Asked by
of Ullock
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
the compliance of their revised national air quality strategy
consultation with best practice, as laid out in the Cabinet
Office Consultation Principles.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs () (Con)
My Lords, the Government published theAir Quality Strategy:
Framework for Local Authority Delivery by the legal deadline of 1
May. Although we recognise that the consultation period for the
draft strategy was shortened, almost 450 responses were received,
including 97 from local government. We took into account these
responses in the publication of our final strategy, and the
document will drive the local action on air quality that we all
want to see.
of Ullock (Lab)
My Lords, local authorities are central to efforts to improve the
country’s air quality, but the nature of this consultation
exercise suggests that the Government think otherwise. Regardless
of any prior engagement, does the Minister really believe that a
period of just 10 days—starting immediately before Easter, during
the school holidays and in the run-up to the local elections—was
sufficient to allow councils to formulate their response and get
it signed off internally? Will the department do the right thing
and reopen this consultation to ensure that no one misses their
opportunity to respond—or are the Government once again dodging
any scrutiny?
(Con)
The noble Baroness knows how I hate to see her disgruntled, so I
will see whether I can make her gruntled. The consultation was
open for 10 days, the department received 434 responses in total
and 97 local authorities responded—but that was not the totality
of it. We have engaged with stakeholders, including local
government, since December 2021; we have run a series of nine
workshops to gain views and input from a range of stakeholders;
and more than 30 meetings were held with internal and external
stakeholders, as well as over 200 stakeholders from community
groups, NGOs, academia and local authorities. This Government
consult like no Government have before; sometimes, I wonder
whether we consult too much, but in this case I think we have got
this absolutely right and created a strategy that reflects what
people want.
(Con)
My Lords, in relation to consultation and the London mayor, does
my noble friend agree that the main cause of increased traffic
congestion and the knock-on effect on air quality is the lack of
synchronisation of traffic lights, which is driving not just
London cab drivers but all London motorists to distraction?
(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.
(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?
(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.
The Lord Speaker ()
My Lords, the noble Lord, , is participating
remotely.
(Lab) [V]
My Lords, as we are told by the Government in their draft air
quality strategy that they expect
“local authorities to … reduce PM2.5”
and that if action is insufficient
“we will consult on introducing a … legal duty on local
authorities to take action”,
why are Conservative authorities in London are not only
obstructing the taking of action to reduce PM2.5 but playing
politics by attacking for implementing government
policy on the congestion charge zone? Is that not just blatant
hypocrisy?
(Con)
That question reflects issues relating to politics in London that
are particularly complex and the impact of the mayor’s ULEZ on
people on low incomes who have to travel to the centre of London.
The noble Lord makes the accusation of playing politics, but the
Question is about consultation. What we are trying to do
nationally is support local authorities, and sometimes what the
mayor is trying to do is despite what the local authorities
within his mayoralty are trying to achieve. That is a local
question for London and not for our national policies.
(Lab)
My Lords, does the Minister not recognise that not only is it
disastrous that there was such a short time for consultation but
the substance of the document on which he was consulting is
woefully inadequate to attack the problem? I speak as a former
president of an independent organisation, Environmental
Protection UK, which made a submission to the consultation. Is it
time for the Government—and, in view of the electoral cycle,
probably the main opposition party—to recognise that we need a
new clean air Act and a central direction through a new clean air
commission? Until the Government grasp that necessity, this
problem will continue to afflict our people and contribute to the
long-term sickness that we have just been discussing.
(Con)
What I would say to the noble Lord, whom I respect for his
experience in this area, is that running campaigns to create new
laws sometimes misses the most effective way to deliver. The most
effective way in which the Government in England can be
responsible for this is to support the local authorities which
have to do it. We are doing that with money, and we are doing it
with policies that require them to hit certain targets—on PM2.5,
on nitrous oxide and others. That is the best way to do it. If
the noble Lord wants a piece of legislation that will deliver
that, it is the Environment Act.
(Con)
My Lords, surely when it comes to pollution in London, if you
have bicycle lanes and increased traffic jams, you do not reduce
pollution, you increase it.
(Con)
My noble friend talks about an issue which may well be the case
in certain areas. Encouraging cycling, walking and the use of
public transport is undoubtedly better for health, as the
previous Question showed; it is undoubtedly better for the
quality of life in our cities. On the other side, if you get it
wrong, you make the problem worse. That is why local solutions
are better, and it is why the Government’s policy provides
resources and targets and why they will take further action if
local authorities fail to deliver.
(Lab)
My Lords, I regret to tell the Minister that my noble friend Lady
Hayman is still disgruntled. That is because he did not address
the fact that the events for stakeholders that he described were
poorly advertised and the notice was short. As a result, many
stakeholders who would have liked to attend or to contribute to
the consultation did not get the opportunity. Could he address
that?
(Con)
The number of responses was typical of the kinds of consultations
that my department conducts. That 97 local authorities responded
in full and that there were many other events, engagements and
direct contact with local authorities and other campaigners meant
that we ran a full consultation, and we have an air quality
strategy that reflects that.
(CB)
My Lords, the Minister’s throwaway remark about the possibility
of there being too many consultations tempts me to ask him—and I
declare my interests—whether the problem is not too many
consultations but not enough follow-up and action when
consultations have taken place? Could he look in particular at
the consultation several years ago on energy-efficiency standards
in the private rented sector?
(Con)
I entirely understand the point made by the noble Baroness.
Perhaps mine was born out of being slightly long in the tooth in
this game, because when I was last at Defra, it was always the
threat of infraction fines that delayed policy—“Oh, Minister,
that may well result in us being infracted by Europe”. Now, I
find very often that consultations are followed by consultations
on consultations, and it is a way of kicking the can down the
road. I am a firm believer in the right sort of consultation; I
just want to make sure that we are delivering policy as quickly
and as efficiently as possible.
