Air Quality Strategy 3.40 pm Sue Hayman (Workington)
(Lab) (Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on
the publication date of the Government’s air quality strategy. The
Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Andrea
Leadsom) The...Request free trial
Air Quality Strategy
3.40 pm
-
(Workington) (Lab)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a
statement on the publication date of the Government’s air
quality strategy.
-
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural
Affairs (Andrea Leadsom)
The Government are committed to making sure that ours is
the first generation to leave the environment in a better
state than we found it. As part of that, I am deeply
committed personally to the importance of ensuring that we
have clean air. Since 2011, the Government have announced
more than £2 billion to help bus operators to upgrade their
fleets, to support the development and take-up of
low-emission vehicles, to reduce pollution from vehicles
such as refuse trucks and fire engines, and to promote the
development of clean alternative fuels. In addition, in the
autumn statement we announced a further £290 million to
support electric vehicles, low-emission buses and taxis,
and alternative fuels.
Our actions have enabled the UK to make significant
progress on improving its air quality since 2010. We now
have lower emissions of the five key pollutants: volatile
organic compounds, sulphur dioxide, ammonia, particulates,
and nitrogen oxides. However, because of the failure of
Euro vehicle emission standards to deliver expected
improvements in air quality, the UK is among 17 European
countries, including France and Germany, that are not yet
meeting EU emissions targets for nitrogen dioxide in parts
of some towns and cities.
We are taking strong action to remedy that. Since last
November, my Department has worked jointly with the
Department for Transport to update the Government’s
national air quality plan for nitrogen dioxide. We have
updated the analytical base for the plan to reflect new
evidence following the Volkswagen scandal and the failure
of the EU’s regulatory regime to deliver expected
improvements on emissions. The plan adapts to these new
circumstances by setting out a framework for action.
Following long-standing precedent, we have entered the
period of sensitivity that precedes elections. In
accordance with the guidance covering both local and
general elections, the propriety and ethics team in the
Cabinet Office has told us that it would not be appropriate
to launch the consultation and publish the air quality plan
during this time. The Government have therefore applied to
the High Court for a short extension of the deadline for
publishing the national air quality plan for nitrogen
dioxide, in order to comply with pre-election propriety
rules. The Government seek to publish a draft plan by 30
June and a final plan by 15 September. The application will
be considered by the Court.
-
Nearly 40 million people in Britain live in areas with
illegal levels of air pollution. Two thousand schools and
nurseries are close to roads with damaging levels of fumes,
and NHS experts estimate that poor air quality contributes
to 40,000 premature deaths every year. The situation has
gone from bad to worse on this Government’s watch, and has
escalated into what the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
Committee calls a “public health emergency”. Does the
Secretary of State agree that this is indeed a public
health emergency?
Given the gravity of the situation and the fact that the
Secretary of State has known about today’s High Court
deadline for months, why did she choose to request a
further delay to the publication of her air quality plan at
7 o’clock on Friday night? Will she clarify whether she had
in fact already applied for an extension before the
election was called? It is unacceptable for her to hide
behind the election to delay publishing her plans. Cabinet
Office rules are clear that purdah is not an excuse to
delay acting on vital public health matters. Will she
confirm that the plans are ready for publication? If she
agrees that this is a public health emergency, why the
delay?
Are not the Government doing everything that they can to
avoid scrutiny because they are missing their own
commitments, have no strategy and yet again want to kick
this issue into the long grass? How can we trust the right
hon. Lady’s Government to maintain air quality standards
after we leave the EU when they have done everything
possible to avoid scrutiny on existing standards and had to
be dragged through the courts?
If the Government fail to publish their plan today, within
the first 30 days of a Labour Administration, we will. Only
a Labour Government will legislate for a new clean air Act
setting out how to tackle the air pollution that damages
the lives of millions, but this Conservative Government
continue shamefully to shirk their legal responsibilities
and are putting the health of millions at risk.
