Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
144-159)
JIM FITZPATRICK
MP, MR DANIEL
INSTONE, MR
ROBERT VAUGHAN
AND MR
TIM WILLIAMSON
23 FEBRUARY 2010
Q144 Chairman: A warm welcome and
thank you for coming in a few minutes early as well; it is much
appreciated. We have got quite a lot of interest in this inquiry.
It is an issue which I think many of us had not really thought
about in tremendous detail before we started and we have been
quite struck by the evidence we have had so far. Could I ask you
just generally to start off with: why do you think the Defra Air
Quality Strategy has failed to stop Britain from being in the
position where it faces EU fines?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Chairman, would
it be helpful if I made a very brief opening statement and introduced
my colleagues from the Department here?
Q145 Chairman: Of course.
Jim Fitzpatrick: I have Daniel
Instone, who is the Deputy Director for Air, Noise and Local Environmental
Quality, Mr Robert Vaughan, who has responsibility for the national
and local Air Quality Strategy management, and Mr Tim Williamson,
Head of Science and Evidence for the Atmosphere and Local Environment
Programme for Defra. We welcome the opportunity, Chairman, to
come before the Committee today because we recognise that this
is an important issue and we are very pleased to be here. Responsibility,
as obviously colleagues will know, is shared between Defra and
the Departments of Health and Transport whom, I know, you have
engaged with. There is significant progress which has been made
since the mid-1990s, and I will not quote the figures, but we
can go into them later should you choose. For PM10, we are now
only exceeding the European limit value at a very few localised
hotspots in Central London. For all other pollutants, with the
exception of nitrogen dioxide, we are meeting European limit values.
There is clearly a tie-up with climate change and the impact of
air quality, and again we are quite happy to go into those areas
should you choose, and we are engaged with the devolved administrations
to publish shortly a document setting out how effective the integration
of these policies will be, and we would be very happy to supply
that to the Committee in due course, Chairman.
Q146 Chairman: That is helpful, thank
you very much. I think it leads me back to the same point: would
you like to say why you think the strategy followed so far by
Defra, although obviously it has achieved a number of the goals,
still leaves Britain in the position where it faces EU penalties?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Well, we are
working very hard obviously to be within the limits which are
set down by the Commission in the Directive. We have certainly,
as I have outlined, met a number of those and we are seeking additional
time, as many other Member States are, to make sure that we are
able to get within others and, in that instance, we do not think
that we will be outwith the requirements set by Europe. We do
not think, for example, that the risk of infraction is high, we
think it is very low because of the progress we have made because
of our direction of travel, so we know we have to do more and
we fully recognise that and we do hope to be able to demonstrate
to the Commission that we are complying and will be able to meet
the targets that are laid down in the Directive.
Q147 Chairman: What are the particular
problems, do you think, that need to be solved now?
Jim Fitzpatrick: If you will allow
me, Chairman, I have obviously invited my colleagues to contribute
where their expertise is far more competent than mine. One of
the areas in the briefings and discussions that we have had which
has been disappointing is that in the testing regime, for example,
for diesel engines which indicated that they would actually be
cleaner because of the catalytic technology which was available,
in reality, now we are up to 40% of vehicles driven by diesel,
the results have been disappointing and they have not actually
reflected those initial tests. We clearly have hotspots, as I
outlined in my initial statement, in Central London and that is
due to volumes of traffic, the lack of the latest technology;
the Euro VI standard will obviously improve that and bus engine
technology will obviously improve that, and in terms of congestion
reducing the number of vehicles and going for modal shift will
assist as well, so there are a whole number of factors which are
impacting in terms of what we are still seeing in terms of NOx
and PM10 and it is very much a matter of looking at the whole
raft of measures and initiatives that we might be able to introduce
to drive the emission levels down even further.
Q148 Chairman: Well, we will come
back to the transport issues later on. We, I think, felt that
there was perhaps insufficient urgency in the approach of the
Department for Transport to some of these problems. Basically,
what you are saying is that you are going to try and buy a bit
more time. When do you think we might actually face the start
of proceedings by the EU if they do not agree to what you have
asked for?
Mr Instone: We have two separate
timescales on this, one in relation to PM10 where we have already
submitted an application for a time extension, and that is where
we are having further discussions with the Commission. The gap
is pretty small at the moment between what we have offered and
where we need to get to and we think there is a pretty good chance
of actually achieving that, so the issue about fines will not
arise. Now, clearly there is a significantly bigger challenge
when it comes to nitrogen oxide where what we are looking for,
along with, I should emphasise very strongly, a range of other
Member States, is to achieve a time extension to 2015, so that
is the date we are looking for. The Commission have asked that
Member States who are looking for a time extension, all of them,
put in their applications by next year, so the Commission will
then obviously take some time to look at all of that, so it is
impossible to say at this stage exactly what time because then
we are in the hands of the Commission about the timescale, but
that gives you a rough idea.
