Neil Parish (Tiverton and Honiton) (Con) (Urgent Question): To ask
the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what
steps his Department will be taking to improve air quality after
the Government’s third defeat in the High Court on 21 February this
year. The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Michael Gove) Mr Speaker,...Request free trial
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps his Department
will be taking to improve air quality after the Government’s
third defeat in the High Court on 21 February this year.
-
Mr Speaker, thank you for granting this urgent question.
Air pollution is the greatest environmental threat to
human health in this country and the fourth biggest
public health killer after cancer, obesity and heart
disease. Today marks the publication of the latest stage
in this Government’s determined efforts to reduce and
reverse the impact of air pollution on our health and on
our natural environment. Our clean air strategy
consultation, published today, outlines steps that we can
all take to reduce the emission of harmful gases and
particulate matter from all the sources that contribute
to polluted air.
It is important to recognise, as I know my hon. Friend
the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish) does,
that air pollution is generated by a wide variety of
sources—from the fuel used for domestic heating to the
application of fertilisers on agricultural land, and from
the use of chemicals in industry to sea, rail, air and
road transport. The strategy published today outlines
specific steps that we can take to reduce the use of the
most polluting fuels, to manage better the use of manures
and slurries on agricultural land, and to ensure that
non-road mobile machinery is effectively policed, among
other measures.
My hon. Friend asks specifically about urban transport
pollution. Last year, the Government published their UK
plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide
concentrations. The plan allocated over £3 billion to
help to reduce harmful NOx emissions, including £475
million to local authorities to enable them to develop
their own air quality plans. Since then we have been
working with local authorities to help them to deliver
specific solutions. We have also issued ministerial
directions to 61 local authorities to ensure that they
live up to their shared responsibilities.
Our plan committed us to phasing out the sale of
conventional diesel and petrol cars by 2040 and taking
them off the road altogether by 2050. This is more
ambitious than any European Union requirement and puts
Britain in the lead among major developed economies.
Alongside that commitment we are dedicating £1.5 billion
to the development of zero and ultra-low emission
vehicles, including support for new charging points
across the country.
We were of course helped in the preparation of our clean
air strategy by the excellent report produced earlier
this year by the Chairs of the Select Committee on
Health, the Select Committee on Transport and the Select
Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In
their excellent report on air quality, the joint Select
Committees recommended introducing a new clean air Act.
We will indeed be introducing primary legislation to
clean up our air. They suggested that we initiate a new
health campaign. As the Secretary of State for Health has
emphasised, we will be introducing a personal messaging
system to ensure that those most at risk receive the
information that they need about pollution risks.
It was also recommended that we place health and
environment, rather than simply technical compliance, at
the centre of our strategy. We do that with ambitious new
targets that match World Health Organisation metrics on
improving air quality. Of course, we were also asked to
reduce emissions from tyres and braking—the so-called
Oslo effect—and today we have announced action to work
with manufacturers to do just that.
Emissions have fallen consistently since 2010, and my
predecessors in this role are to be commended for the
action that they have taken, but today’s strategy marks
the most ambitious steps yet to accelerate our progress
towards cleaner air. I commend the strategy to the House.
-
I thank the Secretary of State very much for publishing
the clean air strategy today. I know that he feels very
passionately about this and works very strongly to get
our air cleaner in this country. I also welcome the
proposals for improving air quality. That demonstrates
progress. However, I am concerned that the strategy is
not as wide-ranging as it could be. I welcome the fact
that we seem to be cleaning up our wood-burning stoves.
We also need to deal with agricultural pollution but, in
particular, we need to deal with the hotspots in our
inner cities.
The strategy says that, to reduce particulate emissions
from tyre and brake wear, the Government will work with
international partners to develop new international
regulations for particulate emissions from tyres and
brakes through the United Nations Economic Commission for
Europe. I very much welcome that, but is it adequate? To
cut the levels of particulate matter from vehicles, the
Government should reduce the need for private vehicles in
congested urban areas by improving public transport and
by making sure that public transport is much cleaner. We
have done a lot in London but we need to do much across
the rest of our cities in this great country.
It is not clear that the Government have taken on board
our report’s key finding that Departments are not
necessarily working together effectively. This is not a
criticism of the Secretary of State; it is very much to
say that we need to work more with Transport to deliver
many of the solutions.
Will the Secretary of State support our calls for
conventional petrol and diesel engine cars to be phased
out by 2040? Will he offer more support and resources to
local councils to improve their air quality so that this
can be tackled at a local level as well as a national
level? Can we be sure that all the monitoring systems
through DEFRA and through local authorities actually
work?
I welcome the fact that there will be new powers for the
Transport Secretary to compel manufacturers to recall
vehicles for any failures in their emissions control
systems and to make tampering illegal. I still continue
to ask why Volkswagen has got away with what it did and
why we did not do enough to make sure that it was brought
to book. That is not you, Secretary of State—that is the
Transport Secretary. However, can the Secretary of State
offer more support for cleaner fuels that consumers can
use in vehicles, especially bioethanol—E10—in petrol?
