Environmental Audit Committee
Monday 14th September 2026
Skip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
(began 14 hours, 24 minutes ago)
Watch LiveSkip to latest contribution
This debate has concluded
14:03
14:03
14:03
14:03
14:03
14:03
14:03
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
Excellent. Thank you very much. And Diana, if I could start with you. Obviously, your department, if you like, has responsibility for the results of air pollution. We know the very substantial health impacts that come as a result of air pollution. Just can you give us a sense of how easy you find it to get the other departments to take seriously the health concerns that caused the sort of air pollution? Obviously, we'll be hearing from the Department of Environment, from the Department of Transport already spoken about construction contribution.
How easy do you, as a department, find to get other departments to understand how serious this issue is?
How easy do you, as a department, find to get other departments to understand how serious this issue is?
14:04
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, first of all, thank you very much for the opportunity to appear before you this afternoon. I've only been a minister in the department for a few short weeks, so I've certainly made inquiries as to the relationships that have gone before, particularly between ministers. And I know that there were good relations and meetings with Department of Health ministers and Defra ministers in particular, and I certainly take the view myself that this is obviously a cross-government issue.
We cannot leave this to the Department of Health to sort out air pollution, and nor can we leave it to Defra to sort out air pollution. It has to be. Every department in government has to be involved. And I think the role that I see for the Department is that we are there providing the the strong public health case, why we need to get air pollution down and why we need good quality air for all the reasons that the the panel the committee already know about.
We have evidence around the health impacts, particularly for chronic ill health. We know it's linked to between 26 and 38,000 deaths a year. We know it costs the NHS a great deal of money. So for all those reasons, we are providing the scientific evidence based data to Defra and to other government departments so they can make the right decisions about the policies that they take forward, making sure that health is part of that. So it's certainly my intention as the new minister to build on those relationships that already exist.
And of course, officials meet all the time. So I think that that's very ingrained, if you like. I was reflecting because I was a minister in DWP before, and we published the Child Poverty Strategy, and I was really clear there that child poverty dealing with that was not a department only in the DWP sense. It had to be across government. So I think with the review of the air quality strategy that Defra have announced, I think there's an opportunity there to look again about the workings across government, and I think perhaps the Committee may also reflect on that in its in its report as well.
We cannot leave this to the Department of Health to sort out air pollution, and nor can we leave it to Defra to sort out air pollution. It has to be. Every department in government has to be involved. And I think the role that I see for the Department is that we are there providing the the strong public health case, why we need to get air pollution down and why we need good quality air for all the reasons that the the panel the committee already know about.
We have evidence around the health impacts, particularly for chronic ill health. We know it's linked to between 26 and 38,000 deaths a year. We know it costs the NHS a great deal of money. So for all those reasons, we are providing the scientific evidence based data to Defra and to other government departments so they can make the right decisions about the policies that they take forward, making sure that health is part of that. So it's certainly my intention as the new minister to build on those relationships that already exist.
And of course, officials meet all the time. So I think that that's very ingrained, if you like. I was reflecting because I was a minister in DWP before, and we published the Child Poverty Strategy, and I was really clear there that child poverty dealing with that was not a department only in the DWP sense. It had to be across government. So I think with the review of the air quality strategy that Defra have announced, I think there's an opportunity there to look again about the workings across government, and I think perhaps the Committee may also reflect on that in its in its report as well.
14:06
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
14:06
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you very much, chair. And I also welcome massively the work of this committee on this issue of air pollution, because it is such a big driver of ill health. As the minister has said, I agree with the Royal College of Physicians central estimate of 30,000 deaths. Just to give a sense of of scale, that's not an exact figure. It's a kind of ranging shot. And I think what's very clear to the first part of your question is that air pollution has effects all the way through the life course from causing premature births, which can cause significant problems, problems in childhood through to in adulthood.
So problems of childhood, for example, things like asthma attacks, very severe asthma attacks and lung development through to in adulthood, big impacts on cardiovascular disease, which I think most people don't recognise heart disease and stroke. It's a really major driver of those increasing evidence. It has an impact on dementia. Several cancers, including lung cancer and long term lung disease. And put the other way round. It's the opportunity.
We have a real opportunity, I think, generationally to make an enormous impact on this. And if you put that together with the Tobacco and Vapes Act, which this Parliament has, has actually passed. Children today should be have a much better reduction in essentially the things that assault them through their lungs, which is essentially air pollution and smoking than any previous generation for a very long time back. You know, over over two centuries , probably. And that is an enormous step forward if we can achieve it in terms of what what causes it, which is the second part of your your your question.
And of course, you know this from previous witnesses, but I'm going to just summarise it. Big impacts from transport. And there have been really major steps forward on that. Vehicle emissions are much lower than they were. But there's further to go. And as we move to an electrified fleet, that will take us a further step in the right direction. Construction, as you say, has always been important. The agricultural industry, ammonia is very important, and that's really the only pollutant over a long period of time that hasn't really gone gone down.
There are perfectly good ways we can deal with that. I'm sure we'll be dealing with that in the next panel, but I could go into that in more detail if you wanted. Space heating, very important in the winter months. And some forms of heating are much more polluting than others. which as well. I think that the anything that burns is going to have more. And so what that would mean is you get no air pollution from, let's say, any form of electrical heating.
If you have a sort of mid burning thing. So oil and then slightly more than that, the Defra exempt wood burners. Then you have old wood burners and then you have open fires right at the top end of that. And there's a gradation between those. And that's laid out in some detail in the report if people are interested in the details. So these are kind of areas where we can make progress. And I think it is important to reflect that in virtually every sector we have had really substantial progress.
And it's notable that the Royal College of Physicians report I referred to, which I know you've all read, says 3000 deaths, a central estimate now, ten years previously it said 40,000. And that's really due to improvements we've had. So this is not only an area which causes huge problems, it's also an area we can do a lot about.
So problems of childhood, for example, things like asthma attacks, very severe asthma attacks and lung development through to in adulthood, big impacts on cardiovascular disease, which I think most people don't recognise heart disease and stroke. It's a really major driver of those increasing evidence. It has an impact on dementia. Several cancers, including lung cancer and long term lung disease. And put the other way round. It's the opportunity.
We have a real opportunity, I think, generationally to make an enormous impact on this. And if you put that together with the Tobacco and Vapes Act, which this Parliament has, has actually passed. Children today should be have a much better reduction in essentially the things that assault them through their lungs, which is essentially air pollution and smoking than any previous generation for a very long time back. You know, over over two centuries , probably. And that is an enormous step forward if we can achieve it in terms of what what causes it, which is the second part of your your your question.
And of course, you know this from previous witnesses, but I'm going to just summarise it. Big impacts from transport. And there have been really major steps forward on that. Vehicle emissions are much lower than they were. But there's further to go. And as we move to an electrified fleet, that will take us a further step in the right direction. Construction, as you say, has always been important. The agricultural industry, ammonia is very important, and that's really the only pollutant over a long period of time that hasn't really gone gone down.
There are perfectly good ways we can deal with that. I'm sure we'll be dealing with that in the next panel, but I could go into that in more detail if you wanted. Space heating, very important in the winter months. And some forms of heating are much more polluting than others. which as well. I think that the anything that burns is going to have more. And so what that would mean is you get no air pollution from, let's say, any form of electrical heating.
If you have a sort of mid burning thing. So oil and then slightly more than that, the Defra exempt wood burners. Then you have old wood burners and then you have open fires right at the top end of that. And there's a gradation between those. And that's laid out in some detail in the report if people are interested in the details. So these are kind of areas where we can make progress. And I think it is important to reflect that in virtually every sector we have had really substantial progress.
And it's notable that the Royal College of Physicians report I referred to, which I know you've all read, says 3000 deaths, a central estimate now, ten years previously it said 40,000. And that's really due to improvements we've had. So this is not only an area which causes huge problems, it's also an area we can do a lot about.
14:10
14:10
14:10
14:10
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think I would start off with international just because many of the things we can do most effectively are done on an international basis. Part of that's because many of the pollutants like PM 2.5 are transboundary. So we get things from France, they get things from us depending on which way the wind blows. But also, if you look at the euro standards in vehicles, which are incredibly powerful at driving down particulate matters, PM 2.5 and nitrous oxides in both light and heavy vehicles.
That was done on a continental basis. And the advantage of that is it means no country has its industry disadvantage. So there's a lot we can do internationally then in a sense, the others follow from the previous answer I gave. So actually, industry has done a remarkable job on most areas, but there are some residual areas that are still tricky, including construction, which you mentioned early on in terms of transport, again, remarkable improvements in many areas, but there are some niche areas that stand out.
And I'll give one as an example because it's a demonstration, the fact you can do quite simple things. I know the minister firmly agrees with me on this one, as I hope other things as well. I cannot understand why we still allow diesel engines to idle in stations in this country, just to keep the lights on when there's a power source three meters away. Ridiculous old diesel engines in enclosed spaces with large numbers of people working and commuting and going on leisure.
That is an example of how to increase air pollution. We could just turn that off remarkably quickly. So there are quite a lot of sort of small things, which if you add them all together and I would say it is worth, I think, having a really serious look at how is it that some countries have managed to reduce ammonia, which is from agriculture, such as Holland, which then combine over cities and cause secondary pollutants, secondary particulate matter and and we have not been so effective.
And I think that's something where actually, if you look at the economics of this very important at this point that if you talk to the farming industry, actually this can be made to be self-sustaining because it can mean they can lose less fertiliser. But we need to make that transition. I'm just taking those as examples. And I have also mentioned, obviously space heating. That is a very important area.
That was done on a continental basis. And the advantage of that is it means no country has its industry disadvantage. So there's a lot we can do internationally then in a sense, the others follow from the previous answer I gave. So actually, industry has done a remarkable job on most areas, but there are some residual areas that are still tricky, including construction, which you mentioned early on in terms of transport, again, remarkable improvements in many areas, but there are some niche areas that stand out.
And I'll give one as an example because it's a demonstration, the fact you can do quite simple things. I know the minister firmly agrees with me on this one, as I hope other things as well. I cannot understand why we still allow diesel engines to idle in stations in this country, just to keep the lights on when there's a power source three meters away. Ridiculous old diesel engines in enclosed spaces with large numbers of people working and commuting and going on leisure.
That is an example of how to increase air pollution. We could just turn that off remarkably quickly. So there are quite a lot of sort of small things, which if you add them all together and I would say it is worth, I think, having a really serious look at how is it that some countries have managed to reduce ammonia, which is from agriculture, such as Holland, which then combine over cities and cause secondary pollutants, secondary particulate matter and and we have not been so effective.
And I think that's something where actually, if you look at the economics of this very important at this point that if you talk to the farming industry, actually this can be made to be self-sustaining because it can mean they can lose less fertiliser. But we need to make that transition. I'm just taking those as examples. And I have also mentioned, obviously space heating. That is a very important area.
14:12
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
And we know that the UK targets are not the same as the WHO guidelines, the less ambitious, and we've heard evidence that we could achieve the UK targets and still have quite substantial negative impacts on public health, particularly in areas of greater deprivation. Do you think policy should be moving faster towards WHO guidelines, or do you think that the UK targets are sufficiently ambitious?
14:13
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, I think noting in passing that the WHO tightened its targets quite significantly in 2021 because of new evidence. But I certainly don't think in a sense, my view on this is what we should be aiming to do is to push down all the forms of pollution that we can to the lowest level, compatible with functioning economies and and making sure that things work societally. And there's a long way we can go without actually having a negative impact on the economy.
And so my view is actually the key thing, although the targets are useful as a prompt, if even if we met the UK targets, we should keep going in the areas where we can do that because of the very large impact on chronic diseases and on acute diseases and child development that I talked about at the beginning. And I don't think this is a particularly controversial stance. I think if you were if you talk to people in the street, there'd be very wide support for that position, because what people know is that someone polluting upwind of them can affect them and their their children can affect the elderly, affect people who have chronic health diseases already.
So this is something which we can really make a very big impact. And once we've done it, it very seldom goes backwards.
And so my view is actually the key thing, although the targets are useful as a prompt, if even if we met the UK targets, we should keep going in the areas where we can do that because of the very large impact on chronic diseases and on acute diseases and child development that I talked about at the beginning. And I don't think this is a particularly controversial stance. I think if you were if you talk to people in the street, there'd be very wide support for that position, because what people know is that someone polluting upwind of them can affect them and their their children can affect the elderly, affect people who have chronic health diseases already.
So this is something which we can really make a very big impact. And once we've done it, it very seldom goes backwards.