-
I think that all Members right across this House agree that
air quality is a significant concern. I have already set
out some of the strong actions that this Government have
taken, in spending £2 billion since 2011, to try to improve
the situation.
The hon. Lady is exactly right: we have our draft air
quality plan for NO2 ready. She asked why we have a late
extension, and I can absolutely explain that to her: in the
course of developing our draft plan, it became clear that
local authorities would have to play a central role in
delivering the final air quality plan, so the Government
initially sought to defer publication of the plan and the
launch of the consultation on it until after the purdah
period for local authority elections. Since that
application was lodged, the Prime Minister has called a
general election, and a further period of purdah commenced
on 21 April. As the hon. Lady will know, Governments
normally seek to avoid launching consultation exercises
during purdah periods. It is absolutely vital that we get
this done, and our intention is to publish the plan on 30
June. She says that a Labour Administration would publish
such a plan within 30 days, but that would actually be
later than the date on which this Government intend to
publish it.
I want to make it very clear that we have now entered a
period during which we are strongly advised not to publish
consultations. We are therefore trying to put in place a
very short extension, which we do not believe will make a
difference to the implementation of our plans, while at the
same time safeguarding our democracy.
-
(Tiverton and Honiton)
(Con)
I urge the Secretary of State, along with all Ministers, to
work on the air quality plan with the very greatest urgency
after the general election, because we have waited a very
long time for it. Many of the problems with diesel actually
started under the previous Government, and we need to clean
that up. A scrappage scheme—for not only our diesel cars,
but buses, taxis and many other forms of public transport
in our inner cities—is absolutely essential if we are to
clean up air quality, especially in our inner cities.
-
My hon. Friend is, of course, exactly right. We have now
been working on this specific plan for several years. We
published a consultation for clean air zones in 2015. The
fact that emissions from diesel vehicles have far exceeded
what was expected has been extremely difficult. The EU
regulatory regime did not show effectively what the real
levels of emissions were, and this Government have pushed
for improvements to the assessment. We have been planning
the draft air quality plan for a consideration length of
time, and we will publish it just as soon as we can.
-
John Mc Nally (Falkirk) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for Workington (Sue Hayman) for
securing this urgent question on the Government’s air
quality strategy. I agree with her concerns entirely.
This is not a political issue. All our constituents need to
breathe, and they want an air quality plan based on good
scientific evidence to ensure that people no longer have to
breathe toxic air in their communities. The Government have
had a five-month window to address illegal air quality in
relation to the strategy. Does the Secretary of State agree
that hiding behind a general election cannot be an excuse
for failing to address what is, as she has just mentioned,
a vital health issue? She has said that it is “vital” to
get this through, so why the delay?
-
I can only repeat that I absolutely agree with Members that
this is a vital issue. We have spent the past five months
looking very carefully at the real world, as well as
laboratory tests, to find out actual emissions so that we
have the right consultation. We do not expect any delay due
to propriety rules to lead to a delay in implementation. We
are seeking a very short delay to preserve our democracy,
in accordance with guidance from the Cabinet Office
propriety and ethics team.
-
(Wokingham) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that there is growing
concern about emissions that can damage health and lungs in
particular? Will she make it a high priority to limit soot
and smoke from public service vehicles, on which she has
most influence?
-
My right hon. Friend is exactly right to raise this issue.
The Government have invested a huge amount in retrofitting
buses and taxis. Other measures include limiting medium
combustion plants, which I was very proud to put in place
when I was Energy Secretary, to try to reduce other
emissions. My right hon. Friend is exactly right that we
need to tackle a number of different emissions. This plan
deals with nitrogen dioxide emissions and we will publish
it as soon as we can.
-
(Carshalton and Wallington)
(LD)
Opposition Members will monitor carefully whether such
pre-election sensitivity applies to the announcements or
consultations that the Government welcome to the same
extent as to ones that cause them embarrassment. Once the
UK leaves the EU and the Commission is no longer able to
levy fines on the UK Government for failing to act with due
speed on the premature deaths of 40,000 people a year that
are caused by toxic air, who does the Government expect
will be levying fines and initiating cases against the
Government for air quality breaches?
