Plans to Improve the Natural Environment and Animal Welfare
Lord Whitty Excerpts(6 years, 11 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his introduction and for setting out the starkness of the challenge but also the possibilities of our succeeding in it. My intervention will be a little more depressive. I have the terrible feeling that the likely post-Brexit changes in our regulatory structure are likely to undermine what appear to be the noble Earl’s objectives and those spelled out by Michael Gove, the Secretary of State. I start, for example, with the interrelationship between what regulatory aspects of farming and land use apply here in a new and different trading pattern.
It is certainly true that the CAP, particularly in its earlier stages, was pretty detrimental to much of our natural capital, with overintensive use. However, in recent years the EU’s environmental objectives have countervailed that. Indeed, the CAP itself, through its cross-compliance arrangements, has moved closer to protecting the environment as a natural good. Legislation such as the habitats directive, the birds directive and the water framework directive will all need to be transposed into our own legislation, but they have been positive and will continue to be.
On animal welfare, mainly the UK has pushed EU standards higher, but we need to ensure that we can maintain them. If we are to move into a different trading pattern and the EU ceases to be our major trading partner, and we abandon near-alignment with EU legislation and instead seek to do deals around the world, particularly with America and South America, where the standards are considerably lower, our exporters there will have to meet standards different from those of imports here from America, Brazil or Australia, and will not meet the same standards of environmental objectives and animal welfare. If we prioritise those markets, there will be big pressure for us to down-prioritise our own environmental welfare standards.
The other aspect is the withdrawal Bill and how we deal with it. Yes, the EU legislation will be transposed one way or another into UK law as regards individual regulations, and of course we have already transposed most of the directives in one way or another. However, the whole element of the regime protecting the environment that exists in EU law will not be so transposed. First, there is the question of enforcement. The noble Earl referred to Michael Gove’s commitment to a new statutory environmental body but it is not clear what powers that will have. It will have not only to deliver the strategy for a better environment and protection of our natural capital, but will also have to be the main enforcement mechanism for duties which have hitherto been conducted by EU-level institutions. Can the Minister enlighten us about any further thinking in relation to that body? When will we see what is proposed, and will we see it at the same time as the 25-year plan or are we expecting it earlier?
In relation to the withdrawal Bill, while we are transposing the letter of many regulations, some of the key principles are not being so transposed either because they are found in the treaties, from which we are withdrawing and to which we will no longer be a party, or because they are in the preambles to directives and regulations, which English law does not like and does not transpose. In the environmental field, these include such vital principles as the precautionary principle, the principle that the polluter pays and general principles of sustainability, and, in the animal welfare area, the principle that farm and pet animals and most wildlife are sentient beings. In default of these principles being explicitly transposed into English and UK law, can the Minister please tell us how they will be observed, enforced and used as guidance in the interpretation of regulation post Brexit?
Of course, not all existing EU or UK legislation is conducive to preserving or enhancing our natural landscape and protecting our wildlife—some does quite the opposite. Take pesticides regulation, for example. The use of chemically based pesticides, often on an industrial scale, can be damaging to our soil. Pesticides and fertilisers have had a greater effect than excessive ploughing on the deteriorating quality of our soils over the past 200 years, referred to by the noble Earl, as well as on our waters and water-based wildlife, and on our air, posing a threat to human beings and wildlife as a result, with direct and indirect reductions in biodiversity.
More targeted use of chemical-based pesticides does not remove those threats, although it reduces them. Ultimately, only a major move from chemical-based pesticides and herbicides will reverse the negative effects on health, biodiversity, soil and water. However, I am afraid that at EU level, at UK level and, even more so, in the councils of some of our potential future trading partners, the influence of large chemical companies is likely to mean that such a move is blocked. I ask the Minister what the plans are for pesticide regulation post Brexit and for the development of less intensive, less chemically based crop management measures.
The repatriation of agricultural policy to the UK, whether Westminster, Cardiff, Edinburgh or Belfast, gives us the opportunity to move away from current hectarage-based subsidies towards overall environmental management, so that farmers, foresters and land managers are brought into a system which, as the noble Earl said, rewards them for contributing to the public good with better land management—better management of the water system and better landscape protection. Therefore, we can move away from the basic farm payment to support for sustainable land management.