Q149 Chairman: What sort of fines
might we be liable to?
Mr Instone: That again varies
considerably. As the Committee probably knows, there is quite
a lot of discretion for the European Court of Justice in the way
that they actually determine levels of fines. In principle, it
could be a mixture of a lump sum and a per-day rate, but whatever
exactly it would be, clearly fines are likely to be substantial
and are meant to be, and the Commission's main objective is to
avoid having to fine, but to ensure that Member States deliver
what is needed without it, so we cannot give a precise figure
on it.
Jim Fitzpatrick: But we ought
not to incur them in the first instance anyway.
Q150 Chairman: If there is a fine,
given the present state of public finances, how does it get paid
for?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Well, if there
is a fine, then obviously the Government will be responsible for
paying that. I have had informed discussions with a number of
local authorities and we had an informal session in the Department
last year with some local authorities who were performing very
well in respect of local air quality and we had an Air Quality
Summit later last year when we brought in a whole range of local
authorities to share best practice and to try to ensure that everybody
was aware of the good work that was being done in different parts
of the country. One of the questions which came up was that, if
the Government were fined and it was as a result of London's inability
to get within the values and levels that it ought to, why should
the Exchequer pay London's fine and the rest of local government
across the country suffer as a result, which, I must confess,
had not occurred to me at that time. The follow-on question of
course was: could we then transfer any fines on UK plc to whoever
happened to be Mayor of London? This is not an attack on Mayor
Johnson, and I do not know if there is a legal technical answer
to that, but it is interesting that it was in the minds of local
authorities that they were thinking that the public sector borrowing
requirement, because the Treasury would have to pay the fine,
could very well impact on the level of rate settlement that they
would get and, in that instance, that may be unfair, particularly
for authorities which are doing very well, but ultimately it would
be down to the Government to meet the cost as it stands at the
moment and we do not see any way out of that other than, as Daniel
has tried to explain, Chairman, making sure that we do not fall
foul of the Directive and that we actually manage to get inside
the limits which are required of us.
Mr Wlliamson: It is probably worth
pointing out that for nitrogen dioxide, the European Commission
is expecting virtually all Member States to have to apply for
a time extension. This is not a UK-only problem, but this is one
which is being faced by the majority of the European Member States.
Chairman: From the point of view of people
suffering the health effects of course, the fact that other countries
are equally bad is not a great consolation.
Q151 Joan Walley: You mentioned just
now, Minister, that Defra, along with the Departments of Health
and Transport, are looking at a shared responsibility for how
to deal with air quality controls, and I just wonder, as there
are other government departments and you just mentioned local
authorities and I am thinking particularly of DCLG, what are you
doing to make other parts of government aware of the costs of
poor air quality?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Well, there is
research which is commissioned by, and coming out from, the Department
of Health which is sponsored by the Department of Health principally,
but obviously DfT are the lead in respect of transport and we
are the ministry responsible for air quality, so there is a shared
responsibility. When it comes, Ms Walley, as you describe, to
making sure that we can share that with colleagues in local government,
then we have undertaken directly to liaise with them through other
government departments very much as a matter of making sure that
we disseminate as much information as possible to make people
aware of the issue, were they not to be, and my impression is
that most people are aware of the issue, and some of the challenges,
some of the solutions and some of the research which has been
undertaken by various government departments.
Mr Instone: If I might just add
to that, we have established the whole area of air quality combined
with noise and local environmental quality as a formal programme
within Defra and we have a programme board which we have recently
revamped and we chair that, but that includes representations
from all the key departments, including the Department of Health,
the Department for Transport and, as you mentioned, the Department
of Communities and Local Government as well, plus some others,
so we have established a pretty close working link, and we spend
a lot of time in any case between meetings having a lot of discussions,
whether bilateral or multilateral, with those departments; it
is incredibly inter-departmental in its focus.
Mr Vaughan: Also, if I might just
add as well, I regularly meet with colleagues in DCLG and ensure
that air quality is taken into account in policies. I also attend
meetings with local transport planning body officials in DfT to
ensure that they take account of air quality in the development
of their guidance and the advice they give to local authorities.
Q152 Joan Walley: The question which
follows on for me to ask is: in terms of the Cabinet Office Strategy
Unit and the way in which all these different policies are co-ordinated
across government departments and also with DCLG and local authorities,
what recognition will there be of this air quality issue in the
new planning guidance which is about to be issued any time this
month in respect of the new spatial planning? For me, when we
are planning either roads or whether or not we are planning, for
example, waste transfer stations or anywhere where there is likely
to be extra pollution, I would like to know how this is being
reflected in this joined-up approach that the Government is telling
us that it has.
Mr Vaughan: Well, the new planning
guidance must take account of all environmental impacts in the
development of plans, and one of those impacts would be air quality
where air quality is integral to the preparation of plans.
Q153 Joan Walley: So that is going
to be specified in the new planning guidance about to be issued,
is it?
