[Clive Efford in the Chair]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government plans to tackle air pollution.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. There is no safe level of air pollution. I will say that again: there is no safe level of air pollution. Of course, life is not risk-free. Every year, almost 250 people die from knife crime and, rightly, people demand action. Every year, almost 1,600 people die in road traffic accidents and, rightly, people demand action. Every year, approximately 43,000 people die prematurely from air pollution, yet there is silence. Well, no more—the public are finding their voice about this silent, invisible killer. This morning in Parliament Square, doctors, nurses, academics, carers, mothers and babies came together with the Healthy Air Coalition, the National Heart and Lung Foundation, Mums for Lungs, trade unions, and Asthma + Lung UK to demand that Parliament act. Eighty-two of them represented the 82 people whose lives are cut short by air pollution every day.
We have a public health emergency on our hands and the response from successive Governments so far has simply not been adequate. We have no co-ordinated national plan to get key pollutants down to safer levels that are aligned with the World Health Organisation limit values. Sadly, the annual data released this week shows that things are going in the wrong direction. Two days ago, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs published new air quality statistics for 2025; note the words “air quality”—it should be “air pollution” statistics. It found that
“annual mean concentrations of PM2.5 showed an increase of 12 per cent at urban background stations and an increase of 14 per cent for roadside stations compared to 2024.”
It also found that
“annual mean concentrations of PM10 showed an increase of 12 per cent for urban background stations and an increase of 8 per cent for roadside stations compared to 2024”
and that annual mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide increased by
“3 per cent at urban background stations”
although they did show a 1% decrease at roadside stations.
I hope that everyone notices the irony that DEFRA insists on calling this “air quality” instead of air pollution. Let us be clear about the health impacts of air pollution. Polluted air is linked to up to 43,000 deaths in the UK every year. Let us imagine the reaction if a new covid variant was having such an impact. Imagine if knife crime was linked to hundreds of deaths every week, or if we saw 82 deaths on our roads every single day. Air pollution is the second leading risk factor for death in children under five and it is the largest environmental risk to public health, yet it remains the silent killer—the invisible killer—because it is often masked by other diseases that it has aggravated. We have had just one case where the coroner’s certificate reports air pollution as a cause of death: that of Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, where the coroner concluded that Ella had
“died of asthma contributed to by exposure to excessive air pollution.”Column 485WHis located here
He said it “made a material contribution” to her death. I pay tribute to Ella’s mother, Rosamund, and to all those who have campaigned for clean air as a human right. Rosamund was in Parliament Square this morning with all those campaigners. The work that she has done to bring this matter to public consciousness should be respected by everyone in Parliament.
Scientists have found links between air pollution, almost every organ system in the body and the major diseases that affect them. That includes the brain, lungs, cardiovascular system, kidneys, liver, gastrointestinal tract, bones, skin, reproductive system and even the central nervous system, where air pollution increases the chance of developing dementia. The current health evidence, based on more than 60,000 studies, links air pollution to more than 700 illnesses.
Although the scientific evidence base grows every year, we know more than enough to realise that current efforts fall far short of what is needed. Indeed, here is what we know about the state of air pollution in the UK: air quality targets and the legal air pollution limits are not sufficient to protect public health. There is no Government-wide action plan to bring down levels of air pollution to below World Health Organisation guidelines. Funding and resources for local authorities to deliver air quality programmes are inadequate, and public awareness of outdoor and indoor air pollution is far too low.
Seventy years ago this month, when the UK published the Clean Air Act 1956—the first Act of its kind—we really were a world leader in tackling air pollution. We can no longer make that claim. After the great smog that killed 4,000 people in a week—with a total death count estimated at 10,000 to 12,000 in the penumbra—the Government passed the 1956 Act. Politicians then rose to the challenge. Today, they must do so again. Other jurisdictions are moving ahead with more ambition and urgency. Before we consider doing that, we should distinguish between a target and a limit value.
The Government are fond of setting targets. A target is something that is aimed for. A limit value is a threshold that should not be crossed. In 2021, the WHO updated its guidance for one of the key pollutants: PM2.5. Its guidance is a level of no more than 5 micrograms per cubic metre. The UK’s legal limit value was set in the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010; it remains four times higher than the WHO value, at 20 micrograms per cubic metre—that is the legal limit.
The recent environmental improvement plan introduced a new date to achieve a target of 10 micrograms per metre cubed: 2030—it had been 2040. That sounds like good news, a target that will be achieved 10 years earlier, but do not be fooled. The target for PM2.5—that is, the aspiration rather than the legal limit—is still double the WHO guideline. It actually represents no progress at all. In DEFRA’s 2024 monitoring data, all but one monitoring site just met the 10 microgram target. Those are the sort of targets that DEFRA loves: ones where nothing has to be done to achieve them and everything can be left as bad as it has always been, but it looks as though action is being taken.
We need not a target, but a legally binding limit value that is the same as the WHO’s guideline of 5 micrograms per metre cubed. We need a wider plan to get PM2.5 exposure down across the UK to below WHO guidelines in the near future. The same and more can be said of the Column 486WHis located here
nitrogen dioxide target. On that, the WHO guidelines are 10 micrograms per cubic metre, but the UK lags behind with a legal limit value set in 2010 at an annual exposure of 40 micrograms. When it comes to nitrogen dioxide, the Environment Act 2021 did not even set a long-term target, so action on that key pollutant is not included in the Act’s delivery plan.It makes no sense for the Government to treat nitrogen dioxide any differently from PM2.5. We should have a far tighter limit value and a far more ambitious plan for driving nitrogen dioxide levels down to below WHO guidelines. On our current trajectory, some parts of the UK will not be compliant with the current inadequate limit value of 40 micrograms until 2045. My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) will be aware that the latest DEFRA figures show that Manchester has the worst nitrogen dioxide pollution in the country, with a level of 55 micrograms per cubic metre—more than five times the WHO guidelines. As a result, it is thought that air pollution contributes to one in 20 deaths in the region each year.
Moreover, national-level statistics can mask local authority-level data, as exposed by the work of Asthma + Lung UK. Its research found that local authorities are breaching the legal limits of nitrogen dioxide, even when national Government have determined them to be under such limits. That is because of the disjointed approach we currently take to air pollution, in which national data weirdly excludes local authority monitors despite local authorities being mandated by the Government to collect data.
So we have situations such as the one in my Brent West constituency, where three local authority monitors accurately record illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide despite the Government saying that Brent, and London as a whole, supposedly meet legal limits for nitrogen dioxide. At the corner of Wembley High Road and London Road, the annual mean for nitrogen dioxide was 40.92 micrograms per cubic metre; at the corner of Wembley High Road and Ealing Road, it was 41.76; at the junction of Forty Lane and Kings Drive, it was 43.5. Each of those is more than four times the WHO guidelines, and each is right next to or in walking distance of a school. This is toxic, illegal air pollution that my constituents are exposed to, yet if they read what the Government say, they would not even realise it.
This week, Nottingham University hospitals NHS trust declared a “critical incident” after prolonged extreme heat led to increased demand, with more patients suffering dehydration and heat-related illnesses. As my hon. Friend will know, hot spells often go hand in hand with poor air quality. Does he agree that there is an imperative to address poor air quality, and that that imperative is growing as a result of the changing climate?
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and he is absolutely right. The heat dome that we have been experiencing interacts with pollution and gives us extra ozone and causes huge health problems. I do not know—perhaps the Minister can tell us, if his officials are on the ball on this—just when the number of excess deaths caused by last week’s high temperatures will be known at a disaggregated level; it would be extremely interesting to get those.
I did not want to interrupt the flow of my hon. Friend’s speech, but now that he has been interrupted, I might as well. He too is a west London MP, so he is aware that Heathrow, in my constituency, is one of the most persistent air pollution hotspots. In the previous Government’s assessment, any expansion at Heathrow would have a significant impact on air quality. The latest airports national policy statement says it will have “significant negative effects” on air quality. We are one of the worst areas for nitrogen dioxide pollution, so does my hon. Friend agree that Heathrow expansion cannot go ahead?
How did I know that my right hon. Friend would be introducing that subject? I excised it from my speech because I knew he would. He is absolutely right, and he will have seen the assessment that came out just 10 days ago, which said everything he and I have been saying about the pollution caused by the third runway expansion at Heathrow. Whatever we think about the economy—as he knows, the assessment was not too hot on that either—it is a disaster for public health.
I do not decry the real progress on nitrogen dioxide that has resulted from the ultra low emission zone expansion. What the mayor has done has been really significant; the correlated reduction in admissions to hospital has been huge, and we really welcome that. But air pollution action must be targeted at hotspots. Even if the hotspots dipped below the 40 microgram legal limit, that would still be four times the World Health Organisation guidelines.
My hon. Friend mentions the Mayor of London, who has made substantial strides, but I refer him to the matter of emissions from buses and the only partial electrification of the fleet in London and elsewhere. Pollutants from diesel buses are a continuing problem, especially when buses are allowed to idle at bus stands close to residential property. That is of particular concern to my constituent Kate Hollis, whose 12-year-old son, Jack, tragically died from bone cancer, the spread of which the family believes was caused by pollutants from a bus terminus next to their house in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend, who knows a great deal about these issues and who, like me, is a London MP, share my and the Hollis family’s concern that electrification is going too slowly, with potentially dangerous consequences?
I give my condolences to the Hollis family for the tragedy they have suffered. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the electrification of the bus system must go further and faster, but it is not just a London problem, as he knows: it affects areas across the country. It is absolutely vital that we roll out the electrification of vehicles. He knows—I will come to this later—that it is not simply the exhaust that is the problem with those large vehicles; it is also the particulate matter that heavier vehicles produce on the roads.
