Nitrogen Reduction, Recycling and Reuse (Environment and Climate Change Committee Report)

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Tuesday 6th January 2026 Grand Committee

Moved by

[Baroness Sheehan]

That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Environment and Climate Change Committee Nitrogen: time to reduce, recycle, reuse (2nd Report, HL Paper 161).

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, it is my pleasure as chair of the Lords Environment and Climate Change Committee to open this debate on its report Nitrogen: Time to Reduce, Recycle, Reuse. I convey my thanks to our committee clerk Andrea Ninomiya, our policy analyst Lily Paulson and the operations officers Farhan Riaz and, latterly, Hanna Ghufoor. As any chair of a Select Committee will acknowledge, such reports would not be possible without the expert guidance of the clerk’s team, so thanks to them all once again.

Thanks are also due to the expert witnesses whose depth and breadth of knowledge informed this report, as well as to the six schools that took part in our youth engagement programme: Ellesmere College, Mary Immaculate High School, Shipley College, Skinners’ Academy, The Holt School and The Thomas Hardye School. We are also grateful to our specialist adviser, Professor Mark Sutton of the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, for his valuable support in a complex and sometimes highly technical inquiry.

Climate change, nature loss and public health are often treated as separate challenges. The committee’s report on nitrogen shows that, in truth, they are deeply and dangerously intertwined. Our inquiry heard clear, consistent evidence that nitrogen, in its many reactive forms, pollutes our waters, fuelling dead zones that devastate aquatic life. In the air, ammonia and nitrogen oxide contribute to PM2.5 fine particulates, causing an estimated 30,000 premature deaths in the UK. It accumulates in soils and ecosystems, undermining habitats that should be the backbone of our nature recovery ambitions. Nitrous oxide is both a powerful greenhouse gas and now the leading cause of the ozone hole. These impacts are not abstract. They are underpinned by hard data, measured in lost species, polluted stretches of river, hospital admissions and lives cut short.

Unless the Government take our report as a clarion call for action, we will not meet major biodiversity targets either in the UK or globally. For example, we will not meet our commitments under the Kunming-Montreal Global Biodiversity Framework to halve nutrient waste, including reactive nitrogen, by 2030. This is central to achieving the goal of halting and reversing biodiversity loss by 2030 and protecting 30% of land and sea—the 30 by 30 target. UK habitat objectives for protected areas—SSSIs and special areas of conservation—cannot be met while over 57% of nitrogen-sensitive habitats receive nitrogen deposition above critical loads and most nitrogen-sensitive woodland and peat habitats remain overloaded. Some 93% of monitored English estuaries and 47% of coastal waters exceed nitrogen standards. I could go on, but I think noble Lords get the picture.

The financial cost to hard-pressed farmers is estimated to be £420 million per annum in unnecessary overuse of artificial fertilisers. Figures from WWF and the Sustainable Nitrogen Alliance also refer to broader inefficiencies across full-chain nitrogen use efficiency, NUE. That includes from fertiliser and manure inputs to food output, and I assume it would also include food waste. NUE across the full chain is estimated as being only about 11%, with 89% wasted as emissions or run-off, equivalent to a £2.3 billion annual replacement cost.

In England, the total cost of nitrogen dioxide to the NHS and social care is estimated to be £230 million by 2035. That is why our report calls for a national nitrogen strategy rooted in robust data and a clear-eyed assessment of trade-offs. We recommend a UK nitrogen balance sheet, providing for nitrogen what the carbon budget provides for greenhouse gases—a transparent, accountable framework to understand where nitrogen comes from, where it goes and what damage or benefit it brings along the way. Only with such a framework can policy be coherent rather than piecemeal. The Government’s response acknowledges the problem but shies away from that necessary step. Warm words on existing initiatives are not a substitute for a cross-government strategy with measurable objectives and timelines.