Mr Vaughan: It will need to take
account of environmental impacts in the round, as it is described
in the guidance, and air quality is one of those impacts.
Jim Fitzpatrick: And there is
a public service agreement, PSA28, in which air quality is one
of the five key indicators and that we do liaise directly on the
PSA Board with DECC and DBIS and DCLG because air quality is one
of the issues, but also land management, water quality, biodiversity
and marine, so there is that tie-up under the PSA target as well.
Q154 Joan Walley: Just following
up on the PSA28 target, are you putting incentives in there for
the Department for Transport and Defra to contribute to that target?
Are you just expecting them to do it or are you putting incentives
in?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I am sorry, I
do not understand what you mean by "incentives", Ms
Walley.
Q155 Joan Walley: Well, are you just
leaving it to chance that those targets are going to be achieved,
or how are you actually incentivising the people who sign up to
those targets to actually deliver them?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Well, in terms
of any PSA, if the Government does not meet its target, then it
stands in the dock accused by public opinion of setting itself
indicators which it then clearly may not have met. We do not think,
having identified that these are issues which need to be addressed,
that we would fail, and in terms of air quality the Directive
sets down the parameters within which we ought to be operating
and that clearly is where the Government has got to demonstrate
that it is performing as required and, as Daniel outlined a moment
ago, we think that we will be able to demonstrate that we will
be within the Directive.
Q156 Joan Walley: So you are confident
that other departments are accountable for the way that they are
contributing to that PSA target?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I would be extremely
surprised if any government department was not accountable, not
least through your good selves as well as through their own select
committees as well as through public opinion. This is very much
a matter of public record and public policy and, in that instance,
the Government is fully accountable.
Mr Vaughan: Just to add, the DfT
is specifically accountable as a joint partner for the air quality
indicator within PSA28, and that is laid down in the Treasury
guidance on the PSA itself, specifically that the DfT is the joint
partner to deliver that work. As a whole, PSA28 is a government-wide
target and Defra reports regularly to the Cabinet Committee on
the progress with all the indicators within PSA28.
Q157 Joan Walley: Can I just widen
it out a little bit and ask in which areas the Government is really
having to make trade-offs between action on air quality and action
on other policy objectives? Have you come across a situation where
you have really had to make a trade-off in terms of how you evaluate
whether or not the air quality goes first or another aspect of
policy takes precedence?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I am not aware
of a trade-off. Obviously, colleagues here are dealing with it
every single day. My understanding and expectation is that they
are doing everything within their power to make sure that we accomplish
the requirements of the Directive and the targets laid down by
PSA28 and the rest, and we are not making trade-offs. They have
got their work programme cut out, as they have been starting to
explain, and, unless there is something in particular where you
may think we are in some way, shape or form negotiating, compromising
or trading off, I am not aware of any trade-offs.
Mr Instone: I think the main issue
around trade-offs is more just looking at the relative cost-effectiveness
of different policies as a means, in particular, of achieving
our EU targets. When we published our Air Quality Strategy in
2007, we did, as you probably know, include some quite detailed
impact assessments of the different policies and their relative
costs and effectiveness, so, in a way, that gives us a guide to
how we write policies, so it is more about the costs and effectiveness
than it is about trading off between policy objectives.
Mr Vaughan: If I may just add,
there may be, in some particular policy areas, particular trade-offs
to consider. For example, on air quality and climate change, there
are considerations in achieving more biomass burning and a trade-off
there needs to be considered, and what we do there is we work
with the departments to assess the costs and benefits and to ensure
that the costs and benefits of air quality impacts are taken into
account in those trade-offs. The reverse of that is also true
for air quality where in all the Euro standards, for example,
for vehicle emissions, there are trade-offs there to the benefit
of air quality in some of the higher Euro standards because they
involve slightly more fuel consumption, and again those trade-offs
are taken into account in the assessment of the costs and benefits
of those policy areas, so certainly they exist, but we do take
them into account in how we appraise costs and benefits.
Mr Wlliamson: Plus, as the Minister
mentioned in his opening remarks, we are publishing a document
which will set out actually how air quality and climate change
policies going forward can maximise the synergies and can maximise
the co-benefits that can be attained from aligning both climate
change and air quality policies, and we think they are considerable
going into the future.
Q158 Joan Walley: I think we are
just picking up on concerns which were given to us in written
evidence from the Institute of Air Quality Management, but just
finally on this group of questions: are you confident that you
can actually link in, given the separation that there now is between
Defra and DECC, so that there is a way of actually resolving the
climate change issues along with environmental issues?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Yes.
Q159 Joan Walley: Have you got a
mechanism for doing that?
Jim Fitzpatrick: As Daniel was
describing earlier on, the various committee structures that are
in position give us a clear opportunity to be able to make those
connections and we have got no concerns about the lack of good,
strong communication links between departments to make sure that
we can work together effectively.
|
