Air quality inquiry

Low Emission Zones are one of the most powerful tools that local authorities have for controlling vehicle emissions, but few have introduced them. Barriers include their perceived cost and a lack of guidance and support from Government. The case we made in our 2011 report for a national framework for LEZs remains as compelling today. A national framework could provide a template for creating LEZs with common core features including a national common certification scheme for vehicles meeting particular emissions standards, but allowing individual authorities to strike a locally relevant balance in tackling air quality while protecting local businesses. This would help reduce the cost of LEZs and make it easier for local authorities to administer them. Such an approach would also make it easier for vehicle fleet operators to meet the requirements of individual zones, and reduce the risk of heavily polluting vehicles simply being redeployed from one part of the country to another. A national framework, and individual local authorities’ willingness to introduce LEZs based on it, could provide the Government with a more credible basis on which any EU infraction fines might be passed on to the local authorities.

Diesel vehicles have increasingly been identified as the most significant driver of air pollution in our cities, exacerbated by the growth in their number as a result of favourable fiscal incentives compared with the taxes applied to petrol and petrol vehicles. Low emission zones provide a potentially effective means of restricting their use in pollution hotspots, but will need to be supplemented with other measures if such zones charge rather than ban vehicles. In such cases, LEZs can be complemented by a relatively less favourable fiscal regime for diesel and diesel vehicles. The original favourable tax treatment for diesel was the result of an understandable effort to adjust the vehicle mix in a way that would help limit greenhouse gas emissions. It is important however that fiscal policies are flexible enough to accommodate changing understanding. We are disappointed that Ministers have no plans for discussing these issues with the Treasury.

New European emissions standards offer the prospect of significant cuts in pollution, but only if vehicles are designed to pass a test regime that is configured to reflect real world driving conditions.

The Office for Low Emission Vehicles is encouraging a market in low emission vehicles in the face of past negative perceptions of such vehicles among consumers. The challenge for Government is in supporting alternative fuels in a way that does not run too far ahead of public appetite, and avoids ‘picking winners’.

There is a lack of clarity over the degree of influence that local authorities have to ensure good air quality standards in local bus fleets.

The air quality provision in the National Planning Policy Framework provides a basis for local authorities to address air pollution in development applications. Local authorities are able to include air quality provisions in their Local Plans provided they remain consistent with the NPPF. In practice, however, half of authorities have yet to complete their Local Plan, in which case the NPPF itself applies. The NPPF does not provide any guarantee of avoiding worse pollution as a result of development, but rather a means of considering all aspects of sustainability, balancing or trading-off sometimes conflicting economic, social and environmental objectives. Nevertheless, given the urgent need to make real progress in tackling unacceptable pollution, there is a need for the NPPF regime to move that balance more towards air quality protection.

There is some confusion over the boundary of local and central government responsibilities for air quality. That confusion is exacerbated by an unresolved debate over the localism agenda and how that impinges on action on air quality. On the one hand, Government provides air quality grants to local authorities from whom it requires proposals to be justified and explained, complicating the process. The NPPF circumscribes local discretion in a planning regime that might be used locally to focus on tackling pollution. But, on the other hand, it maintains that local authorities are responsible for air quality, could potentially reduce their air quality monitoring and reporting obligations, and has laid legislative groundwork for passing on EU infraction fines. It is not surprising that against that background some local authorities are confused about what they can do in this policy area, and find Government advice unclear.

In undertaking our inquiry, and by conducting our own air quality monitoring, we have sought to draw greater public attention to the issue of air pollution. We challenge the Government to follow our lead by instituting a national public awareness campaign about these issues.

In the past the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution would have helped to review air pollution and make recommendations for remedial action. The Sustainable Development Commission, similarly, might have been expected to address this important sustainability issue. Both no longer exist.

This is now our third report on air quality in five years. Our main recommendations for the Government in 2010 and 2011 were not implemented, prompting our third Inquiry in the hope that this time the Government will take this as seriously as we do. It is unacceptable that a whole generation of people living in our towns and cities could have their health seriously impaired by air pollution above EU limits before the Government brings this public health problem under control. It should not need a European court case to focus Government attention on air pollution.

Urgent change is needed in transport and planning policy to save lives and ensure that the UK meets European safety targets much sooner than the expected dates indicated by Defra. Air pollution is an invisible killer and a public health imperative. The challenge for policy makers is that no one single solution can solve this problem and no one single department has all the necessary levers. This change should start with the Government response to this report. A fresh approach is needed for the health challenge we face, coordinating action by local authorities and communities as well as the Government.

The Government should without any further delay introduce a national framework for Low Emission Zones, with common metrics and a national certification scheme for vehicles meeting particular air quality standards, to facilitate their widespread adoption.

Defra and the Department for Transport should work urgently with the Treasury to establish long-term goals and timescales for a step by step re-balancing of fuel duty and Vehicle Excise Duty consistent with reducing not just CO emissions but also NO and 2 2 particulate matter impacts.

