Oral evidence: Action on air quality , HC 212Wednesday 10 September 2014
Oral evidence, 10 September 2014.
Witness
Councillor Jack Scott, Sheffield City Council, gave evidence.
Chair
Councillor Scott, I think you sat through the previous session that we have just had. Can I open my remarks by saying it is equally as important to our Committee that as well as the issue of air quality in London, we look at and take account of the issue of air quality in all cities and all parts of the United Kingdom. Thank you very much indeed for coming and giving evidence today. I don’t know whether or not you wish to make a quick two-minute initial presentation. I think that might be helpful, given that the Mayor of London had that opportunity too.
Councillor Scott
Thanks very much for inviting me today. I hope you got a sense from our submission of the scale of ambition within Sheffield. As you would expect, there are a number of points of departure that we have in Sheffield from what the mayor said but actually a number of points of agreement as well. It does strike me that having a regional government role makes it a lot easier to take very big decisions around air quality, and that is obviously something that we don’t have in quite the same way within local authorities, but it does also seem to me that there is a key issue, which I hope we can get into today, around public engagement. I don’t get the sense that this is something that is at the very top of the public’s imagination and thinking, which is unfortunate. I am particularly keen to talk about other mechanisms that might lead to increased public engagement and awareness because it seems that people are pretty shocked when they hear about the scale of air quality problems that we have within the country, and the tests that the Committee undertook gave an example of the eye-opening nature of some of this work. I suppose for me the key message around public engagement is really important and it would be fantastic if we could have a conversation about that but, more broadly as well, I don’t feel that technology alone will get us out of this issue. Certainly when we look at the fleet composition of our vehicles in Sheffield, we know that even if we were to have a low emission zone that would not take care of our air quality problem. It wouldn’t even bring us into compliance with EU regulations, so I think there is an unfortunate instinct sometimes to reach for a technological solution when we need to look at some harder choices at the same time.
Chair
Thank you. It is interesting that you flag up the issue of public engagement. As I am sure you are aware, that was the conclusion of the earlier report that we did into air quality. I think this is part of the issue as to how to get the public on our side about how we deal with the extent of air pollution. Can I start off by looking at a little bit more detail? There is this issue, isn’t there, between central Government and local government and the most recent intervention by the Government to suggest that fines for non-compliance and so on get transferred over to local councils? Could you help us to understand where the balance of responsibility between local government and central government on air pollution actually lies? It is very difficult to see how we can get a real improvement without a whole raft of measures at one and the same time. How does that affect you trying to deal with this in Sheffield?
Councillor Scott
A few examples immediately spring to mind. First of all, we know in Sheffield that one of our hotspots is along the M1 corridor where we have houses very close to what is an extremely busy motorway and we find it a source of frustration that we have almost no control over that M1 corridor. I think there is an issue for all local authorities about how they work with air quality issues that arise from Highways Agency managed land. That is the first point I want to make. Secondly, it is fair to say that there is not always clarity from Government about the extent to which the Department for Transport and DEFRA are responsible for air quality measures or air quality actions. It seems to me there is a split between the responsibility and perhaps some of the tools that are at the Government’s disposal. The responsibility seems to lie with DEFRA for improving air quality but the tools for tackling that, which relate to transport, seem to lie with the Department for Transport. That gives something of a confusing picture to those of us in local authorities who are trying to find a way forward. Counting up a few days ago in preparation for today, I think there are 30 funding sources that have been available to local authorities over the last two years. There is perhaps not a clear message from key Government departments. The other thing I would move on to is particular issues around taxis. The Taxi Licensing White Paper, which I understand is due to come forward quite soon, in our view absolutely must address issues on air quality. We know that in Sheffield taxis account for about 5% of our vehicles but 10% of our NOx emissions. There is a huge issue for local authorities with taxis and we hope that that White Paper will give us some of the tools that currently we don’t have for emissions standards, age of vehicles and perhaps green taxi ranks and some of those other issues as well. There are a number of other things that go alongside that about our relationship with Government, but those are the top three that I would pick out.
