as an octopus. That was really quite striking; it is a complex multifaceted issue that spans agriculture, transport, industry and so on.
The committee rightly highlighted that excessive reactive nitrogen damages our ecosystems through direct toxic effects, soil acidification and eutrophication. It also contributes to climate change through nitrous oxide emissions and impacts public health through air pollution. The Government fully recognise these impacts. We understand that there are significant economic costs from the inefficient use of nitrogen resources. These are costs borne by farmers, often through their fertiliser bills. They are borne by our health service through the impacts of air pollution, by our water bills as we look to clean up pollution and by our environment through the ecosystem damage it causes. These are not abstract policy challenges but real issues that we are facing every day in our communities.
I accept that the regulatory framework, which has evolved over a number of years, has become fragmented, especially as new technologies and practices have been more widely adopted. We agree that effective nitrogen management must be embedded within our broader environmental and economic strategies, not isolated in separate silos. This is why the Government are looking to address the issue by taking a comprehensive and integrated approach to reforming our existing policy frameworks, rather than just creating additional bureaucratic structures.
I turn to a few of the questions. I was interested to hear the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, talk about how he has been farming to manage nitrogen and nutrients, because managing farm nutrients such as nitrogen better is clearly an important way that farmers and land managers can help reduce their environmental footprint, cut costs and improve profitability. I reassure him that this is very much in line with the Government’s food strategy, which seeks a food system that is more environmentally sustainable and resilient. It is likely to be the kind of activity that the farming road map, which will be published later this year, will seek to encourage. I am sure noble Lords are aware that this road map will be our response to the farming profitability review by the noble Baroness, Lady Batters, which will bring together a lot of work that the department has been doing. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, that we will of course work with and listen to stakeholders as we develop that road map going forward.
The current regulatory framework for fertilisers in the UK covers only limited organic fertilisers and soil improvers. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, talked about this. There are no requirements for recycled nutrients, including nitrogen, or newer types of fertilising products or materials such as biostimulants. Defra is planning to launch a consultation and call for evidence on this in order better to understand the regulatory options that we can take forward in this space.
I want to confirm that nutrient pollution from our agricultural targets is part of the analysis that we plan to publish in the land use framework, which will come out later this year. Hopefully, that answers part of the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, about how we are joining up our thinking on this. We are very much looking to do that.
There were a number of questions around whether Defra supports the development of a national nitrogen budget similar to the one being developed by the Scottish Government. The noble Lord, Lord Trees, in particular mentioned that the Government have said we will consider the national nitrogen balance sheet approach, how it is working in Scotland and whether a similar system would add value in England. We are looking to work with the Scottish Government to better understand how well this nitrogen budget system is working to drive change as we look to move forward in this space.
At the moment, we do not see value in producing a separate nitrogen strategy when nitrogen considerations are integrated across multiple policy areas. The revised Environmental Improvement Plan was mentioned by noble Lords; it was published last December and serves as our overarching framework for achieving environmental outcomes, including those related to nitrogen management. We want to bring in an approach that avoids duplication while bringing proper co-ordination across departments and sectors. We heard about the circular economy growth plan, which we will also publish soon. It will support the transition and systemic changes so that resources are kept in use for longer and waste is designed out. The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about the waste hierarchy; this is part of that.
Agriculture was discussed a lot in the debate, obviously, and the committee rightly identified it as a significant source of nitrogen pollution. Our approach is looking to balance environmental protection with support for farming communities. We recognise that there are gaps in regulation and that a more coherent approach is needed to improve effectiveness. However, we also very much recognise that effective change requires farmer engagement and support, not just regulation.
I also want to come back on something that the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said. She suggested that the Government are postponing action to simplify the regulatory framework for farming. That is not what we are looking to do; we are looking to work more effectively with the farming community to move forward. As I have said, in the EIP, we are looking to improve the regulatory approach more broadly. We are developing options for consultation on the expansion of environmental permitting to dairy and intensive beef farms; that approach is going to build on and learn from the successful application of permitting in the pig and poultry sectors, where high compliance rates have been achieved.
We are also reviewing the regulatory framework for sewage sludge spreading to agricultural land in order to ensure that it effectively manages risks to human and environmental health. In parallel, we in Defra are already working with the farming sector and environmental organisations to explore how we can make the agricultural water regulations clearer and more effective. Our statutory reviews of the Nitrate Pollution Prevention Regulations and the farming rules for water are both informing that piece of work.
Compliance also needs improvement; that has been mentioned, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. One thing that we need to do is make requirements and expectations clearer. Certain noble Lords mentioned this. We have amended the farming rules for water guidance in order to have more clarity on enforcement regulations; enforcement was mentioned by, again, the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, in her introduction. On that, we are doubling the funding for the Environment Agency’s farm inspection team, raising the number of inspections to more than 6,000.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, expressed concerns about this. The idea is to help farmers improve standards. We know that most farmers do the right thing. This is not out to get people; it is about improving standards and working with farmers. However, if farmers do not heed advice and there are problems, the EA will not hesitate to enforce the regulations—including by moving to sanctions, if necessary. Last year, there were some 4,500 inspections at, I stress, high-risk farms. Those resulted in 6,500 improvement actions being issued, with 6,000 of them being achieved. So the regulations are being looked at in order to make a genuine difference here.
Training was mentioned, particularly by the noble Earl, Lord Leicester. We recognise the important role that farm advice and training can play in helping farmers manage nutrients. We are exploring the potential for future support regarding advice and farmer collaboration. My noble friend Lord Hanworth talked about how farming has changed over the years and how the intensiveness of farming has caused a number of problems. It is important that we work with farmers because we are talking about changes in culture, to a certain extent, in how farms have operated for many years.
We recognise that farmers need access to training, advice and planning tools. It is important to know how to plan going forward. There are grants available through the ADOPT—Accelerating Development of Practices and Technologies—Fund, which was launched in April last year to support farmer-led, on-farm trials to develop and test new solutions to farming challenges. We also support the Fertiliser Advisers Certification and Training Scheme, which is an independent accreditation scheme. There is a lot of work going forward in trying to support farmers in this space. Some 3,000 advisors have been accredited to improve standards on nutrient management in farms, which is a significant number.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked whether we would assess the effectiveness of the AHDB nutrient management guide and asked why we think that ours would be more effective. The tool that we are introducing is designed to build on existing work—for example, the guide that currently exists through the AHDB. The idea is to make it easier for farmers to create a nutrient management plan that will optimise crop yield while reducing costs to the farmer and the environment. That is what we are trying to achieve going forward.
The noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Ashcombe, both referred to the Netherlands. As we discussed, the Dutch have substantially reduced nitrogen losses, particularly ammonia to air, through a combination of measures, including investment in research and knowledge transfer, which has been referred to in the debate, as well as funding and regulations. We want to learn from different approaches as they have done in the Netherlands to see how that can inform our approach.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, also asked about encouraging low-emission spreading and slurry stores. We have seen a good uptake of low-emission spreaders from the farm equipment and technology fund. In 2024, 66% of farms that spread slurry on crop-land used low-emission methods. Last year, just under £50 million was made available for farmers, growers, foresters and contractors, and £30 million of that was for productivity and slurry. Grant funding for slurry covers includes existing stores, not just new stores.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, asked about the waste hierarchy, which I mentioned briefly. The circular economy growth plan explicitly aims to support the transition, focusing on increasing resource efficiency and supply chain security through policy interventions aimed higher up the waste hierarchy. That is what we are trying to achieve there.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and others talked about the circular economy. The Government strongly support the committee’s emphasis on circular economy approaches to nitrogen management. We are effectively promoting the three key principles: reducing inputs, efficient use that minimises losses and reusing what remains. There was some discussion around the enormous potential of technology and innovation to make more efficient use of nutrients generated and used on farms. We believe that the Government’s role is to provide the policy framework and support to enable those markets to develop. We are working to revise fertiliser product regulations to ensure that products derived from quality recycled organic materials can be classified as high-value products based on quality rather than source.
Ofwat’s price review came out in 2024 and led to us allocating £6 billion for nutrient pollution reduction programmes, including improvements at wastewater treatment works, protecting 15,000 kilometres of rivers. That is a huge investment into the sector.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, referred to the committee’s recommendations on catchment-based approaches to water quality. Sir Jon Cunliffe’s Independent Water Commission made similar recommendations and the Secretary of State is already committed to including a regional element for water system planning. The idea is to tackle all pollution sources more effectively and rapidly.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, referred to air quality. We have made substantial progress in reducing nitrogen emissions from transport, but there are clearly some challenges remaining. Clean air zones and ultra-low emission zones have been effective in securing compliance with statutory nitrogen dioxide limits at urban roadsides. However, we recognise that a lot more needs to be done and continue to support local authorities with the highest emissions. We have been looking to see how we can more quickly deliver electric buses, for example. We are also committed to phasing out the sale of new cars relying solely on internal combustion engines by 2030.
My noble friend Lady Whitaker raised important points about indoor air quality, particularly nitrogen dioxide from gas appliances. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero is considering these impacts as part of broader decarbonisation work, including the electrification of heating and cooking. We will look at that evidence in our policy development, and we will continue to work across departments. So much of this is cross-departmental work.
We also recognise the importance of robust data for effective nitrogen management and are working to improve nitrogen flow data within our existing monitoring and reporting frameworks. We also understand concerns about monitoring costs for local authorities and are exploring how we can better support them.
