Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee
Wednesday 10th June 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 19 hours, 38 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:30
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Order, order. Draft. Clean. Zone. Central. Services. Fees. England. Amendment. Regulations 2026. First, the regulations extend the period during which local authorities may be charged for using the Clean Air Zone Central Services website from the 31st of March 2027 to the 31st of March 2031. Second, the increase the fee that local authorities pay to use the services from £2 to £4 per transaction as a step towards full cost recovery.
The regulations are due to take effect from the 1st of September 2026. It may benefit honourable members if I provide some context. As many are already aware, clean air zones encourage green travel by charging older, more polluting to use the services from £2 to £4 per transaction as a step towards full cost recovery. The regulations are due to take effect from the 1st of September 2026. It may benefit honourable members if I provide some context. As many are already aware, clean air zones encourage green travel by charging older, more polluting to use the services from £2 to £4 per transaction as a step towards full cost recovery.
The regulations are due to take effect from the 1st of September 2026. It may benefit honourable members if I provide some context. As many are already aware, clean air zones encourage green travel by charging older, more polluting vehicles if fee to enter that zone. They have been introduced selectively only where evidence shows they are the quickest way to reduce nitrogen dioxide concentrations in a local area, and where other options would not deliver the same results as quickly. There are currently seven clean air zones operated by local authorities in England.
These are. Bath and North East Somerset. Birmingham. Bradford. Bristol. Portsmouth, Sheffield and Rotherham. And Tyneside. I certainly will.
The regulations are due to take effect from the 1st of September 2026. It may benefit honourable members if I provide some context. As many are already aware, clean air zones encourage green travel by charging older, more polluting to use the services from £2 to £4 per transaction as a step towards full cost recovery. The regulations are due to take effect from the 1st of September 2026. It may benefit honourable members if I provide some context. As many are already aware, clean air zones encourage green travel by charging older, more polluting to use the services from £2 to £4 per transaction as a step towards full cost recovery.
The regulations are due to take effect from the 1st of September 2026. It may benefit honourable members if I provide some context. As many are already aware, clean air zones encourage green travel by charging older, more polluting vehicles if fee to enter that zone. They have been introduced selectively only where evidence shows they are the quickest way to reduce nitrogen dioxide concentrations in a local area, and where other options would not deliver the same results as quickly. There are currently seven clean air zones operated by local authorities in England.
These are. Bath and North East Somerset. Birmingham. Bradford. Bristol. Portsmouth, Sheffield and Rotherham. And Tyneside. I certainly will.
14:32
14:33
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I thank my honourable friend for his intervention. The government has no current plans to introduce further clean air zones at this time, and two additional cities. Our focus is on working with local authorities to support them and meeting their legally binding obligations to improve air quality in their localities. But let me be clear these clean air zones are working. Between 2019 and 2024, in the areas of the cities that have clean air zones, annual average concentrations of nitrogen dioxide reduced between 18 and 46%.
They dropped by around a third in Bristol by 40%, in Bath and north east Somerset, and more than 40% in Tyneside. But there's more than just lines on the graph. These results really do matter in the UK. It's estimated that exposure to air pollution has an annual impact on shortening lifespans, equivalent to 29,000 to 43,000 deaths. The impact of air pollution is felt most acutely by the most vulnerable in our society, including older people and younger children. So this is about children breathing cleaner air.
It's about building healthier communities. It's about preventing illness and protecting our NHS as a government. It's one of the most important things that we can do for the public. It's the least that they deserve. In 2021, the then government built the drive in and drive in a Clean Air Zone Central Services website to support local authorities introducing and operating clear, clean air zones. The website lets drivers check whether their vehicle meets the air quality standards for that clean air zone and if not, pay a duty a daily charge to drive in a call centre also supports people who don't use digital channels to make payments, and helps local authorities with enforcement.
The 2020 regulations I referenced earlier support the implementation of Clean Air Zones. They establish a legal framework for the Transport Secretary to charge local authorities a fee of £2 for each proposed payment through the Central Services website. Those regulations ensured that the £2 fee was payable up until the 31st of March 2027. This is a date by which it was estimated that all local authorities with the Clean Air Zone would have achieved compliance with air quality requirements and exited the central services. The previous government was not able to achieve this, and some areas are now not expected to meet their air quality targets until the early 2030s.
Therefore, clean air zones will need to remain in place for longer than envisaged by the 2020 regulations and this instrument, by extending the charging period, is necessary to continue operating the central services. The legal framework supporting the 2020 regulations has also changed. Following the UK's exit from the European Union. As a result, it's no longer possible to align the same powers to amend the original regulations. The regulations presented to the committee are therefore made under updated powers introduced by the Withdrawal Act.
These regulations are an important step to ensuring costs for providing the central services are recovered fairly and transparently, rather than falling to the taxpayer. To be clear, on the level of cost recovery, raising the fee to £4 will increase cost recovery to an estimated 90% for the lifetime of the cars. Central services for the financial year 2020 to 2021 to financial year 2030 to 31. This is higher than the 69% cost recovery we estimate for this period were the £2 fee to remain unchanged.
It gives the government, at least the government, subsidizing transactions at 10% of the overall cost, as opposed to 31%, and is a sensible move towards full cost recovery. I wish to reassure the Committee on potential concerns that the fee increase would be passed on to motorists. Our expectation is that this will not be the case. Ministers wrote to councils in December last year, strongly urging them not to pass the transaction fee on to motorists through increased clean air and clean Air zone charges. Tackling the cost of living is this government's top priority, and we are ensuring that this change does not add to the challenges that many people are now facing.
And to be clear, this is not a war on motorists. This government is backing drivers and businesses through a range of measures, including extending the £0.05 fuel duty cut and introducing a 12 month road tax holiday for hauliers. This extension to the £0.05 duty is keeping taxes at a 16 year low and saving the average driver £120. We are making record levels of investment in our road network, including £7 billion commitment to tackle potholes and improve local maintenance alongside. We are supporting the transition to cleaner transport, including through the £2 billion electric car grant, which is helping drivers move to zero emission vehicles and it's already helped 120,000 UK drivers to do this since July 2025.
Now, returning to the matter of this statutory instrument, the government's understanding is that the fee increase to £4 is manageable, as most of the schemes are currently running a surplus. It's not right that taxpayers across the country should be subsidising surpluses in these few authorities, generated from a scheme that is designed to clean up our air, not generate income, for example, from the information published by the council in Bristol. We understand that its Clean Air Zone surplus has been running to several millions per year, and this fee increase could reduce it by around 400,001 million per year in each of the coming three financial years.
Should any should any local authority fall into a shortfall with the Clean Air Zone operating costs?This will be covered by the government under new burden rules. When clean air zones were established, the government informed local authorities that this transaction fee would be reviewed once costs and income were clearer. Clean air zones have been in operation now for several years, and we now have the necessary data from the past 12 to 18 months on costs, on revenues and the expected duration of clean air zones to review and amend the fee.
Local authorities are expecting this fee change from the 1st of September, and officials continue to help them prepare. The Department for transport will work closely with its delivery partner, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to ensure that the new fee is reflected when the regulations come into effect in the 1st of September, so. These regulations. In conclusion, will ensure the central services continue to operate effectively in a sustainable and transparent way while supporting ongoing improvements in air quality, and I commend these regulations to the committee.
They dropped by around a third in Bristol by 40%, in Bath and north east Somerset, and more than 40% in Tyneside. But there's more than just lines on the graph. These results really do matter in the UK. It's estimated that exposure to air pollution has an annual impact on shortening lifespans, equivalent to 29,000 to 43,000 deaths. The impact of air pollution is felt most acutely by the most vulnerable in our society, including older people and younger children. So this is about children breathing cleaner air.
It's about building healthier communities. It's about preventing illness and protecting our NHS as a government. It's one of the most important things that we can do for the public. It's the least that they deserve. In 2021, the then government built the drive in and drive in a Clean Air Zone Central Services website to support local authorities introducing and operating clear, clean air zones. The website lets drivers check whether their vehicle meets the air quality standards for that clean air zone and if not, pay a duty a daily charge to drive in a call centre also supports people who don't use digital channels to make payments, and helps local authorities with enforcement.
The 2020 regulations I referenced earlier support the implementation of Clean Air Zones. They establish a legal framework for the Transport Secretary to charge local authorities a fee of £2 for each proposed payment through the Central Services website. Those regulations ensured that the £2 fee was payable up until the 31st of March 2027. This is a date by which it was estimated that all local authorities with the Clean Air Zone would have achieved compliance with air quality requirements and exited the central services. The previous government was not able to achieve this, and some areas are now not expected to meet their air quality targets until the early 2030s.
Therefore, clean air zones will need to remain in place for longer than envisaged by the 2020 regulations and this instrument, by extending the charging period, is necessary to continue operating the central services. The legal framework supporting the 2020 regulations has also changed. Following the UK's exit from the European Union. As a result, it's no longer possible to align the same powers to amend the original regulations. The regulations presented to the committee are therefore made under updated powers introduced by the Withdrawal Act.
These regulations are an important step to ensuring costs for providing the central services are recovered fairly and transparently, rather than falling to the taxpayer. To be clear, on the level of cost recovery, raising the fee to £4 will increase cost recovery to an estimated 90% for the lifetime of the cars. Central services for the financial year 2020 to 2021 to financial year 2030 to 31. This is higher than the 69% cost recovery we estimate for this period were the £2 fee to remain unchanged.
It gives the government, at least the government, subsidizing transactions at 10% of the overall cost, as opposed to 31%, and is a sensible move towards full cost recovery. I wish to reassure the Committee on potential concerns that the fee increase would be passed on to motorists. Our expectation is that this will not be the case. Ministers wrote to councils in December last year, strongly urging them not to pass the transaction fee on to motorists through increased clean air and clean Air zone charges. Tackling the cost of living is this government's top priority, and we are ensuring that this change does not add to the challenges that many people are now facing.
And to be clear, this is not a war on motorists. This government is backing drivers and businesses through a range of measures, including extending the £0.05 fuel duty cut and introducing a 12 month road tax holiday for hauliers. This extension to the £0.05 duty is keeping taxes at a 16 year low and saving the average driver £120. We are making record levels of investment in our road network, including £7 billion commitment to tackle potholes and improve local maintenance alongside. We are supporting the transition to cleaner transport, including through the £2 billion electric car grant, which is helping drivers move to zero emission vehicles and it's already helped 120,000 UK drivers to do this since July 2025.
Now, returning to the matter of this statutory instrument, the government's understanding is that the fee increase to £4 is manageable, as most of the schemes are currently running a surplus. It's not right that taxpayers across the country should be subsidising surpluses in these few authorities, generated from a scheme that is designed to clean up our air, not generate income, for example, from the information published by the council in Bristol. We understand that its Clean Air Zone surplus has been running to several millions per year, and this fee increase could reduce it by around 400,001 million per year in each of the coming three financial years.
Should any should any local authority fall into a shortfall with the Clean Air Zone operating costs?This will be covered by the government under new burden rules. When clean air zones were established, the government informed local authorities that this transaction fee would be reviewed once costs and income were clearer. Clean air zones have been in operation now for several years, and we now have the necessary data from the past 12 to 18 months on costs, on revenues and the expected duration of clean air zones to review and amend the fee.
Local authorities are expecting this fee change from the 1st of September, and officials continue to help them prepare. The Department for transport will work closely with its delivery partner, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, to ensure that the new fee is reflected when the regulations come into effect in the 1st of September, so. These regulations. In conclusion, will ensure the central services continue to operate effectively in a sustainable and transparent way while supporting ongoing improvements in air quality, and I commend these regulations to the committee.
14:39
14:39
14:39
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the chair this afternoon. Across the country, drivers, particularly of older, often less expensive vehicles, have been hurt by the fees imposed by low emission and so-called clean air zones between ultra low emission zones and clean air zones. It is estimated that over £1 billion has been extracted from the public. A public just trying to get around and about and live their lives. Travelling to work, taking the kids to school, completing the family shop, getting to medical appointments or visiting relatives.
Despite clear guidance that clean air zones are not to be used to raise revenue, we know that in practice they are used for precisely that, generating significant money for the authorities who will be impacted by today's regulations. If we consider two of the largest authorities impacted by the changes, Bristol's Clean Air Zone for 2425 brought in an income of over £22 million from daily charges and penalty notices that brought a transport transfer to the reserves in Bristol of over £16 million, which contributed to spending of £14 million on other transport projects.
Meanwhile, a 2026 report by Birmingham City Council showed that the authority had spent over £92 million from net surplus revenue since their scheme was put in place. Of that, £92 million, over £73 million was spent on active travel and transforming the city centre. While these can be worthy goals, it reflects a complete disregard for the motorist. With only 10 million being spent on issues such as road safety. This is indicative of the fact that authorities have repeatedly used clean air zones as a mechanism for funding other projects.
The minister will no doubt recognise this is not the purpose of the system. It is a byproduct and one that I am afraid these regulations will impact. And I listen carefully to the minister's speech, where he extolled the virtues of clean air and. Getting clean air is indeed a worthy goal. But I would put it to the minister that it is not the stick that works in this occasion. It is the carrot. It is the.
Using technology as our friend, where even modern diesel cars are cleaner than their predecessors. And it is that evolution of technology and leaning on future technologies from battery electric to synthetic fuels. And further, that will actually deliver us the clean air, not just punishing people for what they happen to be able to afford today. So turning Mr. Wishart to the exact regulations, the instrument before us today will impose a fee on authorities who use the central services function operated by the government. On the face of it, there should be nothing to be worried about.
According to the government, there will be no impact on motorists. However, I would put it to the committee. It would be naive in the extreme to believe that further costs will not be imposed on drivers. In other words, that these increased charges won't just be passed on to drivers already already struggling with the cost of fuel, road duty, insurance costs and so much more. And the minister had the audacity to reference fuel duty when we know it's one of the weakest of the government's U-turns, where trying to pretend that they were keeping it low, and now you turning, saying, well, it won't be September.
We put it up, it'll be a few months later, but the government is still going to put fuel duty up and impose this additional burden on motorists. Are we really to believe that local authorities who have reveled in using drivers as a cash cow, will allow them multiple millions that will be transferred to the government on the basis of this increased fee to simply vanish overnight?Let me be absolutely clear conservatives oppose this instrument. Our opposition to this proposal is that we have concerns that the effect will not merely be about cost recovery for the central service.
Rather, it will encourage further action from those local authorities to raise yet more money from drivers. This is a consequence of these changes that I fear the government has not properly considered. Furthermore, Mr. Wishart, there is a point that is also relevant. Clean air zones are meant to be transitory to improve air quality, although I question whether they do and then find alternative solutions. It is why local authorities were strongly encouraged to find other mechanisms to control air quality without resorting to clean air zones in the first place.
In allowing these services to be used up until 2031, it suggests there is no clear path for moving away from the existing rules, which cost motorists so dearly. Dearly. Driving is not some form of luxury for millions. Driving a car is a necessary for daily life. It is freedom. It is a right. All of our constituents should be able to enjoy, unencumbered by the state, be that national or local. And driving is practical.
You can't do a weekly shop for a family of five on the back of a bike. Labour are bringing forward. In today's instrument walk all over the realities of life for millions for whom the car is essential. This is Labour's war on the motorist. It is unjust. This instrument fans the flames of that war on the motorist and we are going to oppose it.
Despite clear guidance that clean air zones are not to be used to raise revenue, we know that in practice they are used for precisely that, generating significant money for the authorities who will be impacted by today's regulations. If we consider two of the largest authorities impacted by the changes, Bristol's Clean Air Zone for 2425 brought in an income of over £22 million from daily charges and penalty notices that brought a transport transfer to the reserves in Bristol of over £16 million, which contributed to spending of £14 million on other transport projects.
Meanwhile, a 2026 report by Birmingham City Council showed that the authority had spent over £92 million from net surplus revenue since their scheme was put in place. Of that, £92 million, over £73 million was spent on active travel and transforming the city centre. While these can be worthy goals, it reflects a complete disregard for the motorist. With only 10 million being spent on issues such as road safety. This is indicative of the fact that authorities have repeatedly used clean air zones as a mechanism for funding other projects.