-
I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this is a very
significant and serious issue, but I find his suggestion
that the threat of EU fines is the only reason why the
Government might be motivated to deal with it rather
distasteful. We absolutely intend to deal with the issue to
ensure that the air is cleaner for the people of our
country and that we are the generation who leaves our
environment in a better state than we found it.
-
Mrs (Chesham and Amersham)
(Con)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is not just people
but sensitive landscapes, such as the nationally designated
area of outstanding natural beauty of the Chilterns, that
should be protected? Such areas should also be positively
recognised for their role in the battle against poor air
quality, including by harnessing the potential of our trees
and ancient woodland.
-
I absolutely agree with my right hon. Friend, who always
speaks very strongly for the Chilterns. She is right to do
so as it is a beautiful area. Air quality is of course
vital not only for humans, but for our lovely landscapes.
Preserving the contribution made by our trees, peat lands
and so on is a very important priority.
-
(Southampton, Test)
(Lab)
Southampton is one of the 10 cities threatened with an
infraction under the air quality regulations. It is also
one of five cities, under the Government’s December plans,
to introduce clean air zones, and Southampton’s local
authority has been really assiduous in moving forward with
its plans. While it has received grants, it has also put in
a great deal of its own money. Is it the Secretary of
State’s advice that the city council should now go easy on
its plans because the Government cannot get their own
together?
-
I was in full agreement with the hon. Gentleman until that
last bit. Of course not. I was going to praise the work of
Southampton City Council, which has received significant
Government funding for its clean air programmes. It is
doing a good job and should continue to do so. To be clear,
as things stand, clean air zones can be implemented by any
local authority. It should therefore be in the interests of
all local authorities to do whatever they can to improve
air quality for their local communities.
-
Mr (Peterborough)
(Con)
Should not the air quality plan be seen in the wider
context of the environment and tax changes? Is it not the
case that the Government are in a more difficult position
than they would be otherwise because of the legacy of the
wrong-headed tax changes made by Labour? As a result of the
ridiculous tax changes made under , we more than
doubled the number of diesel cars and increased the number
of diesel vans to 3 million.
-
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It is interesting
that several of ’s and ’s advisers have come
out in recent months to say that they were wrong to
encourage the uptake of diesel vehicles to the extent that
they did. Even the shadow International Trade Secretary has
admitted that
“there’s absolutely no question that the decision we took”—
on diesel—
“was the wrong decision.”
This Government, as ever, are trying to clean up the mess
that was started by Labour.
-
(Stockton North)
(Lab)
Emissions from industry are a major contributory factor in
poor air quality, but great strides could be made to
improve air quality in areas such as Teesside if the
Government backed carbon capture and storage. We have been
promised a Tory policy on that since the Tories ditched the
funding two years ago. When will we get it?
-
As a former Energy Minister, I can assure the hon.
Gentleman that we have always been clear about the fact
that carbon capture and storage will play a part in our
future plans, but that has no impact on the NO2 plan that
we are talking about today.
-
(Totnes) (Con)
The Secretary of State has clearly set out the reasons for
the delay, but in the intervening time, may I encourage her
to strengthen our policies to encourage people to get out
of their cars altogether? May I also urge her to read an
article in this week’s edition of The BMJ that clearly sets
out the growing evidence of the benefits of active
commuting, particularly by bicycle? Will she encourage us
to get Britain cycling?
-
My hon. Friend is right to raise that issue. The Government
are a huge supporter of sustainable transport projects. We
have invested £224 million in cycling since 2013, and £600
million in the delivery of transport projects across 77
local authorities through the local sustainable transport
fund. As my hon. Friend says, we must do everything that we
can to protect the quality of the air in our cities, and
that includes changing the way in which people travel.