The Government should explore regulatory and enforcement options for ensuring that, once fitted, diesel particulate filters are not removed from vehicles, and where filters are fitted standards are enforced through thorough testing and monitoring. Having raised this with the Minister, we welcome his commitment to tackle this matter and expect an early statement on the actions planned.

We recognise that the rationale for previous moves to promote diesel—to reduce carbon emissions—was sound at the time. In the light of increasing public health concerns, however, we need to change policy direction. The Government should consider the scope for subsidising diesel vehicle owners to retrofit their engines or a national diesel vehicle scrappage scheme on the basis of a full cost-benefit analysis that reflects the different circumstances, costs and benefits in urban and rural areas.

The Government should continue to work with the European Commission to develop Euro VI/6 standards and the vehicle emission tests to reflect realistic driving conditions. It should maintain pressure on the Commission to deliver that testing regime in 2017, as planned.

The Office for Low Emmission Vehicles should work with departments, including DECC, to bring a step change in reducing air pollution and carbon emissions. The Government should consider the scope for financial incentives for a range of alternatively fuelled cars, including gas-fuelled cars, while taking care not to reduce the momentum now emerging for expanding electric vehicle usage or to cause doubts about the Government’s commitment to the electric vehicle technology. Such financial support, however, should be based on a strategic assessment of the relative benefits of the different options for using limited available funds, mindful for example that financial support might also be used to support local authorities in introducing low emission zones.

The Government should identify best practice in managing bus fleet pollution and provide local transport authorities with advice on how this issue can be addressed when putting out bus route tenders for contract. The Government should also put an emphasis on tackling pollutants as well as carbon emissions in its Green Bus Fund and the Clean Vehicle Technology Fund when helping to meet the costs of upgrading vehicles.

The Government should issue NPPF guidance which makes clearer the great importance of protecting good air quality including protecting green spaces in development planning. Specifically, the NPPF should make it impossible to build new schools, care homes or health clinics near existing air pollution hotspots, and any redevelopment of such existing buildings should only be approved if they reduce pollution exposure for their users. Building regulations should provide for existing schools sited near pollution hotspots to be fitted with air filtration systems.

We welcome the Minister’s commitment to ensure that the Strategic Highways Company (transforming the Highways Agency to a company) will have a remit which includes environmental performance. The Government should give it a legal duty to protect air quality and introduce a specific clause to that effect in the Infrastructure Bill.

The Government should add an explicit air quality objective to the Airports Commission Appraisal Framework.

The Government should set out a clear picture of the demarcations within central government and between central and local government on the management of air quality, bringing greater consistency to that relationship. The Government should work with the most polluting cities to identify what, if any, of the powers held by London might be replicated elsewhere to improve air quality. It should explain how far localism should operate in this policy field. The Government should ensure, however, that its desire to reduce red tape will not be allowed to undermine robust air quality monitoring across the country, which must be a responsibility that central government cannot absolve itself from.

Clarity about the extent of local government responsibility for air quality would help to present a clearer perspective for Health & Well-being Boards on the priority they need to give to this critical health challenge. Public Health England should engage with the Boards to ensure that they are discharging that responsibility, and raise with Government any evidence that local authority governance arrangements are preventing appropriate action.

The Government should work more closely with the Met Office, BBC and other broadcasters to ensure that high air pollution forecasts are disseminated widely via mainstream media in the same way pollen and UV forecasts are broadcast now, 43 together with advice on what action should be taken. The Government should ensure that local authorities are aware of where to find this information. Schools and care homes should be identified and presented with air pollution advice so that they know what to do during air pollution events.

We welcome the Transport Minister’s commitment to us for a “new marketing plan” on air quality, which should be introduced as quickly as possible.

The Government should ensure that air quality data are widely available to the general public, including drivers, along with advice on measures to reduce air pollution and how they can reduce their own pollution exposure. The Government should encourage active travel such as walking and cycling—the ultimate low emission options.

We welcome increasing examples of ‘citizen science’ and other local projects that raise public awareness of air quality issues, which central and local government should actively support. Local Health & Wellbeing Boards and clinicians should be taking a lead in promoting public awareness and active travel.

In the absence now of an independent body responsible for air quality, the time has come for decisive action and we therefore support calls for an independent public inquiry to look at the required urgent action on air pollution.

The Government should update its ‘Air Quality Strategy’ of 2007, clearly spelling out the responsibilities of each Government department and identifying cross-Government actions needed to tackle air pollution. An updated Strategy should set out detailed plans and responsibilities for addressing the 16 air quality zones that are subject to potential EU infraction fines. The Strategy should clearly delineate the respective roles and responsibilities of central and local government. The Government should rationalise air quality funding schemes and provide a clear rationale for what local authority actions will be funded by central government and what by local authorities themselves. This would help bring forward the needed debate about the appropriate extent of localism in this policy area.

To demonstrate its commitment to tackling air pollution, and a required new comprehensive Air Quality Strategy, the Government should work with the European Commission and the Council of Ministers to make the proposed new EU air quality directives effective and robust.