Air Pollution

Martin Rhodes Excerpts

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) on securing this important debate.

Clean air is not simply an issue about health and the environment, but a moral imperative of our time. It is a challenge that requires urgency, with current legislation and frameworks lagging behind the science, alongside more joined-up thinking and action across agencies, Government Departments and devolved Administrations. I hope that the Minister can say something about the work that his Department is doing with others to take the issue forward.

Clean air is an environmental, health and social justice issue. Poor air quality is an environmental challenge. Many of our wild plants and much of our natural environment cannot tolerate high pollution levels, which can devastate grasslands, peatlands and moorlands, leading to a loss of pollinators and significantly harming biodiversity. That matters on a bigger scale, because the ecosystems that we depend on for air, water and a liveable planet are being damaged.

Poor air quality is a public health issue. It shortens lives and contributes to between 30,000 and 40,000 premature deaths every year. It increases the risk of diseases such as dementia, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease and diabetes. It affects all of us, but particularly the young, the old, pregnant women and their unborn children.

That brings me to air quality as a social justice issue. Clean air is an equity issue: those more likely to have underlying conditions are also more likely to live in environments that worsen them. The areas most exposed to pollution are often the poorest, where proximity to traffic and poor housing often go hand in hand.

That is why tackling the root causes is essential. Interventions can make a real difference. Air pollution was once widely associated with transport, but strategies—most notably, the shift away from diesel and the uptake of electric vehicles—have reduced transport’s impact. Alongside national action, local strategies matter. As has been mentioned, London’s ULEZ reduced NO₂ levels by 40% before lockdown, and, since the clean air zone was introduced in Bradford, it is reported that GP visits for cardiovascular and respiratory problems have reduced by 25%.

However, success in one area should not obscure challenges elsewhere. Wood burning affects air quality inside homes. There must be a focus on air quality indoors, where we spend up to 80% to 90% of our time, as much as a focus on air quality outdoors and on how we protect buildings such as schools, hospitals and community facilities. Yes, we need more ambitious targets and a stronger framework, but, just as importantly, we must secure buy-in from local communities. Although national targets set direction, local needs are best addressed locally. That means empowering not only local authorities, important though that is, but communities themselves.

Clean air cannot be delivered from the top down alone; alongside funding, we need expertise and partnerships so that residents, schools and community organisations can lead change. Community-led initiatives, such as local monitoring, clean transport and neighbourhood campaigns, would make the pollution issue visible, and give people a real stake in improving it. I hope that the Minister can say something about the involvement of communities in taking forward the important measures that are required.

Public engagement must be at the heart of our efforts. Clean air should be seen as essential to everyday health. By raising awareness, and giving people the opportunity to shape solutions, we can turn an invisible scourge into a shared priority. With national ambition and local action, we can become a world leader in air quality again.