However, that switch will be difficult. The Government need to do it gradually. They need to plan for it and farmers need time to adapt to it. It should also be done in a way that continues to recognise that food production is still a major policy objective and that land managers have a major role to play in it. In my view, we should probably keep in aggregate roughly the same quantum as under the CAP to support land managers, but it should be differentially distributed, contributing to environmental objectives, and probably be geared more to smaller farmers than to large-scale landowners.
I would like to hear the Minister’s reaction to those points and would particularly like to hear when we will see the 25-year plan.
Farm Support
Lord Whitty Excerpts(7 years ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, for initiating this debate. I have five minutes in which to make five points. Contrary to the noble Earl, my first point is: do not rush this. Broadly speaking, the Government have already committed themselves to paying under the present system until 2020, although I think that we should take a little longer going into the transition period. That is because it takes time for farmers to adjust and we can phase it in over a longer period once we know what we are doing.
Secondly, let us remember the inexorable relationship between the nature of our agricultural industry, trade and the pattern of support which is desirable. As has been said, 70% of our trade is with the EU, so we need a new relationship with the Union. If it works, that is fine, but if it does not, we will have a different form of agriculture in this country. If there are barriers between ourselves and the EU, substantial parts of our upland livestock will disappear because the EU is the main market. On the other hand, if we have, as some advocate, a global free trade area with virtually no barriers to the world, we will have very cheap and less-well-regulated imports from Brazil, the US and Australia. Again, significant parts of our agricultural sector would be eliminated and much of our consumer protection would be challenged, to say the least. We could opt for an autarkic “Fortress Britain” structure, which Mr Chris Grayling MP seems to think will lead to quadrupling our agricultural output. It certainly would do wonders for self-sufficiency, but unfortunately it would also increase costs and ensure that consumers have less choice. It would almost certainly drive lower regulatory standards and would probably stop us doing any deals whatever with anyone else in the world. So a support system that is appropriate will depend on the trade system that we have adopted.
Thirdly, we should remember that there were originally multiple objectives in the CAP which we are attempting to replace. The original treaty of Rome effectively saw protection and uprating the productivity of agriculture plus increasing the income of farming communities as its objectives. Added to those over time have been environmental objectives, although quite often they are seen as constraints rather than objectives. I will applaud Michael Gove for trying to ensure that whatever form of agricultural support eventually comes out of all this will in effect be a greener Brexit. We need more detail about the objectives in order to be clear.
The key inputs to agricultural production are the quality of the land, particularly of the soil, as the noble Earl said, and the quality of the labour applied. Unfortunately, the quality of both have rather suffered over the 50 years of the common agricultural policy in one way or another. Yes, productivity has increased through better breeding and more science being applied, but it has also led to the over-application of chemically based fertilisers and pesticides, and of course we have suffered the effects of development and therefore our soil has been degraded over time. It has also polluted our rivers and threatened our biodiversity, some of which the industry itself is dependent on, most obviously the bee population.
We also need to look at the quality of labour. The system needs a modernised, land-based workforce. We need to change from the overdependence of some our agricultural sectors on migrant labour and, at its most extreme, seriously exploited labour in a way that gives the whole of the industry a bad name. We need to eliminate extreme exploitation and control and reduce the dependence on gangmasters. Where imported seasonal labour is still needed, we need a properly regulated replacement for what was once the SAWS system.
I believe that most of our labour could be recruited from the settled population here, but we need to ensure that those workers are better paid and better trained. On the latter, it is unfortunate that agriculture spends less money on training than any other sector in the economy. On the pay and conditions side, since the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board, wages in agriculture have fallen relative to average wages in the economy, even in a period of low or negative growth in real wages generally.
On the management of land, we need to develop a holistic system of managing land, soil, water, wildlife and forestry. I think that is the way Michael Gove is moving but we need to be clearer about it. This cannot simply apply at the individual holding area level. We need co-operation between landowners and land managers. I see that the CLA is proposing a new land contract, but that has to be mandatory in form and not voluntary, although it may have voluntary elements. It needs also to be less bureaucratic, not more, than the worst features of the CAP.
