MOTs: Increased Particulate Matter Testing

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Barry Sheerman

Tuesday 24th January 2023 Westminster Hall

[Mr Sheerman]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention and he is absolutely right; I will address his point during my remarks.

Increased particulate matter testing during the MOT would ensure that we identified faulty DPFs that are not picked in the current testing regime. I am pleased to see, from the Government’s open consultation on the MOT, which was published last week, that the Government want to adopt particulate number testing.

As chair of the Westminster Commission for Road Air Quality, I have been campaigning on this issue for a long time, and it looks as though we are making some progress at last. If the Government are looking for a legislative vehicle, my Motor Vehicle Tests (Diesel Particulate Filters) Bill is due for Second Reading on 24 March. I am very happy to share it, and all credit for it, with the Minister.

Before I speak more about changes that we can make to the MOT, it is worth dwelling on the life-changing harmful effects of air pollution, which my Bill would help to mitigate. It is estimated that up to 36,000 people die prematurely each year from the effects of air pollution in our country. The total cost to the NHS and social care will be £1.5 billion by 2025 and £5.1 billion by 2035.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The hon. Gentleman is making a really important point. He will know that today would have been the birthday of Ella Kissi-Debrah, the child who tragically died aged nine, and who was the first person in this country to have air pollution as the cause of death on her death certificate. He will also know that I am trying to pass a Bill on clean air. Does he agree that the Government’s targets for PM_2.5 are utterly unambitious, and that they ought to adopt the target that the World Health Organisation put forward in 2021 of 5 mg per cubic metre?

[Mr Sheerman]

I was in a statutory instrument Committee with the hon. Lady only yesterday. I can assure her that we have the same intention for the Government, and I totally agree that the Government’s ambition—and the ambition of all of us—has to be raised.

The total cost to the NHS and social care of this plague of dirty, filthy air will be extreme. The cost of inaction is fatal to people up and down our country and the services that they rely on. Reducing particulate matter in the atmosphere must be a public health priority. Particulate matter is made up of tiny, invisible solids and liquids that can permeate our bodies. It has a harmful impact on human health, and mainly comes from vehicles, plant equipment and industry.

Mr Hollobone, you are too young to remember the 1950s and the smog. People took action about smog because they could see it and smell it. It was everywhere, and it was disgusting. This is even more poisonous, but it is invisible. That is why the issue is so important.

Two of the key measures are PM_2.5 and PM₁₀—in other words, bits of matter that are smaller than 2.5 or 10 micrometres in diameter. I am sorry that this is a bit technical, but the danger of such small matter is that it can enter our bloodstream, which causes irreversible damage to our respiratory system and our other organs. That was the case for those 36,000 individuals in the UK this year—and every year—whose premature deaths are attributed to air pollution. It has also been known to contribute to asthma and a variety of breathing difficulties.

Many of us have the privilege of hearing astoundingly good visiting speakers in this place. Sir Stephen Holgate addressed a group of us who care about air pollution. I remember sitting up when he said that not only do these dreadful things happen to pregnant women, children and the elderly, but these impurities in the air accelerate the ageing process. That galvanised me into keen interest. Air pollution has life-changing consequences for everyone, from children to the elderly. The Australian Government have found that elderly adults are more likely to be affected by unclean air. It can cause strokes, heart disease and lung disease.

Air pollution harms people in every community in the country, including us, right here on the parliamentary estate. Since June, I have been recording air pollution in Parliament with a handheld air quality monitor and a large state-of-the-art device in my office on the fifth floor of Portcullis House. Air pollution on the parliamentary estate is consistently above the World Health Organisation’s recommended limit. The average level of PM_2.5 on the estate was 5.3 micrograms per cubic centimetre. That is above the World Health Organisation’s recommended limit of 5.

More worryingly, there were significant spikes; the highest ever reading came in at 8.65 micrograms per cubic centimetre and, during the summer heat, there was a 14-day period when average daily levels of PM_2.5 remained at 5.3 or above. That is remarkable. In my office, nitrogen dioxide levels were, on average, four times above the WHO guidelines. In the entire monitoring period, nitrogen dioxide was never at a safe level. [Interruption.] Excuse me for two seconds, Mr Hollobone. I have a very dry mouth due to a medical condition, so your patience is much appreciated.

Much of the blame for air pollution on the estate and across the country lies with vehicles and the pollution that they pump out, often because of faulty diesel particulate filters. However, there are chinks of daylight and good news, as the country moves slowly in the right direction. In 2014 and 2018, MOT tests became marginally more rigorous to ensure the proper working of these filters. However, we still have progress to make on this issue. The debate is topical, as the Department for Transport released its consultation last week. I am glad the Government have recognised the need for further progress in emissions testing, and that they understand that particulate number testing is the right thing to do. Governments across Europe have successfully implemented these tests: the Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany and Belgium have all adopted the higher standards.

The Dutch are making great progress, using a very sensitive particulate technology, set at 250,000 particles per cubic centimetre, which is much tougher. We have 10 times as many vehicles with problems with particulates than in the Netherlands. Considering that the UK has more than 10 times more diesel vehicles on the road than the Dutch, it is plain to see that we would make significant progress if we followed our European partners.