14:14
14:14
Jonathan Davies
-
-
Jonathan Davies
Thank you, chairman. We've just discussed about the WHO guidelines, and it's good to hear about the commitment to Cross-governmental collaboration on this minister. But if I might just ask you if the government's legal air quality limits permit levels of pollution that are still associated with premature mortality, chronic illness and ecological harm, what justification is there for maintaining those limits?
14:14
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I think as the chief medical officer has just set out so eloquently, we're clear that there are no safe targets that wouldn't impact on a person's health, population health. So clearly, we're wanting to get the the air pollution, air quality, air pollution down and air quality better. I think obviously Defra are responsible for setting the targets for this country. And you're obviously going to hear from the Defra minister next, I think in terms of the WHO guidelines.
When I was looking at this, it was clear that their guidance guidelines, they're very clear that obviously, each nation has different things it has to take into account and consider. And I think it's absolutely right that we do. As the chief medical officer says, we work as hard as we can to get the air pollution levels down. But I do think the and as I referred to earlier on the review, that's going to take place in Defra of the air quality strategy will allow us again and allow Defra ministers to look at the latest health and scientific evidence when they're deciding what to do with that strategy.
When I was looking at this, it was clear that their guidance guidelines, they're very clear that obviously, each nation has different things it has to take into account and consider. And I think it's absolutely right that we do. As the chief medical officer says, we work as hard as we can to get the air pollution levels down. But I do think the and as I referred to earlier on the review, that's going to take place in Defra of the air quality strategy will allow us again and allow Defra ministers to look at the latest health and scientific evidence when they're deciding what to do with that strategy.
14:16
14:16
14:16
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I'd say, first of all, that this government is very aware of the issue of health inequalities, and we want to do something about it. And in the ten year health plan, we've set out very clearly that we want to halve the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest in this country. And I think that's that's absolutely the right thing to do. And that fits alongside the environmental improvement plan that was produced by Defra.
And you're absolutely right. We all know that it's the most vulnerable people, often in the most deprived areas, who are going to be most affected. So there are various things that we we are doing at the moment. And I want to just say something, perhaps at the end, about how we're going to measure this, because our aim is over the ten years of the health plan. But the UK HSA has an air quality and health dashboard for England.
And why that's important is it gives local authority areas, directors of public health the opportunity to really drill down into their local areas about where what the levels of air pollution are, but also to look at demographic and social socio economic information. So if areas are predominantly perhaps families or elderly people, they can actually then target any policy policies they want to bring forward on those particular areas. So that's really important. And the other thing that we've done in the recent devolution Bill is to put a duty on combined authorities and strategic authorities to actually have to look at health determinants, because, again, that will help us then start to tackle some of the health inequalities.
And I'm sure the committee have looked at the the evidence from the chill study, which was looking particularly at children, I think it was Luton and London, and looking at the impact of decisions that the. The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, when he extended the Ulez policy and the fact that I was really quite taken aback by was that children's lungs. If you've got cleaner air, children's lungs can recover and grow. And I thought that was really very important.
So again, looking at those kind of policies that mayors particularly might be able to use in their local areas to deal with specific issues. And then there's also within Mhclg, and I'm sorry, you haven't got a minister to talk about this, but the the local outcomes framework within there, there is an indicator around mortality attributable to air pollution. And again, I think that will help to concentrate the minds of local authorities when they're designing policies, because, of course, they they will be looking at planning policies.
They'll be looking at what industrial, what industries they're bringing into areas, looking at housing. So there's a whole range of things there that will start to tackle some of the inequalities that we see in different parts of the country. And I think you're probably going to ask me, well, how are we going to measure this and what's actually working already? And I think there is work to do on that , because while we've got this big aim over ten years to actually know that we are making progress in the right way is important.
And I, again, I'm sure the chief medical officer will have something to say about this, how we are going to to measure that success over the years to come.
And you're absolutely right. We all know that it's the most vulnerable people, often in the most deprived areas, who are going to be most affected. So there are various things that we we are doing at the moment. And I want to just say something, perhaps at the end, about how we're going to measure this, because our aim is over the ten years of the health plan. But the UK HSA has an air quality and health dashboard for England.
And why that's important is it gives local authority areas, directors of public health the opportunity to really drill down into their local areas about where what the levels of air pollution are, but also to look at demographic and social socio economic information. So if areas are predominantly perhaps families or elderly people, they can actually then target any policy policies they want to bring forward on those particular areas. So that's really important. And the other thing that we've done in the recent devolution Bill is to put a duty on combined authorities and strategic authorities to actually have to look at health determinants, because, again, that will help us then start to tackle some of the health inequalities.
And I'm sure the committee have looked at the the evidence from the chill study, which was looking particularly at children, I think it was Luton and London, and looking at the impact of decisions that the. The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, when he extended the Ulez policy and the fact that I was really quite taken aback by was that children's lungs. If you've got cleaner air, children's lungs can recover and grow. And I thought that was really very important.
So again, looking at those kind of policies that mayors particularly might be able to use in their local areas to deal with specific issues. And then there's also within Mhclg, and I'm sorry, you haven't got a minister to talk about this, but the the local outcomes framework within there, there is an indicator around mortality attributable to air pollution. And again, I think that will help to concentrate the minds of local authorities when they're designing policies, because, of course, they they will be looking at planning policies.
They'll be looking at what industrial, what industries they're bringing into areas, looking at housing. So there's a whole range of things there that will start to tackle some of the inequalities that we see in different parts of the country. And I think you're probably going to ask me, well, how are we going to measure this and what's actually working already? And I think there is work to do on that , because while we've got this big aim over ten years to actually know that we are making progress in the right way is important.
And I, again, I'm sure the chief medical officer will have something to say about this, how we are going to to measure that success over the years to come.
14:19
14:19
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Sorry, I probably didn't make myself as clear as I should have done. I think they have a huge role to play. And of course, the government's agenda around devolution, pushing decision making down, using the mayors, using local authorities is really important. But as the chief medical officer said, at a national level, of course we have responsibilities as well. At an international level, we have responsibilities. But if we're dealing with the health inequalities of certain communities, I think there's a really strong role for our elected politicians and officers at that level, at the regional and local level.
14:20
14:20
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
And I'm not an Mhclg minister, but I do know that additional money has gone into local government in the last two years, and I know that many local authorities are looking very carefully about how they can improve the health of their communities and, of course, the local NHS within those areas as well. They do joint strategic needs plans to to identify the health needs in those areas. So I think that that combination is really quite important about tackling health inequalities at that local level.
But nationally, of course, we have responsibilities as well to make sure that happens.
But nationally, of course, we have responsibilities as well to make sure that happens.
14:21
14:21
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think the just to build on all the points that the minister made, the thing about people living in areas of deprivation is they tend to get a double hit. They both start off with less good health on average. Of course, this is an average and they have worse health, air pollution. And if you put those two together, you get a very significant impact , which is differentiated across society. Unfortunately, it is important to say that actually the best way, because air pollution spread so widely, the best way to deal with air pollution is to reduce it for absolutely everybody.
And that has the biggest impact actually, including in areas of deprivation. In terms of the measurement, you have to extrapolate because of this, that you've got two different things. You can measure the pollutants and measure them locally, and then you can work out where the where the vulnerable most vulnerable populations are. But it's a calculated figure rather than a directly measured one. And therefore, it's much more difficult to say with absolute certainty unless you've got a particular thing.
Go back to the minister's point about about the chill study where you can say, right, here's where a change happened. It's really clear in time, and here's what happened to the health outcome as a result. And I think that we should be doing more of that, actually is intervening in things that we know will reduce air pollution and then measuring before and after. And I think what we may find, as with chill, is that the effects are bigger than we were expecting rather than smaller than we are expecting.
We expecting that really is, I think, the best way to do policy.
And that has the biggest impact actually, including in areas of deprivation. In terms of the measurement, you have to extrapolate because of this, that you've got two different things. You can measure the pollutants and measure them locally, and then you can work out where the where the vulnerable most vulnerable populations are. But it's a calculated figure rather than a directly measured one. And therefore, it's much more difficult to say with absolute certainty unless you've got a particular thing.
Go back to the minister's point about about the chill study where you can say, right, here's where a change happened. It's really clear in time, and here's what happened to the health outcome as a result. And I think that we should be doing more of that, actually is intervening in things that we know will reduce air pollution and then measuring before and after. And I think what we may find, as with chill, is that the effects are bigger than we were expecting rather than smaller than we are expecting.
We expecting that really is, I think, the best way to do policy.
14:22
14:22
14:22
Sojan Joseph
-
-
Sojan Joseph
Thank you, chair, if I can come to you, Professor Chris Whitty, I'll start with an example. I met with a nurse last week in my constituency. She was diagnosed with tuberculosis and she had a meeting with her respiratory consultant. There was no conversations about air quality and how this can have an impact on tuberculosis. And also I chair the All-Party parliamentary Group for tuberculosis, and we carried out an inquiry very recently, which shows a rising rates in the UK.
We had a 5490 cases notified in 2024, which is 13.6% increase. Also, London accounted for 20.6% of notifications of tuberculosis, and 1 in 5 people in the UK have at least one TB social risk factors. So my question is do clinicians currently have adequate guidance to communicate air pollution risks to patients, particularly those with cardiovascular, respiratory or pregnancy related vulnerabilities?
We had a 5490 cases notified in 2024, which is 13.6% increase. Also, London accounted for 20.6% of notifications of tuberculosis, and 1 in 5 people in the UK have at least one TB social risk factors. So my question is do clinicians currently have adequate guidance to communicate air pollution risks to patients, particularly those with cardiovascular, respiratory or pregnancy related vulnerabilities?
14:23
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Thank you. So firstly, I'm sorry to hear about your constituent. You're absolutely right that tuberculosis is a significant issue. And of course, doubly so if someone's a healthcare worker because it has very big implications for them more widely. And you're also obviously completely right just to reaffirm, for the record, that air pollution is a risk for tuberculosis, as for many other respiratory infections. So the link is very clear in terms of do people have the, the, the, the available information.
So most clinicians will have a clear understanding that air pollution has a risk factor for these diseases. Very often where they stumble and find it more difficult is working out what they can advise an individual in terms of reducing their risk, because the risk is so generalized across society, they can certainly point people towards the very good things that most people, without even necessarily knowing it will, for example, on their weather app, have things that will say whether pollution is high or low and people are at particularly high risk, may want to pay attention to that to reduce their risk further on high pollution days.
But the in contrast to something like stopping smoking, where you say, well, smoking is your big risk, just stop smoking. And it's very clear what you should do with air pollution. It is harder. But there are there are very good guidances out there. I've discussed this with the Royal Colleges, the Royal Colleges and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, and with the Chief Medical officers, indeed of the other three nations, to make sure we do make sure evidence is out there.
And indeed, there's some specifically on healthcare workers in the annual report I did on air pollution, which which is on this. So there are there are vehicles. But the difficulty is the what do you do now? And this really gets back to the fundamental point, which is the best thing we can do societally is to reduce air pollution in the round. And that would benefit absolutely everybody, including obviously, someone like your constituent.
So most clinicians will have a clear understanding that air pollution has a risk factor for these diseases. Very often where they stumble and find it more difficult is working out what they can advise an individual in terms of reducing their risk, because the risk is so generalized across society, they can certainly point people towards the very good things that most people, without even necessarily knowing it will, for example, on their weather app, have things that will say whether pollution is high or low and people are at particularly high risk, may want to pay attention to that to reduce their risk further on high pollution days.
But the in contrast to something like stopping smoking, where you say, well, smoking is your big risk, just stop smoking. And it's very clear what you should do with air pollution. It is harder. But there are there are very good guidances out there. I've discussed this with the Royal Colleges, the Royal Colleges and the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges, and with the Chief Medical officers, indeed of the other three nations, to make sure we do make sure evidence is out there.
And indeed, there's some specifically on healthcare workers in the annual report I did on air pollution, which which is on this. So there are there are vehicles. But the difficulty is the what do you do now? And this really gets back to the fundamental point, which is the best thing we can do societally is to reduce air pollution in the round. And that would benefit absolutely everybody, including obviously, someone like your constituent.
14:25
14:25
14:25
14:26
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think that the air quality monitoring is not bad, but it has a number of technical limitations, which I'm not going to go into for this committee because it would give it proper your answer, a proper answer would take me 15 minutes. So I will point you towards the chapter in the report which goes into this a lot of detail, but what I think we all agree is there should be ideally a denser network. And the most important thing to do is to do that in urban settings.
I'm very, very conscious of the risks to rural health in many other areas. But for air pollution, the great majority of the risk is in urban areas. And indeed, that's where many of the interventions have to happen. And there you would want to have very good monitoring. And I think nobody would say what we've got at the moment is ideal. I think we'd all like to see more dense monitoring, and particularly around areas of vulnerable groups.