-
Several hon. Members rose—
-
Mr Speaker
Having already congratulated the hon. Member for Livingston
(Hannah Bardell), I am now delighted to congratulate the
hon. Member for North Cornwall (Scott Mann) on his
successful completion of the marathon yesterday. Despite
that, he has sprung to his feet very impressively.
-
(North Cornwall)
(Con)
Thank you very much, Mr Speaker.
The Secretary of State and other DEFRA Ministers will be
well aware of the challenges facing Camelford, in my
constituency, which was recently subjected to an air
quality assessment, and which is in the very early stages
of being granted a bypass. I hope that the Secretary of
State will support me, and the local community, in our bid
for a new bypass in Camelford.
-
I would love to be able to offer my hon. Friend a new
bypass, but unfortunately that is outside my powers. I wish
him luck with it, and I, too, congratulate him on his
amazing achievement yesterday.
-
(Slough) (Lab)
If the present rate continues, there will be seven more
dead people in Slough by the date on which the Secretary of
State publishes the air quality plan. The whole point of
purdah is that announcements should not be made unless they
are significant in the context of urgent health issues. Is
this not an urgent health issue? What will the Secretary of
State say to the families of those seven people who will
die before she even publishes?
-
As the right hon. Lady says, poor air quality is a public
health issue. That is why we are taking urgent action, and
we will ensure that a short delay in the timetable will not
result in a delay in the implementation of the plan. By
doing that, we will tackle this public health issue as
quickly as possible without prejudicing our democratic
process.
The need to safeguard public health is one example of a
possible exceptional circumstance in which consultations
could be published during purdah. However, that would
generally apply only in the event of an unexpected public
health emergency—such as, for example, contaminated
food—which needed to be dealt with instantly, and this
instance does not fall into that category.
-
(South West
Bedfordshire) (Con)
Can the Government confirm that their approach to this
issue remains technology-neutral, and that, in the context
of hydrogen specifically, they will do what is necessary to
ensure that we do not fall behind, for instance, Germany
and California when it comes to cleaning up this terrible
problem?
-
I can confirm that we are technology-neutral, and as part
of our industrial strategy we are consulting on how to
become a world leader in ultra-low emission vehicles of all
types. There is a very good story to tell there; there is
more to be done, but we are making good progress.
-
(Brentford and
Isleworth) (Lab)
Air quality standards are breached regularly in my
constituency from Chiswick, to Brentford, Isleworth and
through to Hounslow. Do my constituents not deserve better
on this issue, especially as the Government want to push
ahead with runway 3 at Heathrow, which will only make the
problem significantly worse?
-
I met the Mayor of London in my first week in office to
discuss clean air, because the hon. Lady is right that it
is a huge priority in all of our cities but particularly
London, where there is rightly a huge focus on it. The
Mayor is implementing the excellent work of my right hon.
Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris
Johnson) when he was the Mayor of London, and that
continuity should continue to be a cross-party co-operation
to solve what is a very serious issue for all of us.
-
(South West
Wiltshire) (Con)
Does my right hon. Friend share my sadness at the lack of
contrition displayed on the Opposition Benches, given that
Labour’s unquestioned adoption of policy in the early part
of the last decade resulted in a massive increase in the
number of diesel vehicles, making the air in places such as
Westbury in my constituency considerably more toxic?
-
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. A number of
advisers and, indeed, serving Members on the Labour Benches
now admit that their decision to promote diesel between
2000 and 2008 was not the right decision. The decision to
promote diesel was a great shame, because we are now trying
to deal with some of the consequences of that. It is
important that we have cross-party co-operation to try to
make sure that we tackle what is a very significant issue.
-
(Greenwich and
Woolwich) (Lab)
As we all know, air pollution contributes to the premature
deaths of tens of thousands of people, but do I take it
from the Secretary of State’s previous answer that she
thinks air pollution is only a public health issue and is
not categorically a public health emergency?