Lastly, I ask the Minister to share any data his Department has prepared on the cost of introducing the testing. We know that there will be an expense, and that testing centres and garages will have to bear it. However, the equipment is now not that expensive and it is getting cheaper. We also know that there will be an individual cost to cover a more rigorous MOT. We believe in that investment, whether it comes from the Government with direct support or grants, or from the vast vehicle manufacturers across Europe that could contribute.

The studies I have seen demonstrate that fit-for-purpose monitoring is available and affordable. Additionally, making the test stricter will result in more failed vehicles, which will be a problem. However, in that transition we will see real change. We will take old and more polluting vehicles off the roads for good, and replace them with electric, and even hydrogen, vehicles, which will be much healthier for all of us. As we wait for the next steps of the MOT consultation, I urge the Minister to follow through on his Department’s ambitions.

Particulate matter testing in the MOT would make an enormous difference in the fight to reduce air pollution. In our new year reception for the Westminster commission, it was an honour to hear from Rosamund Kissi-Debrah, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Caroline Lucas) just mentioned, whose daughter Ella was the first person in the UK to have air pollution registered as their cause of death. Today would have been Ella’s 19th birthday, and I am honoured that we have had the opportunity to remember her.

As a father and grandfather, I find it impossible not to be moved by Ella’s story—a young child whose life was taken far too early. Sadly, Ella is not the only one; there are many more children like her who are currently at risk from the toxic fumes engulfing our urban centres. It is for people like Ella that the Government must follow through on their proposal to tackle the filthy air that is so poisonous and harmful. I spoke last week in Harrogate with a professor of chemistry from York University, who said that if we want to know where people are breathing in the worst, most poisonous air, we must look at the poorest areas of our country.

Air pollution is an invisible, insidious, silent killer, and we have a unique opportunity now to make a small change that would make a great difference. I say to the Minister and other colleagues, let us take this step together and move closer to achieving a goal, which we could share across the House: that our children, grandchildren, friends, family and loved ones are united in their desire for the inalienable right to breathe clean air.

Higher Education Fees

Debate between Caroline Lucas and Barry Sheerman

Thursday 9th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Barry Sheerman (Huddersfield) (Lab/Co-op)]

I stand here with some trepidation in the sense that, in 2004, I made a speech in a similar debate and many of my colleagues howled at me and did not agree with much that I said. In those days, my Committee—the Select Committee on Education—had carried out an inquiry into top-up fees and had come out in favour of them. Of course, the majority was only five. I think that Select Committee report did have some influence.

I do not regret either the Select Committee report or my vote that day. However, I want to take us back briefly, so that we can try to learn something from history. We had a debate then because, with all-party agreement, we had set up the Dearing report. I have to say that Dearing was a far better choice to do such a report than Lord Browne, who produced the more recent one. The Dearing report essentially argued that if we want to move from an elite system of higher education to a mass system, somebody has to pay. In his view, the cost should be fairly distributed within society between the taxpayer, the individual who benefits and employers. That was Dearing’s opinion.

We must all confront the fact that what we are talking about today and have discussed over past years is how to get that balance right. I do not think that anyone would want to go back to the days when the state paid everything or have a situation in which the student pays everything. I have to say, in the light of the Secretary of State’s remarks, that employers have never been very willing to pay their share. Since 2004, we have developed a system in which there is a fair balance. However, I must remind the House that we—including my dear friend the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), the former Secretary of State for Education and Skills—did not get it entirely right. We rushed the response to Dearing and got it wrong. We were rightly criticised for that, but we did get it right over time. That is why we had a second reaction and had to go for top-up fees—variable fees. That is when we got it right and I want to learn the lesson from that.

Policy made speedily and on the hoof is not good policy. I admire the speech made by the hon. Member for Leeds North West (Greg Mulholland). This piece of legislation is being rushed through in a way that is a disgrace to parliamentary procedure, to this House and to higher education. Are we the best in the world at automobile production? I do not think we are. Are we the finest in banking? I do not think we are. We could list the sectors in which we are not world class, but we are clearly world class when it comes to higher education.

[Caroline Lucas (Brighton, Pavilion) (Green)]

The hon. Gentleman rightly spoke about the importance of employers paying their contribution towards higher education. Does he therefore support the University and College Union’s proposal for a business education tax that would essentially be a corporation tax on the 4% of the biggest companies that benefit directly from graduates? That would generate £3.9 billion for higher education and would mean that we could scrap tuition fees altogether.

[Mr Sheerman]

I listened very carefully to that. It is an interesting idea. The timetable that the Government have put on this procedure means that we will not be able to consider serious ideas such as that.

I have some reservations about a graduate tax. The Select Committee has considered a graduate tax, as have other people, but there are some formidable difficulties with it. That is not to say that a graduate tax is impossible, but I can honestly say that we have not had time to develop it fully. That is true. In the same way, the proposals on which we will be voting today have not been thought through or mulled over, and the consequences of them have not been considered.

Someone asked what procedure we would like there to be. We have a procedure, which involves introducing a piece of legislation, publishing a Green Paper and discussing the proposals. When the Government have firmed up their ideas, a White Paper is published. During that process, there is discussion with the people who work in universities, who study in universities and who do wonderful research in our universities. There is actually discussion with the community. Can hon. Members imagine not talking to people in any other sectors on which we legislate?