I'd want to see close monitoring around schools, around care homes for the elderly, around hospitals, for example, to ensure that in particular, in those places where there's a high concentration of very, very vulnerable people that we are aware of, what's going on can see the changes.
I'm very, very conscious of the risks to rural health in many other areas. But for air pollution, the great majority of the risk is in urban areas. And indeed, that's where many of the interventions have to happen. And there you would want to have very good monitoring. And I think nobody would say what we've got at the moment is ideal. I think we'd all like to see more dense monitoring, and particularly around areas of vulnerable groups.
I'd want to see close monitoring around schools, around care homes for the elderly, around hospitals, for example, to ensure that in particular, in those places where there's a high concentration of very, very vulnerable people that we are aware of, what's going on can see the changes.
14:27
14:27
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
Thank you very much, Professor Whitty. I mean, just expanding upon what you were saying there in terms of the way government departments work together and absolutely accepting that the greatest good we can do is to reduce it for everybody. But we know that if you're living in a house that's very, very close to a busy main road, then you know your vulnerability is going to be far greater. If, you know, if any of us have areas in our communities where there's real pressure on, on housing, you know, we I would very much doubt that any authorities are thinking when they're allocating housing.
You know, this is a house that's very close to the road. So I'm going to be conscious of whether there's a a child with asthma in the house before we allocate this house or anything like that. I mean, to what extent do you think government is working together in terms of those areas that have the greatest risk to actually identify how we reduce this number of 30,000, rather than the sort of broad policy levers that, as you say, are already making some progress?
You know, this is a house that's very close to the road. So I'm going to be conscious of whether there's a a child with asthma in the house before we allocate this house or anything like that. I mean, to what extent do you think government is working together in terms of those areas that have the greatest risk to actually identify how we reduce this number of 30,000, rather than the sort of broad policy levers that, as you say, are already making some progress?
14:28
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. Well, I, I think so starting with your example of someone living near a road and tiptoeing cautiously into the complex area of housing allocation, which is definitely not my area. But you're absolutely right. Of course. And if you look at the maps of air pollution of any major city in the UK, Birmingham, London doesn't matter. You can see the major roads picked out really clearly because they're the ones where you've got the high nitrous oxides.
They're the ones where you've got the high particulate matters. So first thing, of course, back to I'm sorry, I'm a cracked record on this, reducing it for everybody, reducing the risk from pollution. It's the biggest thing you can achieve. But you're certainly right that there are some areas of every city and near major city, major roads and near a few other things. Major airports actually as well would be places you wouldn't ideally have people who have the the greatest vulnerability because the effects on them and air pollution will be quicker and more severe than they would for the general population.
So I think so.
They're the ones where you've got the high particulate matters. So first thing, of course, back to I'm sorry, I'm a cracked record on this, reducing it for everybody, reducing the risk from pollution. It's the biggest thing you can achieve. But you're certainly right that there are some areas of every city and near major city, major roads and near a few other things. Major airports actually as well would be places you wouldn't ideally have people who have the the greatest vulnerability because the effects on them and air pollution will be quicker and more severe than they would for the general population.
So I think so.
14:29
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
So thinking about that, I mean, in terms of how from all of these things that we've been talking about with government working together, it could be housing allocations, it could be the way that their local health services provide specific support to, to those individuals. It could be around health education for people living in those kinds of communities. They might want to think carefully, more carefully than others about whether their children play in the front garden, for example. You know, to what extent are we, our government working together with the medical knowledge we have? And I say, putting to one side the fact that it's obviously a good idea to use it for everyone, but thinking about the 3000 people out of our population of 70 odd million that die every year, and the all of the additional health benefits, are we doing enough for your your sort of health expertise to be spread across government so that it is actually making a difference to those who are most likely to die or most likely to have serious health impacts?
14:30
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
I think in terms of I can divide the answer into outdoor air pollution and indoor air pollution, then I'm going to subdivide that indoor air pollution, because I think the answer is different for those. I think that there is a genuine coordination across government on outdoor air pollution. And whilst I obviously as a public health person, the minister, as a public health minister, are going to want things to go faster across a whole lot of areas. I don't think that's for lack of coordination across government, and I think most of the government departments that can act are fully seized of this.
And I actually think Defra are taking this very seriously. I think Department of Transport is taking this very seriously. You can draw your own conclusions in other areas, but those two certainly I would I would be absolutely clear when it comes to indoor air pollution, that is much less true. And it's only recently that we've really started to understand the importance of indoor air pollution, because outdoor air pollution so dominated it until recently. Now, as outdoor air pollution has come down, so the relative importance of indoor has got greater and our scientific understanding has improved.
I actually think we should be giving this a lot more thought. The evidence base is much weaker here. So I could tell you, you know, if you gave me enough time, but it would take all of your session. I could go through all the things you do for outdoor. And we know what they are. Indoor is a lot harder. There's a lot more things we don't know. If I was going to choose, the thing I would really concentrate is indoor in public buildings, because public buildings are essentially like the outdoor.
You have no choice about going into a hospital or going to a library, going to a supermarket, going to the mosque, going to whatever, and understanding those environments and making sure we can reduce the risks in those environments for all of society, seems to me entirely in line with what we're trying to do on outdoor. The more we get into private spaces, the more questions about, okay, we should be providing information. We shouldn't be telling people what to do. That balance, I think, gets more complicated.
But if you're talking about an an an indoor space everyone has to use, you can't tell if it's polluted or not. I think this is an area we really ought to be doing a lot more. And I therefore, I do think that's an area where government could be better coordinated.
And I actually think Defra are taking this very seriously. I think Department of Transport is taking this very seriously. You can draw your own conclusions in other areas, but those two certainly I would I would be absolutely clear when it comes to indoor air pollution, that is much less true. And it's only recently that we've really started to understand the importance of indoor air pollution, because outdoor air pollution so dominated it until recently. Now, as outdoor air pollution has come down, so the relative importance of indoor has got greater and our scientific understanding has improved.
I actually think we should be giving this a lot more thought. The evidence base is much weaker here. So I could tell you, you know, if you gave me enough time, but it would take all of your session. I could go through all the things you do for outdoor. And we know what they are. Indoor is a lot harder. There's a lot more things we don't know. If I was going to choose, the thing I would really concentrate is indoor in public buildings, because public buildings are essentially like the outdoor.
You have no choice about going into a hospital or going to a library, going to a supermarket, going to the mosque, going to whatever, and understanding those environments and making sure we can reduce the risks in those environments for all of society, seems to me entirely in line with what we're trying to do on outdoor. The more we get into private spaces, the more questions about, okay, we should be providing information. We shouldn't be telling people what to do. That balance, I think, gets more complicated.
But if you're talking about an an an indoor space everyone has to use, you can't tell if it's polluted or not. I think this is an area we really ought to be doing a lot more. And I therefore, I do think that's an area where government could be better coordinated.
14:32
14:32
Adrian Ramsay
-
-
Adrian Ramsay
Thank you, Chair and Professor Whitty, we've talked a lot already in this session about the fact that air pollution is a big threat to public health. We know that. What specific actions being taken to ensure doctors are equipped to advise patients on these risks, and by when will this be standard practice across the NHS?
14:32
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, clearly you're absolutely right. And this follows very much the previous question, which I and I you know, I'm going to build on what I said previously. Clearly you need we need to be informing people of this from their earliest stage. So this ought to be within medical school. So all doctors get it irrespective of their area of professional practice. But clearly there are some professional practices, general practice physicians, pediatricians, for example, obstetrics and gynecology.
Because of the risks in pregnancy where you need even more information that is relevant to your particular client group. If you if I can put it that way, patient group, and I think we've gone some other way down that path. And the individual royal colleges, which which tend to lead on postgraduate education, have done a good job on this in some areas, but I think all of us would agree they could go further on this. I'd like to pay particular tribute to the Royal College of Physicians who've done the excellent report, which I think you had referred to in some of your earlier evidence.
But again, I don't think any of us feel that we couldn't do more on this one because because this is a risk. But I would go back to my previous thing. The difficulty we have is not saying there's a risk. The difficulty is saying, and now what should you do about it? Because telling someone they've got a risk, but we don't know what to do about it is obviously not a very satisfactory situation.
Because of the risks in pregnancy where you need even more information that is relevant to your particular client group. If you if I can put it that way, patient group, and I think we've gone some other way down that path. And the individual royal colleges, which which tend to lead on postgraduate education, have done a good job on this in some areas, but I think all of us would agree they could go further on this. I'd like to pay particular tribute to the Royal College of Physicians who've done the excellent report, which I think you had referred to in some of your earlier evidence.
But again, I don't think any of us feel that we couldn't do more on this one because because this is a risk. But I would go back to my previous thing. The difficulty we have is not saying there's a risk. The difficulty is saying, and now what should you do about it? Because telling someone they've got a risk, but we don't know what to do about it is obviously not a very satisfactory situation.
14:34
14:34
14:34
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Could I just say something at this point as well? While obviously the doctors are very important, but the other healthcare professionals as well, I'm very interested in what role they have to play in getting information out to patients. And I know there's some particular work going on with health visitors, because I think they can be a very great, useful source of getting that information to, to families and children where there might be risks that need to be identified and mitigated.
So I think there's other other healthcare professionals as well.
So I think there's other other healthcare professionals as well.
14:35
14:35
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I think I referred to earlier on they have their integrated plan health plan that they have to identify the health needs and communities. And of course the integrated care. I mean it doesn't it commissioners, providers, the Department of Health, UK, HSA. So there's a very big group there that you need to think about how you get information out and about how they work together. But then at that local level as well, that the bringing together of the, the local commissioners and providers with the local councils as well, I would think, and, and public health to, to do that integrated health assessment of what the needs are in that area and how you get information out then.
14:36
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
Thank you very much, Minister. If the government recognises air pollution as a as a major public health risk, which obviously we've heard today, it is. Do you feel that it should have more specifically launched a national awareness campaign so that both people can take actions themselves to , to try and improve or reduce their exposure? And also that we can have more of a sort of national conversation about this, you know, silent killer that we have in our midst.
14:36
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, I think as the chief medical officer has set out, it can often be you've got to be very careful about how you communicate with the public, and you want it to be meaningful and to give people actions they can take and information that they they need. And I know already there's been work around improving the health advice around the daily air quality index. So that's been updated. And I know Defra have led on the the alerts that people can sign into to be told if there's high pollution levels in the area they live and given information about that.
And I was looking on my own telephone as well, because on the weather app, you can see what the pollution level is. You know, each day I was looking at, you know, what it was yesterday. So I think there's that information that's more readily available. And of course, we've got the Air Pollution Pollution Awareness Coalition where which is Defra convened. So I'm sure Minister Hardy will talk to you about this, but that's bringing together academics, health professionals, charitable groups to, to talk about how we best communicate.
So I think there's a range of things that are happening already. And obviously, you know, that's always kept under review and whether we need to go further and do things in a different way, I'm sure that would be considered alongside, again, the air quality strategy review that the that Defra undertaking.
And I was looking on my own telephone as well, because on the weather app, you can see what the pollution level is. You know, each day I was looking at, you know, what it was yesterday. So I think there's that information that's more readily available. And of course, we've got the Air Pollution Pollution Awareness Coalition where which is Defra convened. So I'm sure Minister Hardy will talk to you about this, but that's bringing together academics, health professionals, charitable groups to, to talk about how we best communicate.
So I think there's a range of things that are happening already. And obviously, you know, that's always kept under review and whether we need to go further and do things in a different way, I'm sure that would be considered alongside, again, the air quality strategy review that the that Defra undertaking.
14:38
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
Yeah. And I mean, we heard from Professor Whitty earlier that there is obviously a desire to reduce air pollution as much as possible, but also conflicting factors such as, you know, the need for us to use ammonia in agriculture or whatever else it might be. And obviously, you're the public health minister. You'll be wanting to see government doing everything it can. But you you are sort of conscious of these other pressures.
Now, when you say there that we have to be careful about public messaging and public health messaging, you know, do you think that particularly given the sort of health inequalities that operate when it comes to issues like air pollution, that, you know, the poor are more likely to be affected, people from ethnic minorities more likely to be affected? I mean, firstly, do you sort of feel under pressure to to not sort of get that message out there because, you know, it might pose questions that government find impossible to answer, you know, which is, well, why am I living in this House very close to a to a busy main road, for example, why am I living right next to a factory that is burning pollutants and the government won't have a useful answer.
So do you do you sort of feel there's limitations on what you're able to say because it poses uncomfortable questions for other government departments, maybe?