Although the focus is often on particulate matter and NO2, we are falling behind on other pollutants. Ammonia, which is highly reactive, forms secondary PM2.5. The UK is not projected to meet its 2030 reduction targets until at least 2035. We have made essentially no progress in ammonia reduction in 20 years. In the Netherlands, regulatory controls on agricultural ammonia contributed Column 488WHis located here
to a 64% reduction in ammonia emissions between 1990 and 2016. This is possible—other people are doing it— so the question is: why are we not?Ozone—O3—levels continue to be higher in rural and suburban areas, with long-term objectives remaining off track. Alongside particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide, ozone is the biggest contributor to outdoor air pollution, with higher concentrations on hot summer days. Achieving long-term objectives for ozone is not even legally mandatory.
There are two more categories of particulates that are of growing concern: ultrafine particulate matter—UFP—which comprises 90% of airborne particles, and black carbon, or soot, formed from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels and biomass. There are currently no regulations on safe levels of UFPs, despite research linking them with an even wider array of health problems than PM2.5 and PM10.
The current official advice from the UK Health Security Agency that the health effects of UFPs are “adequately covered” by the particulate matter air quality standards is simply outdated. Black carbon is a major contributor to climate change and poses a significant health risk as a universal carrier for a wide range of toxic chemicals that find their way into our bloodstreams. We need a comprehensive monitoring system and specific targets for UFPs and black carbon as the evidence of their severe health impacts grows.
However, it is not just what we pollute; it is where we pollute. The focus to date has largely been on outdoor pollution, yet we spend 80% of our time indoors—in our homes, offices and schools, or commuting between them. Indoor air pollution is poorly regulated, with no legally binding national standards, and its key sources, such as wood burning, are woefully under-addressed. Indoor air pollution is absent from the recently updated environmental improvement plan, and we lack a comprehensive estimate of the health burden from indoor air pollution. Poor housing conditions that create damp and mould are deadly, as we know from the tragic death of Awaab Ishak. Far too many children experience prolonged exposure to black mould, and that can kill.
In some cases, concentrations of certain pollutants indoors exceed those outdoors. For example, biological aerosols, carbon monoxide and many volatile organic compounds are often present at significantly higher concentrations indoors. NO2 levels can spike in homes because of gas cookers and poor ventilation. Approximately 36 million people in the UK are exposed to dangerous indoor air pollution from gas hobs and ovens that exceeds limits of pollutants permitted outdoors.
Around half of all homes in the UK still use gas hobs for cooking, which for most people will be the biggest source of NO2 pollution in their home. Yet gas cookers and hobs have been left out of home decarbonisation policy, and are totally ignored in the warm homes plan. If we want to protect people’s health from air pollution in the home and fully remove their reliance on fossil fuels, we need a policy pathway to transition to electric cooking in the home, such as the one developed by Global Action Plan and CLASP in partnership with experts and academics.
Pollutants such as radon gas are linked to 1,000 lung cancer deaths annually. In not only our homes but our workplaces, we are exposed to dangerous levels of pollution, Column 489WHis located here
some of us much more than others. As it stands, the Health and Safety Executive’s workplace exposure limit for inhalable dust, which includes PM10, is 10,000 micrograms per cubic metre for an eight-hour exposure. The WHO guidelines for PM10 are 45 micrograms—not for an eight-hour exposure, but for a 24-hour exposure. The Health and Safety Executive limit is more than 650 times higher than the WHO guidelines.This is a matter of not just public health, but inequality. Let us be honest: who lives on the busiest, most polluted streets? Who works in the dirtiest factories? Who lives in poor-quality housing? The answer is those who have no choice. They are trapped. Air pollution is an issue for this Labour Government because people who are poor are much more likely to die from it as they do not have the means of escape. It is a fundamental breach of their human right to breathe clean air.
Tackling air pollution is not just a DEFRA issue; it should span every aspect of our Government and every aspect of our lives, as air pollution does our homes, our schools, our travel and our work. We need a co-ordinated national action plan. At present, action on air pollution is structurally skewed towards urban NO2 sites, because those are where the Government have faced the strongest legal pressure. That means that progress on other pollutants, as well as indoor air pollution, has stalled.
We must bring forward legislative proposals on clean air that unify and update existing laws in a new clean air Act. That was recommendation 34 of the joint report, “Improving Air Quality”, by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, the Environmental Audit Committee, the Health Committee and the Transport Committee. That report published nine years ago, in 2017. All those Committees made that recommendation—in 2017. If it had been taken on, imagine how much further on we could be in tackling this issue and how much more progress we could have made.
That recommendation stands today, in the year that marks the 70th anniversary of the very first Clean Air Act. Just as we have the Climate Change Act 2008, under which the Government produce and can be challenged on legally binding carbon budgets, we need a clean air Act under which the Government set out detailed, thorough and demonstrably achievable plans to bring down the levels of pollutants. With legally binding pollutant budgets, the Government could set a graduated timeline by which the UK would have to meet the WHO guidelines for a comprehensive list of pollutants, building on the 2030 targets and with limit values for perhaps 2035 and 2040.
The Clean Air Fund suggested to the Select Committees that our target for meeting WHO guideline levels for most pollutants should be 2040. I do not know whether that is the best target; I would like to see it brought forward. However, if we set that as the goal, just as we have set net zero by 2050 as the goal, we could at least be making progress towards it. Co-ordinating a national action plan on air pollution under a new clean air Act would ensure that air pollution is no longer relegated to being just a DEFRA issue. In reality, it affects, and is affected by, every single Government Department.
Mr Efford, there is so much more in my notes that I could say, but I am getting exhausted and I can see that others in the Chamber wish to contribute. I welcome the fact that the Minister has stepped in for the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Column 490WHis located here
Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy); she has spoken to me, so I know she was unable to be with us today for her own very good reasons, and I accept that. I am grateful to the Minister for stepping in for her today, but will he please go back to the Department with this message? I know he is a new Minister in the Department, but new Ministers come in with new ideas. They can come in and say to the boss, “For God’s sake, I’ve just been in Westminster Hall, and I can’t believe what it is that we are doing.” Will the Minister try to make the case for us and for the 43,000 people in our country whose lives are being cut short every year? Let us do something imaginative, something bold and something worth doing: let us pass a clean air Act.I want to bring in the Front Benchers at 3.58 pm, so Members can work out for themselves that it is roughly seven minutes for each Back Bencher who is on their feet.
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I say a big thank you to the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for raising this issue and, as always, for his passion for it—well done. As the Democratic Unionist party’s health spokesperson, I am most interested in it, due to the serious and too often fatal effects that air pollution has on public health. It is great to see the Minister in his place. He was here last night in the fishing debate, and he is here again today, so well done. We thank him for his perseverance and his energetic commitment.
Air pollution is associated with 30,000 deaths a year across the UK. The question that we are all asking, and that the hon. Member for Brent West asked when he set the focus for the debate, is, what are we doing to prevent those deaths? The United Kingdom Government and the World Health Organisation have acknowledged that air pollution is the largest environmental threat to our health. Of course, its effects do not just stop at the lungs; the pollutants go on to be absorbed into the bloodstream and have the potential to harm every organ in the body. The harm is greater than just the breath we breathe; it can manifest itself as heart disease, cancer, dementia, stroke or diabetes—I declare an interest as a diabetic—and has even been linked to mental health conditions. In addition to the devastating human cost, treating the effects of air pollution is likely costing the NHS billions. The Royal College of Physicians estimates the cost at as much as an eye-watering £27 billion annually.
Cars and vans remain among the largest sources of harmful air pollution, but we must also recognise the impact of indoor air pollution. Poor ventilation, damp, mould and emissions from domestic heating all contribute to poor health and can be particularly damaging for children, older people and those with existing and complex health conditions.
Alongside efforts to reduce emissions, targeted support should be provided to the most affected communities. It is often those living in the most deprived areas who experience the highest levels of air pollution, as the hon. Member for Brent West said. They are more likely to live close to busy roads or industrial sites, and, as a result, they face a greater risk of ill health. Clean air is not just an environmental issue; it is also one of health Column 491WHis located here
inequality. Quite clearly, across this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, there is much inequality.As the Member of Parliament for Strangford, a largely rural constituency, I must raise concerns about the effects of ammonia, a major emission from agricultural production. Although we can reduce emissions, we must accept that they are often a by-product of farming and food production. It is essential that the farming community works with the Department to reduce emissions in a sustainable way. I ask the Minister whether there have been discussions with the farming community on reducing ammonia emissions in some way so that everyone in this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland can reap the benefits.
Evidence demonstrates that taking action can make a difference. In London, deaths linked to air pollution fell by an estimated 40% over five years from 2019. I put on record my thanks to the Government and the Mayor of London for that massive reduction over those five years—or seven years as it is now—which correlates with the introduction of the ultra low emission zone.
There is no safe level of air pollution, of course, but every improvement in air quality has the potential to reduce illness, relieve pressure on our health service and save lives. The hon. Member for Brent West set that out very clearly. The objective is to save lives; we are all greatly perturbed by the loss of life each and every year.
I know that the Minister will agree that more should be done to tackle air pollution, and particular attention paid to communities in the most deprived areas, whose health is at greater risk simply because of where they live—where pollution is particularly high, indoors and outdoors—and the houses they live in. This must be done hand in hand with the farming industry, not with a boot on its neck. There is work to be done, from industry and farming to individuals in their homes. Together, I believe that we must do the best we can to be good stewards of the world we live in.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for bringing forward this debate and for his powerful and passionate speech.
We know the effects of air pollution. In the previous Parliament, I was proud to serve my party as the shadow Minister responsible for air quality. As a consequence, I remain extremely passionate about this. Also, in a previous life—in my youthful life before this place—I was a physiotherapist, and I treated people with breathing conditions. I treated miners with pneumoconiosis and silicosis, people young and old with asthma, and patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Those are very real symptoms of the environments that we live in today.
