Recommendations & Conclusions
5 items
4
Recommendation
Twenty-Second Report - Tackling local a…
Rejected
Although calculating an exact figure may be difficult, with Departments claiming it would be a great deal of effort to produce something not necessarily precise, Government could do more to improve the transparency of cross-government public spending that has an impact on air pollution. While Defra tracks spend on its …
Read more
Although calculating an exact figure may be difficult, with Departments claiming it would be a great deal of effort to produce something not necessarily precise, Government could do more to improve the transparency of cross-government public spending that has an impact on air pollution. While Defra tracks spend on its own air quality initiatives, it could not provide the National Audit Office with a breakdown of spend across all the cross-government initiatives it expects to contribute to air quality improvements, such as from programmes within BEIS and DLUHC. Government says that disaggregating the air quality impact of these programmes from other outcomes is a difficult technical challenge. It is important for government to be transparent with the public and Parliament about how much taxpayer’s money is going towards meeting air quality targets. Without this information the benefits and risks for air quality of wider programmes across government are not be as clear as they need to be. A lack of cross- government transparency also makes it harder for government to reprioritise when necessary and judge value-for-money. Recommendation: Although calculating an exact level of spend on air quality across government may be too difficult, there is value in improving transparency through higher level estimates. Government should, by the end of the year, develop options for improving the transparency of cross-government air quality spend and inform the Committee of its preferred approach.
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the recommendation, stating that the resource required to disaggregate spend driving air quality benefits across the variety of complex policies would be disproportionate, estimates produced would be misleading, and would not support accountability/transparency.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
21
Conclusion
Twenty-Second Report - Tackling local a…
Rejected
Government sees the relationship with local authorities as a partnership, and told us that it believes the programme will fail if it is seen to be a top-down programme done by national Government.29 However, local authorities are expected to follow a fairly centralised, prescriptive approach to achieving compliance with air …
Read more
Government sees the relationship with local authorities as a partnership, and told us that it believes the programme will fail if it is seen to be a top-down programme done by national Government.29 However, local authorities are expected to follow a fairly centralised, prescriptive approach to achieving compliance with air quality targets, albeit with some discretion about the mix of exemptions to be applied in any charging Clean Air Zone.30 Some local authorities told the National Audit Office that there was still too much emphasis placed on CAZs as the default option, instead of other measures that may be more suited to the area.31 Similarly, we have heard that Greater Manchester considers a broader approach, including measures such as promoting active travel and providing revenue support for low fares, would have been better than charging.32
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the need for a national communication campaign on Clean Air Zones, stating that local authorities are best placed to tailor communications to their communities, and that it has already provided significant support for local campaigns.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
23
Conclusion
Twenty-Second Report - Tackling local a…
Rejected
On the other hand, government has not taken the responsibility it should for national messaging on the need for air quality measures. We asked Defra and DfT why Government had decided against a national communication campaign about the new charging Clean Air Zones (CAZs) that are coming into effect through …
Read more
On the other hand, government has not taken the responsibility it should for national messaging on the need for air quality measures. We asked Defra and DfT why Government had decided against a national communication campaign about the new charging Clean Air Zones (CAZs) that are coming into effect through the NO2 programme in favour of a locally-led approach. They told us that this was because they consider local places are best placed to judge how to communicate with their residents, and because they consider that local awareness of which vehicles are subject to a charge is the priority.34 However, surveys in the first two cities with CAZs, Bath and Birmingham, showed that the local campaigns had mixed results. They did not result in a statistically significant increase in the percentage of residents who ‘know a great deal’ or ‘fair amount’ about the CAZ, and the reasons for the CAZ were misunderstood by a substantial minority of those surveyed in both cities, with many believing the purpose was to raise revenue for the local authority.35 27 Follow-up response submitted by Defra and DfT dated 11 July 2022 28 C&AG’s Report, para 2.12 29 Q 34, 40 30 Q 35 31 C&AG’s Report, para 2.21 32 Q 35 33 Q 41 34 Qq 50, 51 35 C&AG’s Report, para 3.28 12 Tackling local air quality breaches Moreover, the experience of Covid-19 showed that the success of local communications partly depends on a strong national message about what is to be achieved; if the national message does not come through, local authorities will struggle.36 Public spending on air quality
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the need for a national communication campaign on Clean Air Zones, stating that local authorities are best placed to tailor communications to their communities, and that it has already provided significant support for local campaigns.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
25
Conclusion
Twenty-Second Report - Tackling local a…
Rejected
The NAO reports that, by not tracking spend across its work on air quality, government risks being unable to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of its spending on the issue. The NAO highlighted the example of government’s preparations for EU Exit, where it found that a lack of spending information at …
Read more
The NAO reports that, by not tracking spend across its work on air quality, government risks being unable to evaluate the relative cost-effectiveness of its spending on the issue. The NAO highlighted the example of government’s preparations for EU Exit, where it found that a lack of spending information at a cross-government level created risks to financial management, programme management, and public accountability.40 We have seen similar weaknesses in government’s approach to Net Zero, with neither the Department for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy nor HM Treasury collating information on the total costs and benefits of government policies that contribute to achieving Net Zero.41 UK100 told us that it believes government may miss out on opportunities for significant cost savings as a result of more cross-cutting policy implementation if investments are not clearly delineated, and claimed that it had identified that better integrating clean air and Net Zero policies could save £1.6 billion a year on the cost of delivering Net Zero.42
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the recommendation to improve transparency of cross-government air quality spending, citing the disproportionate level of resources required and the uncertainties in the resulting estimates.
Read full response →
HM Treasury
26
Conclusion
Twenty-Second Report - Tackling local a…
Rejected
Defra and DfT wrote to us to provide a breakdown of funding through the Joint Air Quality Unit and the Air Quality & Industrial Emissions programme. They also provided a summary of cross-government initiatives that affect air quality; these include work by Defra and DfT, as well as the Department …
Read more
Defra and DfT wrote to us to provide a breakdown of funding through the Joint Air Quality Unit and the Air Quality & Industrial Emissions programme. They also provided a summary of cross-government initiatives that affect air quality; these include work by Defra and DfT, as well as the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, and the Department of Health and Social Care. They explained that while Defra attempts to anticipate and model what the long-term reductions in air pollutants as a result of other department’s policies and initiatives may be, their estimates tend to be subject to uncertainty because it is difficult to predict the level levels of uptake, and other factors that will influence how pollution is reduced in practice. They told us that, given how difficult it can be to determine the precise air pollution reductions associated with net zero policies and other important programmes 36 Q 54 37 C&AG’s Report, para 4 38 C&AG’s Report, para 1.16 39 Q 33 40 C&AG’s Report, para 1.18 41 Committee of Public Accounts, Achieving Net Zero: Follow up, Forty-First Report of Session 2021–22, HC 642, 2 March 2022 42 LAQ0004 Tackling local air quality breaches 13 such as active travel, it would be consequently challenging to assign any meaningful estimates of public expenditure on each component of action that results in air pollution emission reductions. They agree that it is important to have robust procedures in place to ensure they are accountable for how money is spent on programmes in each Department, but believe it would not be proportionate to maintain ongoing detailed tracking of the air quality components of policies affecting air pollution across government, especially if the resulting estimates were subject to uncertainties. They told us that their priority is to ensure that their respective policies dovetail to secure multiple benefits, and to estimate the real-world outcomes and bene
Show less
Government response AI summary
The government disagrees with the recommendation to improve transparency of cross-government air quality spending, citing the disproportionate level of resources required and the uncertainties in the resulting estimates.
Read full response →
HM Treasury