That is good not only for the environment but for farmers
who supply the wheat that makes the bioethanol in the
first place.
-
Whew! The hon. Gentleman can now breathe.
-
As you have indicated, Mr Speaker, I think we are all
admiring of the Select Committee Chair for managing to
pack into his allotted time so much that was useful. I
will do my very best to reply appropriately.
My hon. Friend is quite right to draw attention to the
way in which tyres and brakes generate particulate matter
that finds its way into the air and contributes to air
pollution. We will be working with manufacturers, exactly
as he says, in order to deal with this method of
pollution. He is also right that particulate matter is a
particular problem with regard to public health. One of
the biggest generators of particulate matter is domestic
wood burning and coal burning. The clean air strategy
goes further than ever before in making sure that we can
deal with both those means of generating particulate
matter.
My hon. Friend asks that we improve public transport.
Specifically with regard to NOx emissions, the diesel
vehicles on which so many rely for public transport—buses
and so on—do need to be modernised. We work with local
authorities to ensure that there is appropriate
retrofitting of these vehicles so that the diesel
emissions that contribute to poor air quality can be
effectively dealt with. We are spending £475 million with
local authorities to ensure that they can have bespoke
solutions. That can involve the retrofitting of public
transport. It can also involve engineering solutions to
bring down the concentration of harmful emissions in
particular areas.
My hon. Friend makes a point about the 2040 target. I
completely agree that it is important to hit that target.
He also draws attention to the fact that some motor
manufacturers, in effect, attempted to get around
regulations in order to produce vehicles for sale that
did not meet the requirements for air quality that we
would all want to see. We can all reflect on the way in
which the regulation, which was of course fixed at EU
level, did not work effectively. There has been
reference, and I know there will be subsequent reference,
to the court cases that have found a number of EU
countries, including Britain, to be in breach of EU law
on this matter. The truth is that one of the reasons
Britain and other countries are in breach of EU law is
that there are vehicles on our streets that had technical
compliance with EU rules but, in terms of real-world
emissions, were not fit for our use.
-
What we needed from the Government today was a
comprehensive clean air strategy to show that they are
really serious about tackling this public health
emergency, but what we have instead is yet another
consultation, which has a focus on emissions from
agriculture and wood burning and is weak on cutting
roadside pollution from diesel vehicles. It is worth
remembering that, since the general election, there have
been 25 DEFRA consultations and not one piece of primary
legislation delivered.
We know that air pollution is responsible for at least
40,000 premature deaths every year. We know that it is
particularly harmful to our children and our vulnerable
elderly people. Effective national action must be taken
to address the emissions from road transport that are
contributing to illegal and harmful levels of pollution.
The UK is currently routinely responsible for exceeding
the legal levels of pollution. Today’s strategy states
that the Government aim to halve the number of people
living in unsafe levels of pollution by 2025, but that is
simply not good enough. If today’s announcement is the
extent of their ambition, it poses a serious question
about whether this Conservative Government can really be
trusted with our environment and with dealing with
illegal air pollution after the UK leaves the EU.
The strategy still does not legally provide for a network
of mandatory clean air zones, which DEFRA’s own analysis
shows is the quickest and most cost-effective way to
bring NOx levels down to legal levels. Yet again, we see
more shunting of new responsibilities on to our
cash-strapped local authorities, which have been cut to
the bone by the Government’s unrelenting austerity
agenda. All the new promises we have heard today will
mean very little if local councils do not have the money
or the resources to implement them.
The Government say time and again that they are committed
to this being the first generation to leave the
environment in a better state than we inherited it in,
but I see no evidence of actual action being taken to
deliver that. Anything being mooted by the Government on
tackling air pollution will be effective only if there is
a serious and independent environmental regulator after
Brexit to hold the Government to account, but the
Government’s recently announced environment watchdog has
been roundly condemned as being entirely toothless.
Labour has been calling for primary legislation on air
quality since the last election. This Government only
ever take action on illegal air pollution when they have
been held over a barrel in the courts. I remind the House
that there have been three legal challenges and a
referral to the European Court of Justice. When will the
Government treat this issue with the seriousness that it
deserves? The time for half-measures and public
consultation has to end. We need real action now to
tackle this public health emergency.
-
I thank the hon. Lady for her points. She asks for a
comprehensive strategy. That is what we have produced
today. She specifically refers to our target to ensure
that half of the population live in areas that meet World
Health Organisation standards for air quality by 2025.
What she omitted to tell the House is that this
Government are putting forward a more ambitious
aspiration for the cleanliness of our air than any other
Government in a developed nation. It seems that, in her
desire to be grudging, she failed to share with the House
the detail of our ambition.