Scientific studies have shown that air pollution is a major cause of disease and premature death. Those exposed to dirty air face an increased risk of heart disease, respiratory deterioration and even dementia. Fine particles can enter deep into the lungs, affecting blood vessels and respiratory function. The link between Column 492WHis located here
air pollution and poor respiratory health was laid out by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West in relation to Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, who died back in 2013 aged just nine. I was privileged to meet her mum Rosamund a couple of days ago—again, after a long break. It was really good to see her, and I pay tribute to her for all her campaigning to get this silent killer back on the agenda—it is really important that that happens.I appreciate that the Minister is standing in today. We know a lot about water pollution—a great deal is made about it, and that is fine—but it does not kill thousands, as air pollution does. Air quality is a key social justice issue, because it is not uniform; its impacts are often felt most among those who are already vulnerable. It is our most deprived communities, who already suffer from the worst social determinants of health, who experience the worst air quality.
If this Government are to be defined by their breaking down of barriers to opportunity, tackling social determinants of health, such as poor air quality, must be a priority. We know that poorer people live near dual carriageways and busy main roads, which contribute to poorer health—the evidence is clear. Certainly, as a shadow Minister, I went on a number of walkabouts with a personal air monitor on. I could see the results there and then, and they were stark. I am not even going to mention the tube; it was very frightening. However, we do need to know where pollution hotspots are, because then we can do something about tackling them.
The clear, detrimental health impacts of continued exposure to air pollution led the World Health Organisation to revise its guidance in 2021, to state that there are no safe levels of air pollution. That is a fact: there are no safe levels. That updated guidance now means that UK air pollution limits, first adopted in 2010, are significantly out of date, with targets for nitrous oxides and PM2.5 emissions being four times those now adopted by the WHO. I therefore ask the Minister what consideration the Department has given the updated WHO guidelines, and what steps it is taking to align UK regulations with those standards.
This year marks the 70th anniversary of the UK’s Clean Air Act 1956. Given the ongoing and pressing health emergency posed by air pollution, there is a clear need to update it. We need a new clean air Act that is fit for the present day. We know that local authorities play a critical role in delivering local improvements in air quality, but they need the funding, enforcement powers and clear national backing to do so effectively. A new clean air Act would really help them in their challenges. I pay tribute to one of my local councils, Newport city council, for its fleet of electric buses. It is doing its bit, but it needs help to do even more.
What steps has the Department taken to update the Clean Air Act, drawing on national and international best practice? Will the Minister outline what conversations the Department has had with the Treasury and the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government on greater financial support for local authorities to take action to tackle air pollution hotspots?
This Labour Government are committed to protecting our environment, rebuilding our NHS and breaking down barriers to opportunity, but we cannot deliver on those targets if we continue to overlook the significant impact of poor air quality on people’s health, particularly the poor and the young. Tackling air pollution is an Column 493WHis located here
investment in the next generation. We cannot let our children continue to pay the price for continued inaction. We need a new clean air Act and we need it now. I look forward to hearing the Minister outline a timetable for its introduction.It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Efford. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for leading this debate and, as ever, for his gentle but decisive prose. Members will be pleased, I am sure, to hear that my remarks will be a bit shorter.
Toxic air is a public health crisis—it is also an environmental crisis, but the health element, especially for our children, is what concerns me today. Air pollution can stunt the growth of children’s lungs, hamper foetal development and contribute to cancer, heart disease, dementia and even mental health conditions. Our air can become an invisible killer, but sadly, because we do not see it, we do not quite understand it.
Every single year, an estimated 30,000 deaths are attributable to long-term exposure to dirty air, and, at one point, in Newham—one of the boroughs I represent—1.7 in every 100 deaths were caused by air pollution. In 2013, one of those 30,000 was a nine-year-old girl. We have already heard her name today: Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. She died following an asthma attack. Thanks to the tireless campaigning of Ella’s mum, Rosamund, who demanded answers and pushed for justice for her daughter, Ella became the first person in the UK for whom air pollution is listed as an official cause of death. I know Rosamund from my time working for the Mayor of London, so I saw her tireless work at first hand—her advocacy has been incredible. It was a landmark decision: Ella was exposed to excessive levels of pollution. The toxic air cut her beautiful life short, and robbed a family of their sister and a mother of her daughter. Their lives have never been the same since.
That is the price that our younger citizens paid for our inaction. If the air in Ella’s neighbourhood had been safe, and if she had not been exposed to toxic gases, she would have been in her 20s today—probably a trailblazer in her own right, but we will never know. That is the human cost of our negligence. No child should suffer as Ella did, and no family or mother should have to go through what they did.
We cannot repeat the mistakes of the past by failing this generation of young people. It is clear that, with political will, creativity and resolve, we can turn the tide. I was there for the inception of ULEZ, and I am proud to have been part of the team who worked on it from 2016 onwards. In the five years since it came in, the Mayor of London’s bold approach has reduced London’s nitrogen oxide levels by over 40%—that is no small feat. It has reduced fine particulate pollution levels by around 30%. These are not pie-in-the-sky statistics. That work is driving down hospital admissions, protecting the health of children and pensioners alike, and easing the burden on our NHS.
In London, a large number of individual politicians, including the mayor, had a rough time introducing ULEZ. It is time that we congratulate him on that achievement and on the way in which he courageously faced down the opposition.