Chair
You have highlighted there are improvements that can come from other Government Departments, and I should just mention taxes and so on, but do you think that local authorities need any additional powers other than what they already have at the moment, or do you think that the things that need sorting are ones that can only be done by central Government and by funding that will assist you in meeting the air quality objectives that you have?
Councillor Scott
I have not particularly encountered a lack of power as being a problem. I think there is a lack of co-ordination between local authorities sometimes, and indeed between the local bodies at a local level, for example passenger transport executives and indeed local enterprise partnerships, so there is perhaps a slight issue there. There has not been an awful lot of things that we desperately wanted to do that we do not have the power to do, other than perhaps firmer powers around buses. In an almost entirely deregulated market, which we have in local government outside of London, we know there is a huge issue around air quality for us arising from our bus fleet, and it is very difficult to enforce any improvement there without being told by bus companies to bear almost all of the cost for that.
Chair
I think in the evidence that we had in the previous session, it is much easier to be able to deal with fleets of buses if you have the responsibility for buses, and obviously outside of London that is not the case. How highly on a scale of one to 10 would you rate the regulation or the reregulation of buses to deal with this issue about investment in the bus fleet?
Councillor Scott
Probably about eight, I would have thought. It is a key priority for us. I think the reason it is not a 10 is because even if you were able to do it without the financial resources available to incentivise some of those retrofits, it would only get us so far. It would be an improvement and much better, but I would not want the Committee to think it would take care of the whole problem automatically.
Chair
Are there any other disadvantages that places outside of London have compared with London when trying to have this sort of integrated approach?
Councillor Scott
Yes, a few things struck me. One was around the split that there is sometimes when Government announces funding rounds for local authorities to bid to for air quality or whatever.
Chair
This is the Sustainable Transport Fund?
Councillor Scott
That is an example, but many others like it. I think there were, as I say, 25 to 30 in the last few years. Very often those will be capital. The requests may need some revenue, or indeed the other way around, and it does not feel like very often there is a conversation with Government before the criteria for any funding are announced. It seems, bluntly, like there has been an underspend towards the end of the year sometimes and it needs to be spent in quite short order. That is not particularly helpful and maybe does not make us put forward the best thought through plans. I think beyond that, it does not seem to me that local authorities have an awful lot of oversight of railway pollution from trains either, so that is perhaps also something, that local authorities could have a duty to oversee all transport in their area or the emissions of all transport within their area, rather than the current system that does not seem to imply any responsibility or duty at all.
Dr Whitehead
The financial support you have obtained from Government so far you mentioned was a little bit unco-ordinated, but how effective would you say that has been as far as your authority is concerned?
Councillor Scott
It has been tremendously welcome. I think we would always say this, but it would be nice to have an awful lot more of it, but we have, for example, refitted 40 hybrid buses that are fantastic and are very visible. That was important to us. I think part of the problem in other authorities is where funds have been secured to retrofit buses that look very similar to other buses, so we have taken the opportunity to make clear that that is a success for our city and we are contributing to a cleaner area. We have been informed quite recently about the Clean Vehicle Technology Fund, which we have been successful for as well, so that will help tremendously in a key hotspot for us. That is very welcome. As I said though, it would be particularly helpful if Government would talk with local authorities before those criteria are announced in a big way, and particularly the Office for Low Emission Vehicles, which is shortly to make a significant investment in local authorities. It is quite difficult sometimes to have a really joined-up conversation across lots of big cities about the sort of priorities that we have.
Dr Whitehead
In this, the further difference you would say would be joined up, getting inside the loop as early as possible rather than just funding in its own right?
Councillor Scott
Yes, I think so, and whether or not we are successful at the end of it is almost beside the point. It would be nice to have an earlier intervention or an earlier conversation to make sure that the department in central government is commissioning bids for projects and activities will make a real difference, as opposed to those that may be slightly more flavour of the month.
Dr Whitehead
Bearing that in mind, what do you hope to see coming out of the DEFRA review for air quality management?