-
Clean air is a top priority for this Government. We have
been working on our new proposals for the last five months
and are ready to go with them. We are now seeking a very
short deferral to meet the propriety rules around purdah,
but we do not expect that that will delay the
implementation of our plans to deal with what is a very
significant and urgent concern.
-
(Hendon) (Con)
I wore an air quality monitor as part of the Environmental
Audit Committee inquiry into air emissions. It showed that
the Mill Hill Broadway bus station had levels of pollution
as high as Oxford Street’s, which is a huge concern for my
constituents. Does the Secretary of State share my concern
that some directly elected mayors will use this as an
opportunity to introduce congestion charges on motorists
who were told to buy diesel vehicles, not use that money
for air quality, and in addition take money from DEFRA for
addressing the same problem?
-
The Prime Minister has made it very clear that this
Government are on the side of ordinary working families and
businesses. She has said that we are very conscious of the
fact that past Governments have encouraged people to buy
diesel cars and that we need to take that into account when
looking at what we do in the future.
-
Mr (Huddersfield)
(Lab/Co-op)
May I, in the nicest possible way, put the Secretary of
State right on this? She has had to be dragged to the House
to make this statement and has been putting off major
decisions for the future on important issues right across
her Department, but may I put the record straight just on
the facts? My constituents will not understand when
children are being poisoned now, when pregnant women are
being poisoned now and when pedestrians and cyclists are
being poisoned that she is making some obscure reference to
purdah to stop us doing something about it. I remind her
that it is two years since the Volkswagen scandal broke,
and she has done nothing in those two years.
-
In truth, what this Government did was to lead the EU in
sorting out the emissions calculations, to make sure that
they were accurate. A few years ago, the EU’s wrong-headed
emissions assessments relating to the VW cheating were just
that: they were wrong. Subsequently, this Government have
led the way in pressing for better calculations and
assessments. We have been working extremely hard to get our
plans ready, and this will be a very short deferral to
comply with propriety rules. We will publish our plan as
soon as possible after the general election, after which we
do not believe there will be any delay in implementation.
That will take place in the shortest possible time, because
this is a very important issue.
-
Sir (New Forest West)
(Con)
You will want to know, Mr Speaker, that on Friday, I
launched the new double-decker fleet for the X3 bus service
that runs from Salisbury to Bournemouth via God’s own towns
of Ringwood and Fordingbridge. The fleet combines
convenience and comfort with lower emissions than those
from the lawnmower that I pushed round my garden on
Saturday evening. If the Secretary of State wants to break
the unrelieved tedium of the purdah of which she has spoken
over the next few weeks, I recommend that she joins me in
breathing deeply the fresh air of the Avon valley on the X3
service.
-
Mr Speaker
It is always of interest to learn about the right hon.
Gentleman’s domestic activities and to discover that, to
his great credit, despite the receipt of his knighthood, he
remains truly a man of the people. I am only sorry that we
do not have photographs of him pushing his lawnmower
around, but I suspect that it is only a matter of time.
-
I hope that my right hon. Friend has an electric lawnmower
to go with his electric buses. He will be aware that, in
the autumn statement, the Chancellor announced £150 million
to support low-emissions buses and taxis—including support
for retrofitting buses and for boosting the UK retrofit
industry—to ensure that wherever I go in the country, I
will be able to breathe deeply and enjoy the non-fumes from
new, low-emission vehicles. This is incredibly important
and it is this Government who are taking action.
-
(Hammersmith)
(Lab)
The Secretary of State might have met the Mayor of London,
but it is he who is taking action on air quality while her
Government sit on their hands. Does she agree with
that this is the biggest
environmental crisis of our time? If so, will the
Government review one of their worst environmental
decisions—to build a third runway at Heathrow?
-
The hon. Gentleman is exactly wrong to say that this
Government have not taken action. I have given countless
examples of how we are taking action. We have recently
issued more than £3.5 million of grants to particular
councils for particular projects. It is this Government who
are taking action. As I have made clear, we have seen
significant reductions in all five of the major pollutants
in recent years. In answer to the hon. Gentleman’s point
about the expansion of Heathrow, that will take place only
provided that the air quality can be ensured—
-
That is never going to happen.