I could not agree more with my right hon. Friend. For some Members on the right, particularly those representing outer London suburbs, that issue has become the newest punching bag. This should not be about party politics; it should be about cleaning up our polluted air.
In just five years, we have seen the difference here in London thanks to bold leadership from our mayor, Sadiq Khan. Dirty air is deadly, but the future is in our hands. We have shown that progress is possible and that we can turn the tide. This should not be a controversial thing. Breathing clean air should not be a privilege reserved just for children in postcodes in leafy suburbs. We would never expect anyone to drink dirty water, so why are we accepting the breathing of dirty air? That is the simple premise behind Ella’s law, which I am very proud to support as a signatory. That legislation, the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill, makes one clear claim: every person has the right to breathe clean air.
I welcome the fact that the Government have identified clean air as a priority for the 10-year health plan. In that spirit, I urge the Minister to take a fresh look at our national targets and our legal pollution limits, and to commit to introducing Ella’s law to tackle the serious air pollution challenges and cut down the causes of toxic pollution. Everyone has the right to breathe clean air, no matter where they live or who they are. That should be the thing that unites this whole House.
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.Column 495WHis located here
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.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Efford. I thank the hon. Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing this important debate on the urgency and duty for policymakers to tackle air pollution—the silent killer in our towns and cities. I also thank all the Members who have contributed so passionately and movingly to the debate. Toxic, poisonous air threatens the community spaces that we all love and the people we care most about. It knows no boundaries, reaching our workplaces, homes, schools and other public spaces.
As other hon. Members have done, I would like to pay tribute to Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, mum to Ella Roberta. For over a decade, Rosamund has campaigned tirelessly for cleaner air through Ella’s law. I had the privilege to meet Rosamund last month when, as a member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I visited communities to understand the physical and mental health impacts of air pollution on their lives.
Ella was a happy, playful and bright child, and she lived not far from the South Circular Road in Lewisham with her family. By the age of seven, she was suffering debilitating asthma attacks, which would see her cough Column 496WHis located here
and wheeze so much that she would fall unconscious. A few weeks after her ninth birthday, Ella died. She had suffered a fatal asthma attack. A landmark inquest in 2020 ruled that toxic air from traffic emissions contributed to her death, marking the first time that air pollution was officially recognised as a cause of death in the UK. Ella’s death was preventable.Among other measures, Ella’s law would enshrine a legal right to breathe clean air, requiring the Government to meet stricter air quality standards based on the World Health Organisation guidelines. We must not let children like Ella and their families down when turning our attention to this urgent problem, yet in the UK, an estimated 500 people die of disease related to air pollution each week.
Air pollution is an invisible and insidious enemy. According to a recent report by the Royal College of Physicians, air pollution has been linked to 30,000 deaths and, as we have heard, it costs our economy more than £27 billion per year. Long-term exposure to emissions can cause heart and lung problem and increase the risk of a person developing cancers. Fine particulate matter from polluted air penetrates deep into the body, settling in our lungs. Recent research has also pointed to an increased risk of cognitive decline, Alzheimer’s disease and dementia from long-term exposure to fine particulate air pollution, which can affect the heart and blood vessels.
The public health burden is not shared equally: the most vulnerable in our society, including the elderly, those already facing deprivation, and babies and children are most at risk. The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists stated that a growing evidence base links maternal exposure to air pollution and adverse pregnancy outcomes. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for the introduction of a new clean air Act, based on World Health Organisation guidelines and enforced by a dedicated air quality agency. The scale of the issue is such that we need strong, independent oversight to tackle pollution at its source and protect public health.
We must also transform how people travel, reducing dependence on the cars that spew noxious fumes into the air we breathe. The Government must work with local authorities to curb transport emissions. We need to invest in affordable, reliable public transport to ensure that fares do not rise above inflation, restore the £2 bus fare cap, and improve the passenger experience so that it is cheaper and better to travel by public transport. We must electrify our railways, embrace cleaner technologies and support active travel by creating safe cycling and walking networks across the country. For those who have no option but to rely on cars, especially those in isolated rural areas, we must make the transition to electric vehicles easier and more affordable by expanding charging infrastructure and reducing costs.
Finally, we must address the inequalities at the heart of the issue. By increasing the public health grant and empowering local communities, we can develop targeted solutions such as supporting healthier and better insulated housing, reducing traffic exposure and improving local planning. As some hon. Members have already stated, health experts recommend stronger controls on household wood burning and effective action to raise awareness of health harms from indoor air pollution, including damp and mould.Column 497WHis located here
Children in the UK today have some of the worst asthma outcomes in the developed world. It is not right that so many lives are shortened by diseases that we can work together to prevent. Most importantly of all, there is no effective advice to help people to avoid air pollution if they have only one route to work or school, if they live near a busy road, if their care home or school is near air pollutant sources or if their house is poorly insulated. We call on the Government to recognise, in law, the human right to breathe clean air and to legally enforce air quality standards that meet WHO limits by 2030. We owe clean air to the baby born today, to the child coming out of school right now and to every child who will come after them.