We need to have clear sight of our objectives and to determine the quantum and not be dominated by the Treasury. We need to allow for a period of engagement, not only of farmers and the rural community but of the whole of the food chain and the rest of us. We have an opportunity, but let us get it right.
Brexit: Non-chemical Farming Methods
Lord Whitty Excerpts(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, as the noble Lord has raised that issue I will look into it. To repeat, there is strong regulation on pesticides; that is why it is so important. The truth is that we often need to use herbicides in order to ensure that rights of way are clear for people to enjoy the countryside.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, over a decade ago, when I was doing the noble Lord’s job, we had a programme of looking at non-chemical ways of doing what pesticides do and improving the method of application. Will the Minister update us? Do the Government still support that work? If so, by how much and when can we expect the results?
Lord Gardiner of Kimble
My Lords, it is continuing. I am sure that, with his experience, the noble Lord will know about the UK national action plan on pesticides and that it is an ongoing process. We will continue to develop and adapt as further knowledge becomes available. My whole point is that the national action plan and the pollinator strategy are designed to assist in enhancing the environment and to have pesticides used when necessary and with precision.
Agriculture, Fisheries and the Rural Environment
Lord Whitty Excerpts(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for this debate and for his wide-ranging introduction. He is of course right to have begun with the real historic importance of this debate: the retirement from this House of the noble Lord, Lord Plumb. I first met the noble Lord, when he was plain Sir Henry, back in the European Parliament days when he was leader of the Conservative group. In those days the Conservatives were a very influential group within Europe and in the European Parliament and had many friends, but times change. My conversations with him then must have revealed to him that I did not have a very clear grasp of agriculture. Since he knows the way of the world, it can hardly have come as a surprise to him that a few short years later I was appointed as the Agriculture Minister in this House. That was in very difficult times in the immediate aftermath of foot and mouth; indeed, it was still going on. I think I speak for everyone on every side of the House who has spoken on agriculture or had responsibility for it when I speak of the importance of the contributions we had from the noble Lord, Lord Plumb, in the Chamber, in Select Committees and in private conversations. I thank him for that. I am not saying we always agreed. I am not even saying he was always right, but he usually was. This House and many people in it will miss him.
I have two points to make today. First, the noble Earl is clearly right that we have an opportunity to substitute for the CAP a new British agricultural policy. As I said a few days ago, we need to remember that the CAP had multiple objectives and multiple effects. It was not simply a protectionist policy, although it was that and a very effective one; it also had environmental aims, land-use aims, rural development aims and aims that affected the whole of the food chain, which accounts for well over 10% of our employment and our GDP. Whatever reform and replacement there is of the CAP, which was never a perfect fit for the UK in any of its manifestations, has to recognise all those multiple dimensions. If we regard it simply as an agricultural or environmental policy, we will not have done the job of replacing it and taking this opportunity seriously. I will not expand on this, given the time.
My second point relates to an issue that rarely gets referred to here and, to be honest—looking at the list of speakers—may not be quite so popular, as in some cases it is the dark side of certain parts of the agriculture and food-processing industry: the labour force and the industry’s treatment of it. The last 40 years have seen an increasing dependence on migrant labour for certain parts of agriculture and food processing. It may not be politically correct to say so, but that imported labour and its effects socially and locally have led to social tensions in some parts of our country. It is no coincidence that many of the largest votes for Brexit were in the small towns and villages in counties in the east of England where these issues are at their most acute. It is also ironic but no coincidence that many of the farmers who, contrary to the advice of the NFU, advocated Brexit and shouted most loudly for it are now among those who are shouting for exemptions from what will be a stronger migration policy following Brexit. I am not against a new and properly regulated seasonal workers scheme; in fact, I am for it, and I hope it is part of the outcome. However, the more general outcome needs to see a situation where the workers within the agriculture and first-line processing sectors are treated better than they have been over the last few decades.