The hon. Lady asked about clean air zones. Clean air
zones can be implemented by local authorities if they
believe that that is the right solution. We on the
Government Benches believe in the “local” in local
government. It is right for local authorities to make an
appropriate decision, depending on the circumstances in
that area. A one-size-fits-all approach imposed from the
centre may be appropriate in the Marxist-Leninist world
of the Corbynistas, but we believe that it is appropriate
to work with local authorities and metro Mayors. When
necessary, we will apply ministerial directions, but it
is appropriate to have the right approach for each
individual area.
The hon. Lady asked about primary legislation. Let me
remind her that a Labour Government were in place for 13
years, and how many pieces of primary legislation did
they bring in on air quality? How many? It was a
Conservative Government who brought in the Clean Air Act
1956 and a Conservative Government who brought in clean
air legislation when John Major was Prime Minister, but
when Labour was in power, we did not have clean air
Acts—we had dirty diesel subsidies.
It was the Labour Government who introduced a deliberate
ramping up of the number of diesel cars on our streets.
We had a confession recently from none other than the
hon. Member for Brent North, a man to whom I always pay
close attention. admitted—it is
perhaps not the first confession he will be making this
week—that there is “absolutely no question” that the
decision the Labour Government took on diesel was “the
wrong decision” and:
“Certainly the impact of that decision has been a massive
problem for public health in this country.”
Until we have an apology from those on the Labour Front
Bench for the errors that they made, we will take their
words on air pollution for the hot air that they
manifestly are.
-
I always richly enjoy the Secretary of State’s
performances, almost as richly as he does himself. I
hope, however, he will not take it amiss if I gently
point out that to refer to the hon. Member for Brent
North is in order, but to name him is not.
-
-
It is shocking, as the right hon. Gentleman observes in a
disorderly manner from a sedentary position.
-
The clean air strategy rightly sets out the compelling
case for action to reduce public exposure to air
pollution in order to save lives and improve the quality
of life for many. We also know that there is a compelling
case to get Britain moving and get us out of our cars,
and that cycling and walking, even where there is a lot
of traffic, exposes people to less air pollution than
driving. Does the Secretary of State share my
disappointment that there is only a single paragraph in
the strategy on active travel? I urge him to go further
by strengthening measures to get people out of their cars
and, where possible, on to their bikes and walking for
their benefit.
-
My hon. Friend makes a vital point. Today’s strategy
deals with a number of sources of air pollution, and I
commend my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for
Transport for showing leadership on precisely the area
that she draws attention to. We have spent £1.2 billion
on a cycling and walking investment strategy. When my
colleague the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South
Ruislip (Boris Johnson) was Mayor of London, he
introduced a cycle lane network across the capital, which
has contributed hugely to an increase in the number of
people cycling across the capital. I absolutely believe
that we need to have a switch away from an over-reliance
on traditional internal combustion engines, towards new
modes of transport, and part of that is making sure that
we can cycle and walk wherever possible.
-
In Scotland we have achieved progressively clean air over
recent years through increasingly strict control of
industrial emissions, tighter fuel and emissions
standards for road vehicles and control of smoke from
domestic premises. However, after going to court numerous
times, the UK Government are not taking serious action.
They are just dragging their feet by announcing yet
another consultation. As has just been said, the
Secretary of State has issued more than 25 consultations
since the 2017 general election, but none has yet
produced new laws.
The Government’s own research shows that clean air zones
are the most effective solution to air pollution, so why
are they ignoring their own advice? Surely they should
follow the Scottish National party Government, who are
funding low emission zones to take the most polluting
vehicles out of the most polluted areas of Scotland. The
Health Secretary has said that
“Air pollution is contributing to a national health
crisis.”
Why is the Environment Secretary ignoring his own Cabinet
colleagues and not taking serious action now?
-
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his comments. He
makes the point about the number of consultations we have
brought forward. Call me old-fashioned, but I think it is
appropriate to consult before one legislates. I think it
is absolutely right to make sure that we take account of
the views of the citizens of this country and interested
parties before moving to legislate. However, I note that
in his demand for us to legislate was implicit Scottish
National party support for the laws that we will bring
forward. I will bank that kind offer of support from the
SNP for the legislation that we will feel necessary to
bring forward in due course.
The hon. Gentleman says that the Scottish Government have
shown leadership on this issue. Indeed, I am happy to
acknowledge that there are members of the Scottish
Government, whether it is or others, who
take an approach to the environment that dovetails with
our own, and I enjoy working with them. The hard work
behind the scenes that both Governments exhibit to
improve our environment is sometimes not reflected in the
exchanges we have on the Floor of the House, so I want to
take this opportunity to thank the Scottish Government
for the work that they do behind the scenes to advance
our shared environment. It is vital, as we leave the
European Union, that there is effective working across
the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom to
achieve the goals that we all share.
-
Is the Secretary of State aware that there is action he
could take now that would not cost the Government money
and would not require him to legislate further?