Councillor Scott
I think we want to see a range of things. Certainly the continued funding for air quality monitoring stations we think is absolutely vital, and indeed for air quality management areas as well. There is a level of modelling that goes with it, which is difficult to escape from, and there is a level of technical expertise that is very important as well. We would want to see that front and centre, a commitment from DEFRA to recognise that local authorities cannot do this by themselves and need some investment support, so that will be the first thing. I think some clarity about the passporting of fines as well. We understand DEFRA have written to all local authority chief executives to say that it is possible that those fines will now be passported across to local authorities. Clarity about what models are being used to work out any fines that there may be would be really helpful, because at the moment we just have this sword of Damocles really. We have had a letter that says, “At some point in the future we might come and fine you, but you will not know until any time then and we are not going to tell you how much it might be”. That is not particularly helpful for long-term planning. Thirdly, something that clarified within central government the precise nature and responsibilities between DEFRA and the Department for Transport would also be quite helpful; not much.
Dr Whitehead
And possibly startling.
Councillor Scott
Quite.
Dr Whitehead
In recent years, you have had a lot less ring-fencing for specific purposes in local government. Have you found that has helped the allocation across the authority of funds for air quality or hindered it, inasmuch as it may be the case that people are saying, “You really ought to do this in some way, but we are not sure from where” but it is not ring-fenced, so you can do it?
Councillor Scott
I was elected in 2010 and joined the cabinet in 2012, so I have only ever lived in a non-ring-fenced environment, if you like. I think people who have been on the council for longer will probably have a view about the difficulty that ring-fences presented before then. Certainly I would say we have an awful lot less money, whether it is ring-fenced or not. Our Government grant has been reduced by 50% next year, in common with lots of other larger authorities, particularly northern authorities. To be honest, whether or not there is a ring-fence attached to money that we have been given does not make an awful lot of difference if it is wholly inadequate for the resources that we require, which I think is where we are getting to. Our air quality team now is diminished and we have also had to review some of the air quality stations that we have. They need retrofitting and upgrading themselves and finding the money to do that is becoming harder and harder. On the ring-fence aspect, I am sure it is very welcome to have that additional freedom and that is very important for local authorities, and as a passionate believer in localism I would say that and I think that is vital, but it is also the case you cannot be a localist and take away such huge amounts of local authorities’ funding. At the same time, if we are localists, and if localism is quite a key part of the Government’s objective, it has to support that ambition with a fair settlement, and my view is that is not what we have had in the last three years and certainly does not appear to be what we will have in the next two either.
Mike Kane
Councillor Scott, welcome. It is interesting you finished with localism, because my range of questions is around local government powers in relation to the begging bowl and having to come to Westminster. We have never had a solution for the A57 or the A628. There is going to be a new devolved settlement next week, one day or another, and we should not be having to come to the department to do the schemes we want to do, either air quality or the schemes that link our two great cities, Manchester and Sheffield. I live 38 miles away from the centre of Manchester. In the centre of Sheffield, we have two of the worst roads that cut across the Peak District, and yet we have Tube lines that are longer than the distance between our two economic powerhouses. What does that new localism settlement look like to you?
Councillor Scott
In very practical terms, I go back to the discussion I started off with around the Highways Agency. I am not sure it is credible to have an entirely devolved government that is pushing localism, but at the same time if it is anything to do with significant roads, “We will do that, thank you very much”. That is part of the dynamic that we have at the moment, and particularly as it relates to air quality. If you look at the M25 in London, if you look at the M1 in Sheffield or the M62 in Manchester, it is absolutely the case that some of the roads that are the busiest, fastest and most polluting are also the ones that are statutorily completely outside of local authority control. I am not sure that is a credible position, and if it is a credible position, if that is the decision that is reached and the settlement that is reached, it certainly seems to me the Highways Agency needs to be given a duty to have a view and take cognisance of air quality issues, which at the moment they have no responsibility to do at all, partly because they are a DfT agency rather than a DEFRA agency. That would be one of the things I would probably touch on first of all, that in terms of fixing the two roads between those two parts of the Golden and Northern Triangle, those are outside of our control to a certain extent anyway and that is very frustrating. I think our residents in Sheffield and indeed Manchester—and probably other places too—find that quite frustrating, that roads that are not major roads, like bypasses, are within the control of the council and much more significant dual or triple carriageways are not. There is no logic to it and it does need addressing probably. Beyond that though, I also think that there—
Mike Kane
Let me push you further. Is the settlement an English settlement or is it a northern regional hub settlement linking the banks of the Mersey Estuary to the banks of Humber Estuary and that Golden Triangle?