Contrary to the reassuring noises made by several noble Lords when we debated the abolition of the Agricultural Wages Board a few years ago, the reality has been that in a period when real wages for the rest of the economy have not gone up, the relative position of agricultural workers, as far as statisticians can make out, has still deteriorated. The abolition of the board and, for example, the restriction until recently on the activities and resources of the Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority have meant that the problems within that sector had not been properly addressed. Whatever we do in terms of the new agricultural and rural development policy, we must make sure that we have a workforce who are invested in it, properly trained and properly rewarded.
Air and Water Pollution: Impact
Lord Whitty Excerpts(7 years ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I join in the thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for introducing this debate, and her impressive introduction. I want to use my time mainly to focus on the regulatory framework for controlling air quality in the UK in the post-Brexit scenario. I declare an interest, in that I am the current president of Environmental Protection UK, Britain’s oldest environmental charity—formerly the National Society for Clean Air, which was instrumental in bringing into being the Clean Air Act 1956.
I make no apology for repeating my reference to that Act, which I did in the debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, in July. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I have another, personal interest to declare. As a 10 year-old living in west London with heavy congestion on the ground and under the Heathrow flight path, I was diagnosed with severe asthma. I continued to live in London for many years and, as a result of the Clean Air Act 1956, it began largely to clear up. But for a lot of other people, air pollution is still a problem in London, as it is in many urban and semi-urban parts of the UK.
As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said, we have made progress. We have drastically cut sulphur dioxide emissions, for example, and many other pollutants have been reduced. This is partly because of the elimination of dirty factories, partly because emissions have been better managed and partly because there has been better regulation. Whatever the reason, we have made progress. The remaining area is principally, but not only, traffic and that is mainly, but not only, diesel—the wear and tear on the tyres and brakes also contribute to air pollution. Traffic volume is an important issue, but some 50% of air pollution is non-traffic—it comes from construction sites, agriculture, static plant, wood burning and gas appliances. Nitrogen dioxide and particulates have proved very difficult to reduce. Some are stubborn; some have been reduced but are now going up slightly again. There are more than 40 areas within the UK which are not meeting EU standards, which were supposed to have been achieved by 2010.
The medical effects have been spelled out this week in a substantial article in the Lancet and by evidence which, I suspect, we have all received from the BMA, the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health and the Royal College of Physicians. So we are looking not only at the statistical evidence of air pollution on mortality and on general ill-health, but our physicians have now identified the plausible means whereby damage is done and have shown that very small, ultra-fine particles enter the bloodstream within minutes of being inhaled. As has been said, this is particularly a problem for infants and young children and for children in the womb. The net effect on adults and children has been to contribute to 40,000-plus deaths nationwide, through pulmonary, cardiovascular and other diseases and aggravation of pre-existing conditions.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said, there is also a social dimension. It affects the least well-off, and children are the least well-off in our society. One could say that the diesel cars of the top 25% are damaging the health of the bottom 25%, and the children in particular.
The way in which this has been dealt with has been very dependent on EU regulations and ultimately on EU enforcement. These regulations have not been met, either within the UK or within many other European countries. Enforcement has been difficult. As the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, indicated, the Volkswagen crisis has shown that the power of the German car manufacturers has overridden the health of the European population. Whether or not there were other ways of dealing with that, it greatly aggravated both the problem and the credibility of the system. The value limits in these EU regulations are at twice the level which the World Health Organization suggests are safe.
Even to meet the EU standards, the UK Government will need a more effective air quality strategy than they currently have. Having been found wanting in the courts twice over the last few months, the latest July version of Defra’s air quality plan admittedly includes a number of new elements—in particular, a target of 2040 for the end of petrol and diesel cars, which is less than other public authorities in Britain and Europe have set. It also provides some funds to support low-carbon vehicles. However, if you add up the totality of the air quality strategy, it is, in effect, a call for local authorities to draw up their own plans without any significant additional powers or resources. It is still not a coherent strategy, nor is it a coherent way in which to develop clean air zones. Local authorities have been somewhat slow in developing those. There is a real need to focus on the areas of worst pollution and to ensure that all central and local government-sanctioned developments near the areas of highest pollution do not cut across that.
This may be a minor example in some ways, but the reference of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to trees reminded me that just this week I saw an article in the Camden New Journal, which said that it was proposed to cut down 50 plane trees, which absorb pollution, to house temporarily the taxi rank displaced by HS2. That is an absurd counteraction. There is an even worse one: the London mayor has begun to develop an ambitious programme to introduce charges on all diesel vehicles and develop ultra-low vehicle emissions zones, but that could be undermined by the decision on Heathrow. Only yesterday, the Times stated that the latest reports suggest that the evidence relating to likely air quality problems arising from the building of a third runway at Heathrow mean that even the EU’s current levels will be undermined. I say to the Minister and his transport ministerial colleagues that the Times also stated that the risks of those limits not being met are low at Gatwick but very high at Heathrow. Given that new evidence, is the Minister inclined to change the approach to the building of a third runway at Heathrow?
Brexit: Agriculture and Farm Animal Welfare (European Union Committee Report)
Lord Whitty Excerpts(7 years, 1 month ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lords, Lord Teverson and Lord Curry, and the other members of the committee. It is a very effective report. We speak in a week when we have had two quite bad pieces of news. The first is that the Agriculture and Horticulture Development Board has produced a fairly well-based report on its expectations for various scenarios as the outcome of Brexit. They list three: evolution, which is, broadly speaking, the Chancellor of the Exchequer’s preferred outcome; unilateral liberalism, which I presume is Liam Fox’s preferred outcome; and fortress Britain, which, I presume from his remarks this week, is Chris Grayling’s preferred outcome. Whatever the origins of those broad-brush outcomes, the conclusion is that in the last two, there will be dramatic falls in farm income in almost all sectors and for almost all farms. In the first scenario, which is broadly the status quo—through a free trade agreement—farm incomes will be kept up only if the level of subsidy from the UK Government keeps pace with what would otherwise have been the European payouts. In all three scenarios there is a presumption that consumer prices will increase, which may be interesting for some theorists. As the noble Lord, Lord Curry, says, we have an opportunity to redevelop and bring in a different British agricultural policy, replacing the 40-odd years of the CAP. Michael Gove has a serious challenge.
We have to see any new agricultural policy in the broadest possible terms. As a bit of history, the CAP was first conceived not simply as a protectionist food policy—although it was always that—but as a regional, rural and social policy. In effect, it was avoiding for the rural areas of France and Italy the kind of depopulation and rural poverty which in the previous century had hit other economies such as those of Ireland and Scotland, and which in the current century is hitting many Asian economies with rural depopulation and poverty. The CAP has always had multiple outputs.
Therefore, we need a wide range of objectives—public goods, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, calls them—for any new system: support for the wider rural economy and society, and the rural environment; support for land and water management; and the preservation and enhancement of our natural capital. The answer will be different in different parts of the country, and it will be different in different English regions. However, there are political problems with the fact that they will be very different in different parts of the devolved Administrations. If what has hitherto been the Brussels input to agricultural policy is simply centralised in Whitehall, there will be quite serious problems with the devolved Administrations. We need an all-UK approach to this, but it will be difficult to achieve without causing grave difficulties for the devolution settlement.
Just this week, Carwyn Jones, the First Minister of Wales—who was my oppo in Wales when I was Agriculture Minister and he was in Cardiff—has pointed out that certain trade outcomes and regulatory outcomes could completely wipe out hill farming in Wales. That would be a disaster, not just for Wales but for the whole country. There will also be serious problems in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the latter, it is greatly compounded by areas covered by previous reports from the Select Committee with regard to the Irish trade and the dominance of the north-south arrangements. Goods which end up as consumer goods finally cross the border several times, and the Irish economy, both north and south, depends heavily on exports to the UK, and via the UK to the EU.
