Asked by
of Childs Hill
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to
reduce exposure to traffic-related air pollution, given its links
to a range of health risks including cardiovascular, respiratory,
and neurological health conditions.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs () (Con)
My Lords, air pollution in the UK has reduced significantly since
2010, but the Government recognise that there is more to do to
achieve our air quality goals. For this purpose, we have set
ambitious emissions-reduction targets for key pollutants by 2030,
and have provided generous funding of over £883 million to local
authorities to improve air quality.
of Childs Hill (LD)
The Royal College of Physicians wrote to the noble Lord’s
ministry, Defra, requiring targets for a reduction in the amount
of PM2.5, the tiny particles that cross the lung barrier and do
the most harm. Can he respond to that? Can he also respond to
research by the University of Surrey, the University of Warwick,
the University of Reading and the Royal Horticultural Society
showing that hedges can reduce pollution at breathing height?
Their effectiveness has been shown in studies by a policy of
planting hedges along main roads, particularly near schools. This
is an evidence-based, cheap and effective way to combat serious
damage to health by air pollution.
(Con)
The noble Lord cites absolutely correct evidence about the power
of the natural world to improve our lives, including by cleaning
our air, and trying to get more trees and hedgerows planted close
to where people live will certainly affect that. He makes an
important point about PM2.5, which is most damaging to health.
Under our innovative population exposure reduction target, we
will drive improvement even where concentration targets have
already been achieved. As a result, people’s exposure to PM2.5
will be cut by over a third by 2040, on average, compared to 2018
levels.
(Lab)
My Lords, the Government’s own watchdog, the Office for
Environmental Protection, said that the Government’s proposed
PM2.5 air pollution targets are “unambitious” and
“lack sufficient urgency to reflect the scale of change needed”.
What message does that send to the one in five people in the UK
living with respiratory conditions?
(Con)
The noble Baroness will be pleased to know that our ambitious
targets under the Environment Act will be set out under the
environmental improvement plan, which will include really
stretching targets on the most damaging pollutants. There has
been a good news story in the last decade about how we have
reduced them, but that is not enough, and she is right to say
that this still affects the health and life chances of many
people, particularly some in deprived areas. This is about making
sure that local authorities have the funds necessary to introduce
schemes, and about having stretching national targets that will
be respected around the world.
(Con)
My Lords, many of the measures to combat dirty air require
international collaboration to make them effective on supply
chains and measures in areas such as energy and transport. What
are the Government doing to encourage international
collaboration?
(Con)
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right that pollutants
blow in from abroad, and we have to work with our neighbours to
ensure that an outcome to that issue is achieved. I have just
come back from Montreal, where we have negotiated a landmark
international agreement which will, if properly implemented, have
effects on people right across the world and improve the ability
of nature to protect us and our health.
(GP)
My Lords, one of the options in setting standards for the rest of
the world is to enact them here. As the Minister knows, my Clean
Air (Human Rights) Bill has just completed its passage through
your Lordships’ House and has gone to the other place. Will he
recommend it to his Defra colleagues as a much more ambitious and
achievable piece of policy on clean air that they could take up
immediately?
(Con)
The noble Baroness’s ambitions in the Bill are understood and
supported by the Government, but it needs to be seen in
conjunction with what we are doing with our commitment through
the 25-year environment plan, how we will implement that through
the Environment Act, and the targets that we have announced which
will be put in the environmental improvement plan. We are also
working with local authorities and trying to get industry to
innovate, and we have created stretching targets for our vehicle
industry by moving to electric vehicles. That all needs to be
brought together in a holistic government action which will
improve people’s health.
(Con)
My Lords, does my noble friend the Minister agree that trees play
an important role in improving environmental health? When might
we expect the environmental improvement plan to be published? Ash
dieback has had a devasting effect on many ash trees in areas
owned by local councils, so has he made an estimate of the cost
of removing ash trees damaged by dieback in our hedgerows and
grasslands owned by local authorities?
(Con)
I do not have a figure with which to answer my noble friend, but
she is absolutely right to point out the value of trees. We have
stretching targets for new woodland planting, which not only will
help to reverse the declines in biodiversity and to lock up more
carbon but will improve people’s health through both the air they
breathe and the quality of their lives. We want to ensure that
this is understood, not just by land managers but by local
authorities and government departments which own a large amount
of land. We want to ensure that everybody is part of the great
national effort to improve our biodiversity and quality of life.
of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, in June the National Audit Office released a report on
tackling local breaches of air quality. One of its conclusions
was that the Government publish a lot of air quality data, but
not in a way that gives the public accessible information about
air quality problems and action in their area. It said:
“There has been little public engagement … and … a lack of
transparency”.
What progress have the Government made to address those issues?
(Con)
We are driving down emissions across all sectors in the economy,
including through the nitrogen dioxide plan, which has seen
emissions from road transport decrease over 52% in the last
decade, and the environmental permitting of agriculture and
industry, which has seen sulphur dioxide emissions from energy
production decrease 87% over the last decade, and by regulating
the most harmful fuels in domestic burning to reduce emissions by
2030. That is what we are achieving. The noble Baroness is
absolutely right that we need to help people to make decisions
about their lives, so part of our support for local authorities
is to help the whole health disparity problem by making sure that
people have more information about how they can minimise the
impact of poor air quality in their lives. Some people cannot do
that—for example, you cannot expect people to move away from
traffic hotspots—so the driver is to try to reduce poor air
quality and to improve the lives of those people. Trying to
ensure that we are limiting those issues is an absolutely core
part of the national policy.
(CB)
My Lords, can the Minister comment on the relationship with the
department of health? I am firmly convinced that there would be
significant cost efficiency for the health service if air quality
was improved more rapidly in inner cities.
(Con)
We are planning to publish a revised national air quality
strategy early next year, the key focus of which will be
identifying and addressing air pollution disparities, as I have
just referred to. We could not do that without working very
closely with the Department of Health and Social Care. Addressing
air quality-related health disparities will be absolutely key for
our levelling-up ambitions, so it is not just an issue for Defra
and the department of health but a cross-government initiative.
of Hardington Mandeville
(LD)
My Lords, the environment targets were published last Friday. The
pollution target for PM2.5 of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by
2040 is underwhelming. The World Health Organization guideline
for PM2.5 is to reach that target by 2030. The CBI estimates that
following the World Health Organization’s guidelines could
deliver an annual economic boost of £1.6 billion per annum by
reducing deaths and sickness absences caused by air pollution.
Why are the Government dragging their feet on that matter?
(Con)
My Lords, the Government are not dragging their feet; it is an
absolute priority, as the noble Baroness will see when we publish
our environmental improvement plan. On the point about World
Health Organization guidelines, we have taken significant steps
to improve air quality since it originally raised concerns. It
said that our 2019 clean air strategy was an example for the rest
of the world to follow, so we are heading in the right direction.
