My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction to the statutory instrument. As he said, the SI seeks to put in place
regulations to set targets for the maximum annual mean concentration and population exposure reduction for fine particulate matter, or PM2.5. As he said, this is legally required by the Environment Act 2020. I also thank the Healthy Air Coalition for its time and its very helpful briefing.
As we know, the SI also relates to matters of very high public interest. PM2.5 is the name given to the tiny particles of dust and dirt in the air that, when breathed in, can get deep into our lungs and bloodstream. We know that exposure to PM2.5 has been linked to worsening respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and likely has a link to cognitive decline and dementia. The Minister himself just said that there is no safe limit. We also know that it played a key part in the tragic death of nine year-old Ella Adoo-Kissi-Debrah in 2013. As the Minister did, I pay tribute to her mother, Rosamund, and her family, who, as he said, have campaigned tirelessly on this issue.
We know that Public Health England has estimated that the health and social care costs of conditions caused by unhealthy air and air pollution, both PM2.5 and nitrogen oxide, could reach £18.6 billion by 2035. The Minister talked about the economy; I say to him that dealing with this issue will save the economy a huge amount.
As we have heard, the annual mean concentration target, or the AMCT, proposed in the SI is 10 micrograms per cubic metre, to be met by 2040. The proposed population exposure reduction target, or PERT, would reduce PM2.5 levels across England by at least 35% by the end of 2040, compared with the baseline year of 2018. It is also worth noting that these targets relate only to England, as air quality is a devolved policy area.
The reason for my regret amendment is that we believe the Government have failed to meet their own policy ambition. Back in 2019, the Government said that they would put world-leading and ambitious air quality targets in place, including for PM2.5. They also pledged
“a green Brexit, where environmental standards are not only maintained but enhanced.”
We look forward to debates on that on the REUL Bill.
7.45 pm
However, we believe that achieving an annual mean concentration target of 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2040 is neither world-leading nor ambitious enough. This target level is based on the World Health Organization’s air quality guidelines, which were published as long ago as 2005. These were surpassed in 2021 by the new guideline of 5 micrograms per cubic metre. The Minister spoke of this new target as if it were mentioned in my amendment, but I remind him of what it actually says. It calls on His Majesty’s Government
“to bring forward, as soon as practicable, a revised PM2.5 target which better reflects (1) the dangers posed by toxic air, and (2) the significant public support for improving air pollution”.
It also says that the European Commission
“seeks to achieve the target by 2030”,
So, when I am talking about what I want to achieve from my amendment, I am talking about ambition, not a specific set target. There needs to be ambition to
reach 5 micrograms, no matter how difficult the Minister and the Government think it is.
Looking at other places, we see that since 2012 the United States of America has had a stronger legal target for PM2.5 than the UK. Its target has been set at 12 micrograms since that date, and the US Environmental Protection Agency is currently considering recommendations from its independent particulate matter review panel to lower this further to between 8 and 10 micrograms—again, a stronger target than this statutory instrument sets out.
In 2016, the Scottish Government set a target of reaching 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2020—a target that was achieved, according to its 2020 annual report. The Minister might say that it is easy to reach this in Scotland. I appreciate that, but, again, it is just a comparison.
As we have heard, the EU Commission also showed a higher level of ambition than the UK when it proposed to reduce PM2.5 levels to 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030. As I said, this is about ambition.
The UK Government are not only lagging behind others. A study by Imperial College shows that an annual mean concentration of 10 micrograms per cubic metre can be achieved across 99% of the country by 2030, using policies that have already been proposed by the Government, coupled with those set out in the sixth carbon budget of the Climate Change Committee. Defra’s own Clean Air Strategy 2019 reached a similar conclusion, so why not have that as our target?
In fact, the analysis that the Government published during the public consultation last year showed that reducing concentrations of PM2.5 to 10 micrograms is achievable long before 2040. Simply meeting legal emission reduction commitments that already exist under a separate regulatory framework means that it would be possible to reduce these concentrations to within 10 micrograms per cubic metre by 2030. In other words, the policies necessary to meet existing legal commitments would do most of the work towards meeting the target much earlier that the UK Government currently propose.