-
Well, those plans have not yet come forward.
-
(Dover) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State agree that pollution is a serious
problem, but that for the Mayor of London to demonise the
drivers of diesel cars and to use pollution concerns as a
smokescreen for fleecing motorists through more taxes is not
the answer, particularly as Transport for London figures show
that diesel cars represent 10% of the problem? The Mayor
should be dealing with 100% of the problem, not just 10%.
-
My hon. Friend is exactly right to say that all councils that
have air quality problems will need to tackle them and to
deal with 100% of the problem. As the Prime Minister has
said, a number of people were encouraged to buy diesel cars
by the last Labour Government, and we want to take those
people’s needs into account so that we do not end up
penalising them for decisions that they took in good faith.
-
(Strangford) (DUP)
The latest figures show that new cars are failing to filter
out polluted air, and that the air inside them can be up to
10 times more toxic than the air on the footpath because the
ventilation in the cars is not working correctly. The
Secretary of State has given us a timescale for the
consultation process and the comeback from it. Can she give
us an idea of when the legislation will come to this House
for endorsement?
-
The timetable we have set out to account for purdah is that
we will publish our plans on 30 June, with a final plan by 15
September. Legislation will come into place as soon as
possible afterwards, but we will be able to start
straightaway on the work that needs to be done to come to
comply with that plan.
-
(Glasgow North West)
(SNP)
rose—
-
(Glasgow North)
(SNP)
rose—
-
Mr Speaker
I call .
-
Good choice, Mr Speaker. Electric vehicles will reduce
emissions in our city centres and improve urban air quality.
Without support for renewables, however, any air quality plan
simply shifts pollution from urban to rural areas because
such electric vehicles need to be plugged into the grid to
charge. Does the Secretary of State agree that support for
renewables is key when we consider future electric vehicles
and should be included in any air quality plan?
-
I am sure the hon. Lady would agree that this Government have
done more to support renewables than most others. We have a
good track record on boosting renewable electricity
generation, and we want and expect to see the majority of
recharging taking place at home at night, after the peak in
electricity demand. Home recharging should be supported by
workplace recharging for commuters and fleets, with a
targeted amount of public infrastructure where it will be
most used, but I am sure she will also be delighted that in
the 2016 autumn statement the Chancellor announced a further
£290 million to support electric vehicles, low-emission buses
and taxis and alternative fuels.
-
Unfortunately, Glasgow is still something of an air pollution
hotspot. Byres Road in my constituency and Hope Street in the
constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow Central
(Alison Thewliss) are both particularly affected. There is a
city action plan, and we hope if and when the Scottish
National party takes control of the city next week, or the
week after, it will bring a breath of fresh air. Does the
Secretary of State welcome the action of local campaign
groups such as Action Hillhead and the Glasgow University
climate action society both in raising awareness and in
encouraging people to take local action to improve air
quality in their area?
-
I am always delighted to welcome the actions of local
voluntary bodies to try to change the way people travel and
to encourage the take-up of good, healthy cycling and all the
rest. Why not walking where we can, too? Poor air quality is
often the result of people needing to use their own vehicles,
vans and so on. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that air
quality policy is a devolved matter, so our plan is a shared
plan between all four nations of the United Kingdom. We will
all be publishing that as soon as we can.
-
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department
for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Gardiner of
Kimble) (Con)
My Lords, I beg leave to repeat, as a Statement, an
Answer to an Urgent Question given by my right honourable
friend the Secretary of State in another place.
“This Government are committed to making sure that ours
is the first generation to leave the environment in a
better state than we found it. As part of that, I am
personally deeply committed to the importance of clean
air. I can tell the House that since 2011, the Government
have announced over £2 billion to help bus operators
upgrade their fleets; support the development and take up
of low-emission vehicles; reduce pollution from vehicles
such as refuse trucks and fire engines; and promote the
development of clean alternative fuels. In addition, in
the Autumn Statement, we announced a further £290 million
to support electric vehicles, low-emission buses and
taxis, and alternative fuels.