The minister will no doubt recognise this is not the purpose of the system. It is a byproduct and one that I am afraid these regulations will impact. And I listen carefully to the minister's speech, where he extolled the virtues of clean air and. Getting clean air is indeed a worthy goal. But I would put it to the minister that it is not the stick that works in this occasion. It is the carrot. It is the.
Using technology as our friend, where even modern diesel cars are cleaner than their predecessors. And it is that evolution of technology and leaning on future technologies from battery electric to synthetic fuels. And further, that will actually deliver us the clean air, not just punishing people for what they happen to be able to afford today. So turning Mr. Wishart to the exact regulations, the instrument before us today will impose a fee on authorities who use the central services function operated by the government. On the face of it, there should be nothing to be worried about.
According to the government, there will be no impact on motorists. However, I would put it to the committee. It would be naive in the extreme to believe that further costs will not be imposed on drivers. In other words, that these increased charges won't just be passed on to drivers already already struggling with the cost of fuel, road duty, insurance costs and so much more. And the minister had the audacity to reference fuel duty when we know it's one of the weakest of the government's U-turns, where trying to pretend that they were keeping it low, and now you turning, saying, well, it won't be September.
We put it up, it'll be a few months later, but the government is still going to put fuel duty up and impose this additional burden on motorists. Are we really to believe that local authorities who have reveled in using drivers as a cash cow, will allow them multiple millions that will be transferred to the government on the basis of this increased fee to simply vanish overnight?Let me be absolutely clear conservatives oppose this instrument. Our opposition to this proposal is that we have concerns that the effect will not merely be about cost recovery for the central service.
Rather, it will encourage further action from those local authorities to raise yet more money from drivers. This is a consequence of these changes that I fear the government has not properly considered. Furthermore, Mr. Wishart, there is a point that is also relevant. Clean air zones are meant to be transitory to improve air quality, although I question whether they do and then find alternative solutions. It is why local authorities were strongly encouraged to find other mechanisms to control air quality without resorting to clean air zones in the first place.
In allowing these services to be used up until 2031, it suggests there is no clear path for moving away from the existing rules, which cost motorists so dearly. Dearly. Driving is not some form of luxury for millions. Driving a car is a necessary for daily life. It is freedom. It is a right. All of our constituents should be able to enjoy, unencumbered by the state, be that national or local. And driving is practical.
You can't do a weekly shop for a family of five on the back of a bike. Labour are bringing forward. In today's instrument walk all over the realities of life for millions for whom the car is essential. This is Labour's war on the motorist. It is unjust. This instrument fans the flames of that war on the motorist and we are going to oppose it.
14:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you chair. I will take the committee briefly to explain why the Liberal Democrats are opposed to the measure being brought before us today, and I intend to vote against it. Accordingly. The first rule of politics is learn to count and the counting of the government in relation to this is quite something. They themselves admit that the fear is. Present level covers 86% of the expenditure on transactions, leaving them with a 14% shortfall. So if they were bringing us 14% increase in charge today, then the conversation might be a bit different.
But instead, to cover that shortfall, they want to charge an extra 100% on the current fee. To borrow a phrase from a younger generation chair that the maths ain't math thing. It's councils facing this charge who have brought into a central scheme to try and lower their costs. The government have a monopoly on councils from running their own scheme entirely would be unfeasible. Many local councils are already suffering severe funding challenges. Now the government are doing what looks to many, like price gouging.
What will happen if they make this change is simple. Councils will see an extra barrier to using clean air zones. There will be fewer clean air zones. There will be people in our urban centres who will suffer as a result. So will the minister be telling people in Bath and Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Portsmouth, Sheffield and Newcastle that clean air is a privilege for which the government would like to charge more, or will his department take the reasonable approach, go back to the drawing board and bring back a proposal that feels a little less like a rinsing of local transport strategy budgets?Thank you.