My second main point is on trade. The noble Lord, Lord Teverson, already reported on this week’s row on trade quotas. This is a situation in which, quietly, EU, UK and WTO officials were seeing a way forward. Almost immediately after that became semi-public knowledge, it was objected to by other countries, with which some hope we will reach very detailed free trade agreements in the near future. This proves a number of things. First, we do not have that many friends out there. However, it also proves that if agricultural quotas are not settled, it will be very difficult to deliver a whole-scale free-trade agreement with Europe and, beyond Europe, with other countries. Unless agricultural quotas are settled, because agriculture is such an important aspect of the European Union, reaching an agreement on other trade arrangements with Europe will be more difficult. When we come to negotiate the other agreements that people have in mind, unless we have settled that, they will not know what their quotas will be, whether they have an arrangement for a free-trade agreement with Europe already—in which case there are quotas referred to there—or if they can trade with Europe free of quotas but facing tariffs.
It is in fact worse than that. Historically, any agreement on trade has floundered heavily on failure to agree, under the WTO or whatever, and under GATT before it, on agricultural quotas and the reflection of the level of subsidy—the amber box subsidies—in any trade negotiations. The latest example of that, only 10 years ago, was the almost complete failure of the Doha round, principally because we could not agree multilaterally on trade quotas and trade subsidies for agriculture.
Agriculture therefore has implications way beyond its own importance within our economy, our society and our countryside. Unless we manage to resolve with our European partners and beyond the way in which we treat trade in agriculture, we will not get free trade agreements anywhere.
Air Quality: London
Lord Whitty Excerpts(7 years, 4 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, I offer my warm congratulations to the noble Lord not only because he has initiated this debate but on giving us such a comprehensive and technically informed tour of the issues involved. I need to declare an interest as the current honorary president of Environmental Protection UK, which is the successor body to the National Society for Clean Air, one of the campaigning bodies that produced the Clean Air Act 1956, referred to by the noble Lord. My noble friend Lord Hunt, who will speak later in the debate, is also a former president of that organisation—not as far back as 1956, but nevertheless he made a significant contribution to it. I look forward to his speech.
As the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, said, the 1956 Act was a great landmark. It effectively removed smog and pea-souper fogs from London and thus transformed this city. But I have to tell noble Lords that the Government of the day were not initially persuaded of the necessity for such an Act. I have before me a confidential Cabinet committee paper, admittedly not a scoop because it dates back to 1953. In it Harold Macmillan, then the Housing Minister and a brilliant one in that role, did not initially take air pollution very seriously. Indeed, he was at his most disdainful and cynical. I shall quote him directly:
“Today everybody expects the Government to solve every problem. It is a symptom of the welfare state … For some reason or another, ‘smog’ has captured the imagination of the press and the people. I would suggest that we form a Committee. Committees are the oriflame of democracy. There are some short-term things which we have done; and can do. There are some longer-term solutions … We cannot do very much, but we can seem to be very busy—and that is half the battle nowadays”.
Eventually Harold Macmillan changed his mind, but only after another three years of vigorous public campaigning as well as the work of the committee of inquiry set up under Sir Hugh Beaver. Of course, later in his life Macmillan claimed the Clean Air Act as one of his great successes.
I now fear that more recent Governments, including the current one, have been as complacent as Macmillan originally was. Unfortunately, as the noble Lord has just said, there are still dangerous although invisible substances in our atmosphere which have yet to be tackled effectively and which again affect in particular the poorer communities within our population. Large parts of London still exceed EU standards for NO2 and World Health Organization standards for both NO2 and ultrafine particulates. These are damaging to cardiovascular health and can cause respiratory diseases. Although the calculations are complicated, they are thought to have caused up to 10,000 equivalents of death in London alone.
I take some responsibility as I have been both a Transport Minister and a Minister in Defra, and I briefly held the portfolio for air quality. Subsequently, I served on the board of the Environment Agency, which has responsibility for non-vehicular emissions. There has been some success in limiting point-source emissions but very little in relation to vehicular traffic. Moreover, the standards we have in place have been dramatically revealed to be inadequate. The Volkswagen scandal revealed a huge subterfuge in the motor sector to the detriment of the population at large, despite more rigorous EU standards and increasingly well-evidenced and assertive reports from medical and public health authorities.