Despite this, the Government’s analysis also suggests that this new target does not include compliance with existing legal commitments—for example, the National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018. We find this extremely concerning. Can the Minister confirm that this target is therefore non-compliant?
In Defra’s Air Quality PM2.5 Targets evidence report, the Government state that their target strikes the right balance between ambition and achievability. Under this scenario, an annual mean concentration of 11 micrograms per cubic metre is likely to be achieved by 2030. That suggests that it will then take an extra 10 years just to reduce the initial 1 microgram. There is no explanation as to why this is in the consultation documents or in the Government’s response. Can the Minister explain? The Air Quality Expert Group, or AQEG, which helped to inform the Government’s process for setting these new target levels, noted that the Government had generally taken a “pessimistic view” when interpreting how likely it was that different targets would be met under the different scenarios.
In addition, the Government failed to publish much of the evidence that they have based their proposals on. This includes analysis and modelling that Defra commissioned from Imperial College London to inform the development of the new AMCT, which was referred to in the consultation evidence pack but never published in full. Can the Minister explain why the full evidence—particularly the analysis commissioned from Imperial College London, as this is what the proposals are based on—has not been published?
Furthermore, the SI fails to take account of the views expressed during the consultation period, which ran from March to June of last year. I should perhaps draw attention to the fact that I was previously an associate of the Consultation Institute. Of the over 13,000 answers to the Government’s question on the ambition levels, 90% disagreed, wanting the Government to go further; 94% of those who disagreed cited a general lack of target ambition as the reason; 33% mentioned that the proposed ambition is too low to improve health outcomes; and 33% suggested that the target be achieved earlier. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee noted the issues around the consultation.
Similarly, the leaders of Britain’s leading royal colleges wrote to the former air pollution Minister asking her to set a target date of 2030, as did a group of mayors, local authority leaders and representatives from the British Medical Journal. This suggests that the Government chose not to amend the ambition level of the AMCT despite substantial public and professional medical support for setting the target at 2030. When reviewing the Government’s proposed environmental targets, the Office for Environmental Protection recommended that the PM2.5 targets be amended as they lacked
“sufficient urgency to reflect the scale of the change needed”.
In addition, ensuring that targets are as ambitious as possible has been a major part of the campaign by Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah CBE, which the Minister referred to. She wants to ensure that no one else dies, as her daughter did, from illegal and harmful levels of air pollution. The coroner overseeing the inquest into nine year-old Ella’s death in 2020 concluded that legally binding targets for PM2.5 should be set at the WHO air quality guideline levels to protect public health. The SI does not achieve this objective.
The proposals in the SI do not achieve ambitious air quality targets, but nor do they meet the test set out in Section 7(3) of the Environment Act that the target should
“significantly improve the natural environment in England”.
Can the Minister explain why the views of the general public and the expert advice of the royal colleges were ignored when drafting this SI?
Page 28 of Defra’s Air Quality PM2.5 Targets: Detailed Evidence Report, which formed part of the 2022 consultation documents, proposed multiple applications for modelling PM2.5 levels, including producing projections to support future policy development, providing estimations at locations that are not monitored and supporting the assessment of
“where monitors should be located within zones and agglomerations”.
However, the regulations as drafted do not contain any provisions related to modelling, despite this being part of the consultation.
The problem with this is that the absence of modelling means the assessment of compliance within the annual mean concentration and population exposure reduction targets relies solely on monitoring, and that has limitations. While we acknowledge the AQEG’s advice that modelling is currently less accurate for PM2.5 compared with other pollutants such as nitrogen dioxide, we are concerned that this represents a step backwards from the existing approach to assessing compliance with air quality limits under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010.
Under the existing approach, the Government supplement fixed measurements of pollution levels with modelled estimates using their pollution climate mapping model. This provides a more granular picture of air quality levels across the country, especially across areas where there is poor coverage from the monitoring network. We are concerned that the decision to exclude modelling from the assessment regime may instead allow for a less representative and comprehensive assessment of the levels of pollution that people are experiencing across the country.