Agriculture sits at the heart of the nitrogen challenge. Farmers are essential partners in the solution but they cannot be expected to transform practices in the absence of clear standards, fair incentives and practical support. Our report identifies major shortcomings in nitrogen regulation and enforcement, defined by piecemeal rules—for example, overlapping regulations such as farming rules for water, nitrate-vulnerable zones and silage and slurry regulations.

This confusing picture is further undermined by poor enforcement by the Environment Agency, which inspects under 2% of England’s 105,000 farms yearly. For example, checks were carried out on 2,213 farms in 2020-21. Breaches were found in about 50%, but sanctions were issued in just 0.1% of cases. That is more carte blanche than enforcement, which is a shame because, as we heard, if properly enforced, the farming rules for water have the potential to be effective in improving water quality as well as air and soil quality.

A key recommendation in our report was simplification of the regulatory system and toughening of enforcement action. There are some low-hanging solutions, such as improving manure management, mandating low-emission slurry spreading and covers by 2027, and extending permitting to large cattle and dairy farms within two years. We saw examples of this on our visit to an experimental farm in the Netherlands.

--- Later in debate ---

[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Duncan of Springbank) (Con)]

Before democracy so rudely interrupted us, we were hearing from the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I repeat that a key recommendation in our report was simplification of the regulatory system and toughening of enforcement. There are some low-hanging solutions, such as reducing inputs of nitrogen and optimising their application, improving manure management, mandating low-emission slurry spreading and slurry covers by 2027 and extending permitting to large cattle and dairy farms within two years. The Government’s response nods to these issues but opts to postpone real decisions. They prefer to wait for further pilots, reviews or consultations, rather than commit to the clear direction of travel that farmers themselves say they need. I would be interested to know why the Government are not showing greater urgency.

On water, our report highlighted that water companies alone cannot solve nutrient pollution. Upgrades to wastewater treatment are necessary but not sufficient. Upstream collaboration with land managers, catchment-based solutions and innovations in nutrient recovery must all play a part. We called for clearer expectations on integrated catchment planning and a regulatory framework that rewards pollution prevention, not merely end-of-pipe treatment. Yet the Government’s response is, again, too timid. It reiterates existing programmes but does not set out how regulations will drive the system towards joined-up catchment outcomes or how innovation in nutrient recycling will be scaled beyond a handful of projects.

Before concluding, I would like to put just two questions to the Minister. Can she confirm whether the Government will embed the holistic approach to nitrogen to which they have committed across related Defra priorities, including the farming road map, the land use framework, the food strategy, the water White Paper and the water reform Bill? Secondly, in the light of the delay to the circular economy strategy and its reframing as the circular economy growth plan, can the Minister provide assurance that nutrient circularity, including for nitrogen, will still form part of the circular economy road map for the agri-food sector?

Our report argues for aligning air quality, climate and agricultural policy so that measures reinforce, rather than undermine, one another. Moving nitrogen towards a circular economy—reduce, recycle, reuse—should be a unifying objective, but it is disappointing that the Government do not recognise that a circular economy approach to reducing nitrogen emissions is not deliverable without a national nitrogen strategy. I beg to move.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

Energy Market Reforms

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Tuesday 4th November 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, it is absolutely critical that we support families who struggle to pay their electricity bills. We do not want people to be cold in the winter. I am not aware of any plans to increase that payment at the moment; I will get back to the noble Baroness if I am wrong. It is important to bring down bills but also to work with energy companies on their support for vulnerable customers, because there is a role for energy companies to play in that aspect.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I declare my interest as a director of Peers for the Planet. In response to the Government’s Carbon Budget and Growth Delivery Plan published last week, Nigel Topping, the chair of the Government’s statutory Climate Change Committee, said:

“Our number one recommendation remains to make electricity cheaper. This means taking policy costs off electricity bills”.


Does the Minister agree?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

As I have said, one of our key priorities is to reduce bills for consumers, particularly for vulnerable customers. We will look at all aspects of how best to do that.

Deforestation

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Wednesday 17th September 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Sheehan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the consumption of forestry commodities in the United Kingdom is not driving deforestation abroad.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK strongly supports global efforts to protect forest and remains steadfast in working with partners to deliver the shared commitment to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. The Government are currently considering our approach to addressing the impact of the use of forest-risk commodities in our supply chains, and we will update the House at the earliest opportunity.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, the Tropical Forest Forever Facility is a flagship project of Brazil’s COP 30 presidency. It is a global financial initiative designed to provide large-scale, predictable and performance-based payments to tropical forest countries for conserving and expanding forest cover. Can the Minister reassure your Lordships’ House that the UK will show strong support for this important initiative by speeding up pending legislation to ban illegal forest-risk commodities in UK supply chains?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK welcomes the strong focus on forests from the Brazilian presidency at COP 30, and we will continue to shape our approach for putting forests at the heart of the climate agenda at COP 30 in Brazil. We are working at pace to move forward in this area.

Forest Risk Commodities

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Tuesday 8th July 2025 Lords Chamber

Asked by

[Baroness Sheehan]

To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to make regulations under Schedule 17 to the Environment Act 2021 to ban the import of forest risk commodities.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)]

My Lords, the UK strongly supports global efforts to protect forests and remains steadfast in working with partners to deliver the shared commitment to halt and reverse deforestation and forest degradation by 2030. The Government are currently considering their approach to addressing the impact of the use of forestry commodities in our supply chains and will update the House in due course.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

I thank the Minister. The problem is that there is no way in which to stabilise our warming planet if we continue to destroy vital sinks like forests. The UK has a real opportunity to show ambition in tackling deforestation at the upcoming COP 30 in the Brazilian Amazon. Will the Government’s ambition be greater than that of Schedule 17, and will it align with the EU deforestation regulation, which is more robust and wide-ranging?

High Seas Treaty

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Monday 10th March 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I thank the noble Lord for raising this issue. I am sure that we were all extremely shocked and concerned on hearing about the collision that has just taken place in the North Sea. It is an emerging picture; we are still hearing more evidence as to exactly what has happened. I assure the House that we are speaking closely in Defra to the Department for Transport and the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which are leading on the government response. They are assessing the situation, as it has only just happened. I assure the noble Lord and the House that Defra’s agencies including the Environment Agency are engaging on any clean-up that is needed and assessing any pollution. We are not sure at the moment exactly what the situation is. There has been a fire, which makes it much more difficult to look at the extent of damage and pollution. We will keep the House updated as we hear further information.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, can I press the Minister a little further on the ratification process for the high seas treaty? Can she confirm that ratification needs to take place before June 2025 if we are to have a voice at the COP process that will take place on the treaty later this year?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

To confirm, the UN ocean conference is a separate meeting. Therefore, it is not a deadline for ratification of the treaty, but we are committed to the ratification.

Flooding

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Tuesday 7th January 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

Clearly, we have planning legislation coming forward. One thing we are doing in Defra is working closely with MHCLG around the future development of planning, particularly as we have ambitious plans for building a large number of homes that are so desperately needed. As part of the new home strategy that we have at the moment, we have committed to ensure that we are building more high-quality, better-designed, sustainable homes and creating places that increase climate resilience and promote nature recovery. It is important that, when we plan, we also look at the impact on the environment, and that clearly includes the impact on flooding.

The Government are committed to consider whether changes are required to manage flood risk, coastal change and sustainable drainage systems provision through the planning system when we consult on further planning reform, including a set of national policies that are related to decision-making in this area. Where development needs to be in locations where there is a risk of flooding because no alternative sites are available, we are stressing that developments should be flood resilient and resistant, safe for a lifetime and should not increase flood risk overall. The problem you can have is that, if you do not look at this properly in the round, you can build a house that potentially could flood, so you put in place resilience measures and, as the noble Baroness said, they push the water on to another estate that has not flooded before. So it is really important that we look at this carefully in the round.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, can the Minister update the House on when we can expect to see the land use framework that has been much delayed? It will shed some light on the competing priorities for land, including flood plains.

