Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
94-99)
MR GRAHAM
PENDLEBURY, MR
IAIN FORBES
AND MR
CHRIS PARKIN
9 FEBRUARY 2010
Q94 Chairman: Good morning and welcome;
we are grateful to you for coming in to talk to us. Could you
tell us what the Department for Transport is actually doing to
reduce air pollution from road vehicles?
Mr Pendlebury: We have a number
of policy instruments. The biggest single area where we focus
our attention and where we get the biggest wins is through vehicle
technology standards. Of course these emerge from the European
processes, the so-called Euro standards, which I am sure you have
heard of, although the Department plays a very major role in negotiating
those standards and leading the discussions around what might
be the appropriate standards. We have done a lot of that over
the past 15 or 20 years or so. It is through the introduction
of Euro standards that we get the biggest single reduction in
vehicle emissions, but obviously there is a whole range of other
policies as well, whether they be small-scale fiscal tweaking,
such as the Reduce Pollution Certificates to encourage the earlier
uptake of forthcoming Euro standards. Then, of course, there is
the whole basket of environmental policies that we have that also
support vehicle emission reductions. For example, our rather ambitious
goals for effectively de-carbonising road transport through the
use of electric plug-in hybrid vehicles and so forth will have
significant air quality benefits as well; congestion reduction
policies, the work that we do with sustainable travel initiatives
and so forth. The whole package helps, we hope, bring down air
quality problems and eventually over time eliminate them.
Q95 Chairman: Can the Department
point to having urged within the EU the faster introduction of
more demanding vehicle emissions standards?
Mr Pendlebury: I might ask Mr
Parkin who has more direct experience of this to comment in a
minute. Since 1992 we are moving towards Euro V and Euro VI standards,
so in the course of about 15 to 18 years we have gone through
about five different standards, so the rate of churn, if you like,
and change in development of Euro standards is pretty fast as
it is. We have to bear in mind what are the technological feasibilities
of what we can actually do with particular emission control technologies,
so insofar as whether things can be done faster—it is always
ideal if things are done faster—I think there has been quite
a fair pace already. Chris, is there any particular instance where
we have been pushing for faster introduction?
Mr Parkin: I think the most obvious
recent example is on the passenger car and light goods vehicle
Euro 5 and Euro 6 standards where the Commission's original proposal
was actually just for a single stage Euro 5 standard without any
significant reductions in diesel NOx limits. The Department pushed
very hard for the addition of a more demanding Euro 6 standard
that reduced diesel NOx limits by around 70%. That was something
where we pushed very strongly for an additional significant measure
beyond what the Commission requested. There is also the addition
of extra measures to control particle emissions in the Euro 5
standard. When that was first proposed the Commission proposed
a relatively simple 80% reduction in particulate mass limits.
The Department has been very active in UNECE[4]
fora developing new techniques to better control particle emissions
and better measure particle emissions, particularly to ensure
we control emissions of the ultra-fine particles which are believed
to have the greatest health impacts. We pushed the Commission
there to include these new measurement techniques and set very
stringent limits using those techniques as part of the Euro 5
standard and that has resulted in a limit which will effectively
reduce diesel particle emissions by 99% compared to current vehicles.
Q96 Chairman: How much of a priority
within the Department is air quality?
Mr Pendlebury: As I am sure you
are aware we have five overarching departmental strategic objectives,
one of which relates to safety, security and health of the British
people and that is where we locate, if you like, our air quality
efforts as essentially a public health issue. Therefore, because
it aligns very well with one of these five strategic objectives,
it is something that we give quite a lot of priority to. Obviously
we are always trying to balance or hit as many goals as we can
so one can never say that any particular policy area is given
priority over others. I was just reflecting on this earlier this
morning, that one of the areas that is often talked about where
we are having to balance different priorities is around reduction
in climate change impacts of transport and air quality impacts.