Councillor Scott
Yes. I was going to come on to say it is the latter probably, so the more ambitious scheme, but I also think there is something we have to do much more effectively culturally probably within local authorities of not coming to Government every time we have a problem, of working together to get a coherent story between ourselves and then presenting a single case, which I suspect if it was Liverpool, Manchester, Leeds and Sheffield all working together and coming to Government and saying, “This is what we need” we would look far more credible in the eyes of Government with some of those bigger asks.
Mike Kane
You are a Sheffield Hallam councillor, is that right?
Councillor Scott
No, I am a Sheffield Heeley councillor. I was the candidate in Sheffield Hallam in 2010.
Mike Kane
In 2010. That is it, thank you.
Martin Caton
Councillor Scott, I think in your answer to the first question from the Chair, you mentioned that the relationship between the local authority and local enterprise partnerships can sometimes be problematic. Have you been able to assess the effect of LEPs on air pollution, especially as related to transport?
Councillor Scott
I have, and we had a conversation internally about this issue previously. My view is that while it is undoubtedly the case that air quality has an impact on economic matters within an area and transport is a key part of that, local enterprise partnerships should stick to what they were set up to do. I think there is a very broad discussion about how effective that is anyway and if that structure is working or not, but I do not think that as a local authority we want to see the kind of leadership around air quality moving to local enterprise partnerships, because our view would be that the skill mix within local enterprise partnerships—their boards, effectively—do not have that at the moment and that is not what they were set up to do. They were set up with a focus around economic growth and job creation, so I do not think that they have much information very often to have a view on air quality. Secondly, I do not think we would support a submission or a change in their remit that meant that they took on more around air quality either.
Martin Caton
We took some evidence, for instance from the Campaign for Better Transport, who expressed real concern about LEPs saying the right things. For instance, a bit of evidence they gave was, “Despite 97% of the LEPs having indicated the value of investing in sustainable travel, only 49% of LEPs have gone on to request capital funding for dedicated walking and cycling or LSTF-style schemes” so I think that tends to support that. But as the Cabinet Member for the Environment, do you have meetings with your local enterprise partnership?
Councillor Scott
Within Sheffield City region, there is a Low Carbon Sector Group of low carbon businesses, and I meet with the chair from time to time, every other month or so, and with members of that as well, so I do not meet with the LEP board particularly. I think, in bluntness, that is because their focus is around a different sector, so in Sheffield’s situation the LEP has said that advanced manufacturing and professional services are the key areas they want to work in, which do not affect my work as much, but certainly with our Low Carbon Sector Group, where we have a range of partners working in green collar industries, I meet with them quite regularly. Those are productive and useful. I think if I can put some words into their mouth, I suspect that they would say that they did not feel the LEP always reflected the ambition or action upon the ambition that we had set out in our growth plan.
Chair
I want to try to just dig a little deeper on some of the issues that my colleagues have raised. One of them, which is an important one for me, is the whole issue of public health, and I was interested to see that your Director of Public Health is one of the champions for the work that is going on. Of the work and monitoring and health inequalities that will be all part and parcel of the everyday agenda of the Public Health Department, how much is that used to influence the wider air quality agenda but I am thinking as well specifically about spatial planning?
Councillor Scott
I think Sheffield probably is a very good example of that. We had a focused air quality team as a local authority before public health moved across anyway so we did not feel the need, I do not think, to augment that team with public health funds when they became available. More broadly though, it is absolutely the case that our Director of Public Health is entirely signed up to the importance both of air quality issues but also climate change more broadly. I understand his annual report this year will be focusing on the environment and will focus particularly on air quality and climate change.
Chair
But in a way, my interest is how much note is taken of those reports where decisions are being made? For example, we had some evidence about opposition to a local IKEA shop that is being built. How much notice would be taken of the Director of Public Health or the Health and Wellbeing Board in terms of saying, “This is the wrong place or the wrong site and all it is going to do is increase poor air quality if that particular development goes ahead there”?
Councillor Scott
It is fair to say that the local authority found that a very finely-balanced decision because of the Director of Public Health’s involvement. Had he not made that intervention, I think there would have been much more of speed to approve it, so having—
Chair
Could you just share with us what difference was made and the satisfaction of the people who were concerned and were wanting to prevent the development, from their perspective as well?
Councillor Scott
The formal submission was made by the Director of Public Health, which is obviously a public record that said quite clearly that there would be a significant negative impact from that development on air quality. Within that submission, the director recognised there would also be a positive benefit to public health around the creation of jobs and I think he recognised that there was a balance between those two as well. More broadly, within the group of people in Sheffield who are interested in air quality, I think it is fair to say they were not satisfied with the outcome of the decision that was reached and they felt that the views of the Director of Public Health should have been taken into account more. My view, having attended the planning committee that reviewed that and discussed it, was that the members of that committee looked at his remarks very closely and gave him significant weight, and had it not been for that submission, I suspect it would not have been as long or tortuous process as it was. So I think that the committee—
Chair
But the outcome was the same.
Councillor Scott
It was, yes, so I would not—
Chair
So there was not any improvement.
Councillor Scott
I think what I am saying is that had that submission not been made and had the Director of Public Health not had those concerns, our planning department would not have been pushing IKEA for the mitigations that then came forward in the final evaluation.
Chair
What kind of appraisal do you have to put a value on creation of jobs and alleviation of poverty compared with the issues that would come out in terms of health, in terms of poor air quality?
Councillor Scott
We use a range of things, so we have a transport kind of modelling system that will look at the impact of air quality, netted off against any mitigations that are put in place. I think it is fair to say that it is a developing tool around how you balance off those two issues, because it is an apples and pears comparison and you cannot make a direct comparison between them. I think we all recognise there is a link between more jobs and improved health.
Chair
Is it just that economics trumps everything all of the time?
Councillor Scott
No, I do not think it is. Had there not been, for example, the mitigations offered by IKEA in this instance, I suspect the planning application may well have been rejected, so I think it is part of the process the local authorities go through in trying to reach a decision, but it is the case as well—I think this was the point that was being made—that the economic aspect is very important. Perhaps just to bring this full circle to the issue about public engagement, certainly it is the case that on that application, the local authority received many times more submissions in favour of IKEA on the basis of jobs than it received objections on the basis of air quality.
Chair
I know it is a bit tedious to go into the details, but sometimes the devil is in the detail on these issues. For example, perhaps I should know this but I do not: are there, for example, fast-charging electric charging points in the IKEA development?
Councillor Scott
There will be, yes.
Chair
There will be, okay. Can I move on and just very quickly ask you about location of air quality monitors? I think this is an issue that has come to us from other parts of the country as well. I know that there is guidance from Europe insofar as the measurements that need to be taken, but are you confident that you have sufficient air quality monitors and that they are in the right locations?
Councillor Scott
We would probably want to review them more regularly than we do at the moment, certainly. Of the eight that we have in the eight main stations, two of those operate on behalf of the contract that we have with DEFRA and the other six are owned by the local authority, which I think is probably different to the places where local authorities do not perhaps put as much input into or investment into their own stations, so we are probably in a slightly unique position. We also though want to make sure that we use them more around open data as well. For example, we have a scheme called the Community Diffusion Tube Project in Sheffield, which we have had for several years now, where people can have diffusion tubes placed at roadside locations near their homes or place of work and we share that data publicly, which I think is a really important way of doing it. Air quality monitoring stations are very important, but I suppose I am saying they are not the only tool that we use to try to monitor this and raise public awareness.
Chair
Almost at the end now but can I ask you in terms of low emission zones, how easy has it been to take those forward, what hurdles there are and what your priorities are for the next phase of development?