Even the powers that we have had, we have failed to use. It is 20 years since I took legislation through this House to set up low-emission zones, but it has hardly been used. In London we now have the basis of low-emission zones and we have the mayor’s new air quality strategy as well as work being done in some London boroughs of all political persuasions, to which the noble Lord referred. All are attempting to do something about the problem, but we need to do significantly more. The theme of my speech today is that it is important that the mayor’s strategy is followed through so that the zones can be expanded and enforced, but a national strategy is needed to back that up. The mayor’s powers are limited and the lack of a national strategy has already twice been exposed in the High Court as inadequate in terms of the Government’s responsibilities under European legislation and under their own commitments.
Pushing all the responsibility on to local authorities, as the current draft strategy does, will not work. They need the staffing and the resources to deliver. That is even more the case in cities outside London which face greater challenges. However, the Government are going backwards on that as well. Of the 17 cities they first thought needed attention, it is now proposed that only five will go forward in the national strategy.
The scope of the powers also needs to be addressed. Although road transport is the major contributor to pollution in London, it actually accounts for less than half of it, as the noble Lord indicated in his speech. He referred to stand-by diesel generators, and indeed stand-by generators of any sort as well as decentralised energy sources and other forms of heating. Another example is off-road construction machinery. All of it contributes to pollution levels. These need to be addressed by the mayor, who does not actually have the power to do so very effectively.
There are of course trade-offs in this. The noble Lord referred to the biggest of them, which is between climate change objectives and air quality objectives and the overriding commitment to fuel efficiency and thus carbon saving. That has led to what in retrospect was a mistake when the balance of taxation was changed in favour of diesel vehicles. That has aggravated the situation significantly, so technology and regulation must catch up. We need to take a holistic approach. It should not be impossible for the motor industry, even using current technologies, to produce filters that can tackle carbon and other emissions which are damaging to public health. Technology ought to be able to provide solutions and regulation has to back it up.
Other choices such as wood burning are allegedly also carried out for environmental reasons. I have my doubts about wood burning myself because I think that it is more of a lifestyle choice, and it is an increasing contributor to pollution in London and elsewhere. There are other trade-offs in relation to road safety. The noble Lord referred to the dust produced by braking and how some road humps actually contribute to increased air pollution by vehicles. However, the humps save lives, so we need road design that can contribute both to road safety and improve air quality by reducing pollution.
I have a number of questions for the Minister. Do the Government accept the findings of the King’s College study which calculates a mortality equivalent of 9,500 deaths in London? Do the Government have figures for the number of staff and resources in local government, the Environment Agency and Defra and how they have reduced over the past few years? What has been the effect of that? Can the Minister tell us what will happen after Brexit, given that infraction proceedings will no longer be the enforcement mechanism? How will the Government enforce air quality standards? Again after Brexit, will the Government base policy on the same standards as the EU or will they adopt the WHO standards, which are more stringent? Will Volkswagen and any other transgressors face US-style penalties if they in effect distort testing results both on-road and off-road in the way that company did? Why is there no scrappage scheme for older diesel vehicles, and will all new diesel motors be subject to on-road, real driving tests, with those failing being banned? I have a number of other questions but I shall put them in writing for the Minister; these are enough to be going on with.
I hope that the dismissive tones of Harold Macmillan 64 years ago are not echoed by the Minister’s boss, Mr Michael Gove. In my capacity as president of EP UK I have written to Michael Gove urging him to set up a wide-ranging, high-powered independent clean air commission with the immediate task of helping to prioritise and allocate resources across government to ensure the effective enforcement of existing measures, and more particularly to develop a forward strategy and a new clean air Act. At the beginning, Macmillan was dismissive of experts; the current Secretary of State has been known to be similarly dismissive. In the end, Macmillan took their advice. The 1956 Act was, in retrospect, one of the few successful legacies of the Eden Government—a Government who, noble Lords may note, were an otherwise somewhat controversial and short-lived Conservative Administration, so it ought to have some attractions for the incumbents. I hope they adopt a more aggressive stance on this. It will be a real legacy that will benefit hundreds of thousands of citizens in London and beyond.