Environment Bill

Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Baroness Sheehan

Report stage
Monday 13th September 2021 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I shall speak to this amendment in my name and the names of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, and the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. The amendment aims to implement 20 mph as the default speed limit on residential roads. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, is unable to be with us this afternoon but is keen to reiterate her support—

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords—

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

I am sorry; I was so pleased to have made it here on time that I forgot to check that the noble Baroness was here. I will leave her to reiterate her support on her own behalf.

I thank the Minister for meeting me and colleagues during the Summer Recess. While we had a good meeting and I thank the Minister for his courtesy throughout, can he say whether he has looked further at the evidence that reducing vehicle speeds will be a necessary remedy to reduce non-exhaust emissions? In addition, and crucially, a lower speed limit on our roads will help to relieve the additional electricity demand that electric vehicles will put on the national grid and will help our fight against climate change.

Does the Minister accept that, in looking for solutions to reducing air pollution from transport and facilitating the rollout of electric vehicles, speed is a factor that cannot be ignored? Given the importance of improving the air we breathe in our everyday environment, I feel strongly that any remedy to reduce air pollution has a place in a seminal Environment Bill. However, I accept that it is for the Department for Transport to set speed limits. In that vein, I remind the Minister of his kind offer to facilitate a meeting with the noble Baroness, Lady Vere, in her capacity as Transport Minister. Will he confirm that he will do this, if he has not done so already?

In conclusion, we are speaking here of a remedy that will reduce fine particulates in our ambient air, for which the WHO has said that there is no safe limit. The rate of implementation of 20 mph speed limits is gathering pace, not just in the UK but across Europe. We on these Benches will be pursuing the 20’s Plenty agenda in the future, but we may need to leave it until the transport Bill is before us.

[Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)]

My Lords, after that welcome from the noble Baroness in her introduction, I feel that I should go next in speaking in support of this amendment. I should declare that I live in Cardiff, which is one of the pilot areas of the 20 miles per hour speed limit, and we have already found that the air quality has improved, but the transit time from one place to another has not increased—contrary to rumours that that had happened. The difference is that the traffic is calmer; children walking to and from school are safer; and there is less bad behaviour generally on the roads with people being aggravated and pulling away fast at lights.

I have spoken at length about the problem of non-exhaust pollution and that is all on the record, so I will not go over the damage caused to human health by that. However, I remind everyone that, as well as decreasing fatal accidents, the lower speed limit also decreases accidents where there are life-changing injuries.

Given that we are trying to increase walking and cycling and that the Highway Code has been rewritten, moving to 20 miles per hour on our roads generally is very sensible. I have noticed that in London, where some areas are limited to 20 and others are not, drivers are confused but it is easier for cyclists and pedestrians, and it is easier as a driver to see them if they are going just a little slower.

I am afraid I cannot see any arguments at all against the Government accepting this amendment, other than the theory that some people think it might take them longer to get from A to B. However, I do not think that has been proven in practice.

Charitable and Voluntary Sector

Debate between Baroness Finlay of Llandaff and Baroness Sheehan

Thursday 30th April 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, Bond, the umbrella group representing over 400 NGOs working in international development and the humanitarian sector, estimates that many members will not survive unless they receive urgent financial support to cover core organisational costs. These are valued organisations held in high esteem nationally and internationally, so I have four asks of the Government.

First, the £750 million charity support package, though welcome, does not include charities that work abroad, nor is it sufficient for those it does support. Will the Government increase support commensurate with the £4 billion loss that the sector faces and, of that support, will they make at least £320 million available to UK NGOs working abroad?

Secondly, can the Minister say whether the request to increase the £20 million allocation to the rapid response facility to at least £100 million, as per the letter to the Secretary of State for DfID from Wendy Chamberlain MP, to which I and over 100 other parliamentarians across both Houses are signatories, will be met? These front-line NGOs have a delivery capacity and reach into vulnerable communities second to none.

Thirdly, will the Government allow charities in current government programmes to pivot to tackle Covid-19?

Fourthly, when will charities have access to the furlough scheme and CSOs to small business funding?

Covid-19 does not respect borders. A single case of a superspreader can infect people around the world very quickly. We are all in this together, so unless the crisis is over everywhere, it will not be over anywhere.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Lord Loomba? As the noble Lord, Lord Loomba, has not responded, I call the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever.