Oral evidence: Air quality, HC 479Wednesday 9 December 2015

Oral evidence, 9 December 2015.

Witnesses

Simon Birkett, Clean Air in London, and Alan Andrews, Lawyer, Health and Environment, and Clean Air Project Leader, ClientEarth, gave evidence.

Chair

Thank you very much for coming to our second evidence session this afternoon. If you would like to introduce yourself first of all; then we will kick straight off.

Simon Birkett

I am Simon Birkett, founder and director of Clean Air in London. I have been campaigning on air pollution for about 10 years. I also sit on the United Nations Environment Programme’s high‑level intergovernmental and stakeholder advisory group for its five-yearly report on the global environment.

Alan Andrews

I am Alan Andrews. I am a solicitor and lawyer with ClientEarth. We have been working on air quality for the past six years. Our most high-profile work has been the ongoing case against the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which culminated in this year’s Supreme Court order, but I also work at the Brussels level on the National Emissions Ceilings Directive, a key vote on which is to take place next week. I will be happy to answer questions on that.

Chair

Thank you very much. My first one is reasonably straightforward. Emissions of most pollutants are on a downward trend, but your groups are campaigning vigorously for further action. What is the extent, in your view, of the UK’s air quality problems?

Simon Birkett

If we think in terms of one atmosphere, we have the greenhouse gases and local air pollution. As we heard in the previous sessions, I would split local air pollution into particles, which are really regulated as a lump, all of them together, and then the gases, where it is really only the nitrogen dioxide molecule or gas that is regulated for health and legal purposes. China, India and Eastern Europe have terrible problems with particles, but Dr David Carslaw from King’s College London said that many roads in central London will tend to have the highest levels of nitrogen dioxide in the whole world, and that is basically a diesel problem and is something that we should be very ashamed about. Defra’s report for last year is that 38 out of 43 UK zones exceeded the legal limit—which is aligned with the World Health Organisation guideline—for nitrogen dioxide. For particles, levels are much higher than the World Health Organisation guideline.

Alan Andrews

The only thing I would add is that, from a human health and a legal point of view, what matters are the concentrations of pollutants in the outdoor air that we breathe on a daily basis. We have brought our case because the levels of one pollutant, nitrogen dioxide, are well above the legal limits. It is also worth remembering that those legal limits should be seen as the bare minimum required to protect human health. In some cases, particularly for particulate matter, the legal limits are far less stringent than those recommended by the WHO guidelines.

Chair

In some ways, you have answered this part of the question, but where are the major hotspots for pollution across the UK?

Professor Williams

For nitrogen dioxide, it is really the urban areas. It is a very local pollutant. For example, about 82%—this is the Mayor’s estimate—of the nitrogen dioxide in London is generated within London, so it is a city problem around the UK. For particles, because it is everything together, about three quarters of the particles in London come from outside it. Of course, we are also exporting our own.

Chair

Have you looked a great deal at the difference between levels in the rural and urban areas? Have you made those comparisons, or is it the urban areas you have particularly concentrated on?

Simon Birkett

I work London and up, but very much UK as well. For England as a whole, the population-weighted average for fine particles—so across the whole population, across the whole of England—for human-made or PM2.5, we are talking about 11 or 12 micrograms per cubic metre, relative to the World Health Organisation guideline of 10. In London, it is more like 13 or 14. But I would emphasise that Defra has doubled its own estimate of the non‑human‑made contribution, so when I probed them about the fact that this human-made contribution seemed to have gone down, they said the reason this other bit had doubled was just because it was not explained by their model. We are probably talking about 25% over the WHO guideline on average across the country, and probably 50% above it in London.

Alan Andrews

It is worth stressing that, while the nitrogen dioxide problem is largely an urban problem, it is not confined to the big cities—the Londons, Birminghams, Manchesters and so on. We are seeing significant breaches of those legal limits even in fairly small towns, at busy road junctions in very small towns and even in villages. The other point is that, as Simon mentioned, the particle problem is far more widespread. It is not as localised. That emphasises the need for action at the EU level to tackle the emissions at source, which contribute to the overall levels of PM2.5.

Chair

These are the particles that, for want of a better expression, are moving around, floating around basically, blown in and blown out?

Alan Andrews

That is right. Prevailing winds take them over to mainland Europe the majority of the time, but when we have an easterly air flow, we see the pollution blowing in from mainland Europe and contributing to these smog episodes. A recent Defra study showed that over 50% of the PM2.5 mass originated outside the UK, and that figure would probably be a lot higher during these periodic pollution episodes.

Simon Birkett

It is also worth saying that, when we have an ozone episode, it is in the country. It is East Anglia or Charlton Mackrell or somewhere like that, in the summer, in July and August.

Dr Monaghan

To what extent do you think the policies of the UK Government have taken into account the health and environmental impacts of air pollution?

Simon Birkett

If I can start, there is no joined-up thinking at all in Government. This problem goes back to at least September 1990. The reason I brought all these is not to read them to you, but to show you. This is the 1990 report. Although Labour has taken the rap for diesel, in fact the evidence is that the problem goes back to September 1990. It has been successive Governments since then. A point I would add to the previous session is that even when it was clear that emissions standards were not working, successive Governments ploughed on pursuing CO2 in denial of that. I will give you some specific examples of failures. We have got DECC encouraging biomass burning in cities. We have local generation, combined heat and power plants, being encouraged within cities. We have a massive auction, which closes today, for power and they are talking about 1.5 gigawatts of diesel farms, including some of those in urban areas. Within hospitals, the Department of Health’s air filter standard is no different to the standard to keep dust out of factories. The Department for Transport says it is not illegal to remove a factory‑fitted diesel particle filter, but it is then illegal to drive on the road without it, which is obviously idiocy. You have Defra’s NO2 plans, which we have talked about before, and the Treasury’s benefit-in-kind taxation, encouraging people to buy diesel vehicles. We have no joined‑up thinking and, at the moment, Defra is acting as a letterbox and a clearing house for legal action from ClientEarth or infraction action from Europe. Rory Stewart is being a good leader but, as a Department, it is an important signal that Oliver Letwin has now been given the job of trying to join this up. That is a very worthwhile step, but will he do something?

Alan Andrews

I will not add to the list of examples that Simon gave, but there very clearly is a lack of joined‑up thinking here. It certainly seems that other Government Departments are more than happy to let Defra carry the can, but it is worth emphasising that the Supreme Court order binds the Government as a whole. It is addressed to the Secretary of State but covers the full central Government. We need to see a co-ordinated response, and so far we have just not seen that at all.

Dr Monaghan

The list is clearly extensive and covers a number of complex issues and problems, I suspect. What more do you feel can be done to heighten public awareness of all of those impacts?

Simon Birkett

It is what I refer to as building public understanding, which is a combination of awareness, information, knowledge, education. It is when people get it. A large part of the problem is that, across successive Governments, whenever I have stood up on TV or radio or something like that, there is a standard Defra paragraph press release that goes out, which used to say, “Air pollution is better than it was. We have plans in place to deal with it and we are concerned about it” or something. Now they change it to say “as soon as possible”. I am not a cricketer, but in cricketing terms, they play a dead bat to it and try to take the momentum out of the story every time. We are not helped by the fact that the BBC, for example, on its weather forecasts on its website—it does not really give them on the news—for 330 days a year says “pollution low”. That is not the annual or the ongoing risk; it is just that major pollution episodes are low. People see that; it is totally misleading. On the Met Office forecast, you see these green maps for the whole country, apart from a few days a year. The Met Office maps do not forecast urban roadside air pollution, so they are completely misleading. They do not give a picture of nitrogen dioxide where people live and work. It is more that if the Government stopped doing things that were wet blankets working against this story, that would be a good start. The Evening Standard did a fabulous job. When it was going at this issue every day, everyone across London was talking about it. That is the sort of exercise we need here.

Alan Andrews

That is right. It is quite interesting that one of the times we saw a big growth in public awareness was when we had the so‑called Saharan dust storms in 2014. Unfortunately, the Government’s response was in some ways misleading. They were more than happy to blame it on this Saharan dust that they really could not control. What we need is some real honesty in communicating with the public, explaining the health impacts very clearly. The policy solutions, which in some cases might not be popular—people will not want to be told that there are restrictions on where they can drive their cars—need to go hand in hand with awareness‑raising. The very least they can do is give people adequate warnings when there are these high‑pollution episodes. We would like to see a more proactive approach. A national awareness‑raising campaign is one idea that has been mooted, but has been refused by Defra. We would like to see a step up in minimum obligations, in terms of warning people, but also a more proactive approach of going out there and explaining the health impacts.

Simon Birkett

Can I add to that?

Chair

Could you keep your answer short?

Simon Birkett

It will be very brief. A survey that we did of 100 MPs, twice, showed that MPs ranked air pollution as the fourth or fifth of five public health risks, when it is actually the second. I heard, unfortunately, at lunchtime today that Matthew Pennycook, who has done a lot of work trying to set up an all‑party parliamentary group, has not been able to find a single organisation to support it. There is a lot of work we could do within Parliament too.

Dr Monaghan

In terms of improving the level of honesty that you have talked about and perhaps challenging that dead‑bat approach, are there any particular areas of research that you would like to see developed to inform public opinion in this area?

Simon Birkett

I do not think we need more research. The evidence is there. What we need is action. This is well known to be the biggest public health risk after smoking, although not sufficiently well known. The World Health Organisation says it is by far the biggest environmental risk. It is there: we do not need more evidence; we need action.

Alan Andrews

I quite agree. We are used to seeing pollen counts and UV warnings on the weather forecast. Why are we not just as used to seeing air pollution warnings? That is the level we need to aspire to. Sitting suspended for a Division in the House. On resuming—

Ms Ritchie

You are very welcome back. What will be the impact of Defra’s current policies on air pollution?

Alan Andrews

The problem is that we do not really know, because Defra has not provided the supporting information. When the draft plans were published, we were all expecting there to be a detailed technical report, showing all the various assumptions it had used and what the health and economic impacts would be, but it did not publish that. We are still waiting to see that. We expect it with the final plans, which are due at the end of this year.

Ms Ritchie

Have you been pursuing Defra in relation to this, to obtain ideas or updates?

Alan Andrews

We have made the point that we want to see the evidence, but it has not been forthcoming. We will have to wait until 31 December, which is very disappointing.

Ms Ritchie

Based on the answer you have given me and on some of the knowledge you have, what areas of Defra’s 2007 air quality strategy need updating?

Simon Birkett

I think it was Professor Williams who led the work on that in 2007. It was a very good strategy, identifying lots of low‑hanging fruit, such as shipping, agriculture and so on, but little or nothing was done on those things. What we need now is a new strategy to update that 2007 work, something that really addresses one atmosphere: the whole picture of the greenhouse gases and the local air pollution. That is what we need, because otherwise we get these frankly idiotic policies from DECC, DFT and HMT, which basically say, “This diesel generator stuff is technology‑neutral.” It may be power‑neutral, but it is not neutral in terms of killing people; it is not neutral in terms of emissions. It is complete idiocy, so we need a one‑atmosphere strategy across Government.

Chair

That has to go well beyond Defra, does it not? That has to be very much a Government strategy. You are saying at the moment that it is not joined up enough across Government.

Simon Birkett

That is absolutely right. I do not know if you would add anything to that, Alan.

Alan Andrews

To go back to the earlier question, although we do not have the evidence base, the reason it has not been published is probably that Defra knows the draft plans it has published will have virtually no impact on human health. They do not commit the Government to taking any new measures, other than coming up with this national framework of clean air zones, and leave it to local authorities to do all the heavy lifting at a time when they are facing swingeing cuts to their budgets.

Ms Ritchie

Are there any additional measures that an updated strategy should contain other than what you have already been saying to us?

Simon Birkett

Basically, because this is the biggest environmental health risk and the biggest public health risk after smoking, we need to throw everything at it, including the kitchen sink. Every sector needs to play its part. We need a root‑and‑branch review and it has to be led across Government.

Ms Ritchie

As a follow‑up to that, how effective are Defra’s arrangements in ensuring that other Government Departments and local authorities take adequate action and are equipped to take that action?

Simon Birkett

They are totally ineffective. I have produced my list of—whatever it is—1.5 gigawatts of power generation going to the diesel sector today. This is just absolute lunacy. It is about the dirtiest possible way of generating power. Defra is ineffective at limiting some of the stupid things done by other Departments.

Ms Ritchie

What needs to be done, then?

Simon Birkett

Something joined up, I would have thought, to get Oliver Letwin to really have a grip on this. That is what it needs across Government.

Ms Ritchie

Do you think that local authorities’ effectiveness is constrained by limited resources, limited power or lack of political will?

Alan Andrews

All those factors will prevent the adoption of clean air zones or any other effective measure at the local authority level. To give you one example, Defra’s plans did some loose cost estimates around the introduction of clean air zones and estimated that the implementation costs to local authorities would be something like £24 million. At the same time, they are offering only £500,000 to local authorities to pay for air quality measures. There is a huge gulf, at the moment, between the resources needed at the local authority level and what the Treasury is making available to them.

Ms Ritchie

In that respect, what priority do Departments other than Defra put on air quality?

Alan Andrews

Very little, if any.

Ms Ritchie

Obviously they should do more. What more could be done?

Simon Birkett

DECC ought to be looking at all emissions, so at PM, particles; at NOx, oxides of nitrogen; and at CO2. DFT should be looking at the whole picture of one atmosphere, not just CO2. There is a myopic focus within these Government Departments on CO2. They do not seem to care about anything else, and that is deeply troubling.

Ms Ritchie

How can this be done if Defra has the overall responsibility for air quality or pollution—all of these issues? What should Government do to ensure that more concrete action is taken to address this very important issue?

Alan Andrews

The point earlier about having Defra and all the other responsible—

Ms Ritchie

Overarching?

Alan Andrews

Yes. Whether it is the Cabinet Office or some other body that has oversight over all the relevant Government Departments to ensure coherence and that everyone is pulling in the same direction, that could be valuable. Also, the NO2 plans and the national air quality strategy, which we think is needed, need to very clearly delineate responsibility for who is doing what and by when.

Ms Ritchie

Overarching in terms of policy formation, policy development, policy implementation and operational implementation—are you saying one Department takes responsibility for all those things?

Simon Birkett

Not one Department. We have seen that this just has not worked with one Department. They end up getting kicked around by other Departments or ignored. This has to be led by the Cabinet Office, the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister’s office. It really needs to be done from the very top.

Ms Ritchie

You are saying that one Department should be leading this, with all other Departments feeding in to ensure that that happens.

Simon Birkett

We have seen one Department, Defra, trying to do it. If you gave it to DFT or DECC, I do not think they would do it. This has to be done across the whole of Government, and probably the only body placed to do that, or with the resources to do that, is the Cabinet Office.

Ms Ritchie

Given your experience, how hopeful are you of that happening?

Simon Birkett

When I started 10 years ago, there was very little interest in this subject. It was all on climate. Everyone thought this problem would go away. Now there are hundreds of organisations involved in this issue. It has rocketed up the agenda. There is a world of change happening. People who ignore this do so at their peril. I think they will be steamrollered as this issue gains further momentum.

Angela Smith

The Environmental Audit Committee came up with a series of recommendations on this issue. I tend to find that recommendations on air quality are all too often like motherhood and apple pie. One can get quite cynical about ever meeting or delivering a strategy. My main concern is that, if the new plans put a greater responsibility on local authorities, with their constrained resources, then we will effectively be letting the Government off the hook. Do you think that, fundamentally, central Government will still be responsible to the European Union, even if they try to largely offload the responsibility for delivering these plans to local authorities?

Alan Andrews

I should say first that we will not let them off the hook.

Angela Smith

No, I am sure you will not.

Alan Andrews

If we do not see a major change in approach, we have been quite open that we will go back to court to demand better plans. The European Commission is waiting in the wings and will similarly escalate legal action if it is not convinced that these plans are up to the mark. To directly answer your question, the Commission infringement action will be brought against central Government. Any infraction fine would be paid by central Government. Of course, there are mechanisms by which central Government could make local authorities feel the pain, whether directly, by passing a fine down through the Localism Act, or by less direct means. The important thing to note is that their biggest worry should be ClientEarth and the Supreme Court order for now, because that is the most immediate means by which we will hold central Government to account. The Commission infringement action is a more distant, albeit equally real, threat.

Angela Smith

It is interesting, because Defra, in the face of huge potential fines for its failures in terms of sewage in the River Thames, has acted in the end and we will get the Thames tideway tunnel, because the cost of providing the tunnel is less, effectively, than the daily fines for breaching sewage or pollution levels in the River Thames.

Chair

You are cynical, aren’t you?

Angela Smith

I am.

Jim Fitzpatrick

It is going to be paid for by the consumer.

Angela Smith

Yes, it is. The point is that the balance between the cost of doing something and the cost of doing nothing has made it imperative that the Government act. They have been very honest about that, Neil, to be fair. At what point do you think the balance between the cost of doing nothing and the cost of doing something becomes favourable and forces the Government to do something effective?

Simon Birkett

The evidence for taking action, the health and natural environment effects, has been overwhelming for many years. The work supporting the 2007 air quality strategy said that transport and power generation measures had benefits 20 times the cost impact. I would separate infraction action and the UK courts. Alan is leading on the work to enforce these laws in the UK system. Infraction action happens in five stages, with the fifth stage being fines. For nitrogen dioxide, we have had the first written warning. I expect that we would have the second stage of infraction action possibly as soon as February or March next year, unless Alan is very actively back in the Supreme Court. The Mayor of London estimated that infraction fines at that fifth stage could be £300 million per annum per pollutant, for each of nitrogen dioxide and particles. If I were to guess, the Defra NO2 consultation looks like plans for others; it looks as if they are trying to find a mechanism to pass on any fines that come in through that, saying, “We have clean air zones. It was the local authority’s fault for not doing it. Here is the fine”.

Angela Smith

Hence my first question.

Alan Andrews

That will not wash with the Commission at all. There is a long line of European case law that says, regardless of what national measures and arrangements you have for implementing EU law, ultimately central Government will carry the can.

Angela Smith

It is important to know that and have that on the record. Let us not forget that it is not just London, of course. I have lived by junction 34 of the M1 in Sheffield for long enough, and that is one of the real hotspots in all of this. Moving on very quickly to look at infrastructure, particularly transport infrastructure, and not just the construction of it but the maintenance of it, is it your view that the Government need to think again and be a little more robust in calculating air quality costs? The point I make about maintenance is this: if you close down a bridge to paint it and you use a low‑quality paint with very low levels of VOCs, you will be painting that bridge again much sooner than if you had used high‑solvent paint. That effectively means that you are rearranging your traffic routes significantly and repeatedly over a period, thereby reducing air quality, not improving it, in the long term. There are ways of maintaining transport infrastructure that can help deal with air quality issues. Do you think that the Government do enough to think robustly about these issues?

Simon Birkett

The Eddington committee, many years ago, said that most of the investment should not go into grand projects such as HS2 or new runways; it should go into fixing bottlenecks, and that that was the most efficient way of sorting out the transport system. We need to be doing two things in big‑picture terms. Next year is the 60th anniversary of the Clean Air Act, so we need to have this one‑atmosphere re‑energisation of policy and strategy, but we need to be doing two things. We need to be hammering down on the dangerous things, which are diesel in cities, agriculture, shipping, and coal emissions, and we need to be actively pushing up the other side of the seesaw, which is encouraging active travel on a massive scale. That is the way to do this cheaply.

Angela Smith

But we are going to build HS2. Will HS2 have a role to play in improving air quality? Do the Government think laterally and broadly enough about these issues?

Alan Andrews

No. They tend to take rather a tick‑box approach to assessment of air quality, in infrastructure projects and various other policy areas that we have discussed. There needs to be more robustness in how we assess the health impacts of air pollution. We have heard about the growing evidence of the direct effects of nitrogen dioxide. When that is factored into cost‑benefit analysis, the numbers will start looking very different, because at the moment we apply only the indirect health impact of nitrogen dioxide, from where it condenses to form particles.

Chair

Just to throw a spanner in the works, let us take HS2. It may or may not reduce pollution, but the pollution that will be caused by building it will be enormous. It is fascinating what we choose to go for, is it not? Surely, if you want no pollution, you shut everything down, do you not? There has to be a solution in which we at least have development.

Simon Birkett

There are issues with some developments. Heathrow is a very good example, where it bumped up against these limits. I could talk more about that, but it is because diesel has been encouraged for 25 years that we are bumping up against these health guidelines and limits now. We are not talking about stopping development and banning diesel everywhere in the country. This is about, where people are exposed to this problem, addressing the big sources of it as cheaply as possible. Farming, shipping and coal‑fired power stations are the cheapest ways to tackle it outside cities. This is about tackling the problem as cheaply as possible. I do not think anyone would say that spending £55 billion on HS2 was going to be a cost‑effective way to tackle the UK’s air pollution problem.

Chair

It was possibly a slightly unfair question.

Rebecca Pow

First, on the transport point, the Chancellor is setting up his new National Infrastructure Commission to push forward development projects, and I can understand why that is. How important do you think it is to have an environmental expert on that commission?

Simon Birkett

It is absolutely vital. To give you a sense of that, the legal opinion that Clean Air in London commissioned from Robert McCracken QC said that the Davies Commission made some at best ambiguous remarks about the relevance of the air quality directive. He went on to say—and I will just read the punch line—that, if he said what we think he said, the commission misdirected itself on the law. That is a really dumb thing to do, if you are then the Government that follow on, thinking that you can take that at face value. You need people who understand these issues involved in these commissions up front, so that you do not end up years later finding there is a QC opinion that says you probably misdirected yourself on the law.

Rebecca Pow

That is interesting. I wanted it on the record, because it is something I have asked the Prime Minister himself, and he is going to look into it. I think you will find that the Environmental Audit Committee is looking this afternoon into the very issue of cross‑departmental sustainability. It is very interesting how these two Committees connect. They are being led to believe by Mr Letwin that everything is being dealt with satisfactorily within all these different Departments—DECC, Defra, Transport, whatever—and they have the Natural Capital Committee reporting back shortly. What you say suggests that that situation is not working in all these Departments. Do you think we should have an overarching, for example, Minister for Sustainability who deals with all these things: water pollution, air pollution, soil? Would that be a way of sorting it out?

Simon Birkett

Frankly, I am quite alarmed if Oliver Letwin thinks this is already being done well across Departments. I gave half a dozen examples earlier on.

Chair

That is the official line.

Simon Birkett

That is not being done. We need a champion for one atmosphere who says, “I am going to sort out CO2 and these local air pollution problems”.

Rebecca Pow

He may be coming up with that when the Natural Capital Committee reports back. That may be a significant turning point. Do you think it will be?

Simon Birkett

I do not. This is a really big challenge. It is linked to what is going on in Paris at the moment and everything else. We need to throw everything at it, including the kitchen sink. Frankly, I have been too busy to go to the natural environment hearings that Defra has had. It is not a priority on my radar screen, because it does not seem that important. There are many other more important things happening. We really need someone, as you say, who will take a lead on this across Government. That is the only way we will get some proper progress.

Rebecca Pow

How urgent is it?

Simon Birkett

It was urgent 25 years ago. We have over 1,000 schools near busy roads in London. It is affecting everyone every day. It cannot be much more urgent than that.

Alan Andrews

Just to take it back to the Supreme Court order from April this year, it ordered immediate action to solve this public health problem. It demanded a plan to achieve compliance in the shortest time possible. Yet we have Government plans which, on a very optimistic assumption, are projecting breaches in 2025. It is of the utmost importance that we get a grip on this problem as soon as possible.

Jim Fitzpatrick

We had a brief chat in the interval, gentlemen. I was going to ask about Defra’s role, but you have very clearly indicated that this is a Government problem. Oliver Letwin and the Cabinet Office coming as reinforcements, the cavalry, was hopefully a good sign that the Government were starting to take it more seriously. Notwithstanding all of that, is there anything Defra can do separately, in the meantime, until we see what the response is to the Supreme Court, the consultation and Oliver Letwin’s comments from the Environmental Audit Committee?

Alan Andrews

There is no reason they have to wait at all. They were ordered to take immediate action. Surely the air quality plan will contain all the details of that, but there is nothing to stop them getting cracking right away.

Jim Fitzpatrick

You said yourself, Mr Andrews, and the professors said earlier on, that what we really need is a revisitation of the Clean Air Act of the 1950s; we need a national strategy. Defra is one of the smallest Government Departments; it has one of the smallest budgets. It does not have the profile of some of the other Departments. The Cabinet Office coming in would almost seem to be good news, because Government have got that there needs to be a whole‑Government response. The question is: yes, it would be great if Defra could get out there, get on the charger and lead the way, but that is not likely to happen, is it?

Simon Birkett

It is not likely to happen currently. One of the exciting opportunities for this Committee is to light a fire under them, frankly—

Jim Fitzpatrick

A non‑emitting fire. Simon Birkett—so that they are prepared to provide the answers to the Cabinet Office, because there is a lot of expertise within Defra. Let me cite two things, though. Probably the most important single thing for the next five years, apart from the nitrogen dioxide plans, the one‑atmosphere strategy and public understanding, is what Defra is going to say at the Council of Ministers on 16 December about the National Emission Ceilings Directive. What are they going to say next week? That really does matter. That is within Defra’s control. I would be pleased if you would press them on that, because that is about hammering down on all these sources of emissions. Are we going to have, as we need, binding legal limits for pollutants by sectors across Europe in 2020, 2025 and 2030? At the moment, we have had the UK lobbying to weaken these laws, saying they do not want binding targets for 2025. They are trying to get methane and ammonia excluded. It really is a shocking state of affairs. This is how we deal with the problem at its source, and that is absolutely vital. We have the European Parliament’s environment committee voting next Monday, 14 December, on the real‑world driving emissions. Hopefully, it will decide that it wants the European Parliament to veto the weakening of diesel standards that occurred a month or two ago. If it passes that next week, then it will go to the European Parliament plenary in January. There are some really big things happening that are absolutely within Defra’s control and we need them to get on with it.

Alan Andrews

Just to expand on that point, I think there is a little bit of doublespeak. On the one hand, Defra is complaining that it cannot achieve compliance because of problems with the EU regulations, but at the same time, it is not doing anything to push for action at the EU level. As Simon says, next week, there are two crucial votes in the Council. It is imperative that the UK pushes for tough new action to introduce effective, fit-for-purpose regulations governing diesel emissions from diesel cars and also, as Simon says, the NEC directive, which is setting targets for pollutants from all sectors. The current proposals from the Commission are not great, but they take us half the way forward and would halve the number of premature deaths happening in the future. But we are not seeing any evidence that Defra is pushing for tough new targets.

Chair

I am a little sceptical about all this. I spent 10 years in the European Parliament, where we saw a drive toward diesel cars. We had all the big German manufacturers and the manufacturers across Europe, not just Volkswagen, pushing diesel like mad. We were obsessed with CO2 emissions. Now, all of a sudden, we are obsessed with nitrogen oxide. While the Government are in the dock, and I accept that, as are previous Governments, both Conservative and Labour in between—all guilty—so is most of Europe. What I am intrigued by is whether the scientific advice has changed. Are we going to go madly driving toward nitrogen oxide, so carbon dioxide does not matter so much, and then, a little way down the road, are we going to turn? I am not being funny, but it is quite simple for you guys to come in and say, “Right, Government, you have got this all wrong.” It is quite easy to say that, but how do we get it all right, and how do we know the scientific advice we are getting now is right and that they will not change it further down the road?

Simon Birkett

In 1990, we knew that, if we did not deal with exhaust emissions, there would still be a diesel problem. There was a great quote in one of John Vidal’s articles recently from a senior civil servant, who said—to be totally reductionist—they were talking about killing people today rather than saving lives tomorrow. Many years ago, they knew that focusing on CO2 probably would kill people sooner rather than later. What I would add to the previous session you have had this afternoon is that the evidence that these engine emission standards were not working was around 10 years ago, but still, even today, the Government are ploughing on, encouraging CO2 efficient fuel, which is diesel. This is not new science. This is a recognition that action should have been taken. This problem has got much worse, rather than much better, and it needs to be addressed as a whole. We cannot have one technology trying to tackle one carbon dioxide molecule or something else. We need to look in the round.

Alan Andrews

I would echo those comments. While there is clearly a legal imperative to address the NO2 problem, the Government need to see this as an opportunity to achieve the NO2 limits as soon as possible and use that as a springboard toward a much more holistic approach, not only to air quality but to climate change mitigation as well. For example, clean air zones could be designed in such a way that they deliver multiple benefits, not just for human health but also for climate change mitigation. Accelerate the uptake of electric vehicles; accelerate the decarbonisation of the transport sector. It all needs to be part of a much more holistic response, so we are not picking on one pollutant at a time.

Rebecca Pow

Talking about clean fuels, which do you think is the best road to go down?

Simon Birkett

We need to look first at lifestyle changes and shutting or banning the inexcusable activities, for example the removal of factory‑fitted diesel particle filters. We ought to do those things automatically. On technology, we need to do two things in parallel: short‑term and long‑term action. In the short term, if through labelling we told people what the CO2, NOx and particle emissions of their cars were, people would start making sensible, informed decisions, at no cost to the consumer, about what to buy, so we can do that. In the short term, let us get people driving smaller petrol vehicles—ideally electric or hybrid, but let us get them into petrol vehicles. In the long term, there ideally ought to be the infrastructure for rapid‑charging electric vehicles. For example, in the previous session there was a discussion about the large vehicles. I sat in a seminar with the Freight Transport Association two or three years ago and said, “We are assuming we are going to be using compressed natural gas in 2020.” We need to realise that a lot of these changes are going on already. Hydrogen, I think, is far too expensive. LPG has very high particle numbers; that is not the answer.

Chair

A few years ago, it was.

Simon Birkett

It was for CO2. I do not think it was ever the answer for—

Chair

It was not long ago that they were pushing LPG. This is the point. You have biomethane down here. It will not be five minutes’ time before that will be wrong.

Simon Birkett

I do not accept that, because a technology‑neutral approach is not setting loose standards for diesel and tight standards for petrol. A technology‑neutral approach is saying, “We will limit the amount of particle, gas or carbon dioxide that comes out of the exhaust pipe.” We do not care how you achieve that, but we are not going to set loose standards for diesel and tough standards for petrol, which is where we are at the moment.

Rebecca Pow

Do you think we might need incentives? For example, loads of people went down the diesel road because a tax was weighed and it came into the lowest particulate emission level, or so we were told as buyers. That is why a lot of people transferred, me included, and I feel deeply, deeply deceived. I only did it very recently, just before the scandal hit. People transferred to diesel because of that incentive. Do you think we should do that with the electric cars and the gas cars?

Simon Birkett

We do not have to change every vehicle across the whole country. We are talking about protecting people where they live and work. We do not have to generate enough electricity for every car to be electric. This is about where the problem areas are. I was very pleased to hear, speaking to my MP, Mark Field, on Monday night, that he had just bought a Prius, a petrol‑electric hybrid. We can encourage people to walk, cycle and use public transport, and not use diesel vehicles. Frankly, if the Mayor removed the 25‑foot turning circle requirement on taxis, we would not have 22,000 diesel taxis running around the city. There are a lot of things we could do to cut the red tape that works against it.

Rebecca Pow

There was an example of the conversion of a cab in Parliament today. For £1,500, you can convert to gas, apparently. It could be possible.

Chair

That is probably LPG, is it not?

Simon Birkett

I have flagged my concerns about LPG. LPG is not as clean as compressed natural gas.

Chair

If it is compressed natural gas, it is probably cleaner, is it?

Simon Birkett

Yes.

Chair

What does it say?

Rebecca Pow

Liquefied petroleum gas.

Simon Birkett

That is LPG, and that is not as good as CNG by any means.

Chair

Sorry to labour this point, but, if you compare a diesel car with a petrol car, it will usually do 1.5 times as many miles with that particular fuel. Therefore, you have to average that out as well. That is what was concentrated on in the past. We concentrated on CO2, and diesels are always going to be better on CO2, because they do not use as much fuel. A lot of your solutions are fine, perhaps, for the city. What bus are a lot of my constituents going to get on? First, there is no bus, and, secondly, if it does come, it is not going in the direction you want it to go. I am being facetious, but they will use cars, and I think that is the issue.

Simon Birkett

I do not think there is a problem with using diesel vehicles in the countryside and between cities. Ideally there would be something else, but that is not the problem. We do not want them driving down the Embankment, Park Lane or Grosvenor Place. These reports all show the focus on CO2 fuel efficiency going back to 1990. We need this one‑atmosphere thinking, so that people recognise it is not just about one molecule, one gas within this stuff coming out of exhausts and chimneys. We need to look at this problem properly.

Alan Andrews

I accept it is wise to be sceptical about clean air zones, but they focus the solutions on where the problem is, in the bigger, more polluted urban areas. It is fine to be using diesel vehicles out in the countryside, where there is not a major air pollution problem, where you do not have dense populations breathing in the pollution.

Chair

You have these clean air zones, which I think mainly affect lorries. Should the Government consider bringing in clean air zones as far as cars are concerned as well?

Simon Birkett

Germany has about 70 low emission zones across the country and has done for five years. Berlin went in before 2010, I think.

Chair

I cannot believe they are banning diesel cars.