Regulation 98 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use)
Regulations 1986 states that it is already an offence to
leave an engine idling when stuck in traffic or at
traffic lights. Is he aware of Westminster City Council’s
“Don’t Be Idle” campaign? Why do we not put some beef
behind that campaign, spread it across the country and do
something now that would really help, would not cost
money and would make a big difference?
-
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The phenomenon of
idling engines—often, ironically, outside the very
schools whose children we most want to protect from
deteriorating air quality—does require action to be
taken. I commend my hon. Friend for pointing out the
leadership shown by Westminster, among many other
councils, and I believe we need a wider application of
the already existing powers that local authorities have
to deal with this.
-
Our joint Select Committees report called for ambitious,
co-ordinated cross-departmental action, yet there is
virtually nothing in the Secretary of State’s new
strategy to tackle the impact of road traffic. As the
Chair of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Totnes
(Dr Wollaston) has said, modal shift gets two paragraphs
and active travel just three sentences. He has clearly
rejected a ban on diesel and petrol cars before 2040. Can
he point to a single measure or funding pot that he is
announcing today that will better align urban planning,
public transport and fiscal incentives, as our Committees
recommended?
-
It is important to realise that there was widespread
recognition in the report produced by the hon. Lady and
other Select Committee Chairs that road transport was
simply one of the sources of air pollution. In this
strategy, we are complementing what was already announced
last year in our roadside NOx emissions strategy, with
action on ports, air travel and trains, which is a signal
of the determined efforts we are taking across the
Government to deal with all the sources of air pollution.
The hon. Lady says that we should move faster than to get
rid of internal combustion engines by 2040, but I have to
say to her that no other major developed economy is
taking that step. We need to take a balanced approach
towards setting a firm deadline for moving away from
conventional petrol and diesel engines, while also
providing industry with the time to adjust.
-
Precisely what are my right hon. Friend’s plans to
interfere with my fireplaces and my bonfire?
-
I know that my right hon. Friend is one of the most
responsible dwellers in the New Forest. He would never
burn wet wood or coal with a high level of bitumen; only
the driest and most parched twigs will find their way on
to his fire and he will use only the appropriate and less
smoky coal. I also know that he lives in one of the most
beautiful parts of rural Hampshire, and as a result any
emissions he generates are unlikely to form a
particularly toxic cloud.
-
The Secretary of State is obviously immensely familiar
with the right hon. Gentleman’s domestic arrangements,
and we are all greatly fortified by the knowledge of that
important fact.
-
He is very kind, but quite right.
-
For the benefit of those attending to our proceedings,
the right hon. Gentleman says that the Secretary of State
is very kind, but quite right, so there we are. We all
feel a bit better informed.
-
Over the past 30 years, the cost of motoring has fallen
20%, while the cost of bus travel has risen by 64%. Will
the Secretary of State do what he can to reverse those
figures? Will he look in particular at the situation in
Brighton and Hove? He has written to me about my concern
that data on NO2 exceedances in the
city are not being taken properly into account by the
Government. Does he acknowledge that we have such
exceedances in our city, and if so, will he look again at
our grounds for appealing the decision not to award us
money from the clean bus technology fund?
-
Absolutely. I will look at that decision. I recognise
that it is important to have accurate measuring of
exceedances, but as the hon. Lady will acknowledge, one
of the reasons why we have them is that the current Euro
6 diesel cars have been found to emit six times the lab
test limit on average, and the new regulations that have
come into effect do not accurately ensure that we can
bring down exceedances to the level that we both want to
see.
-
I appreciate that my right hon. Friend is a friend,
rightly, of the bees and of the fish, but he also needs
to be a friend of hard-pressed motorists. The fact is
that, as he acknowledged, diesel motorists were told by
the previous Government to buy such cars, and his plans
will give a green light to many local authorities up and
down the country to whack taxes on to diesel car owners.
Will my right hon. Friend look at this again? It has
happened in London, and motorists are taxed far too
heavily, so will he change these plans?
-
My right hon. Friend has been a consistent champion of
small businesses and of those who rely on diesel vehicles
to provide the services on which we all, more broadly,
rely. As the nature of the debate in the House indicates,
a balance needs to be struck. That balance is between
recognising that there is an appropriate place in the
next couple of decades for diesel as part of the
transport mix—where either the private sector or local
authorities can find support for a scrappage scheme, we
will of course endorse and do what we can to facilitate
that—and, as well as making sure that small business can
thrive, ensuring that our children, critically, are
protected from the greatest concentrations of pollution
that we find in some urban areas.
-
The Secretary of State is right that local authorities
have a big role to play in this, but they could do an
awful lot more if they had the resources. Central
Government have an even bigger role to play. In Tinsley
in my constituency, NO2 levels are
regularly above safe limits because it is next to the M1
motorway, which is a central Government responsibility.