One of the things we do know and agonise over is that some of
the technologies that are used to deliver Euro standards have
some penalty in CO2. We have gone for the air quality impacts
yet often people say we prioritise climate change perhaps rather
more than we do air quality. It is a bit difficult to answer your
question directly but it is certainly something that we attach
a lot of attention to and obviously we have ministers who are
very engaged in it and ministers who work jointly with Defra ministers
in particular on this subject.
Q97 Chairman: Some of the evidence
we have heard suggests that if we are trying to reduce deaths
then more attention paid to air quality might have a bigger impact
than trying to refine still further some road safety measures.
What do you think about that?
Mr Pendlebury: That is an interesting
one. The problem with the 3,000 deaths and 30,000 serious injuries
on the road is that those are very immediate, visible, directly
attributable impacts and we can devise policy solutions that meet
them, whereas with the air quality area it tends to be contributing
to a worsenment of someone's existing condition. It is a rather
apples and pears comparison really. I think it is certainly the
case that more attention as the evidence builds up has been given
to air quality impacts and one of the things that you will be
aware of was the recent Prime Minister's strategy unit report
on urban transport which identified air quality problems as perhaps
being a bigger part of the story than had hitherto been suggested,
so obviously that is an area we would always want to continue
to look at. I think it would be difficult to say, "Okay,
let's prioritise this a bit more than road safety and take our
eye off the road safety ball", because of the very visible
and immediate impacts that road safety measures tend to have.
Q98 Chairman: If we were to ask you
how you would demonstrate that air quality is a priority within
the Department, what would be the two or three things you could
point to to show that?
Mr Pendlebury: I would point to
the fact that over the past 15 to 20 years emissions from road
vehicle transport have come down dramatically despite a very significant
increase in traffic volumes. That has not come about by accident,
that has come about by measures led in the large part by the UK
in conjunction with our European partners. The fact that we have
had people over the years who have put a lot of effort into that
and given demonstrable resource would be the single biggest area.
I think it is worth bearing in mind that air quality is one of
those things that is rather embedded out in the Department, so
the Highways Agency, our colleagues in the Aviation Directorate
and different bits of the Department have air quality built into
their objectives; it is not just about the relatively small air
quality strategy team within my area or the kind of technical
and engineering standards that Chris represents. It is not a question
of just adding up the bodies and saying, "That represents
your effort". It is spread around the Department quite effectively.
Q99 Joan Walley: Given that light-touch
regulation is very fashionable, I am just wondering where your
priorities fit in terms of regulation and in respect of particularly
public transport and buses, what resources go into control and
regulation of emissions from buses? How many prosecutions have
there been, what kind of budget do you have and what you would
feel your success is in terms of making sure that buses are not
over-polluting?
Mr Pendlebury: If we are doing
prosecutions, then we have clearly failed as a policy; I would
hate to think we judge it in terms of the number of prosecutions.
I have a small confession to make: as well as being the Environment
and International Director, I am also the Better Regulation Director
for the Department so in line with prevailing government policy
I am keen that we do not just lay on more and more regulations,
we have to try to find a balance and regulatory instruments are
not necessarily always the best option to follow. Obviously the
Euro standards apply in the bus sector as much as they do in other
sectors. You have a problem with buses which is that the turnover
of the fleet is relatively low compared to, say, traffic. We know
that the average age of buses is over eight years and within that
average there will be some that are quite a lot older than that.
Equally, it is very important. Something like two-thirds of all
public transport journeys are undertaken by bus and the more we
can layer regulations onto the bus sector the more we are potentially
affecting the availability and affordability of bus services.
In terms of your specific question about how many prosecutions
have there been for failing to meet minimum standards, I would
not know the answer to that question honestly. I do not know if
my colleagues do.
Mr Forbes: Every year, all vehicles
undergo an emissions test as part of their vehicle test and we
do know that less than 1% of vehicles fail that emissions test
which has led to us assuming that the vehicle standards have been
well engineered.
4 United Nations Economic Commission for Europe Back
| 