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

I am hoping that we will see it very soon. The target we are working to is that we are hoping to see it some time later this month.

--- Later in debate ---

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

If a planning application has been approved in a flooding area, I would expect it to have been granted alongside mitigation measures that the developer would have had to provide to get planning permission in the first place from a local authority. Clearly, I do not know the detail of every single planning application that the noble Lord is talking about, but whether that would be available for review would be a matter for policy development through MHCLG as well as for local authorities, because it is local authorities’ responsibility to provide planning grants and look at applications.

On some of the other matters that the noble Lord raised—this is probably relevant to some of the other questions too—I want to draw noble Lords’ attention to the fact that we are reviewing the flood funding formula. A lot of the issues that have been raised are down to the fact that the existing formula follows a complex process and risks slowing down the development of the kinds of schemes that perhaps many noble Lords would like to see. We are aiming to bring in a new approach from April this year, and that is important. Where I live in Cumbria, the existing formula certainly did not work for us when we were badly flooded, and the Government had to provide an extra top-up amount of money. That is not the way to go forward. We need to ensure that communities are properly supported with the kinds of budgets that can bring in the long-term solutions that will be needed to protect them against potential future floods.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, since there is still a bit of time, may I ask the Minister what thought the department has given to the health of our soils and their decreasing ability to absorb water? A lot of the issues around flooding concern run-off and the reduced capacity of the land to absorb water that it used to be able to. Two issues arise out of that: increased water, which we have little way of dealing with at the moment, and the reduced replenishment of our aquifers, which is causing water shortages around the country. Is the department giving deep thought to that?

[Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)]

The quality of soils is incredibly important, for all sorts of reasons, but the noble Baroness is correct that when you have better soil it holds more water. Grants are available through different routes such as the environmental land management scheme; for example, for soil improvement. I have also been to see a Rivers Trust project where it has improved soil qualities around a particular river and was able to demonstrate that the water was held better by the improved soil when there were flooding incidents from that river. We have the evidence that it makes a difference, and we are looking at it extremely seriously.

Persistent Organic Pollutants (Amendment) (No. 2) Regulations 2023

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Tuesday 14th November 2023 Grand Committee

[The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Benyon) (Con)]

My Lords, I beg to move that these regulations, which were laid before the House on 16 October 2023, be approved.

This instrument adds a new substance called perfluorohexane sulfonic acid—PFHxS for short—including its salts and related compounds, to the retained persistent organic pollutants regulation in response to the listing of this substance under the United Nations Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. The UK is a party to the convention and is therefore obligated to reflect in UK law the listing of POPs under the convention. This legislative change is permitted by use of the powers available within article 15 of the retained EU regulation on POPs. We have worked with the devolved Administrations on this instrument. These regulations are needed to implement the UK’s commitments under the United Nations Stockholm Convention on Persistent Organic Pollutants. POPs are substances recognised as particularly dangerous to the health of humans, wildlife and the environment. This SI preserves and adds to the current regime for managing, restricting or eliminating POPs in the UK.

Let me turn now to the details of the instrument. At the 10th meeting of the conference of the parties last year, PFHxS was added to the list of substances for global elimination under the convention. This decision was communicated to parties and observers by the UN depository in November 2022. The SI adds this new POP to the list of substances prohibited by law from being manufactured, sold and used in Great Britain.

Secondly, the instrument provides some exemptions from the prohibitions by allowing the unintentional presence of PFHxS at trace levels. These limits define the concentrations at which PFHxS can lawfully be found in a substance, article or mixture, where they are unintentionally present and found in minimal amounts. The SI includes two general limits and one that is specific to its presence in firefighting foams.

This instrument was not subject to consultation because, although it represents an update to existing legislation, it implements an international obligation that the UK is required to put into place in law. There were opportunities for UK stakeholders to feed into earlier engagement, both UK and convention led, at various stages before PFHxS was adopted for elimination under the Stockholm convention. The Government have also initiated public calls for information and opportunities to comment on draft evaluation documents for this substance. We received no evidence to suggest that exemptions or derogations were required by industry in Great Britain. Following that previous engagement, a recent Defra-led consultation on other potential amendments to the POPs regulation stated our intention to list PFHxS in annexe 1 of the POPs regulation in order to meet the UK’s obligations under the Stockholm convention.