What are the Government going to do about that, apart
from adding an extra lane to the motorway? In Sheffield
city centre, the pollution hotspot is around Sheffield
station because of diesel trains, yet this Government
have just cancelled the electrification of the midland
main line. When are we going to get some joined-up
government on this matter?
-
I am a great admirer of the hon. Gentleman for all the
work he has done both to ensure that the case for
appropriate support for local government is made and to
ensure, when it comes to planning, that we all take a
thoughtful approach that takes the environment into
account. However, there is one more thing he could do,
which is to have a word with his Labour colleagues on
Sheffield City Council and ask them to stop the tree
felling campaign in which they are engaged. If we want to
deal effectively with air pollution, one of the things we
can do is to continue to ensure that trees—they not only
act as a source of beauty and natural wonder but
contribute to the fight against air pollution—are allowed
to survive, rather than being chopped down by a council
that is, I am afraid, in thrall to its own officers.
-
A properly targeted diesel scrappage scheme would enable
us to get rid of the most polluting cars on our streets,
and if it was properly targeted it could be done without
hammering those people on the lowest incomes. Will my
right hon. Friend commit to pressing the Treasury to
agree to such a scheme, because ultimately it will have
to do so?
-
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. The success of
any scrappage scheme depends on effective targeting. What
we cannot do—it would be irresponsible—would be to use
public money to subsidise people who are already making a
choice to get rid of a particular vehicle. The deadweight
cost associated with that would not be money
appropriately spent. He makes the very good point that if
we can effectively target such vehicles and find the
individuals whom we can incentivise to move towards a
green and more sustainable method of transport, we should
of course support such measures. I am entirely
open-minded about any proposals that might come forward,
whether from metro Mayors, local authorities or others.
-
Has the Secretary of State noted the very striking
finding in our joint Committees report that the fumes and
pollution inside a vehicle are 10 times worse than those
outside a vehicle? As part of the public information
campaign that he has just announced, will he ensure that
it is directed at parents who drive their children to
school, thinking they are protecting them when they are
actually doing them much more harm than if they walked or
cycled, as well as exposing other people’s children and
families to more pollution and congestion?
-
Absolutely spot on. I am very grateful to the right hon.
Gentleman for making that point. All of us need to know
more about the sources of air pollution, and he is
absolutely right. I did not appreciate that until the
Select Committees brought it to my attention, and I am
grateful to him for bringing it to the attention of a
wider audience today.
-
There are three hotspots in my own constituency all of
which are in towns. What are we going to do to increase
electric charging facilities in those places to overcome
this problem?
-
We have devoted £1.5 billion overall to supporting the
growth of zero and ultra-low emissions vehicles,
including a wider network of charge points, but I think
there is more that we can do. One of the things I will be
exploring with my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of
State for Transport and for Housing, Communities and
Local Government is how we can do everything
possible—both in planning and in the legislation that the
Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend
the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse
Norman), is bringing forward—to build on the leadership
that my hon. Friend has shown.
-
Everyone has the right to clean air, including people in
villages such as North Hinksey and market towns such as
Abingdon in my constituency, yet those places have
hotspots, and those sorts of conurbations are not
mentioned at all in the clean air strategy. Will the
Secretary of State confirm that his ambitions extend to
smaller conurbations, not just cities?
-
The hon. Lady makes a good point. There are
concentrations of poor air quality not just in our major
cities but in other areas. There can be a combination of
factors, including roadside emissions and emissions from
domestic heating. Critically, as my hon. Friend the
Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Neil Parish), the Chair
of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee,
acknowledged, sometimes emissions also come from
agriculture. The strategy commits us to providing support
for all those sectors, to move towards a cleaner future.
-
In my constituency, the badly thought through planning
policy of the failing Labour council is failing properly
to take into account the critical issue of air quality.
How will today’s announcement improve my constituents’
lives, given that at the moment they are at the mercy of
a failing Labour local authority?
-
The powers envisaged in the consultation will allow local
authorities to act on everything, from unwise choices
made about domestic heat generation to making sure that
some of the diesel machinery involved in construction and
for other purposes is appropriately licensed and
controlled. I note that, following recent local election
results, it seems that the leadership shown by my hon.
Friend has been recognised by voters in his constituency,
who have moved away from their previous allegiance.
-
Will the Secretary of State outline progress on E10
regulations, on proper investment in hydrogen vehicles
and on what is being done to tackle secondary generators
and transport refrigeration units?
-
On secondary generators and other generators of
emissions, we are giving local authorities and others
powers to deal with the consequences of poor air quality
as a result of their deployment.
More broadly, on hydrogen and other vehicles, the
Department for Transport is neutral about future
technologies but supportive of the investment required to
ensure that a suitable range of technologies is
available. One of the key features of the legislation
being brought forward by my hon. Friend the
Under-Secretary of State for Transport, which originated
under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member
for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr Hayes), is to
facilitate precisely the type of innovation that the hon.
Gentleman alludes to.
-
The right hon. Gentleman in question is in our midst, and
that fact will not have gone unnoticed.
-
Will my right hon. Friend confirm that new primary
legislation announced today will give authorities such as
Cornwall Council the power they need to protect
communities such as Tideford and Gunnislake in my
constituency from air pollution?
-
Absolutely; I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making
that point. We want to work in partnership, and local
authorities such as Cornwall Council can make sure that
the communities in her constituency—in particular the
children who attend primary schools in those
communities—can be protected from the impact of air
pollution. I am grateful to her for championing much of
the work in this consultation throughout her time in this
House.
-
The Secretary of State has repeatedly told the House that
the UK leads the way in phasing out combustion engines by
2040, but he must keep up to date with current events in
the German Bundesrat, which has already passed
legislation for them to be phased out in Germany by 2030.
We also believe that in China combustion engines will be
phased out by 2030. That makes our policy a laughing
stock in the world.
-
There are some countries, including some outside the
European Union such as Norway, that have a more ambitious
target than our own. However, I do not think that the
legislation has yet been given effect in Germany.
-
My right hon. Friend may seek to control what goes into
them, but may I invite him to confirm that he has no
intention of introducing a ban on wood-burning stoves?
Manufacturers, retailers and users of them in the UK will
be listening very carefully to what he has to say. Such
stoves are an important part of domestic heating.
-
We have been working with the domestic heating industry
to ensure that higher standards can prevail in future. We
want to ensure that all stoves sold in future meet those
new higher standards.
-
I commend to the Secretary of State the clean air Bill
proposed by my colleague in the National
Assembly for Wales. In the spirit of the decentralised
approach that he proposes, what consideration have the
British Government given to devolving vehicle excise duty
and fuel taxes to Wales, so that the Welsh Government can
have a revenue stream to implement alternative transport
solutions?
-
I am all in favour of devolution, but any questions about
vehicle excise duty or taxation are properly a matter for
my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
However, I met and some of his
colleagues from the Welsh Assembly a couple of weeks ago.
I was hugely impressed by the work that they are doing,
and I would like to work closely with the Assembly and
the hon. Gentleman’s colleagues.
-
I welcome the Government’s move towards phasing out
petrol and diesel cars, but the key part will be the
charging infrastructure, particularly for when people are
away from home—when they are visiting Torbay this bank
holiday, for example. Will the Secretary outline what
plans the Government have to develop the necessary
infrastructure?
-
My hon. Friend makes a good point. We are investing £1.5
billion, but it is also important for us to reflect on
where people are likely to find themselves at particular
times of the year—now and in years to come. One of the
things that many of us will be doing this coming bank
holiday weekend will be visiting beautiful English
seaside resorts such as Torbay. It is important that, as
they move towards cleaner and greener forms of transport,
people have the opportunity to enjoy the natural beauty
of the southern riviera without polluting the air at the
same time.
-
On the subject of natural beauty, Hull was one of 49 UK
towns and cities that failed World Health Organisation
standards for air pollution.
I want to return to the question raised by my hon. Friend
the Member for Sheffield South East (Mr Betts). What
discussions has the Secretary of State actually had with
the Transport Secretary about the scrapping of rail
electrification schemes and his championing of bimodal
trains which, as I understand it, will still pollute the
air?
-
We have had extensive discussions with the Secretary of
State for Transport, who has been leading efforts to
ensure not only that we can scrap diesel trains
altogether at an appropriate point, but that we can
ensure that there are appropriate alternatives to those
that exist at the moment.
-
The use of dirty coal to generate electricity in our
country plummeted by 25% last year, and such generation
now stands at less than 7% of the overall energy mix.
Will my right hon. Friend recommit the Government to the
ambitious target of getting rid of coal completely from
the energy mix by 2024 and maintaining the UK’s global
leadership in this important field?
-
My hon. Friend makes an important point and reminds us of
the steps that we have already taken to ensure that we
move towards cleaner methods of electricity generation.
In that respect, I commend to the House the recent work
of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Clean
Growth, who has been outstanding in ensuring that we can
make the transition to which my hon. Friend alludes.
-
The Government are in the dock at the European Court of
Justice for the premature deaths of 40,000 people a year.
As we approach Brexit, is it not time that we had a clean
air Act with the focus and priority to deliver the
standards and enforcement institutions that we enjoy in
Europe? We should at least match the 2030 targets for the
Netherlands, Ireland and Germany so that we do not end up
being the dirty coughing man of Europe.
-
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his point. He has
been in the lead among Members in pressing for primary
legislation, and we acknowledge the need for such
legislation in the strategy. I know the point that the
hon. Gentleman is trying to make—it was also made by the
hon. Member for Norwich South (Clive Lewis)—but it is
important to remind the House that the vote in the
Bundesrat was non-binding. What we have in this country
are binding commitments that we are determined to meet,
and that is a significant contrast.