But instead, to cover that shortfall, they want to charge an extra 100% on the current fee. To borrow a phrase from a younger generation chair that the maths ain't math thing. It's councils facing this charge who have brought into a central scheme to try and lower their costs. The government have a monopoly on councils from running their own scheme entirely would be unfeasible. Many local councils are already suffering severe funding challenges. Now the government are doing what looks to many, like price gouging.
What will happen if they make this change is simple. Councils will see an extra barrier to using clean air zones. There will be fewer clean air zones. There will be people in our urban centres who will suffer as a result. So will the minister be telling people in Bath and Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Portsmouth, Sheffield and Newcastle that clean air is a privilege for which the government would like to charge more, or will his department take the reasonable approach, go back to the drawing board and bring back a proposal that feels a little less like a rinsing of local transport strategy budgets?Thank you.
14:47
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Thank you chair, it's a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship. Mr. Wishart. In Bradford, one of the areas with a clean air zone. Our new reform led council wants to scrap it, and I believe this would be a serious mistake and one that future generations of Bradford would pay for. Our city has long carried one of the highest levels of respiratory illness in Yorkshire, with children often from deprived backgrounds growing up near busy roads in Manningham, Shipley and the Aire Valley corridor.
Having been disproportionately exposed to nitrogen dioxide levels linked to asthma, stunted lung development and reduced life expectancy. It was in 2022 when the conservative government introduced and required places like Bradford to introduce it. It seemed the honourable gentleman had forgotten that this was a policy that had come in under previous government. Um Bradford was in breach at that time of legal limits for carbon dioxide, as 35 separate sites across the district. That's not a minor infarction. That's a public health disaster hiding in the air that my constituents breathe today, three years into the scheme, the figure has fallen to just three sites.
That's a transformational difference. And it didn't just happen by chance. Um, chair, the Clean Air Zone created a tangible incentive. The honourable gentleman talked about carrots and sticks, but there's a definite incentive for operators of the most polluting commercial vehicles such as HGVs, buses, taxis and vans to upgrade to cleaner alternatives. And the impact on public health is evident. As of last year, GP appointments booked for people with breathing difficulties in Bradford had dropped by nearly 600 per month since the Clean Air Zone was introduced.
Similarly, through reducing spending on inhalers, hospital admissions and long term respiratory care, the Clean Air Zone is estimated to have saved our local NHS around 300 £0 every month. Chair, in terms of money, our city received close to £40 million from central government to implement the Clean Air Zone. This funding supported businesses in upgrading their fleets, transitioning to cleaner vehicles, making the use of those benefits of technology and reducing their long term operating costs. So coming to these regulations, it's important that the increased fees will not be passed on, and I hope that the minister will urge the reform led council in Bradford not to do so, but also the investment that this government is bringing forward in cleaner buses in West Yorkshire in the coming years by the buses Bill, bringing buses back into public control will also have huge benefits in reducing respiratory problems.
So in conclusion, Mr. Chair Bradford's Clean Air Zone has driven significant improvements in air quality. The evidence we have shows it's benefiting the health of my constituents. I ask the Minister to confirm that any move by reform to scrap the Clean Air Zone before evidence of sustained air quality improvements would be both premature and reckless. Thank you.
Having been disproportionately exposed to nitrogen dioxide levels linked to asthma, stunted lung development and reduced life expectancy. It was in 2022 when the conservative government introduced and required places like Bradford to introduce it. It seemed the honourable gentleman had forgotten that this was a policy that had come in under previous government. Um Bradford was in breach at that time of legal limits for carbon dioxide, as 35 separate sites across the district. That's not a minor infarction. That's a public health disaster hiding in the air that my constituents breathe today, three years into the scheme, the figure has fallen to just three sites.
That's a transformational difference. And it didn't just happen by chance. Um, chair, the Clean Air Zone created a tangible incentive. The honourable gentleman talked about carrots and sticks, but there's a definite incentive for operators of the most polluting commercial vehicles such as HGVs, buses, taxis and vans to upgrade to cleaner alternatives. And the impact on public health is evident. As of last year, GP appointments booked for people with breathing difficulties in Bradford had dropped by nearly 600 per month since the Clean Air Zone was introduced.