Our actions have enabled the UK to make significant
progress on improving its air quality since 2010. We now
have lower emissions of the five key pollutants: volatile
organic compounds, sulphur dioxide, ammonia, particulates
and nitrogen oxides. However, due to the failure of EU
vehicle emission standards to deliver the expected
improvements in air quality, the UK is among 17 European
countries, including France and Germany, that are not yet
meeting EU emission targets for nitrogen dioxide in parts
of our towns and cities. We are taking strong action to
remedy that. Since November my department has been
working jointly with the Department for Transport to
update the Government’s national air quality plan for
nitrogen dioxide. We have updated the analytical base for
the plan to reflect new evidence, following the
Volkswagen scandal and the failure of the EU’s regulatory
regime to deliver the improvements expected on emissions.
The plan adapts to these new circumstances by setting out
a framework for action.
Following long-standing precedent, we have now entered
the period of pre-election sensitivity that precedes
elections. In accordance with the guidance covering both
local and general elections, the propriety and ethics
team in the Cabinet Office has told us that it would not
be appropriate to launch the consultation and publish the
air quality plan during this time. The Government have
therefore applied to the High Court for a short extension
of the deadline to publish the national air quality plan
for nitrogen dioxide so that we can comply with
pre-election propriety rules. The Government are seeking
to publish a draft plan by 30 June and the final plan by
15 September. The application will be considered by the
court”.
-
(Lab)
I thank the Minister for repeating the Answer given
earlier in the other place. However, notwithstanding that
the Government may wish to absolve themselves by sharing
culpability across other EU member states, they were
given their final warning, as was clearly stated in the
court case brought recently by ClientEarth, and told that
they should publish their proposals to comply with EU law
within two months.
Despite the argument that the purdah period on government
announcements may start from a vote in the other place to
undertake a general election, this announcement of
government intentions could be said to be a matter of
public health. I am sure the thousands of Britons at risk
from diseases caused by air pollutants such as fine
particulate matter, nitrogen dioxide and ammonia, and the
businesses that will suffer lost working days from
pollution-related illnesses, would agree that this is a
public health issue and that an announcement is
desperately needed. Will the Government not consider that
an announcement on public health grounds could be made
that would then comply with the court and negate any
application for an extension?
It would be futile to ask the Government any further
questions, as the Minister may well invoke purdah in all
his replies. If I may, however, I will tempt him further
by asking whether a new clean air Act would not be
required to give citizens new rights to breathe
unpolluted air and rectify the situation across all the
responsible culprits.
-
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his questions. On
his last question, I can say that we believe the
legislative framework exists to deal with these matters,
and therefore a separate clean air Act is not necessary
because they can already be dealt with.
On the issues at hand, we have been advised that there
are very strong requirements vis-à-vis purdah. However, I
say to the noble Lord and indeed to all noble Lords that
we will ensure that this short delay in the timetable
will not result in a delay in the implementation of the
plan. It is precisely to deal with the purdah issue,
relating to both local government and the general
election, that we have given the dates by which we want
to publish this report. Obviously it is in everyone’s
interests that we publish, and we want to work in
partnership. That is why we are working with the devolved
Administrations and the Mayor of London, and indeed we
are working with many cities that have this acute problem
which we need to address.
-
(LD)
My Lords, this is clearly a public health crisis, with
40,000 people dying prematurely in the UK every year
because of air pollution and many more suffering from
respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. The reason that
the Minister has given why this needs to be delayed does
not stand proper scrutiny, because here we face a genuine
public health crisis, which is a legitimate reason for
the purdah rules to be put aside. Given that the
department has shilly-shallied about producing its
25-year plan for the environment, it is very good at
talking the talk on protecting the environment, but it is
not good at walking the walk.