The committee called for urgent regulatory reform, which we are looking at through the Corry review recommendations, which have been mentioned during the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Jay, particularly asked about this issue, and I assure him that work is under way to implement next steps as well as to consider them. We are looking at how we implement the recommendations for enforcement approaches, regulatory guidance and sanctions for environmental regulations. We need to improve clarity, consistency and effectiveness right across the regulatory system.
It is important that our approach maintains that environmental protection and economic growth are not mutually exclusive. We know that effective nitrogen management can reduce costs for farmers—we have heard examples of that today—and that it can create new private markets for both recovered nutrients and nutrient pollution reductions. The noble Lord, Lord Fuller, talked about some of the ways that we can work effectively with industry and create economic opportunities at the same time as protecting public health and restoring nature.
We take nitrogen pollution very seriously. We are committed to addressing it through integrated, evidence-based policies that support our communities while protecting our environment, and we want to continue to work proactively with stakeholders and noble Lords in order to look at how we can deliver these benefits.
The Independent Water Commission was mentioned. We are responding to the recommendations for water sector reform. As I was asked about earlier today, we will be looking to produce the White Paper on water very soon.
On the recommendations from the committee, we genuinely recognise and appreciate their valuable input to the work that the Government are doing in this area. While we do not agree with every specific proposal, we share the ultimate objectives in the committee’s report. The Government are absolutely committed to delivery and to action, not just to strategy documents and reports. Through our existing frameworks and cross-government co-ordination, we will continue making progress on nitrogen management as part of our broader environmental and economic objectives.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I thank the Minister for her response, which has finished bang on the dot of 20 minutes. I take this opportunity to thank all colleagues who have participated in the debate. The contributions have been fantastic and reaffirm yet again the breadth and depth of knowledge that runs deep through Members of this House.
The time is late so I will not keep the Committee long, but I have a couple of points—I have made lots of notes, but I shall mention just a couple before we close this debate. I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, for his contribution and for reminding us that there was a time when inert dinitrogen gas, N2, was in equilibrium with bioavailable, more reactive nitrogen in the soil, so things do not have to be like this. Modern society and our burning of fossil fuels have contributed to reactive nitrogen, but the energy-intensive Haber-Bosch process has led to the mass production of cheap fertilisers that are being overused—and abused, really.
I am not going to run through everything, but I will try to pick up a couple of points made by the noble Lord, Lord Fuller. All I will say is that a 1% per annum reduction in artificial fertiliser inputs, which is the aim of the company that he represents, pales in comparison with the experience of the noble Earl, Lord Leicester, with regenerative farming. The noble Earl achieved a 20% reduction in two years, while a rate of 1% will take 20 years—I just wanted to point that out. At the same time, I congratulate the noble Earl on his fantastic work in this field. It will make a real difference to have someone of his stature and capacity leading regenerative farming. If he were to throw his weight behind this, that would be a game-changer, so I welcome his input.
I think the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, mentioned a 39% reduction in fertiliser input since 1989. Quite a lot of that came at the same time as the reduction in livestock numbers. We know that food grown to feed cattle and other livestock takes up a lot of our inputs, which may well explain the large numbers since 1989.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, who mentioned roads. We deliberately chose not to look at nitrogen emissions from roads because they have fallen quite a lot, by 70%. The committee recently did a report on the uptake of EVs—we can see in today’s media that we had a record year for electric vehicles last year—so we felt we should concentrate on agriculture and wastewater, where reductions in nitrogen emissions have been much more stubborn. I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Whitaker, for her work in making sure that we do not lose sight of indoor nitrogen pollution from cookers and domestic boilers. She will do us all a service if she stays with that issue and makes sure that we do not lose sight of it.
I will wrap up. The Minister commands respect around the House, certainly from me, so I really welcome her words. However, I received an email recently about a meeting in October of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe. The email says that, at that meeting, the UK succeeded in having struck from the meeting record that there are any cost-effective low-hanging fruit for ammonia mitigation. That was a pity, since reaching agreement on that point was the centrepiece of the evidence that the Task Force on Reactive Nitrogen provided to the meeting. I am sure that these discussions will continue, but that fills me with trepidation. I look forward to the Minister writing to me to verify that email or otherwise. I have to say, it comes from an extremely reputable source—otherwise I would not have brought it up. I apologise to the Minister for bringing it up, but it is crucial to this debate.
Our report was undertaken in response to the widely perceived failure of successive Governments to effectively manage nitrogen pollution. I am sorry to say that the Government’s response to date and the information I have just relayed do not inspire confidence that their response matches the scale of the problem or the opportunities available. However, I look forward to further discussions. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I just confirm that I will look into the issue the noble Baroness raises in that email and will write to her.