-
Yesterday I met representatives of Honda and BMW, both of
which are determined to make a difference in this
important area. Will the Secretary of State urge his
colleagues to provide more clarity on the use of hybrid
engines and technology as a way to help to reduce
emissions year on year?
-
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The existing
motor companies will play a critical role in ensuring
that we can move towards a more sustainable and cleaner
method of providing personal transport. He is absolutely
right that hybrids will have a role to play. My right
hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be
saying more about that in due course, but I am very
grateful to my hon. Friend and other Members who
represent manufacturing and industrial sectors for the
constructive way in which they have helped to bring
people together.
-
I am sure that the Environment Secretary gets very
frustrated with the Treasury dragging its feet on some of
the initiatives he wants to push forward. It was recently
reported that the £400 million plan for electric car
charging infrastructure is being held up by the Treasury
because it has not even recruited somebody to be in
charge of the private sector investment element—it says
it will recruit this summer—so will he please put a
rocket under the Treasury and tell it that while people
want to buy electric cars, they will not do so unless the
infrastructure is in place?
-
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for trying to present the
issue in the way she did. The truth is that I cannot
think of anyone in this House, apart from possibly my
right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The
Deepings, who is cleaner—keener, rather—on
investment—[Laughter.] He is very clean. Cleanliness is
next to godliness.
I do not think there is anyone in this House who is
keener on moving towards ultra low emission vehicles than
the Chancellor of the Exchequer. As Transport Secretary
and in his current role, he has led efforts across the
Government to make sure we are moving in the right
direction. I do not think it is at all fair to criticise
him or the Treasury in that regard.
-
I declare an interest as the owner of two very efficient
renewable fuel-burning wood stoves. On traffic emissions,
it was recently discovered that the monitoring equipment
in Shoreham high street had been broken for several
years, which might explain the fact that Shoreham’s air
quality is always deemed to be good. Volunteers have now
had to carry out those tests. If we are to be serious
about the quality of the air, may we put a duty on local
authorities to properly maintain accurate and reliable
equipment?
-
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. I will
investigate what we can do.
-
Does the Secretary of State agree that rather than
pursuing HS2, a greater priority would be the
introduction of regional public transport schemes to
electrify our rail lines, and to encourage the
introduction of hydrogen and electric buses in our towns
and cities?
-
I do not think it should be a case of either/or.
-
The development of electric vehicle battery technology
will be crucial to encouraging a supply side revolution
in the uptake of electric vehicles, which would help to
reduce emissions in urban areas. What progress has the
Secretary of State made, jointly with the Department for
Transport, in this area?
-
We have been working with not just the Department for
Transport, but the Department for Business, Energy and
Industrial Strategy, to ensure that we can make Britain
the most attractive home for new technologies. It is
striking that great British inventors such as Sir James
Dyson have dedicated themselves to ensuring that Britain
can compete with competitors such as Elon Musk’s Tesla to
provide the right technology for clean, green, effective
and sustainable transport in the future.
-
The clean air strategy says that during the transition to
zero emission vehicles
“we will ensure the cleanest conventional vehicles are
driven on our roads.”
The Secretary of State will know that most people buy
second-hand cars, not new ones. Under changes introduced
by this Government, vehicle excise duty rates for used
cars registered after March 2017 make no distinction
whatever between those that produce lower levels of
carbon dioxide and pollutants that are harmful to air
quality, and those that produce higher emissions. How is
that compatible with a promise to ensure that the
cleanest conventional vehicles are driven on our roads?
-
It is the case that the increase in vehicle excise duty
on new cars is helping to contribute to ensuring that
local authorities receive the money they require to have
appropriate clean air strategies. I think that any keen
student of the second-hand car market would recognise
that the value and resale value of diesels has fallen,
reflecting the fact that people know that they need to
move away from that polluting form of transport.
-
With a characteristic mix of insight and eloquence, the
Secretary of State has once again made the case for
extending the electric charging infrastructure, thereby
addressing one of the reasons why people do not buy
electric cars. He will know that when we debated these
matters in the House—he paid tribute to my pioneering of
that legislation—one of the reasons for local
authorities’ frankly inconsistent application regarding
on-street parking was that the guidance was not strong
enough. Will he now ensure that all local authorities
make provision for electric charging infrastructure on
streets?
If I might just add, Mr Speaker, I initiated a
competition as Minister for the design of such
infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State reinvigorate
that competition so that the charging infrastructure is
one day as iconic as the pillar box or a Gilbert Scott
telephone box?
-
My right hon. Friend makes two very important points. On
the first point, we absolutely need to make sure that the
infrastructure is there, and his second point is also
important. One of the reasons why we cherish the
environment is natural beauty. When we think about the
steps we take to safeguard and enhance natural beauty, we
should think about man’s contribution to making sure that
the aesthetics around us reflect the best of us. The best
of us is, of course, exemplified by my right hon. Friend
the Member for South Holland and The Deepings.