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 PM2.5 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”.Column 498WHis located here
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 PM2.5 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.
Will the hon. Member give way?
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.
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 Column 499WHis located here
hon. Member not congratulate London for its climate action and decisive air quality improvements, and actually support that good work?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 Column 500WHis located here
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.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. I congratulate all hon. Members for their thoughtful and wide-ranging contributions. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent West (Barry Gardiner) for securing this important debate and for speaking with such characteristic passion about this issue.
There is clear consensus that air pollution remains one of the most significant environmental risks to public health and I welcome the strength of feeling expressed today on the need to continue to make progress. I also welcome the ongoing inquiry by the Environmental Audit Committee into air pollution. Scrutiny of that kind plays an important role in strengthening our approach and the Government have been keenly following the evidence received by the Committee. We look forward to engaging further with the Committee, and Ministers will give evidence to it in due course.
The issue goes beyond environmental policy. As many Members have confirmed, it is about fairness. The dirtiest air sits over the poorest neighbourhoods. Black and minority ethnic communities and those on low incomes are far more likely to be exposed to air pollution while contributing the least to it. That is exactly the kind of injustice the Labour party and this Labour Government exist to tackle.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) rightly mentioned, it is also about the NHS. We are the party that built it and protecting it means preventing illness, not just funding treatment. Dirty air contributes to about 30,000 early deaths each year, and it drives asthma, cancer, heart disease and dementia. An NHS fit for the future requires action not just inside hospital walls, but on the air outside their doors. I will certainly take the questions my hon. Friend has raised back to the Department.
This issue is also about pride in place. Clean air underpins better neighbourhoods, safer streets, greener spaces and thriving high streets. Making a visible improvement that people can feel is at the heart of our mission to restore pride in the places that people call home. Let me be clear: the Government recognise both the scale of the challenge and the need for sustained, Column 501WHis located here
co-ordinated action. We have made substantial progress in recent years. Air quality in England has improved significantly and emissions of key air pollutants, such as nitrogen oxide, sulphur dioxide and particulate matter, have reduced and are projected to continue to fall.My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West mentioned the DEFRA statistics that came out this week, and they all show long-term improvement. The trajectory is promising, but, as I will go on to say later, we need to do much more. The improvements have been driven by major shifts in the United Kingdom, such as the transition from coal to natural gas to renewables in electricity generation, the tighter vehicle emission standards and improved industrial controls. However, there is much more to do to fully unlock the benefits for public health, the environment and the economy. That is why we are continuing to take action to reduce emissions at source, working closely with local authorities and partners across the health system.
A number of Members have made remarks about targets. In December, we set more ambitious interim targets for fine particulate matter, including a concentration target aligned with the level the EU is required to achieve. Overall, our national performance is broadly comparable with the EU for many pollutants. Areas in England are already meeting levels like those that the EU is aiming for by 2030. We will keep other targets under review, but real world improvements need tangible action. As set out in the environmental improvement plan, we are taking practical action in a range of sectors, and that will deliver real benefits for communities across the country.
A number of Members raised the issue of nitrogen dioxide, which remains a challenge, as we recognise. In 2024, five location zones exceeded the annual mean limit and some local hotspots persist. That said, committed policies to tackle nitrogen dioxide, such as increasing the share of zero-emission cars and vans by 2030 and moving to all new sales being zero emission by 2035, will make a significant difference. We will continue to work closely with our partners in local government to deliver nitrogen dioxide reductions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brent West raised the matter of domestic burning. We recognise that it is responsible for a significant proportion of fine particulate matter emissions; it is comparable with road transport. We must act to reduce the impact of burning on the health of those in households who burn and their neighbours. However, we must do so in a way that does not put disproportionate costs on households or businesses. The policies consulted on earlier this year focused on reducing emissions from domestic solid fuel burning to ensure cleaner burning in the future, delivering health benefits. We received a significant number of responses, which we are considering, and the Government response will be published later in the year and will set out the next steps. We will continue to review our measures to reduce emissions from that source.
A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), mentioned the importance of communication and engagement with communities. The issue of air pollution is complex and often invisible. The challenge is not just about reducing emissions but about making sure that people understand the risks, know what action to take and feel empowered to act. That is why clear, trusted and accessible Column 502WHis located here
communications are so important. We have already taken positive steps, including updating the health advice accompanying the daily air quality index, which provides the public with current pollution levels, five-day forecasts and health advice based on pollution levels.Through a new air pollution awareness coalition, we are working with health and non-governmental organisation partners to deliver clean and credible messaging on air pollution. The coalition will deliver practical and trusted communications to improve public understanding of air pollution and support action to reduce harm. We have also commissioned a co-design project working with local authority officers and directors of public health to create a new air quality communications toolkit, supporting local authorities to disseminate cleaner, clearer and locally relevant air quality information. New resources are due to be published at the end of the calendar year.
On the issue of messaging, I wonder whether the Minister could take a message back from this debate with regard to Heathrow: perhaps Ministers could read their own report on the health impact of airport expansion. I am particularly concerned about loss of life in my constituency. The Government’s own paper says that vulnerable groups in our area will suffer significant major adverse impacts from the expansion of Heathrow, which means that more of my constituents will die. The scheme will make things worse and therefore the message is: think again.