Simon Birkett

Yes, that is exactly what they did. These low emission zones in Germany all restrict diesel cars. In 2010, Berlin basically said, unless you had a Euro 4 diesel car, which is 2008 vintage, or an abatement filter fitted, you were not allowed into the central 30% of the city. When people say low emission zones do not work —and I have heard some people say that—they are being really unhelpful and, frankly, wrong. If you look at the spectrum of low emission zones, the 100% low emission zone is what they are doing in Rome, Madrid and other places, where they are pedestrianising the worst places. Oxford Street ought to be pedestrianised. You cannot have all these diesel buses and taxis mixing with all these people. These low emission zones exist widely across Europe. We have one. The Mayor is proposing bringing in, from 2020, something he calls his ultra‑low emission zone, which is not really ultra‑low emission, but that is what he calls it. There is a very wide view across London that it is too small, too weak, too late. In typical Mayor fashion, he originally said he was going to ban vehicles, and, by the end of it, after several backwards steps, he said, “Provided cars pay £12.50 a day, they can come in as diesel cars.” We need something that is bigger, stronger and sooner.

Alan Andrews

I have just a short answer on that point. The Supreme Court order requires the plans to contain measures to achieve compliance in the shortest time possible. The current proposals would not include cars within most of the clean air zones. That is clearly not achieving compliance in the shortest time possible. Yes, cars need to be addressed within the framework of clean air zones.

Simon Birkett

They are in Germany, for example.

Alan Andrews

There is one slight problem, in that, with nitrogen dioxide, there is not currently a viable retrofit option, as there was for diesel particulate filters, which were used in the German low emission zones. That is a challenge for industry, and Government should be working very closely with industry to see if they can come forward with a viable option, because we have this problem of a rump.

Chair

Just to correct Simon, I do not think they have banned diesel cars in Germany, by the sound of it. They have just said they have to have the right diesel engine and the right fittings. It could be argued now as to whether that is indeed working and they are to the level that was specified, I suspect.

Simon Birkett

They banned the older diesel vehicles; that is absolutely correct. Thank you for that clarification, Chairman.

Alan Andrews

The crucial point is that it is a model based on banning vehicles unless they meet the standard, rather than charge‑based, as envisaged by Defra.

Chair

I see. Yes, that is quite different. I understand.

Jim Fitzpatrick

You will have heard me ask the professors this same question, gentlemen, about shipping. Many of us are big supporters of using the Thames for tourism; for commuting; for commercial vehicles especially, to get lorries off the road; for refuse, recycling and the rest of it. The question is: are the regulations behind where shipping is, given the increased volumes we have seen and the fact that we want to see much more of it? Professor Williams very helpfully said that Gothenburg had taken steps to say that, if the cruise ships did not have SCR, they would not be able to use the port, but not all vessels have the best technology or the best equipment. Do you have any comments on shipping as a mode and the regulations for metropolitan use or use around the coast?

Alan Andrews

I am not an expert at all when it comes to shipping policy. One comment I would make is that the concept of clean air zones needs to be a lot broader than looking at just road transport. It needs to look at all major emission sources, including non‑road machinery, such as construction equipment, shipping and all major NOx and other pollution sources. Within a clear air zone, you could have requirements that all ships use the best available techniques and technologies.

Simon Birkett

There is the CO2 problem, and then there are the sulphur oxides and oxides of nitrogen problems from shipping. My understanding is that NOx emissions from shipping within Europe could exceed those from all its road transport emissions by about 2020 or 2025, so shipping needs to be tackled for its NOx emissions. There is a sulphur emission control area up the east coast of the UK on the North Sea. There is nothing on the west coast for sulphur. There is no oxides of nitrogen emission control area, or NECA, on the east or west of the UK. Within London, it is complete madness to have a cruise terminal being approved in Greenwich with no onshore power to that. My understanding is that one of these ships would be equivalent to several hundred HGVs chugging away down there. We really do need onshore power. This is not new or surprising. The US has been using onshore electric power plugged into ships for many years. The Environmental Protection Agency has made grants for it in the States. It is not as if we have to reinvent the wheel.

Rebecca Pow

You can almost give me a yes/no answer to this. Am I right in thinking that aeroplane pollution was removed from our calculations of overall air pollution for some time?

Simon Birkett

If I can disclose an interest, my late father‑in‑law was Lord Marshall, the Chairman of British Airways. He and I agreed that air pollution laws needed to be complied with around Heathrow. My understanding is that aircraft emissions, in terms of local pollutants, are excluded above the landing and take‑off cycle, which is, I think, 1,000 metres. At Heathrow, the modelling shows that it is a road transport problem and a local diesel problem. You could build a third runway at Heathrow, but before taking that decision, you would have to ban diesel vehicles for many miles around Heathrow, including the M4 and the M25. That is why it is a pretty tall order to comply with the Air Quality Directive and the McCracken opinion.

Chair

I had better declare an interest at this stage, because I drive up and down the M4 and I do not particularly want it closed. Thank you, gentlemen, very much. We have gained a lot from your evidence. What we have gained from your evidence and the professors’ as well is that it has to be very much a cross‑departmental, cross‑Government effort. Defra is in the dock, but so is everybody else. We have to make sure that we get Government to act. Oral evidence: Air quality, HC 479 1