-
My constituents and Londoners more generally want more
ambitious measures implemented, and sooner, than are
outlined in the Government’s strategy. They breathe in
toxic fumes on a daily basis. Why has London been
exempted from the clean air fund?
-
We have specific arrangements with the Mayor of London to
ensure we can help him to meet his ambitions. I saw the
Mayor last night. I do not expect him to endorse
everything in this package, but I find his constructive
approach to working with central Government to improve
air quality heartening. We will continue to work with
him. A little while back the Mayor himself said that
while resolving road emissions was critical to improving
air quality, there are many other things that the
Government are required to do. It was partly a result of
what the Mayor said that we brought forward the strategy
today.
-
There are 40,000 premature deaths nationally, with 10,000
in London, and the schools in my constituency fare among
the worst. What impact assessment has the Secretary of
State’s Department done to consider how many deaths would
be prevented under the new strategy compared with if the
Government committed to a clean air Act and phasing out
diesel engine use by 2030?
-
One thing we have done is to work with the academic
community. Indeed, I met some of its members yesterday at
Imperial College, one of our best universities, to look
at the impact of the steps we are already taking to
improve public health and to save money for the
Exchequer. By definition, that work is publicly available
to all. I take on board the hon. Lady’s point. We are
bringing forward primary legislation. We can use the
model that has been constructed to see how different
impacts could be generated by different policies, and I
look forward to sharing those results with her.
-
Emissions from road traffic cause the majority of air
pollution in my constituency. Given that the M4 and
traffic related to Heathrow are outside the purview of
the London Mayor and the London Borough of Hounslow, how
exactly will the Government ensure that post-Brexit
regulatory regimes will have the same powers as their
current European equivalents?
-
On the first point, I want to make sure that, as we
envisage the expansion of aviation capacity across the
south-east, we do everything possible to make sure that
all contributors to air quality in the relevant areas are
taken properly into account as part of a balanced
approach towards policy. On the second point, we are
consulting on what shape a new environmental regulator
should take.
-
Hope Street in my constituency has long been acknowledged
as one of the most polluted streets in Scotland, so I am
sure that the Secretary of State will have been as glad
as I was to see that Councillor Anna Richardson is
bringing forward a low emission zone in Glasgow as one of
the first acts of the SNP city government. One of the
inhibitors to the success of low emission zones is of
course haulage and bus transport. Will he tell us a bit
more about what conversations he has had with those
industries about progressing to more environmentally
friendly vehicles?
-
We have been keen to make sure, certainly when it applies
to buses and public transport, that we make money
available to local authorities for appropriate
retrofitting. Hauliers recognise that there will need to
be a shift. One of the things we need to do—my right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is doing
this—is to make sure that we can move to a more efficient
method of haulage in the future.
-
I was pleased that the Secretary of State raised electric
vehicles in his opening remarks, as I have been pursuing
this issue since I came to this place. I have created a
nine-point plan, which I raised with the Minister for
Energy and Clean Growth and more recently with the roads
Minister in a debate on electric vehicles in Westminster
Hall. The ideas include matching Joint Air Quality Unit
funding with Office for Low Emission Vehicles funding and
getting three-phase electric points. Will the Secretary
of State meet me to discuss all nine points of my plan?
-
-
On a point of order, Mr Speaker.
-
Order. A point of order would ordinarily come later. Does
it appertain to these exchanges?
-
-
And is it uncontentious and not a continuation of debate,
but an honest pursuit of truth by the Chair of the
Communities and Local Government Committee?
-
It is an honest pursuit of truth, Mr Speaker.
-
Very good. I will give the hon. Gentleman the benefit of
the doubt.
-
I am sure that the Secretary of State for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs would not want an inaccurate
statement to go uncorrected. He said that Sheffield City
Council was felling trees and that that was adding to the
pollution problems in the city. The truth is that while
there has been some contention about the removal and
replacement of some trees on some streets, overall there
will be more trees in Sheffield at the end of the
programme than at the beginning, and the city will have
low-energy LED street lights throughout, which I hope the
Secretary of State will welcome.
-
It is always useful to have a bit of additional
information. We have learnt a bit more about the
Sheffield tree situation, which is potentially
reassuring. If the Secretary of State wishes to leap to
his feet to respond, he is welcome to do so.
-
-
The right hon. Gentleman signals that he is content, such
is the—
-
He agrees—thank you very much.
-
Well, I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman
agrees, but he gives no evidence of disagreement. The
emollient tone of the hon. Member for Sheffield South
East (Mr Betts) has served his purpose for
now—[Interruption.] Order. The hon. Member for Harrogate
and Knaresborough (Andrew Jones) chunters from a
sedentary position that this is an explosive issue. I do
not know whether it is—[Interruption.] Locally; well,
that may well be so. Very good, honour is served.
|