Councillor Scott
For us, the most significant benefit so far has been the data we have collected, which has been tremendously useful, so we now know, for example, that if all buses and taxis within Sheffield were Euro 6 or equivalent, then we estimate a 19% reduction in NOx emissions. That is not sufficient to bring us in line with European requirements, so the most important aspect for us has been to highlight that although a low emission zone for certain types of vehicles would significantly improve air, it would not do it to the extent that we need it to do. In terms of specific barriers, it is fair to say that a lot of the academic research associated with low emission zone policies in particular are still developing and that is why it makes it quite difficult to compare a Sheffield low emission zone possibility with a Manchester or a Leeds low emission zone possibility, so I think that is one part of it. I also think that there is something around being clear that low emission zones are only part of the solution as well, so for us we would never want to put all of our eggs into that basket. We are clear that we have to do the much harder route, and indeed much more controversial route, of changing public behaviour, as opposed to just relying on a low emission zone by itself.
Chair
That is exactly where we started. That was going to be my final question. Do you have examples of best practice in terms of public engagement of people understanding that we need to do this because of the health risks? What kind of buy-in do you have? With the initial schemes that Sheffield had many years ago in terms of bus services and the wonderful examples that you had at that time before deregulation set in, what sort of programmes are there that are bringing this home to the general public?
Councillor Scott
The first thing is the diffusion tube project I talked about, which I think is very valuable and does give people a very clear sense of how bad air is near their home or their office. That is very important, first of all. Secondly, we are shortly to announce a communication plan, which is funded by some money we received from DEFRA, which will be very good, and will contain a range of fairly hard-hitting messages about diesel causing cancer at the same time as more supportive, encouraging ones about cars and, “Why don’t you walk to school?” and those sorts of things. Thirdly, we are quite clear as well that part of this has to be the council leading by example. We have 10 gas vehicles now, which collect our recycling from kerbsides of properties. That is important, and we are also changing some of our procurement practices as well, so the third element is about the council leading by example in the way that we purchase and procure cars. There is a whole range of projects. I might drop you a note, if that is helpful. All of those are to engage people in public engagement.
Chair
That is helpful, yes. Going back to the first set of questions about central government and local government and the balance between the two and what you were just saying about low emission zones, would it be helpful, do you think, to have guidance from Government that was UK-wide in terms of low emission standards? Would that be something that should be a priority?
Councillor Scott
Yes, absolutely it should be a priority. It seems very strange to me we have so many local authorities doing very similar work and yet starting all over again from scratch every single time that they do it. The absence of guidance is not especially helpful. I think it would have been useful to have a kind of toolkit for local authorities around the development of low emission zones and also there could be much more done by DEFRA around sharing best practice within local authorities, which again is something I think is not particularly well shared at the moment, unless local authorities do it themselves, effectively.
Chair
We certainly would not want all the gases that were displaced from Sheffield in the streets of Stoke-on-Trent, for example.
Councillor Scott
That is part of the issue, that we now will have upgraded 40 of our buses across South Yorkshire from some of the worst to some of the best, which is very good. Goodness knows what happened with those buses, and we have no control over that as a local authority and I suspect they might be coming to other places, perhaps near you, in the near future.
Chair
Not if I have anything to do with it, but yes. Just finally, if there was one recommendation that should come out of our current report, what would you say it should be in terms of urgent action that is needed at either European, national or a local level?
Councillor Scott
I think perhaps one for all three of those. At European level there should be clarity over the fines that are to be levied or the range of costs that those could be, and we have this kind of between £2 million and £800 million, which is not very helpful. I think nationally something around the local authorities’ role in Highways Agency work is very important. I think at a very local level, we need much more effective national campaigns, perhaps run by Public Health England, for example, around the health impacts of poor air quality.
Chair
That is very interesting. Thank you very much indeed. That does bring us to the end of that session. It has been a game of two halves, and we have really appreciated you coming today and the attention to detail and the thoroughness with which obviously you are holding this brief. Thank you very much indeed.
Councillor Scott
Thank you. Oral evidence: Action on air quality, HC 212