Air Pollution

Debate between Robbie Moore and Uma Kumaran

Thursday 2nd July 2026 Westminster Hall

[Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I commend the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) on securing this important debate. He has spoken about the issue many times in this place, so I know it is one that he cares deeply about.

Air pollution is one of the greatest public health and environmental challenges facing our country today: it contributes to thousands of premature deaths every year, worsens respiratory diseases, harms our natural environment and, as was outlined in the contributions of many hon. Members, places an enormous amount of pressure on our NHS. All of that reduces productivity and participation in the workplace, costing the UK economy about £27 billion annually. That is largely due to healthcare costs, productivity losses and reduced quality of life. When wider impacts such as dementia are accounted for, the economic cost of air quality not being addressed may be as high as £50 billion.

Air pollution also disproportionately affects the most deprived communities—13% of people in the most deprived neighbourhoods in the United Kingdom live in the 10% of areas with the highest air pollution, compared with only 7% of people in the least deprived neighbourhoods. The health impacts of that are seismic, as exposure to air pollution can increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease and cancer. It can also cause damage to the reproductive and central nervous systems, as has also been mentioned by several Members. In particular, exposure to air pollution in childhood can have lasting, lifelong effects and can affect cognitive development or increase the risk of developing a chronic disease. Health risks from exposure to air pollution should not be a postcode lottery. I would be grateful if the Minister could inform the Chamber what targeted action the Government will be taking to address that gap in exposure to poor air quality.

The Conservative party has a proud record when it comes to improving air quality, but there is much more to be done, as outlined in today’s contributions. Air quality in the UK has continually improved since 2010. The levels of all the key pollutants, bar ammonia, have fallen by over 70%, with levels of PM_2.5 and PM₁₀ falling by 27% and 20% respectively between 2014 and 2024. The previous Government’s 2019 clean air strategy was described by the World Health Organisation at the time as

“an example for the rest of the world to follow”.

The strategy set out the comprehensive action required to meet the legally binding targets to reduce emissions of the five key pollutants by 2020 and 2030 respectively.

The previous Government also passed the Environment Act 2021, which introduced statutory targets for PM_2.5 to achieve at least a 35% reduction in population exposure by 31 December 2040. Furthermore, the previous Administration’s 2023 environmental improvement plan set out a direction to support clean air, with measures including reducing the maximum emissions for domestic burning appliances in smoke-controlled areas by promoting best practices, challenging local authorities to rightly improve air quality, continuing to support the move away from petrol and diesel cars, and consulting on an extension to the existing North sea emission control area to cover the Irish sea, reducing emissions from shipping.

The roll-out of any strategy, legislation, guidance or regulation that focuses on improving air quality must also take into account the economic, social and environmental impact, so that the best strategy is adopted and there is the best buy-in from residents and businesses. Without their buy-in, air quality is simply not improved at the rate that we would all like to see. It is no good bringing out legislation that then has a wider detrimental effect.

That is why, as the official Opposition, we oppose the Government’s restrictions on wood-burning stoves. For many people living in rural areas, wood burners are an affordable, reliable and often essential source of heat where mains gas is unavailable and the alternatives are impractical and expensive to put in place.

We also committed to scrapping the zero emission vehicle mandate to reinvigorate the car manufacturing industry in Britain. There should still be a transition to cleaner transport, but it must be driven by affordability, practicality and technological progress. It should not be dictated by unrealistic mandates or the weakening of domestic manufacturing. Again, a balance must be struck if we are to improve air quality.

That is why a strategy of simply taxing motorists is just not the right approach. The Mayor of London’s expansion of ULEZ is having hugely damaging financial consequences on some of the poorest and most deprived residents and communities in London, as well as on many motorists and trade-related businesses.

[Uma Kumaran]

Will the hon. Member give way?

[Robbie Moore]

I would like to explore what the Mayor of London is doing for those travelling on the tube—the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran) may be able to indicate this in her intervention, because I know she was involved—because there has been hardly any focus on that in the mayor’s strategy.

[Uma Kumaran]

The Conservatives in City Hall called the whole of ULEZ “bewildering” and have objected to it at every turn. I read out the statistics earlier: there has been a 40% reduction in nitrogen oxide levels and a huge positive impact in London from ULEZ. The Mayor of London won two decisive elections after its introduction. London has also been recognised as a global leader by the United Nations. The Secretary-General himself invited the Mayor of London to the United Nations to speak about ULEZ and London’s climate action. Should the hon. Member not congratulate London for its climate action and decisive air quality improvements, and actually support that good work?

[Robbie Moore]

I will specifically address that point, but I will use one further example before I do. The same approach as the ULEZ has been applied to the Bradford district, in which my constituency sits.

A clean air zone has been rolled out in Bradford, but it is a strategy that is again taxing motorists and some of the hardest-working people in our communities—including some of the most deprived communities, who are simply not able to afford the levels of tax imposed on them. Of course there are other ways of doing it, but before I come on to them I want to address the fact that if a resident or someone with a business on the outskirts of Bradford wants to travel into Bradford in a light goods vehicle, it now costs them £9 a day. That has a detrimental impact on business growth. It costs a coach driver, a heavy goods vehicle driver or a bus driver £50 a day to take their vehicle into Bradford. That is also having a huge detrimental impact.

Since the scheme was launched in 2023, £26.7 million has been raised. Of that, £9.8 million was raised through entry fees but £16.4 million was raised through penalty charge notices, the vast majority of which were for people who could not afford to pay, and who therefore had to go to court for that money to be extracted from them.

My point is that we cannot simply have a strategy that charges people if we want complete buy-in. That is why I use the example of the roll-out in Manchester. It will be interesting to see what the strategy of the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will be, because when he was Mayor of Greater Manchester he opposed a chargeable clean air zone tax across Greater Manchester. Indeed, at the time, all five local authorities that make up Greater Manchester also heavily lobbied the Government for a non-charging approach to be adopted. Such an approach was therefore signed off, which resulted in investment in electrification, upgrade grants and traffic control measures. Those were all rolled out in Manchester—approved by the former Mayor of Greater Manchester, the right hon. Member for Makerfield—and they had buy-in at the local level.

I would therefore simply say in response to the hon. Member for Stratford and Bow that there are other ways of doing it, rather than simply having a taxing approach. Will the Minister outline whether he has had discussions with the right hon. Member for Makerfield, who is likely to become the Prime Minister, about what the future clean air zone strategy will be under the new Administration? Will the Minister also outline the cost to the taxpayer of all the infrastructure that was put in place but not used for the roll-out of that clean air zone—a tax to the motorist—across the Greater Manchester area?

It is therefore vital that when we consider how to tackle air pollution and improve air quality, the Government work across Departments to ensure that there are no unintended adverse impacts on businesses and indeed on our rural communities. I absolutely agree with the point made by the hon. Member for Brent West: we cannot have a siloed approach across Government. I therefore ask the Minister to provide an assurance that any forthcoming strategy will not be siloed just within DEFRA but will instead take a co-ordinated approach across Government.

Communities across the country continue to breathe polluted air every single day. It is an unfortunate thing to say, but that is the reality. We must do much more, with buy-in from businesses and residents, and only if it is not detrimental to driving local growth. Parents worry about children walking to school alongside congested roads and elderly residents and those living with asthma or heart disease face unnecessary health risks. Those are not abstract narratives; they are everyday realities for millions of people. We must, therefore, work together to ensure that all of our constituents breathe cleaner, healthier air.

To have a clean air strategy, we have to have buy-in from all and not just use a one-size-fits-all approach by taxing those in our communities who are most deprived. They are the ones who need to benefit from the clean air zone strategy because of where they live.