A de minimis impact assessment was carried out. It concluded that there is no indication that PFHxS chemicals are intentionally produced or used in Great Britain. As such, this SI is not expected to have an impact on businesses, beyond one-off familiarisation costs. It is also not expected to disproportionately burden small businesses.

The Environment Agency is the delivery body for the POPs regulation for England, and Natural Resources Wales and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency are the delivery bodies for Wales and Scotland respectively. They have been involved in the development of this SI and have no concerns in relation to implementation or resources.

The territorial extent and application of this instrument is Great Britain. Under the Windsor Framework, the EU POPs regulation 2019/1021 applies in Northern Ireland. The devolved Administrations in Wales and Scotland were engaged in the development of the SI and have consented to it being made on a GB-wide basis.

In conclusion, I emphasise that the measures in this SI are needed to implement the requirements of the Stockholm convention by adding the new POP PFHxS, its salts and related compounds to the list of substances prohibited by law. The Environmental Improvement Plan for England has made clear our commitment to support and protect the natural environment, wildlife and human health. This includes our commitment to manage and reduce POPs in the environment. The draft regulations will allow the UK to continue to meet commitments relating to POPs and to continue to implement the Stockholm convention requirements to prohibit, eliminate or restrict the production and use of POPs. I hope noble Lords will support these measures and their objectives, and I commend the draft regulations to the House.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I thank the Minister for the information he gave, and I convey the apologies of my noble friend Lady Bakewell, who is unable to be here today—I am standing in her place. The Minister spoke about PFHxS, but I was under the impression that we would be speaking about PFOAs and the extension of the deadline from July 2023 to 2025. I may have got it completely wrong, but that was the brief I was given.

I listened carefully to what the Minister said. These POPs are very toxic substances, with a long lifetime in the environment. It is not for nothing that they are called “forever chemicals”. So I am pleased that the Government have taken this firm line and will make sure that they are banned—and I am pleased that they are not being produced in the UK.

[Lord Tunnicliffe (Lab)]

My Lords, in the absence of my noble friend Lady Hayman of Ullock, it falls to me to thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. The pedant in me needs to point out that we are invited to consider these regulations, not approve them.

The Minister will be relieved to hear that we support the passage of this statutory instrument, which, as he outlined, implements a June 2022 decision on the Stockholm convention, to which the UK is a party, to list PFHxS, its salts and related compounds as prohibited persistent organic pollutants—POPs. The Explanatory Memorandum notes that PFHxS is

“one of the most frequently detected and predominant PFASs in human blood”.

Although not all PFAS chemicals are POPs, it is worth acknowledging the significant threat posed by many PFASs. These forever chemicals degrade incredibly slowly, bringing a risk of large-scale health and environmental effects. From the debate in another place, I understand that more of these chemicals are due to be listed as POPs under the Stockholm convention in the near future. Is the Minister able to provide any timeline for the designation of these additional chemicals? Will the Minister commit to bringing forward further statutory instruments as quickly as possible?

As my colleague, Ruth Jones MP, noted, this instrument represents

“a very good example of common sense alignment with our neighbours”.—[Official Report, Commons, Second Delegated Legislation Committee, 13/11/23; col. 5.]

Close cross-border co-operation on environmental and chemical threats is vital. It is for that reason that we were puzzled by the Government’s decision not to seek an ongoing relationship with the EU’s REACH programme —the system for the recognition, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals. The replacement UK REACH scheme is still very much in its infancy, with worryingly little information about how it will work in practice. Recent media reports suggest that the department will require less hazard information from chemical companies when they register substances in the UK. Can the Minister confirm whether that is the case and whether an impact assessment will be made available in due course?