Areas with PM2.5 exceedances that may not have been captured by modelling may be missed if the monitoring network is not sufficiently expanded to increase its spatial representation. At the same time, modelling should not be used to override an exceedance identified through monitoring. We believe it is possible to use a combination of the two, as the UK Government have been doing since 2021 with regard to the legal limit set under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010. Even outside of the compliance assessment regime, there is a clear role for modelling to play in helping assess where monitors should be located, and in relation to policy development; for example, to estimate the air quality implications of any future policy. Can the Minister explain why air quality modelling has been missed out of the SI?
We also have concerns regarding the proposals for the measurement of PERT compliance. The regulations stipulate that measurements will be taken only from urban or suburban background sites where PM2.5 is
“not significantly influenced by a source or sources of pollution in close proximity to the site, and is therefore representative of the background level of PM2.5 to which the population is likely to be exposed across a wider area than the immediate vicinity of the site.”
That is paragraph 1 of Schedule 2. This means that, due to the preclusion of close-to-source sites, the most polluted communities, such as those on or near busy roads or industrial sites, may not be included when assessing compliance. So PERT would not serve those at most risk from the highest levels of PM2.5, such as people whose homes, workplaces and schools are located in high-density, high-traffic areas. How do the Government intend to protect people most at risk from exposure to high levels of PM2.5, as well as those living in pollution hotspots?
We welcome the inclusion of a new requirement for a minimum number of monitoring stations on a zone-by-zone basis based on population numbers, but this will not come into effect until 1 January 2028; again, this is something that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny
Committee picked up. Why is there this five-year delay to introduction? Again, this suggests that the role for modelling in areas with a minimum number of monitoring stations is not yet met in the interim period. Delay makes it more challenging for the Government to accurately assess its compliance with interim targets, which are due to be set in the environment improvement plan.
It is not clear how many more monitoring investigations will be delivered by these regulations. Based on the population data and information about monitoring zones that are set out in table 1, figure 3, of Defra’s Air Quality PM2.5 Targets: Detailed Evidence Report, it looks to us as if the regulations are going to require only a minimum of 166 monitors to be installed by 2028. That is an increase of just 103 monitors over five years. These minimum standards are unlikely to be enough to fully understand the levels of pollution.
We welcome the commitment to include stations that are sited to provide
“data that are representative of locations where the highest PM2.5 concentrations are likely to occur to which the population is exposed for significant periods.”
That is paragraph 4 of Schedule 2. However, “significant periods” is not defined. Can the Minister explain what is meant by significant periods? The regulations do not include a specific requirement for the Government to publish an explanation of how the design of the monitoring network satisfies the siting requirement. Again, this is a step backwards in transparency compared to the previous regime under the Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010. There is no explicit duty placed on the Government to review and revise the monitoring network to ensure it is kept up to date with the latest technological and scientific standards and that the placement and number of stations remain appropriate—another loosening of regulations compared to the current regime under the Air Quality Standards Regulations, which require a review of the network every five years.
8 pm
There is also no explicit duty placed on the Government to maintain air quality monitors to ensure that they are satisfied with the minimum data capture requirements set out in the regulations. Unless the network is properly maintained, there is a risk to data reliability. There should be a duty to actively maintain the network and use all reasonable efforts to meet the minimum data capture requirements.
We note and welcome the requirement for the Secretary of State to publish details of the monitoring station placements and the annual mean levels of PM2.5 in Schedule 3, but there is no requirement for real-time pollution alerts, the lack of which deprives people of the information they need to make choices to protect their health. Furthermore, there is no requirement to publish national-level modelling of PM2.5 concentrations so the published monitoring data will be of limited use to people who do not live near monitoring sites but who may wish to use the data to protect their own health from PM2.5 pollution.
I think I have made it very clear to the Minister where our concerns lie. I know that I have asked an awful lot of questions but this is really important. We
know that time and again senior health professionals have made representations to the Government because they are concerned about the huge health implications for our population if the ambitious targets that we would like the Government to aim for are simply not met. I look forward to the Minister’s response. I beg to move.