Now, when you say there that we have to be careful about public messaging and public health messaging, you know, do you think that particularly given the sort of health inequalities that operate when it comes to issues like air pollution, that, you know, the poor are more likely to be affected, people from ethnic minorities more likely to be affected? I mean, firstly, do you sort of feel under pressure to to not sort of get that message out there because, you know, it might pose questions that government find impossible to answer, you know, which is, well, why am I living in this House very close to a to a busy main road, for example, why am I living right next to a factory that is burning pollutants and the government won't have a useful answer.
So do you do you sort of feel there's limitations on what you're able to say because it poses uncomfortable questions for other government departments, maybe?
14:39
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
No, I don't feel that at all. I just I'm very conscious, again, of what the chief medical officer said about the advice that you give through public communications, and that's why I think the use of trusted healthcare professionals and making sure they have the training and the information that they can then impart to their patients and say, well, if you do live near a busy road, these are the things you need to think about. You know, you know, I think particularly in the hot weather, we were we were getting messages out about what you should try not do in the middle of the very hot weather that we had.
So I think it's about being clear about messaging that actually will help people make good choices. But again, going back to that issue around making sure that particularly for vulnerable groups, having those trusted healthcare professionals that they can get good advice from, I think that's really very important. I'm not opposed to more public awareness campaign, if that's what we decide needs to happen. But I think we need to review what we're trying to do.
We want good quality information and advice and guidance to the public, obviously in a cost effective way. We have to be mindful of that as well. But using the other avenues that are open to us as well to get that information to the targeted people who perhaps are not looking on their phones or looking at social media, but perhaps need to to feel, you know, their particular circumstances. Healthcare professional or doctor or nurse can talk to them about.
Yeah, I
So I think it's about being clear about messaging that actually will help people make good choices. But again, going back to that issue around making sure that particularly for vulnerable groups, having those trusted healthcare professionals that they can get good advice from, I think that's really very important. I'm not opposed to more public awareness campaign, if that's what we decide needs to happen. But I think we need to review what we're trying to do.
We want good quality information and advice and guidance to the public, obviously in a cost effective way. We have to be mindful of that as well. But using the other avenues that are open to us as well to get that information to the targeted people who perhaps are not looking on their phones or looking at social media, but perhaps need to to feel, you know, their particular circumstances. Healthcare professional or doctor or nurse can talk to them about.
Yeah, I
14:41
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
mean, I think that's really important. And I think you raise an interesting example there because when it comes to smoking, when it comes to healthy eating, when it comes to the hot weather that we've seen, or of course, Covid government, you know, didn't leave it to health professionals. They decided that we're going to get out there and, and do public health messaging. And yet here we have this thing that's killing 3000 people a year that's causing huge impacts in particularly the young and the old.
And, you know, we're leaving it to local doctors to communicate that message. And, and we, you know, hearing through this whole process, we already know we can only show you on a map, the communities most affected. And yet I suspect and from the evidence we've heard, you know, they are not being. And this is no fault of their own, that they are facing greater risks than maybe you and I are. But nonetheless, they're not being given any any sort of greater support to, to protect themselves.
And in many cases, you know, not able to, to protect themselves because they're simply victims of where they live. So, you know, what consideration is being given to stronger public messaging on this sort of key public health issue.
And, you know, we're leaving it to local doctors to communicate that message. And, and we, you know, hearing through this whole process, we already know we can only show you on a map, the communities most affected. And yet I suspect and from the evidence we've heard, you know, they are not being. And this is no fault of their own, that they are facing greater risks than maybe you and I are. But nonetheless, they're not being given any any sort of greater support to, to protect themselves.
And in many cases, you know, not able to, to protect themselves because they're simply victims of where they live. So, you know, what consideration is being given to stronger public messaging on this sort of key public health issue.
14:42
14:42
14:42
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
don't think it's in my gift today, this afternoon, to announce that that's what we're going to do. But I think obviously you're you're going to write your report and make your recommendations. And we will want to look at what you have to say about this. I think I'd be guided, really, by the chief medical officer and his advice on on how you communicate. And I know, as I said, there is this air pollution awareness coalition that the chief medical officer is involved in.
I know there's a particular strand, as I've said, around healthcare professionals and how you make sure that messaging works there, because I don't think we've got we need to do more there. So that's important. Whether we need something more public facing as well. I think that's certainly something we keep under review. I
I know there's a particular strand, as I've said, around healthcare professionals and how you make sure that messaging works there, because I don't think we've got we need to do more there. So that's important. Whether we need something more public facing as well. I think that's certainly something we keep under review. I
14:43
Martin Rhodes
-
-
Martin Rhodes
We have had been asking questions and you've been answering with regards to the coordination between government departments. Could I ask, in terms of coordination with other parts of the United Kingdom, in terms of the collaboration that's going on across Scotland and elsewhere, and also in terms of learning from different approaches and also internationally? Are there places where you think there are examples of things we could learn from and actually take as examples of action we might want to take that has been done elsewhere.
14:44
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Perhaps I could ask my official if he would like to comment on what's gone on before, because as I said, I've only been in the job a few weeks, so I've not had the opportunity to meet with any ministers from any of the devolved parliaments. But certainly I'm sure there were those meetings going, going on before and we were learning from what was happening in the other areas.
14:44
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
So maybe if I start and then I've got the CMO to say, in terms of the UK dimension of this, of course the DHSc has responsibility for this England, but our expert advisory mechanisms, hosted by the UK Health Security Agency and the expert Committee, does engage across the UK. So we are in effect connected on the evidence. I think that's the. That being the core DHS brief. So it's wired into the science that we build this understanding on a UK basis in terms of international examples of practice.
The CMO has mentioned ammonia. I don't know if there's anything else CMO you'd like to add.
The CMO has mentioned ammonia. I don't know if there's anything else CMO you'd like to add.
14:45
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Yeah. So just to add a few things to that, I mean, I discussed this with the other chief medical officers because we all see this as a major problem, but we should recognise that England has got the biggest problem in the United Kingdom by quite some distance, actually. And although there is some pollution among some of the bigger cities in Scotland, England, southern England in particular has got the largest the largest burden of disease as a result of air pollution, for a variety of reasons.
Some of that's to do with transboundary actually what comes over from continental Europe. But quite a lot of it is just because of the concentration of people, the particular forms of farming in terms of international, as I said at the beginning, international action is really critical. There is a lot we can learn from other countries, and every country has done some things that we haven't. I would just expand a bit on the agricultural one, because I think it is really important to to just to see that Holland or Canada, for example, have managed to reduce their ammonia emissions by up to half by changes in farming, which once they're done, are importantly, are economically self-sustaining.
So it's the transition that's the difficulty. But once that's achieved, it really does do things. So that's an area where I think we have a lot to learn. Other countries have, I think, been very imaginative about the way they've done rapid transmission in the high risk areas to the electrification of the fleet, where, leaving aside carbon questions for air pollution, where you really care about is whether you've got lots of cars and lots of people, which is in the cities, etc..
And I think one of the reasons I think we should discuss this internationally is there's a lot to learn, as well as a lot of things that we can do that are mutually helpful for one another.
Some of that's to do with transboundary actually what comes over from continental Europe. But quite a lot of it is just because of the concentration of people, the particular forms of farming in terms of international, as I said at the beginning, international action is really critical. There is a lot we can learn from other countries, and every country has done some things that we haven't. I would just expand a bit on the agricultural one, because I think it is really important to to just to see that Holland or Canada, for example, have managed to reduce their ammonia emissions by up to half by changes in farming, which once they're done, are importantly, are economically self-sustaining.
So it's the transition that's the difficulty. But once that's achieved, it really does do things. So that's an area where I think we have a lot to learn. Other countries have, I think, been very imaginative about the way they've done rapid transmission in the high risk areas to the electrification of the fleet, where, leaving aside carbon questions for air pollution, where you really care about is whether you've got lots of cars and lots of people, which is in the cities, etc..
And I think one of the reasons I think we should discuss this internationally is there's a lot to learn, as well as a lot of things that we can do that are mutually helpful for one another.
14:46
14:46
14:46
Jonathan Davies
-
-
Jonathan Davies
Thank you, chair, it's been good to hear about the collaboration that goes on within government with specifically talked about Defra, the DFT and DHS but thinking about some of the other government departments. I'd just be interested to know, Minister, how well you feel they they get these issues, particularly the Cabinet Office, the Treasury and the Business Department, because there often is a tension, isn't there, economically, when we try and do something for air quality like we have in Bradford.
But there's been pushback. And obviously we tried in Manchester as well. And I guess the person who was closest to that now is much more. Why is the Prime Minister? So he's something that he will be thinking about as well. But obviously that that clean air zone didn't go ahead. They say that they made the difference by electrifying the bus fleet, but probably it would be more we could do in Manchester on that.
And as the government approaches some key decisions, I know it's consulting on the Zev mandate. It's going to make a decision on Jackdaw and Rosebank in the not too distant future. I just wonder how how well you feel some of those departments that perhaps sit a little bit more on the peripheries of this book quite often make the weather in terms of policy. How well do they get this? Because obviously if we deal with air quality, that is a huge saving to the NHS.
But there's been pushback. And obviously we tried in Manchester as well. And I guess the person who was closest to that now is much more. Why is the Prime Minister? So he's something that he will be thinking about as well. But obviously that that clean air zone didn't go ahead. They say that they made the difference by electrifying the bus fleet, but probably it would be more we could do in Manchester on that.
And as the government approaches some key decisions, I know it's consulting on the Zev mandate. It's going to make a decision on Jackdaw and Rosebank in the not too distant future. I just wonder how how well you feel some of those departments that perhaps sit a little bit more on the peripheries of this book quite often make the weather in terms of policy. How well do they get this? Because obviously if we deal with air quality, that is a huge saving to the NHS.
14:48
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, as we've been saying this, this can't be left to one or 2 or 3 departments. It has to be across government and all government departments signed up to the ten year health plan where we set out. There's a section in there about air pollution and what we need to do about it. And obviously, Defra lead on setting targets. And they they you're going to hear from Minister Hardy shortly. But I think overall, there is there is a commitment across government, and I'm certainly keen as a new public health minister, to be involved in redoubling our efforts, making the public health case.
And that fits with the review that's going to take place, as I've said, around the air quality strategy. And I just wanted to pick you up about what you said about Manchester, because obviously there was a decision there not to proceed with the the plan there around having a Ulez type model and that the mayor then who's now, as you rightly say, our Prime minister decided his investment was going to go into low emission buses and electric buses.
And I suppose that goes to the heart of what I was saying earlier on about devolution and about making decisions locally that best fit the needs of your community, taking into account all the the economic issues that perhaps your local community is facing. So I just think that that that has to be built into the fact that we we may find different solutions in different parts of the country or different means. But what we're all after at the end of the day is reducing air pollution.
So I think, you know, we're just going to have to accept devolution is going to deliver different things in different areas. But the outcome is what we all should be focused on.
And that fits with the review that's going to take place, as I've said, around the air quality strategy. And I just wanted to pick you up about what you said about Manchester, because obviously there was a decision there not to proceed with the the plan there around having a Ulez type model and that the mayor then who's now, as you rightly say, our Prime minister decided his investment was going to go into low emission buses and electric buses.
And I suppose that goes to the heart of what I was saying earlier on about devolution and about making decisions locally that best fit the needs of your community, taking into account all the the economic issues that perhaps your local community is facing. So I just think that that that has to be built into the fact that we we may find different solutions in different parts of the country or different means. But what we're all after at the end of the day is reducing air pollution.
So I think, you know, we're just going to have to accept devolution is going to deliver different things in different areas. But the outcome is what we all should be focused on.
14:49
14:49
14:49
Manuela Perteghella
-
-
Manuela Perteghella
I just wanted to ask the panel, in their view, whether regional public health bodies or local public health bodies should be statutory consultees on planning applications. Because I have a bypass in my constituency and houses, family homes have been allowed to be built very close to this bypass. Now, when the bypass is opened, it will be heavily trafficked. There will be all the HGVs redirected through that where children live.
So but there was no discussion of of whether you know, what pollution levels and so on. So these houses have been allowed to build. And I wonder whether, you know, from your in your view and all , we don't have our NHS colleagues, but in your view, should there be a more fundamental role that public health plays in development, especially with the government mission to build 1.5 million houses?
So but there was no discussion of of whether you know, what pollution levels and so on. So these houses have been allowed to build. And I wonder whether, you know, from your in your view and all , we don't have our NHS colleagues, but in your view, should there be a more fundamental role that public health plays in development, especially with the government mission to build 1.5 million houses?
14:51
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Okay. Well, all I'd say is that I think our public health directors in all our communities, all our constituencies, do an excellent job. I certainly want to do everything I can to support them. Whether the right thing to do is the suggestion that you've you've put forward. I mean, I'm happy to take that away and have a look at it. But I do think, you know, as I said earlier on, the local authorities and the public health directors have an important role to play in making sure that they're reducing air pollution and improving the health of their local populations.
So I don't know if the chief medical officer might want to say anything.
So I don't know if the chief medical officer might want to say anything.
14:51
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, you'll be surprised to know that I'd be very keen to have as many opportunities for educated public health inputs to planning decisions, including these ones, just because I think it helps make sure that local decision makers have the full range of views that are available. The decision about whether it should be statutory is absolutely, obviously not. For me, that's a political question, but if you were a local leader, would you want to have that as part of the input that allowed you to make an informed decision? I'm sure the answer would be yes.
14:52
14:52
Adrian Ramsay
-
-
Adrian Ramsay
Thank you. Chair. I wanted to ask Professor Whitty in particular what your view is of the proposed Clean Air Human Rights Bill, and in particular, the impact it would have on the issues we're talking about today. This is the bill, otherwise known as Ellas Law, which, for the benefit of people listening, was named after a nine year old girl who tragically died in 2013 in London. Ella Deborah, who was the first person to have air pollution named as the cause of death on her death certificate.
What it seeks to do is to establish that the right to clean air is a human right for people wherever they live, given the inequalities we've heard about. So after the discussion we've had today, I should say this is a bill that's had wide, wide cross-party support but is still, you know, on the books as a proposal. What do you think the impact of something like that would have on advancing the goals that you've outlined? We need to see today?
What it seeks to do is to establish that the right to clean air is a human right for people wherever they live, given the inequalities we've heard about. So after the discussion we've had today, I should say this is a bill that's had wide, wide cross-party support but is still, you know, on the books as a proposal. What do you think the impact of something like that would have on advancing the goals that you've outlined? We need to see today?
14:52
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, firstly, the tragic death of Ella has been an enormous spur to action, and Ella's mother is in the audience, actually, and I think has been a tireless campaigner and very effective in changing things. However, I'm going to do what I very rarely do and actually dodge this only because questions about what should. The bills are not for a political leaders, not for me, but the general principle that we should be driving change as a result of the experience of Ella and her family and others, I think is clearly right.
But whether bills are the right way to do it is absolutely not my my position.
But whether bills are the right way to do it is absolutely not my my position.
14:53
14:53
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
Thank you, chair, and my apologies for arriving late at this session. I was chairing another meeting. Can I just press you on why the government has not followed the EU in updating the limit values to reflect the WHO guidelines. In 2008, we did that following the change in guidelines in 2005, but at the moment we're lagging sorely behind now, not the Northern Ireland Executive over the summer has been looking at this and they've, I think, put proposals to to cut, to halve, in fact, their limit values of Pm10 and match the EU there.
And for PM 2.5 would be cut from 25 to 10 micrograms per meter cubed, again matching the EU's standards. Will it not be rather strange to have citizens in one part of our country protected to a higher standard than they are in the rest of the country? And, of course, in the rest of the European Union? Why is it that people in England and Wales and Scotland should lag behind here?
And for PM 2.5 would be cut from 25 to 10 micrograms per meter cubed, again matching the EU's standards. Will it not be rather strange to have citizens in one part of our country protected to a higher standard than they are in the rest of the country? And, of course, in the rest of the European Union? Why is it that people in England and Wales and Scotland should lag behind here?
14:54
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Well, perhaps I could just start by saying that obviously that that's probably a question you will want to put to Minister Hardy in the next session, because Defra is responsible for that, for the the targets that we we have. And obviously, I think I don't know if you're in the room when I was I think I've said several times there is going to be this air quality strategy review where they will be looking at all of that, but I don't know if the chief medical officer wants to say something particularly about that or whether that's.
14:55
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
No. I mean, I think I mean, my job, in a sense, is to make the case from a purely medical point of view, that going further than we do in many sectors of the of sectors and industries is essential. And we had a long discussion about that before when you were sharing your other meeting about that. I think the question about what the what the guidance should be for the government is one for ministers and one for Defra ministers specifically.
So I'm not going to give a view on that, but I do certainly think we should keep on going down quite a long way from where we are across multiple different sectors.
So I'm not going to give a view on that, but I do certainly think we should keep on going down quite a long way from where we are across multiple different sectors.
14:55
14:56
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
The central the central estimate. The minister laid out the range right at the beginning, but the central estimate from the Royal College of Physicians, which I think is probably reasonable, is around 3000 deaths a year. But it is important to say that that's an extrapolated number. It's not a measured number, but I think most people would accept that that's a reasonable ranging shot. But the burden of ill health below that, that's not deaths, but is things anything ranging from premature birth through to at the one end of the life through to dementia at the other end, with really strong evidence, in particular on cardiovascular and lung disease and some cancers, particularly lung cancer, I think is, is the reason that we would all want to see really major changes in addition to the deaths, the deaths are part but definitely not all of the health burden.
14:56
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
Indeed. So, you know, as parliamentarians, we we extensively debate knife crime and the 250 deaths a year from knife crime. We extensively debate road traffic accidents and the 20,000 road traffic accidents, sorry, 2500 road traffic accidents. And yet when we're talking about 30,000 deaths from air pollution, we haven't moved, have we?
14:57
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
Well, I think I'll give a technical answer, but the minister will want to sort of answer the kind of sense of the political side of that. But what's debated in Parliament, I mean, we have moved in the sense that if you went back to the last Royal College of Physicians report done by a similar group of people, very good expert report about a decade previously, it was 4000. And that's because actually air pollution has improved in large number of areas, not in all.
And we discussed that in an earlier stage. But what I would certainly be clear about, and I think anybody who's read about this would be very clear about, is that if we took air pollution further down, we can and we can easily do that easily, doesn't mean it's going to be straightforward in every area of the sector, but easily do it in sense. Technically, we would definitely lead to reductions in reductions in ill health in adults.
We would definitely lead to better development in children, and we would delay a large amount of chronic disease that burdens people and reduces their independence. So absolutely, the arguments for why we should do it are very clear, but I don't want anyone to leave feeling we haven't had progress. We definitely have. And the whole point is actually we can keep on going down the slope, but it doesn't happen on its own. It happens because Parliament puts pressure and the
And we discussed that in an earlier stage. But what I would certainly be clear about, and I think anybody who's read about this would be very clear about, is that if we took air pollution further down, we can and we can easily do that easily, doesn't mean it's going to be straightforward in every area of the sector, but easily do it in sense. Technically, we would definitely lead to reductions in reductions in ill health in adults.
We would definitely lead to better development in children, and we would delay a large amount of chronic disease that burdens people and reduces their independence. So absolutely, the arguments for why we should do it are very clear, but I don't want anyone to leave feeling we haven't had progress. We definitely have. And the whole point is actually we can keep on going down the slope, but it doesn't happen on its own. It happens because Parliament puts pressure and the
14:58
14:58
14:59
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:02
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:03
15:03
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
On that. And of course a regular appearer here at the Environmental Audit Committee. Always a pleasure to have you with us. We were discussing. previously the. cross-governmental aspect of air pollution, the number of different. departments who are responsible for areas that are impacted. And very helpfully ahead of the meeting, we we had a document from your department laying out the. responsibilities across the various different departments which the Committee are today publishing.
Can you just let us know.
Can you just let us know.
15:04
15:04
15:04
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
things that might be moving in the opposite direction. Yeah, absolutely. If I may, chair, just to start by acknowledging the work of campaigners, and I particularly want to pay tribute to Rosamund, who I've had the pleasure of meeting on a number of occasions, and I just wanted to recognise her. advocacy in here and how she's been instrumental in pushing things, pushing things forward, along with many other, many other campaigners. But I think.
15:04
15:05
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
And what she's done. But to answer your question on cross-government working, I think it could be better. I one of the things we want to do with launching this new. strategy call for evidence, which is we've got to the air strategy in 2028. We're bringing it forward to a call for evidence starting this year. And one of the things I want to look at is how we can improve. cross-government working, because in putting that document together for yourselves, you can see, you know, where.
responsibilities lie. And I think by setting up a. cross-government group to actually formally meet and talk about air quality is a really good way forward. And I think since obviously there's been a change in Prime Minister, it feels like now is a really good time to say, okay, there's been some changes at the top. Let's see how we can all work more. effectively across across government together in tackling air pollution.
Because you're right, there's always, you know, will be talking about what we can do in terms of air pollution. But obviously, we're mindful that there's different perspectives on how this impacts the cost of industry. For example, how this impacts the cost of living are different perspectives. And I think.
responsibilities lie. And I think by setting up a. cross-government group to actually formally meet and talk about air quality is a really good way forward. And I think since obviously there's been a change in Prime Minister, it feels like now is a really good time to say, okay, there's been some changes at the top. Let's see how we can all work more. effectively across across government together in tackling air pollution.
Because you're right, there's always, you know, will be talking about what we can do in terms of air pollution. But obviously, we're mindful that there's different perspectives on how this impacts the cost of industry. For example, how this impacts the cost of living are different perspectives. And I think.
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:06
15:06
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
And you'll certainly have this committee support. I've said in the previous session, we're very disappointed that we didn't have a minister here from the. Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. We think that they have a number of areas of responsibility, not least. construction planning and local government monitoring of this, and they weren't willing or able to send a minister to this. I mean, from from your.
15:06
15:07
15:07
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
conversations have you had with them? So I think I'm on a sort of minister to minister level. We've not had a formal minister to minister level, but I know that they meet sort of on official level about different areas. But one of the things that we want to do through this air quality strategy, call for evidence is look at things in a more in a more straightforward and simple way that we can communicate out to the public, but also that we can talk about across government.
So one of the things that we've done it with themes. So one of the themes is like healthy schools. So if we think about like, how do we make schools more healthy for children? Well, then that includes school streets, which obviously is in DFT, but it means Department for education as well when we think about ventilation. But it also means about building.
So one of the things that we've done it with themes. So one of the themes is like healthy schools. So if we think about like, how do we make schools more healthy for children? Well, then that includes school streets, which obviously is in DFT, but it means Department for education as well when we think about ventilation. But it also means about building.
15:07
15:07
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Which is MHC, MHC, you know what I mean. There's all these different aspects. And so I think the worst type of government is when we are too siloed and what we're trying to think about, and it absolutely is a work in progress. I'm not saying we've perfected this is by thinking about it in terms of themes, like how does it how does this. impact you as a dad and your children? Well, you want healthy schools.
You want some of the other themes. We've got nature and the.
You want some of the other themes. We've got nature and the.
15:08
15:08
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Cleaner and safer communities, healthy homes. You know, we've we've tried to address it rather than thinking, right, okay, this bit's Defra. This is Mhclg is thinking about how do you as an individual react with with the air and where and then say, right, so who are all the. departments that are something to do with healthy schools? Let's come together. But it's very much a beginning way of trying to work together. And as I say, I feel like I feel like, you know, sort of some changes at the top.
New prime Minister,
New prime Minister,
15:09
15:09
15:09
Julia Buckley
-
-
Julia Buckley
been. No. Okay. Agreed. Thank you very much, Julia Buckley. Thank you, chair, and welcome, ministers. Minister Hardy. It was really reassuring to hear that you've been working so closely together with Ella's . family and just turning to the central aims of Ella's Law. So ensuring that everyone, regardless of where they live, that their health is protected from air pollution. So can you tell us how that's what consideration has been given to that, those core.
principles . In
principles . In
15:09
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
terms of future. legislation and any barriers that you've identified? Yeah. Thanks. Thank you so much and. absolutely support and share the. ambition behind Ella's law and what they're trying to achieve. And of course, I completely understand the reasons why. So what I'm trying to sort of think about from a different perspective is what's the most effective way we can improve air quality.
So I'm trying to think more practically about what we can do. And as I say, you know, looking at that call for evidence about what can we do for schools, what can we do in homes? What can we do in the countryside? Trying to think about it that way and think about, okay, what are the targets where we need to focus work and where can we see a difference? And one of the things that we've got at the moment with the system, well, there's two things, I think, which we could which again, I think we could do better about, is one of them.
When we look at the targets we're setting, they're kind of some of them are, don't put this in the right way, like not old fashion, but, you know, they recognise air pollutants from the past. Like they focus quite a lot on what we're doing about ones that are created by soot rather than ones that are created more for modern air pollutants. So I want to have a look at some of the things that we're doing to make sure that what we're actually measuring and focusing our time and energy on are the main pollutants that we have in front of us.
And I want to do that a bit through that call for evidence. And the other thing that we have at the moment with the system is, is once you once a local area who will be under an air quality strategy, once it reaches compliance, it's kind of like box ticked done. And what I want to think about through the, through the strategy and call for evidence. And obviously working with everyone is rather than just saying, right, you've met it tick is like, well, how is that continuous improvement then? Okay, so you've met it, so what more could be done? What could we do next? You know, how could we get this further? So there's two things there I want to look at.
Are we. measuring the pollutants which are of most concern. And are we sort of setting a sort of mindset and culture of continuous improvement rather than just having a .
So I'm trying to think more practically about what we can do. And as I say, you know, looking at that call for evidence about what can we do for schools, what can we do in homes? What can we do in the countryside? Trying to think about it that way and think about, okay, what are the targets where we need to focus work and where can we see a difference? And one of the things that we've got at the moment with the system, well, there's two things, I think, which we could which again, I think we could do better about, is one of them.
When we look at the targets we're setting, they're kind of some of them are, don't put this in the right way, like not old fashion, but, you know, they recognise air pollutants from the past. Like they focus quite a lot on what we're doing about ones that are created by soot rather than ones that are created more for modern air pollutants. So I want to have a look at some of the things that we're doing to make sure that what we're actually measuring and focusing our time and energy on are the main pollutants that we have in front of us.
And I want to do that a bit through that call for evidence. And the other thing that we have at the moment with the system is, is once you once a local area who will be under an air quality strategy, once it reaches compliance, it's kind of like box ticked done. And what I want to think about through the, through the strategy and call for evidence. And obviously working with everyone is rather than just saying, right, you've met it tick is like, well, how is that continuous improvement then? Okay, so you've met it, so what more could be done? What could we do next? You know, how could we get this further? So there's two things there I want to look at.
Are we. measuring the pollutants which are of most concern. And are we sort of setting a sort of mindset and culture of continuous improvement rather than just having a .
15:11
15:11
Julia Buckley
-
-
Julia Buckley
Is what I'm trying to think about really useful to hear. And we did want to actually ask you a question about that, about how we move beyond just that sort of minimum compliance level. And we heard earlier on about how we've almost fallen behind now on EU targets. So we're worried actually that that gap is going to get bigger. So are there any specific actions that would be taken, thinking about the population and the. environment that .
We'll be
We'll be
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:12
15:13
15:13
15:13
15:13
Julia Buckley
-
-
Julia Buckley
rather than just a simple. concentration limit. Really interesting. Can I just ask you a bit more about that. So obviously Ellas law is about making sure that everybody in every. postcode is covered and you're talking about a 30% reduction. But we know that the current situation has such really high inequalities. So we find often in deprived areas, particularly urban settings, we're seeing those levels much higher.
15:13
15:14
15:14
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Account the impacts of deprivation and inequality? So the target is a national target. But in order to measure our. progress against this target, we are putting lots more PM 2.5 monitors in, but we need to place those. monitors close to centres of where the big population. exposures are. So that'll be big urban environments. including those more vulnerable communities. So since.
15:14
15:14
15:14
15:14
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
2.5 monitors in total by the end of 2027. Now, with a much more granular. understanding of PM 2.5. concentrations close to those population expense areas, we've got a much better. understanding of exposure. So that is a mechanism by which we hold ourselves accountable for the progress we're making. It's that target. But when you when we drill down to another level of granularity, let's say square kilometer grids, you will have communities within.
communities and some of them will be much closer to busy roads or centres of industrialisation. And we've been working closely with the UK Health Security. Agency to pilot vulnerability maps. So we've. developed with Uxa, a maps that will help local.
communities and some of them will be much closer to busy roads or centres of industrialisation. And we've been working closely with the UK Health Security. Agency to pilot vulnerability maps. So we've. developed with Uxa, a maps that will help local.
15:15
15:15
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Where deprived. communities using existing. criteria overlaid with. concentration data and modelling will be. disproportionately exposed. So that allows that gives us real life maps or data to allow us to. identify and home in on, okay, where are the more deprived neighbourhoods that have been. disproportionately exposed. And then the next step is to, okay, well, now we've actually looked at it from an outcome point of view rather than just a simple concentration level.
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:16
15:17
15:17
15:17
15:17
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Minister. Thank you. An absolutely nitrogen really complex goes across air quality goes across water quality, biodiversity, climate. agriculture all of them. So at the moment, rather than addressing it as a single standalone strategy, because my gut feeling sometimes chair is government is good at doing strategies and maybe needs to get more good at doing is that some of this is addressed through some of the various ones we've already published.
Obviously, there's some some parts addressed for the environment improvement plan, some some ways of dealing with it through the water white paper, some through the farming roadmap. So there are different ways of tackling nitrogen across existing frameworks and policies. And it is really challenging. And it's really difficult because obviously ammonia is the largest source of.
Obviously, there's some some parts addressed for the environment improvement plan, some some ways of dealing with it through the water white paper, some through the farming roadmap. So there are different ways of tackling nitrogen across existing frameworks and policies. And it is really challenging. And it's really difficult because obviously ammonia is the largest source of.
15:17
15:17
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
15:18
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Your approach to reducing nitrogen emissions. Yeah. We work. I mean, we obviously we've got DFT here and we're really looking at sort of what are the different problems that we face and how is it tackling water, air, soil, and how can we do this in a way that minimizes the burden on farmers? How are we working across government to do this? So the short answer is yes, we are, but it but it is a it is .
A
A
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:19
15:20
15:20
15:20
15:20
15:20
15:20
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
their. operations in order to adopt what needs to be done to reduce pollution. So there's no denying that the the cattle sector itself is responsible for. 46% of our national ammonia emissions. That is a sector that is which ammonia emissions are currently unregulated. And we did commit in the farming roadmap and in the Environmental Improvement plan, to consult on how we were going to bring that sector into environmental.
15:21
15:21
15:21
15:21
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
Put the infrastructure in place and reduce their contribution of ammonia emissions. So we're focused more on yeah. contemplating that regulatory approach on that sector. supported by grant funding, the technology fund, slurry infrastructure grants. But. Put simply, adding a little more stick to the carrot and and looking at how we can make faster . Progress on.
15:22
15:22
15:22
15:22
John Whitby
-
-
John Whitby
As highlighted, just how little emissions from agriculture have reduced over time. And in terms of ammonia, again, in particular. And the chief medical officer spoke about ammonia in the previous panel. There's something we can and should address. We're aware that there are alternative ammonia. reducing practices out there. So the question in two parts is how are you supporting. farmers to adopt those sort of ammonia reducing.
practices without undermining the viability? And I think you've half answered this. And will the department commit to strict.
practices without undermining the viability? And I think you've half answered this. And will the department commit to strict.
15:22
15:22
15:22
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Storage rather than relying on. voluntary measures? Yeah. So we as Bill mentioned, we are committed to consulting on measures to look at. environmental permitting to beef and dairy. But we do really. recognise farming has had under real pressures. They've just had the worst drought in however many years last winter, but the winter before they had one of the worst floods they've ever had. So we are trying to work with the industry.
So yes, we want to move forward on what we can do around permitting, but we want to do that with the industry working together. So, so on some of the things that we're doing to support them, to look at more precision spreading and how you can use equipment in in that way, the Farming and Equipment Technology Fund had. £46.7 million available for farmers, growers, foresters and their contractors. £30 million was to help farmers invest in equipment to help them manage slurry in ways that reduce pollution, which obviously includes ammonia.
And I should say, obviously, well, it goes without saying really, that whatever we do for ammonia often helps with water as well. So it helps with both forms of both forms of pollution. So it is really effective. And they've just put another ten millions of pounds into slurry management as well in in 2026. So, so we are putting the money in there to try and support the farming community. We were having regular meetings with the farming community around reducing water pollution, which obviously helps with ammonia and air pollution together.
But I said I'd just. acknowledge that during this period of drought, when it was the focus had to be on tackling the drought. So we'll recommence those meetings looking at water pollution . And air
So yes, we want to move forward on what we can do around permitting, but we want to do that with the industry working together. So, so on some of the things that we're doing to support them, to look at more precision spreading and how you can use equipment in in that way, the Farming and Equipment Technology Fund had. £46.7 million available for farmers, growers, foresters and their contractors. £30 million was to help farmers invest in equipment to help them manage slurry in ways that reduce pollution, which obviously includes ammonia.
And I should say, obviously, well, it goes without saying really, that whatever we do for ammonia often helps with water as well. So it helps with both forms of both forms of pollution. So it is really effective. And they've just put another ten millions of pounds into slurry management as well in in 2026. So, so we are putting the money in there to try and support the farming community. We were having regular meetings with the farming community around reducing water pollution, which obviously helps with ammonia and air pollution together.
But I said I'd just. acknowledge that during this period of drought, when it was the focus had to be on tackling the drought. So we'll recommence those meetings looking at water pollution . And air
15:24
15:24
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
implemented more stringent ammonia controls. It's really interesting because I was we obviously regularly look at what other countries are doing, as I mentioned, Scotland and what they're doing on nitrogen balancing. So it is really useful to look at what other countries are doing. But it was, you know, quite, quite courageous moves they made in terms of. Paying farmers to stop farming felt was, you know, and that's not something that I or this government are looking at doing.
We are looking instead to support our farming sector, to be.
We are looking instead to support our farming sector, to be.
15:25
15:25
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
To continue and be successful, while at the same time looking at what they can do with agriculture. And we've increased farm inspections. We've done all of that with the with through the E, we are looking at permitting. We are you know, there's all these other things going along alongside as well, but we have no current plans to . Adopt
15:25
15:25
15:25
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
15:25
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:26
15:27
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
right. Well, and yes, I do remember signing that question. And what what I want to ask you really here is why don't you just do it like the same way we do for, you know, for heat waves or flood alerts? Put it out on, on, on the weather channels, put it out to the Met Office so that instead of people having to opt in to get this information, which, you know, with the best will in the world, you might reach 10,000, but why not put it out there as a public information like the way we do with heat waves .
And so
And so
15:27
15:27
15:27
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
in encouraging people to sign up would be great. And we just publicised it just you're just giving it a plug. So it's similar in that way. It's similar to the flood alert system where you have to opt in and sign up for it. So, so yes, it would be great if we can get a few more, but we've also got the AIPAC, which is the Air Pollution Awareness Coalition, which I set up a number of months ago.
I don't think it's been a year yet, which is working with health and NGO, and we've just got Enact Equality on there as well. To be part to be a member to, which is looking at how we can. communicate and raise. awareness of air pollution because they're experts. And I was hearing we're listening with interest, the previous panel's response to, you know, what more we can do and what we found or the the advice I've had through from Defra is that the public attitudes research.
So people will listen to professionals much more than they will. You know, something I might say, for example. So we're trying to sort of get our message out on . Air
I don't think it's been a year yet, which is working with health and NGO, and we've just got Enact Equality on there as well. To be part to be a member to, which is looking at how we can. communicate and raise. awareness of air pollution because they're experts. And I was hearing we're listening with interest, the previous panel's response to, you know, what more we can do and what we found or the the advice I've had through from Defra is that the public attitudes research.
So people will listen to professionals much more than they will. You know, something I might say, for example. So we're trying to sort of get our message out on . Air
15:28
15:28
15:29
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
So it is it is, you know, it is brand new. Look, I got your your lovely rainbow tabulation for, for, for nitrogen dioxide and for PM 2.5 here. What really struck me looking at this is you've got, you've got the ten grades going from light green to to purple. So light green is low. Purple is very high. But everything on the nitrogen dioxide from moderate to very high is actually illegal in the UK.
And on the PM 2.5 even the low. The third band of the low is illegal in the UK. We're telling people that air quality that is illegal is low moderate. I mean, you know, this sounds like 1984. We're just not using words properly here when we're doing that sort of stuff, are we? It's illegal. Why don't we tell people it .
Is
And on the PM 2.5 even the low. The third band of the low is illegal in the UK. We're telling people that air quality that is illegal is low moderate. I mean, you know, this sounds like 1984. We're just not using words properly here when we're doing that sort of stuff, are we? It's illegal. Why don't we tell people it .
Is
15:30
15:30
15:30
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
15:30
15:30
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:31
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:32
15:32
Speaker 5
-
Speaker 5
That's why they've been. We are warning people that the limits have. exceeded certain limits and. But the banding we use for deciding whether it's medium, high, or low is based on very short term exposure, i.e., we are warning people there could be acute spikes of air. pollution because of weather conditions, etc. that is very different to the limit values we set in. legislation where we aim to keep long term.
15:32
15:33
15:33
15:33
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
Is low, you then go up to moderate, going up to 53. This. This is a dog's breakfast. If you're trying to actually tell people what's going on in their life at any. On any given day, these are supposed to be the daily air quality limits. And at the moment, you're telling people that an illegal limit, an illegal limit is perfectly acceptable. But I wanted to get on to ammonia because we had a conversation about this last week, you and Mr.
Parrish and myself, and I am deeply concerned about what you've just told the committee. Ammonia is one of those that reacts in in the atmosphere to secondary and organic pollutants and forms. PM 2.5 you said there had been attained by basically shutting down farms. In actual fact, the air quality expert group highlighted the successful policies in the Netherlands, where regulatory controls of agriculture ammonia were responsible for around half of a 64% reduction in emissions between 1990 and 2016.
This decrease was mostly due to measures implemented before 2010, such as changes in feed composition, the use of low emission stables, the covering of manure silos, and the direct incorporation of manure. During application, Denmark reduced levels of ammonia by 40% between those two dates 1990 and 2016, and they did that in by such measures as slurry spreading technologies and building floor technologies. We're not talking here about shutting down farms and stopping people from having.
In fact, they comment on the high stocking levels that these places had. So I'm afraid that I feel that what you said earlier was rather misleading to the committee. And it chimes, I'm afraid to say, with exactly what has been going on with the way in which you have. This country has been negotiating at Unisys on ammonia. And, you know, I mentioned to you last . Week
Parrish and myself, and I am deeply concerned about what you've just told the committee. Ammonia is one of those that reacts in in the atmosphere to secondary and organic pollutants and forms. PM 2.5 you said there had been attained by basically shutting down farms. In actual fact, the air quality expert group highlighted the successful policies in the Netherlands, where regulatory controls of agriculture ammonia were responsible for around half of a 64% reduction in emissions between 1990 and 2016.
This decrease was mostly due to measures implemented before 2010, such as changes in feed composition, the use of low emission stables, the covering of manure silos, and the direct incorporation of manure. During application, Denmark reduced levels of ammonia by 40% between those two dates 1990 and 2016, and they did that in by such measures as slurry spreading technologies and building floor technologies. We're not talking here about shutting down farms and stopping people from having.
In fact, they comment on the high stocking levels that these places had. So I'm afraid that I feel that what you said earlier was rather misleading to the committee. And it chimes, I'm afraid to say, with exactly what has been going on with the way in which you have. This country has been negotiating at Unisys on ammonia. And, you know, I mentioned to you last . Week
15:36
15:36
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
Swedish environmental organizations that come to the question, if we can now. Yeah. Well, that where the UK has been arguing against the rest of the parties that you should de stress take take away the importance of meeting the formal technical annex which you are putting forward. So we're pretending that we're in the lead on this and we're trying to do the right thing. But behind everybody's back at the international negotiating negotiations, we're actually negotiating against.
15:36
15:36
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
comment on on what's been said. Well, so there's two questions. One is, given what I've just said about your own air quality expert group's analysis, do you feel that it was a fair comment to make to this committee that in fact, it was all achieved through closing down farms? And why is it that in the international negotiations, the UK is an outlier seeking to water down the regulations? Those
15:37
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
are the two very specific questions. Okay, so I don't believe I did say that about the Netherlands. And the Netherlands is one of our friends, did I? I don't believe he did, but let's check the transcript. But I'm sure that's not what was said. The Netherlands is one of our friends. It's one of our allies. It's a country we work closely with. We can learn a lot from. And in terms of precision spreading, it's something we're doing in terms of slurry management.
That's something we're doing through grants and all those things I think are great examples. However, we wouldn't go as far as Netherlands in actually paying people to stop farming. And I just want to be. completely clear on that. But in many of the things, they are great examples and we are good . Friends with them
That's something we're doing through grants and all those things I think are great examples. However, we wouldn't go as far as Netherlands in actually paying people to stop farming. And I just want to be. completely clear on that. But in many of the things, they are great examples and we are good . Friends with them
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:38
15:39
15:39
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
to make reductions, and that's the direction we want to go. Well, indeed. And they they made reductions of Netherlands 64% by 2016, Denmark by 40% by 2016. And we had targets under the Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution. And also that's the Gothenburg protocol and also under the National Emission Ceilings Regulations. And that was to reduce ammonia emissions by 16% compared to emissions in 2005, by 2030.
And as things stand in the past 21 years, we've . Managed to
And as things stand in the past 21 years, we've . Managed to
15:39
15:39
15:39
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
Haven't we? So there is more to do on ammonia. There's no there's no doubt about that. But as I've already said, we have set up the Farming Equipment and Technology Fund, which is helping them to invest in the right equipment. We have got the slurry management fund, which is helping them to pay to manage slurry more effectively. We are looking at. introducing permitting, which is, you know, a bit more stick if we wanted to put it that way.
But I am also, I do have to say to the committee, acutely aware of the difficult summer that farming has had of the really hard winter. It only had a couple of years ago. And I just generally, as a politician, as an.
But I am also, I do have to say to the committee, acutely aware of the difficult summer that farming has had of the really hard winter. It only had a couple of years ago. And I just generally, as a politician, as an.
15:40
15:40
Speaker 4
-
Speaker 4
As a minister, prefer to work with an industry, bring them with us, take them along this journey with us and introduce this in in partnership with them, which is why we're sort of looking at how we can. incentivize them through the slurry stores, through grants, but how we can also look at regulation and inspections and permitting as well. And I think . Both
15:40
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
things need to be hand in hand in hand. So we're working with the industry. Mr. Hardy, I absolutely agree that farmers have been through a very tough period, and we want to do all that we possibly can to help them. But if you look at 9% reduction versus 40% and 64% in the other two countries, I think you would agree that actually we could do a lot more, a lot more quickly.
But if I can move on, given that non-executive sort of change my direction of fire, given that non exhaust emissions are now the dominant source of particulate matter from road transport and are going to persist beyond electrification, can you tell us what action the department is taking to ensure that the regulation keeps pace? How will you implement the UN brake emissions regulations into UK law, and will it align fully.
But if I can move on, given that non-executive sort of change my direction of fire, given that non exhaust emissions are now the dominant source of particulate matter from road transport and are going to persist beyond electrification, can you tell us what action the department is taking to ensure that the regulation keeps pace? How will you implement the UN brake emissions regulations into UK law, and will it align fully.
15:41
15:41
15:42
15:42
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Air quality within the Department of Transport when it comes to public transport. So I think, look, the transition to zero emission. vehicles will. significantly cut air pollution because they obviously completely remove tailpipe emissions. And but of course, the department absolutely. recognises that zero emission vehicles will not solve the particular problem from from brake. tyres and road surface wear. And of course, as transport continues to.
decarbonize . , tackling the sources of of this is going to be.
decarbonize . , tackling the sources of of this is going to be.
15:42
15:42
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
support this, we've. recently consulted on adopting Euro seven standard in Great Britain, and this will require us to regulate brake and tyre wear particles for the very first time, helping to reduce those. emissions to clean up our air, and will publish the government's response to that. consultation shortly. Alongside that regulatory action, we've been investing in strengthening our evidence base so we have the most up to date data possible on tackling non exhaust.
emissions through our four year research programme, which completed in 2025. The programme's findings have really helped us play a leading role in the development of the common.
emissions through our four year research programme, which completed in 2025. The programme's findings have really helped us play a leading role in the development of the common.
15:43
15:43
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
brake and tyre wear emissions, and that work really underpins the Euro oh seven standard and provides that consistent. framework for those emissions and cutting those pollutants across. international markets. And the department will continue to contribute to the future development of of those. regulations at a UN level, including considering more.
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:44
15:45
15:45
15:45
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Clean Maritime Plan and subsequent policies? This area is not under my responsibility normally, but I do know I have prepared for this bit, but I have my colleague here who might be able to chime in as well. But look, the department is committed to ensuring that we have cleaner air for our coastal communities and people living near ports as well, whilst maintaining the really vital role that ports play and shipping play in supporting or trade or jobs and economic growth.
And we're taking action both at the domestic level, but also at the international level to reduce emissions from shipping support. The the transition to cleaner fuels and.
And we're taking action both at the domestic level, but also at the international level to reduce emissions from shipping support. The the transition to cleaner fuels and.
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:45
15:46
15:46
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, and we're continuing to make progress in this area. The recent adoption of the North Atlantic Emissions Control Area by the International Maritime. Organization will. extend the highest tier of air pollution. controls to all UK waters once it's fully . Effective
15:46
15:46
15:46
Sojan Joseph
-
-
Sojan Joseph
Thank you. If I can, just to bring a specific port which is not far from me, the Dover Port English Channel, one of the busiest water where we have so many ferries. moving every 24 hours. So. And my. constituency where most of the time this lorries get parked in the motorway because every time there is a disruption in the water, there is a solution. There is a quick solution to get the air better and reduce the slow movement.
The channel tunnel running less than 50% of its capacity. So basically we need to move this low risk into rail, which will be wonderful to reduce the air pollution caused by hundreds and thousands of lorries. So subsequent governments have been ignoring this. So is there any any thought on this from from the department?
The channel tunnel running less than 50% of its capacity. So basically we need to move this low risk into rail, which will be wonderful to reduce the air pollution caused by hundreds and thousands of lorries. So subsequent governments have been ignoring this. So is there any any thought on this from from the department?
15:47
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Is there something that is an easy fix? Why are we not doing that to my colleague here? But just generally on rail, you'll see, obviously, with the establishment of Great British Railways, that our main focus is around passengers, but also about increasing freight onto the rail network in order to achieve . The
15:48
Alison Griffiths
-
-
Alison Griffiths
very benefits that you're talking about. In terms of the international aspect. Yes. I mean, we're obviously looking at ways in which we can reduce the impact of. ports on and the emissions from ports on air quality. I mean, at the end of August, we published the department's net zero Ports Call for evidence, and that really highlighted the vital role that ports can play in. reducing emissions and the opportunities for them to improve air quality.
And we're focusing on. championing what ports need in terms of their energy needs in wider government. So that will hopefully remove barriers to . Ports, for
And we're focusing on. championing what ports need in terms of their energy needs in wider government. So that will hopefully remove barriers to . Ports, for
15:48
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:49
15:49
Alison Griffiths
-
-
Alison Griffiths
15:50
15:50
15:50
15:50
Alison Griffiths
-
-
Alison Griffiths
On different communities differently and how you're measuring that? Yeah. So there were local areas that monitor their air quality, and they will have to have air quality action plans and, and management areas to do that. But then also in specific hotspots, be that aviation or, or ports, the there are specific measures also brought in there to try and reduce the emissions as much as as possible. In terms of a lot of the air pollution from airports is the surface access.
So the more that we can do in terms of improving public transport and transitioning .
So the more that we can do in terms of improving public transport and transitioning .
15:51
Speaker 7
-
Speaker 7
To electric vehicles will, will help in those areas. So there are some things which are very easy or relatively easy to attribute to that in terms of the impact on that local community. So if you're talking about the the road transport coming in, it's very clear that's in a specific geographic area. How about that. wider impact of aviation itself? How is that in terms of measured on its .
15:51
15:51
15:52
15:52
15:52
15:52
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
We're we're looking to create a more joined up, people focused transport system that makes sustainable travel more attractive, more convenient, more. affordable for everyday journeys. And I think that will really help. accelerate that journey to low. emission travel. We've introduced, of course, members will be aware of our affordability measures, which we've introduced, maintaining that bus fare cap for the rest of 2026. The Prime Minister announced that from.
15:53
15:53
15:53
15:53
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
The free bus travel for for children over the summer, freezing rail fares for the first time in 30 years, and announcing just the other week that we will remove the time limits for disabled travellers so they can travel 24 over seven every day from April 2027. That's all been supported through the Bus Services Act, which I was really pleased to lead through through Parliament and the Real Real the Railways Bill. Alongside that, that really critical investment in our public.
15:53
15:53
15:53
15:53
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
we published in June. There's something like. £4.5 billion projected to be invested into active travel up until. 2030 from a wide range of funding streams, including. £1.1 billion for active Travel England. And I think the. To track the progress of active travel, we set really ambitious targets. It's something like. 60% of children aged. 5 to 16 usually usually walk by to school by by 2035.
So I think we to, to move people away from from cars is, is by we want to do that through through providing a wide menu of.
So I think we to, to move people away from from cars is, is by we want to do that through through providing a wide menu of.
15:54
15:54
15:54
15:54
Jonathan Davies
-
-
Jonathan Davies
Affordable means for people to get about. For many people in more rural areas, the bus services are patchy or they finish early at night. That's something that the Labour Rural Research Group has looked into in its recent report, and absolutely send you a copy, because there's some good stuff in there. But an electric car may be a solution for those people, and I know they are coming down in price, but there still is a barrier for for many people to be able to afford one or to perhaps come to scrap their ageing internal combustion engine car, what work is, is the department doing to address that .
15:55
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Inequality for people who can't afford to buy EVs? What I'd say to you is obviously ensuring a fair and inclusive transition to zero emission vehicles is is a real key priority for for the government. We recognise that that. benefits an opportunity associated with with electric vehicles must be accessible to all parts of society, not just those who are able to purchase a new vehicle or install a home. ChargePoint upfront upfront costs continue to be higher than some.
conventional vehicles. I think the cost of. But overall, the cost of electric vehicles is is falling. The second hand market is growing for electric vehicles. Of course, they can offer significantly lower running costs. If you look at some data from from.
conventional vehicles. I think the cost of. But overall, the cost of electric vehicles is is falling. The second hand market is growing for electric vehicles. Of course, they can offer significantly lower running costs. If you look at some data from from.
15:56
15:56
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Actually just back in April, they said of vehicles on its platform. Overall, EVs were cheaper than. petrol for the first time. I think that's a really. interesting point to, to reach. According to to their figures, a broad and increasing range of of EV models are now available as well. On the second hand market, around.
15:56
15:56
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
With the average price of a three and a half year old EV around around £18,000. But also looking at charging to really important areas as well. We want everybody to be able to charge an electric vehicle easily where they live, and that's why we're providing that additional funding to councils to install cross payment charging channels. And whilst local authorities may decide that their own cross payment.
15:57
15:57
15:57
15:57
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
Charging at home and the public network. In fact, I charged my EV on the way back from the Great North Run, which I ran yesterday, and I wanted to get that enhancer out there. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister beat me by over 20 minutes, but we do we do want to narrow that that cost difference between home charging and public charging. And we commissioned an independent review of public charging costs led by Philip Knew. And that's examining what further measures we can we can do to reduce those prices that some drivers are facing.
And
And
15:57
15:58
15:58
15:58
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
realise the financial benefits if they've got to charge at a supermarket or a service station. So with the funding that we've made available for the cross pavement parking, essentially it's almost like a channel in the pavement that the cable goes down. So that enables people without off street parking to be able to, to take advantage of the much, much lower cost involved with at home parking. But we're looking, as I said, at how we can can narrow that gap between the public charging.
15:58
15:58
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
is sometimes ten, ten times the cost, if not more, and the home charging costs. And that's exactly the work that Philip New is undertaking for the department. You mentioned, of course, about about rural areas and and the availability of public transport in rural areas. That's exactly why, for instance, when it comes to the bus funding that we've given to local areas that we added in for the very first time, the rurality element there in the past, it was almost like a Hunger Games style funding competition for this, in order that they could spend this money to improve bus services.
But that rurality element has has helped to reduce narrow that gap there. But there's still a lot of work to be done to . To
But that rurality element has has helped to reduce narrow that gap there. But there's still a lot of work to be done to . To
15:59
15:59
15:59
Speaker 3
-
Speaker 3
the second hand car market to really kick on EV ownership? No, because I think what you're already seeing is that for the first time, you're seeing that the second hand electric vehicle is cheaper than a petrol car. If you look at AutoTrader there. So they've already you've seen the market itself dictate. And because of the way people are adopting EVs, the lower, lower running costs, etc.,
16:00
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
I think we're going to continue to see that that that narrowing of the gap there. We recently saw the Mayor of London. celebrating the reduced reduction in road based air pollution as a result of his introduction of Ulez. And we've seen many other mayors shy of that, given some of the political pushback that there was. around Ulez previously. I mean, what's the government's approach to Ulez? Is it pretty much agnostic on it, or are you, as a department, encouraging more mayors to introduce these .
Things,
Things,
16:00
16:00
16:00
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
social and economic drivers and the local conditions. And I understand that. But I mean, given that I think something like 5% of vehicles do something like. 70% of the. exhaust emissions. pollution . , and. recognising why some mayors might have resistance in their local areas to schemes like Ulez. I mean, shouldn't. government and shouldn't your. department at least be doing all they can to try and make it attractive for local mayors to introduce it in their To introduce in their communities and also helping with the messaging because as many people are opposed to that, don't realize they won't actually be affected by it.
I think many people consider it to be a sort of congestion charge, but actually it is a high. polluting vehicle charge rather than a general congestion . I mean, I would maybe challenge you on whether a policy of being. agnostic is actually doing all that government can to reduce emissions, shouldn't you, at the very least, whilst maybe. accepting that mayors get to make the final. decision between all you can to make it .
I think many people consider it to be a sort of congestion charge, but actually it is a high. polluting vehicle charge rather than a general congestion . I mean, I would maybe challenge you on whether a policy of being. agnostic is actually doing all that government can to reduce emissions, shouldn't you, at the very least, whilst maybe. accepting that mayors get to make the final. decision between all you can to make it .
16:01
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Attractive for them to reduce the number of polluting vehicles on our streets? The local authorities play a really key role, I think, in reducing pollution from transport. I think they, as I said, they're best placed to decide on the priorities for their area through something like. £21 billion of local transport funding across England over this spending period. We're backing local leaders with that long term, simplified funding, giving them the certainty that they need to plan ahead to deliver and grow their economies.
And we set out in our local transport plan guidance, the department's. expectations on how funding can be used to reduce air pollution, but very much is . A case
And we set out in our local transport plan guidance, the department's. expectations on how funding can be used to reduce air pollution, but very much is . A case
16:02
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
of local leaders should be able to decide they don't do anything extra you want to. Yes. I mean, I can say if we if we talk about clean air zones, they they've been introduced selectively by local. authorities where the evidence shows that they're the quickest way to reduce the nitrogen dioxide. exceedances in their area and where other. options wouldn't deliver the same results as as quickly. DFT and Defra were really closely with local.
authorities and, you know, provided. £582 million of, of, of government funding. Clean air zones do work. And in the areas of cities that, that have them.
authorities and, you know, provided. £582 million of, of, of government funding. Clean air zones do work. And in the areas of cities that, that have them.
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:03
16:03
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
16:04
16:04
16:04
16:04
16:04
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
I think, look, even with those changes, take into consideration, you know, EV sales remain remain really strong. In May, over a quarter of new cars that were registered for the first time were EVs, with registrations up. 34% compared to May 2025. And we committed. £7.5 billion to. 2035 to support the transition to zero emission vehicles, including the. £2 billion for the electric car grant, which has been.
hugely successful.
hugely successful.
16:05
16:05
16:05
16:05
16:05
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
£600 million for charging infrastructure. We've just got a couple more questions for Minister Lightwood. I know you are on a budget at a time budget, so if you feel you need to go, then you go with our thanks. Minister Hardy won't be keeping Minister Lightwood much longer, but thank you very much for the evidence that we've heard from you, Minister Lightwood, just just on that. I mean, I do think that you're absolutely right that the market for new vehicles and electric vehicles is continued to be a positive one, primarily driven by the fleet sector.
There's been very. positive measures in place under successive governments to encourage the fleet sector to move. They've been very clear to us that the second hand. market remains difficult. insomuch as you know, the amount that they lose from buying a new car compared to a second hand vehicle makes that challenging for them to continue. The British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association have been speaking powerfully about the pressure on their members and the vital role that.
fleet plays, and anecdotal evidence from the motor sector is that the interest of non fleet. customers in second hand market is driven very much by the price signals. And so, I mean, I come back to you, what. representations have you made to. Treasury about the. importance of making sure that we continue to send messages that encourage people to take those. When we've got a government that is leaving fuel duty and celebrating leaving fuel duty stagnant.
At the . Same
There's been very. positive measures in place under successive governments to encourage the fleet sector to move. They've been very clear to us that the second hand. market remains difficult. insomuch as you know, the amount that they lose from buying a new car compared to a second hand vehicle makes that challenging for them to continue. The British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association have been speaking powerfully about the pressure on their members and the vital role that.
fleet plays, and anecdotal evidence from the motor sector is that the interest of non fleet. customers in second hand market is driven very much by the price signals. And so, I mean, I come back to you, what. representations have you made to. Treasury about the. importance of making sure that we continue to send messages that encourage people to take those. When we've got a government that is leaving fuel duty and celebrating leaving fuel duty stagnant.
At the . Same
16:07
16:07
16:07
16:07
Speaker 2
-
Speaker 2
As as you say, given that electric vehicle drivers don't pay fuel duty at the pump, the government is introducing a new add on to vehicle excise duty so that all drivers contribute an appropriate share to to use of the roads. Rates will be £0.03 per mile for electric cars. That's around half of the average fuel duty equivalent rate, and plug in hybrids will pay half that . Rate
16:08
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
again, because they'll continue to pay some fuel duty on on some of them. Yeah. I mean, you're telling me what I already know there, but I'm asking really in terms I appreciate it. I mean, two weeks into the role. So we look forward to the forthcoming budget showing further progress as governments. This country has done well on electric vehicles, but my worry is that the mood music is facing slightly in the opposite direction or the wrong direction, because we are hearing suggestions that the Zev mandate is going to be watered down.
There's some people suggesting even on on our side of the chamber that that should happen. So. So will you. undertake to make sure that when the Chancellor. considers these. difficult choices, he heads towards the election, to the budget? I should say that he is. considering the impact on electric vehicle sales of decisions that he makes on fuel duty and on electric .
Vehicle
There's some people suggesting even on on our side of the chamber that that should happen. So. So will you. undertake to make sure that when the Chancellor. considers these. difficult choices, he heads towards the election, to the budget? I should say that he is. considering the impact on electric vehicle sales of decisions that he makes on fuel duty and on electric .
Vehicle
16:09
16:09
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
heard loud and clear what you've said here today. If he doesn't, can you make sure he does. I'm sure. I'm sure we'll have those conversations. But let me just put on record. I think it's really important. Obviously, we've gone out to. consultation about the Zev mandate. I want to. emphasise that the phase out dates are not changing, and the government's overall ambition remains the same. And again, EV sales have remained strong.
As I said, in May, over a quarter of new cars were registered for the first time were EVs.
As I said, in May, over a quarter of new cars were registered for the first time were EVs.
16:09
16:09
16:09
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
saying about about the taxation, as I'm sure the Chancellor also has. Yeah. And I'm just finally bringing my colleague in on this issue of plug in hybrids. Has the government done any. assessment as to how much plug in hybrids are actually using the electric as opposed to to just using their fuel? Anecdotally, I hear from many people, particularly in the fleet.
16:10
16:10
16:10
16:10
16:10
Barry Gardiner
-
-
Barry Gardiner
Finally, bring in Barry Gardiner for a chair. It was just really to follow up on the very interesting discussion that you've had with Minister Lightwood. And that was about the the role that central government has. I understand, Minister, what you're saying about, you know, local mayors, local decisions , devolving that. But very often, certainly in the past, different areas have received different incentives from government. Wouldn't it be better if there was a national framework in which each mayor and each community could look and say, well, if we go down that route, we know what support we're going to get from government in order to do it.
So it's not trying to take the decision away from them, but it's giving them certainty about the support that they would . Have
So it's not trying to take the decision away from them, but it's giving them certainty about the support that they would . Have
16:11
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
if they did choose that route. And I can, I can I can write to you on with further details on that, if that would be useful. I hear exactly what you're saying. I think. fundamentally and direction of travel, the government as a whole is around around devolution and empowering local leaders. I think we set a national framework, but with the. flexibility to take into consideration local . Local needs,
16:11
16:11
16:11
16:11
Toby Perkins
-
-
Toby Perkins
And for the government to at least be in the lead saying, look, you know, this is the benefit to your health. Don't just see this as, am I going to be paying more for my travel because. 95% of drivers won't be. And that's a diminishing number. Every single year, the number of drivers who will pay is going down. But see this as am I going to be kept safer in the future? Are my children going to be safer? And if we have that.
16:12
16:12
16:12
16:12
16:12
Speaker 1
-
Speaker 1
Mayors swinging in the wind, if they choose to do something that we know will make a real difference. I saying chair as well, but when I when I spoke earlier on, I talked about. incentivising the transition to public. transport by ensuring we have that high quality, reliable, affordable public transport record funding going into local areas, into mayoral combined authorities across the country in order to support mayors do exactly that.
You've seen bus franchising in Greater Manchester. 14% year on year growth in terms of passenger numbers. To get more people out of their car using public transport, more integrated transport system as well. So there's a lot that the . Department is
You've seen bus franchising in Greater Manchester. 14% year on year growth in terms of passenger numbers. To get more people out of their car using public transport, more integrated transport system as well. So there's a lot that the . Department is
16:12
16:12
16:12