I have two quick questions for the Minister. First, does
he accept that after Brexit, when we no longer have the
European Union obligations, we need firm air quality
targets in UK law to hold the Government to account?
Secondly, what comfort can the Minister give to both
parliamentarians and the public on the question that, in
the absence of the European Union, there is no
alternative to costly judicial reviews for the public to
hold the Government to account on the crisis of air
pollution?
-
My Lords I do not think that the facts bear out what the
noble Baroness said. In fact, it was during a Government
in which her party was in coalition that £2 billion of
taxpayers’ money was diverted: £400 million for
ultra-low-emission vehicles, £600 million for the local
sustainable transport fund, £224 million invested in
cycling and more than £27 million since 2013 to retrofit
and clean up more than 3,000 of the oldest vehicles. I
hope that she would agree that that was a success during
the time that her party was in coalition with mine. That
is why £2 billion was diverted to that important subject.
On the question of how we will proceed, as I said, this
is a short delay in the timetable, because we have purdah
requirements. That is the advice that I have received. I
fully acknowledge that this is a public health issue.
That is one reason why considerable sums of money are
being invested in it, why we will continue to do so and
why we in the department very much want to bring forward
these plans after the general election.
-
(CB)
Has the public health issue been part of the submission
to the courts, because as well as adults, there is now
strong evidence that atmospheric pollution impairs the
development and growth of children’s lungs, which means
that you are storing up big problems into the next
generation? What have the Government done to ensure that
enforcement powers are used when vehicles on the road are
belching out pollutants because they have not been
properly serviced or there is a fault? Quite a lot of
them could be deemed as in the public service, including
taxis, buses, and so on. Sometimes they are belching out
vast quantities of grey, stinking smoke.
-
I thank the noble Baroness because that plays into why
retrofitting is so important, why there has been
investment since 2013 of £27 million to retrofit and
clean up 3,000 of the oldest vehicles and why we have
sought to introduce low-emission buses, taxis and
alternative fuels. As I said, this is a very important
issue which will need a partnership of us all, whether
local authorities, the devolved Administrations, the
Mayor of London or us, to mitigate. I have found it
interesting how small features—the changing of a traffic
light or turning engines off—can change pollution levels
and create considerable advances.
-
(Con)
Does my noble friend agree that the problem of air
pollution is greatest in London, and that the reality is
that Transport for London has totally failed to deal with
the issue? Indeed, it has made it a great deal worse, in
two respects. First, it apparently has no authority to
limit the number of minicabs. In fact, the extraordinary
position emerges that no one has any authority to limit
the number of minicabs. Does my noble friend agree that
urgent action needs to be taken in that regard?
Secondly, there is the ludicrous way in which Transport
for London has been building bicycle lanes. There is
enormous congestion as a result of this, not only when
they are being constructed but in the longer term. It is
an appalling policy. I spend much of my time in Holland,
where they do not have any problem with bicycle lanes
operating properly without being blanked off in a way
that prevents them being used in off-peak periods.
-
My Lords, I shall ensure that my noble friend’s points
are put to officials who meet fortnightly with GLA
officials to discuss air quality. I think that that would
be the best way forward.
-
(Lab)
My Lords, is not the real problem, in London in
particular, lorry emissions? Why do we not have a
national programme of conversion of diesel trucks to LPG
systems, because tests by Millbrook and HORIBA MIRA show
that conversion of trucks to LPG leads to substantial
reductions in carbon emissions and substantial savings by
lorry operators, with a payback period of as little as 18
months? I have identified a firm called Quicksilver-AFI
that has a system that is made for truck conversions,
which is not too expensive, and which the Government
could pump prime with public money, because the emissions
from trucks are very much more substantial than from
individual motor cars.
-
My Lords, what the noble Lord said is extremely helpful.
I have mentioned retrofitting quite a bit during this
Question, but that is a point that I would like to take
back, and I am most grateful to him.
|