My right hon. Friend will know that the Government have launched a consultation on the draft Heathrow expansion national policy statement, which includes the requirement that the development consent must meet measures on climate change and air quality. Likewise, the Government have been clear that any expansion proposals must meet strict environmental requirements on air quality. I will certainly take his concerns back to my Department.
In May, we launched the first iteration of a new alert system, allowing people to sign up for notifications when air pollution is forecast or measured to be high in their local community.
A number of Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), have made points about cross-Government working. Air pollution is not an issue any one department can solve in isolation. It requires co-ordinated action across transport, energy, planning, agriculture and health, and we are working closely with colleagues across Government to ensure that our approach is aligned, evidence-led and deliverable. I can assure all Members that we recognise the importance of cross-Government working, working with our devolved Governments and in partnership with local authorities on these matters.
On a clean air Act, the Government have no plans to implement new primary legislation at this stage, but we are committed to ensuring that there is cleaner air for everyone, backed by a strong legal framework that already holds Government to account and drives down harmful pollution. It is also important to recognise that as progress continues, the choices become more complex. Further reductions often require changes that carry wider financial implications for businesses, households and communities. Looking ahead, we will continue to work with a wide range of stakeholders as we consider the best approach to review our air quality strategy.Column 503WHis located here
This is a complex challenge, but one where progress is possible and essential. The Government are working hard to deliver the commitments made in the environmental improvement plan, including through reforming our industrial emissions regulation, reducing emissions from domestic combustion and improving communications on air quality. We will keep progress under review.
The Minister is very brave to say that there will be no new clean air Act. I understand why he says that, but when the Clean Air Act was introduced, it saved thousands of lives; why would we not amend and update that Act?
My understanding is that there is already a legal framework to deliver on the targets that we are committed to achieving.
I welcome the scrutiny from this House and the Environmental Audit Committee. I know that the Minister responsible for air quality in DEFRA has been watching the debate and looks forward to contributing to future discussions, so that we can all work together to deliver cleaner air for communities across our country.
It has been a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Efford. Thank you for giving me the nod earlier to curtail my remarks. It only goes to prove that we do not need to say everything: often, we think—at least I do—that we need to get everything in, but what was lovely about this debate was that I did not manage to get in everything that I wanted to say, but then all my hon. Friends did it for me.
I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who mentioned the £27 billion impact that this clean air Act could achieve, which would have come later in my speech. That is a huge impact on our economy. He talked about public awareness. The Royal College of Physicians did a poll with YouGov in which 95% of people did not know there was a link between air pollution and diabetes, and 85% of people did not know about the link between air pollution and stroke, heart disease or poor foetal health. The hon. Member was absolutely right to raise the importance of public awareness; it was an important contribution to the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) spoke with deep knowledge from her days as a shadow Minister and as a medical practitioner, as she told us. She stressed the social inequality that toxic air brings, and the need for a new clean air Act with a national framework. That is really important—that it is a national framework for appropriate support to be delivered to local authorities. The point that she stressed was reinforced by what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), said about the need to do this and bring it together.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford and Bow (Uma Kumaran), who spoke of her work for the mayor and of the 40% reduction in nitrogen dioxide that has been achieved there. I am so pleased that my Column 504WHis located here
hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes), who serves with me on the Environmental Audit Committee, spoke of the impacts on wildlife and nature, because that is absolutely fundamental. He also raised wood burners, but of course the Minister will know—if he does not, his officials will—that the DEFRA labelling standards, by DEFRA’s own lights, will reduce pollution by only 2%.I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Manuela Perteghella), who spoke movingly about Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah. She mentioned the modal shift to public transport, and spoke about important things such as local solutions and school streets.
Will my hon. Friend give way?
Can I give way in a winding-up speech?
Order. Obviously, this is meant to be a brief summing up by the hon. Gentleman—
I just thought I had a wee bit of time.
There is certainly not scope for giving way in his couple of minutes for summing up.
Okay. I will be very brief, and I will not give way.
I really enjoyed it when the shadow Minister was on the Environmental Audit Committee with us. He made a very valuable contribution then, but he lost his way when he went over to the Front Bench. How can he at the same time extol the £27 billion that will be brought into the economy and then say, “But actually we can’t afford to do it”? He talked about a 35% reduction in population exposure—great, but he had no baseline when he did that, so he did not know what he was reducing by 35%.
I thank the Minister very much for standing in. The Secretary of State
“may have failed, and be continuing to fail, to comply with relevant duties under the”
air quality standards regulations
“to ensure that such plans are drawn up and implemented.”
That is not me, but the Office for Environmental Protection in January.
What is not to like? Clean air, less congested, safer, quieter roads, more active travel, better public transport, better insulated, less mouldy homes that run on cheaper energy, healthier workplaces, less cost to the NHS and £27 billion to the economy—for God’s sake, let’s just do it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government plans to tackle air pollution.
Sitting adjourned.