While this SI keeps us in step with international partners in relation to POPs, there is a perception that the UK is falling behind on broader chemical regulation. That flies in the face of promises made by a variety of Prime Ministers, Secretaries of State and Ministers. While we support the passage of this instrument, I hope the Minister will accept that the Government have work to do to convince colleagues that the necessary steps are being taken to preserve the health of the population, wildlife and the natural environment.

Air Quality Strategy Consultation

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Thursday 18th May 2023 Lords Chamber

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

My noble friend raises a point that cab drivers raise with me frequently. It is a serious point. As she knows, air quality is devolved to the mayor, who is ultimately responsible for the delivery of his policies. Undoubtedly, with ULEZ and other policies, this is causing tensions, but it is for him to answer. Our point is to help local government in all its forms to deliver. We are putting in money to assist local authorities in tackling air quality right across the country. London is the biggest challenge. That is why we work with the mayor when we can to make sure that we are achieving that in the capital.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, Cabinet Office consultation principles state:

“Consultations should last for a proportionate amount of time”


and should be judged

“on the basis of legal advice and taking into account the nature and impact of the proposal”.

Air pollution is estimated to be responsible for more than 64,000 deaths in the UK, costing in the region of £20 billion, as estimated by the Royal College of Physicians report, Every Breath We Take. Does the Minister really believe that nine working days is a proportionate amount of time to gather responses on air pollution, the biggest environmental risk to public health?

[Lord Benyon (Con)]

I cannot add in response to the noble Baroness more than I said in my reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, because I think that we have consulted very widely, not just during those dates that she cited but across the piece. Air quality is one of the key priorities. If the noble Baroness looks at our environmental improvement plan, she will see what we are asking to be delivered right across this country. She will see that it is a priority and that we are consulting in a variety of ways to make sure that we reflect those who have to deliver this, which is, in the main, local authorities.

UK Shellfish Sector

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Wednesday 10th February 2021 Lords Chamber

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. We are seeking a pragmatic solution to this matter.

[Baroness Sheehan (LD) [V]]

My Lords, I would like to follow on from the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay. The Minister said a little bit about what needs to be done to bring our class B waters up to class A standards. Can he say how long he thinks this might take? Will the Government move this into a higher priority area now?

[Lord Gardiner of Kimble (Con) [V]]

On the timeframe, there has been a lot of work to improve waters and achieve our water regulation standard results in shellfish waters of high class B quality. As I say, there is investment, and this will need to continue. Part of our 25-year environment plan is to have three quarters of our water in its natural state. This is going to need investment, and we are working on this. But I want to emphasise that our molluscs from class B waters are of very high quality, and we wish to work with permission to ensure that this legitimate trade, which is important around the country, is resumed.

Food Supply and Security

Baroness Sheehan Excerpts

Thursday 14th May 2020 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Sheehan (LD)]

My Lords, I was privileged to be a member of the Lords EU Energy and Environment Sub-Committee when it produced Brexit-related reports on agriculture, and on food prices and availability. The two key vulnerabilities in our food system that the Covid-19 crisis has laid bare were highlighted in those reports: first, the UK’s dependency on the rest of the world, given than half our food is imported; and secondly, the gaping labour gap left by EU workers who do so much of the heavy lifting in all aspects of food manufacturing, in both skills and stamina. Can the Minister say what progress has been made by the Feed the Nation campaign to fill the 80,000 vacancies for this harvest season?

The British Veterinary Association states that 95% of official veterinarians working in abattoirs come mainly from the EU. These OVs are essential to ensuring compliance with food standards and regulations, as well as upholding levels of animal welfare. A reduction in their numbers will seriously compromise the FSA’s ability to sustain a sufficient service. How has the food safety inspections regime been coping with reduced personnel, the difficulty of maintaining social distancing measures in food production settings, and a shortage of PPE? Essentially, is enough being done to safeguard the public against the risk of food-borne disease? Lastly, what advice have scientists given about the risk of SARS-CoV-2 jumping the species barrier from humans back to the animal kingdom—to, say, chickens?