Similarly, through reducing spending on inhalers, hospital admissions and long term respiratory care, the Clean Air Zone is estimated to have saved our local NHS around 300 £0 every month. Chair, in terms of money, our city received close to £40 million from central government to implement the Clean Air Zone. This funding supported businesses in upgrading their fleets, transitioning to cleaner vehicles, making the use of those benefits of technology and reducing their long term operating costs. So coming to these regulations, it's important that the increased fees will not be passed on, and I hope that the minister will urge the reform led council in Bradford not to do so, but also the investment that this government is bringing forward in cleaner buses in West Yorkshire in the coming years by the buses Bill, bringing buses back into public control will also have huge benefits in reducing respiratory problems.
So in conclusion, Mr. Chair Bradford's Clean Air Zone has driven significant improvements in air quality. The evidence we have shows it's benefiting the health of my constituents. I ask the Minister to confirm that any move by reform to scrap the Clean Air Zone before evidence of sustained air quality improvements would be both premature and reckless. Thank you.
14:50
14:50
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Thank you, chair. Chair. I've heard that a couple of drops of olive oil is quite good for temporary hearing loss. So let me reiterate once again, this is not a tax on motorists. We do not expect local authorities to raise their charges to motorists on account of this, and expressly and expressly asked them not to do so. This is about good governance. I will indeed. So if local.
14:51
14:51
14:51
14:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And of course, the previous government said they would review these costs when the data became clear. It's about good governance. Of the government providing a service that aligns with managing public money. Ensure full cost recovery. We're doing this now because the last government failed to increase the central service fee designed to cover the government's cost of administering the service since introduced. Since they introduced Clean air Zones in 2020. Now most vehicles entering a Clean Air zone will pay no charge at all as their vehicles are compliant, and that percentage is likely to continue to increase.
Government's £2 billion electric car grant, as I mentioned, has helped 120 thousand UK drivers in England move to zero emission vehicles since July 2025. Clean air zones are designed to clean up air and should not be used as a revenue raiser for any organisation, and I can assure you that causes are not a revenue raiser for DFT and by moving to the £4 fee, we are still subsidising, to a degree, central services to the tune of 10% under the New Burdens Doctrine. As I mentioned once again, the Department of Transport will also pay for local authority deficits that arise in their um Caz operations.
Now, government has worked closely with local authorities to prepare them for the fee increase and to understand the impacts local authorities that currently generate. The surplus from the Clean Air Zones will see some reduction in revenue following the fee increase. However, no local authority will be left in deficit. Just. To then turn to the question from my hon. Friend the member for Shipley. I think that that any move, any move to scrap a clean air zone before there is clear and sustained evidence of improved air quality would be both premature and, frankly, reckless.
Clean air zones were introduced to deliver compliance with legally binding air quality limits, and authorities are required to retain them until compliance has been achieved and maintained. I hope I've. Assured members that these regulations will ensure clean air zones continue to operate effectively and fairly, and I therefore commend these regulations to the Committee.
Government's £2 billion electric car grant, as I mentioned, has helped 120 thousand UK drivers in England move to zero emission vehicles since July 2025. Clean air zones are designed to clean up air and should not be used as a revenue raiser for any organisation, and I can assure you that causes are not a revenue raiser for DFT and by moving to the £4 fee, we are still subsidising, to a degree, central services to the tune of 10% under the New Burdens Doctrine. As I mentioned once again, the Department of Transport will also pay for local authority deficits that arise in their um Caz operations.
Now, government has worked closely with local authorities to prepare them for the fee increase and to understand the impacts local authorities that currently generate. The surplus from the Clean Air Zones will see some reduction in revenue following the fee increase. However, no local authority will be left in deficit. Just. To then turn to the question from my hon. Friend the member for Shipley. I think that that any move, any move to scrap a clean air zone before there is clear and sustained evidence of improved air quality would be both premature and, frankly, reckless.
Clean air zones were introduced to deliver compliance with legally binding air quality limits, and authorities are required to retain them until compliance has been achieved and maintained. I hope I've. Assured members that these regulations will ensure clean air zones continue to operate effectively and fairly, and I therefore commend these regulations to the Committee.
14:53
14:53
14:54