Source · Select Committees · Public Accounts Committee
Recommendation 26
26
Rejected
Defra and DfT wrote to us to provide a breakdown of funding through the Joint...
Conclusion
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
Government Response 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.
Government Response
Rejected
HM Government
Rejected
4. PAC conclusion: 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. 4. PAC 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. 4.1 The government disagrees with the Committee’s recommendation 4.2 The government holds robust information on spend for its two air quality programmes: the Air Quality and Industrial Emissions Programme (Defra) and the Joint Air Quality Unit (Defra/DfT). 4.3 Whilst the department holds overall strategic responsibility for the development and implementation of air quality policy, the levers which affect air pollution are varied, complex and sit across government. 4.4 The department works closely with other government departments to manage interdependencies and maximise co-benefits of policies that affect air pollution. Where it is beneficial, the government sees the value in making one-off estimates of the cross-cutting economic impacts of policies that impact air pollution. For example, the department has estimated that air quality co-benefits of policies and measures to meet Carbon Budget 6 and Net Zero to be about £35 billion over 2020-2050. 4.5 However, a wide and diverse range of complex policies across government affect air quality, including transport decarbonisation, active travel, increased use of renewable energy sources, planning regulations, and sustainable food production practices. 4.6 The government cannot justify the disproportionate level of resource required to disaggregate the amount of spend driving air quality benefits for each of these policies. Due to the complexities surrounding the associated measures, any estimates produced would likely have large uncertainties, making them misleading and therefore unsupportive of greater accountability and transparency regarding government spending.