Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
160-179)
JIM FITZPATRICK
MP, MR DANIEL
INSTONE, MR
ROBERT VAUGHAN
AND MR
TIM WILLIAMSON
23 FEBRUARY 2010
Q160 Dr Turner: Jim, you are obviously
aware of the effects on public health attributed to air quality.
Of course, the Department of Transport is fingered as the biggest
culprit. Are you satisfied with one of the metrics which is commonly
used, which is the reduction in life expectancy which, on average,
is just a few months, to measure the health effects, bearing in
mind that that statistical average hides an awful lot of much
more unpleasant statistics for several thousand people?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Well, I have
naturally discussed this with my colleagues, the officials in
the Department, about the different ways that statistics have
been presented because clearly, whereas our perspective is that
the impact of poor air quality, on average, is reducing life expectancy
by between seven to eight months across the country, compared
to some of the reports of the Committee's inquiry in the media
recently saying that there is a range of between 12-35,000 deaths
per annum, they are clearly completely different ways of presenting
the evidence. As it was explained to me, and colleagues will be
able to offer more technical explanation of life expectancy, if
we were able to eliminate poor air quality tomorrow, we would
not have 12-35,000 fewer deaths next year because air quality
is a contributory factor and taken alongside everything from smoking,
obesity, poor diet, lack of exercise, which contribute to the
life expectancy reduction that we have analysed in our data and
then given a value to in order to try and impact on public awareness
as well as government policy how serious an issue this is, but,
were we to be able to wave a magic wand and have clean air tomorrow,
we would not be saving 12-35,000 lives next year. In that instance,
we are comfortable and confident about the way that we are presenting
the evidence, that it is a more rational, a more accurate way
to portray it and it does not diminish the seriousness of the
issue, but we think it better reflects the actual challenge that
is out there for us because we are intent on improving air quality,
as it has been improving over the years, and with that improvement
we would certainly expect to see a reduction in the life expectancy
lost, which is averaged out on our data, of between seven to eight
months across the UK.
Mr Wlliamson: One of the key points
here is that, coming out of the Committee on the Medical Effects
of Air Pollution, there was a lot of expertise within that committee
and we relied quite heavily on their expert advice and they have
estimated that the long-term impacts of particulate pollution
are about ten times higher than the short-term impacts, which
is why we calculated that long-term impact. We calculated it taking
the whole population over a period of 100 years, so you see how
that exposure to particulates plays out on the life expectancy
of the whole population rather than just taking one-year snapshots;
we believe it is a much more robust way of actually, as the Minister
said, presenting the evidence.
Q161 Dr Turner: Well, there are some
very debatable issues in what you have both just said, but, having
said that, does it give you comfort that at the same time, as
you have just told us, you are pretty close to meeting the European
recommended standards for air quality, yet we still have this
level of public health impact which makes one question (a) whether
the European standards are themselves adequate, and (b) whether
there should not be more urgency in making sure that we do at
least meet those standards?
Mr Wlliamson: We have made it
clear in the Air Quality Strategy that the health evidence shows
that there is no, effectively, safe level for particulate pollution.
It is one of the reasons why the UK, along with other Member States,
pushed for the concept of exposure reduction which is currently
in the Air Quality Directive. That means that we have to reduce
the exposure of the whole population to particulate pollution,
not just those living in the hotspots. In that way, we maximise
the health benefit from the policies that we have put in place
to achieve those exposure reductions. It is also why we need to
maximise the synergies or the connections between air quality
and climate change policy because we believe that the benefits
for particulate, in particular, of doing that are potentially
very large.
Q162 Dr Turner: What assessment have
you made of the economic impacts, given that a lot of premature
deaths average just under ten years' estimated shorter reasonable
life expectancy, numbers anything up to 50,000, and this has a
great cost, added to that all those people who suffer from chronic
conditions which take them effectively out of the workforce and
so on? What is your estimate of the cost of the public health
impact?
Mr Wlliamson: Using a number of
different economic tools, the cost has been estimated at between
£7-20 billion a year and that is a social cost, that is not
money in terms of what the NHS spends, but it is based on a willingness
to pay estimate. Now, that cost takes into account the impact
of PM2. 5, very fine particulate matter, on mortality, so deaths,
deaths from all causes. What we do not have is a good, robust
way at the moment of calculating the impact on illness and on
morbidity, and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollution
is working on a study to define that at the moment.
Q163 Dr Turner: So we are talking
then about a level of cost which is much higher than that attributed
to lack of exercise and, frankly, the Government makes much more
noise about trying to educate the public about the benefits of
exercise and healthy living than it does about the impact of air
quality. Government is in a position through policy, and particularly
transport policy, to do something about it, whether we are blaming
PM10, NOx or whatever. If we change and we decarbonise transport
and if we more urgently drive, for instance, an electric/hydrogen
fuel economy for transport, we can make a much bigger impact on
air quality, can we not?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I do not disagree
with the premise, going back to your first question which was
about whether we are taking this seriously enough and then your
subsequent questions about the monetised impacts on the UK economy.
As Mr Williamson has said, working out the exact calculation is
being examined at the moment and there again are a range of values
which are attributed to the impact on an individual from €12,000
to £30,000, depending on what statistical base you arrive
at, but, notwithstanding your original point, is this a serious
question?[3]
Answer: clearly it is. Are we satisfied and comfortable with just
trying to get within European limits? No, probably we should not
be and, as Tim has outlined, there is a greater effort being made
for a continuing reduction so as not just to get within the limits
set by the Directive. I think that, as there is greater awareness
of this, there will be more media attention paid to it, more government
attention paid to it because it is a contributory factor, going
back to my point earlier on, in that it is difficult just to say
that, if we had clean air, all these deaths would go because it
is not just transport, but it is also housing emissions, it is
also industrial emissions, there are a whole range of factors
which impact, and what we have to do is try to make sure that
we have a framework in place to address air quality because that
is our responsibility and then make sure that that is observed
and applied by other government departments whichever area is
their responsibility.
Q164 Dr Turner: The point I wanted
to get to still stands of course. You are right, there are other
factors, but in this case addressing the air quality impacts of
transport and the climate change impacts of transport go hand
in hand, so, given the huge costs in public health terms of poor
air quality, is it not worth investing more in driving a technology
change in transport faster which will address both of these issues
at the same time?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Well, there is
a work programme laid down in terms of Euro VI in respect of HGVs.
We have low-emission zones, which are used perhaps more in Europe
than they are here, which are under consideration. There are a
whole number of other transport-related initiatives which could
be taken in terms of transport management, congestion charging
and the like, so a whole range of transport initiatives which
could be used to help drive down emission levels and all are either
under active consideration or are being applied and may be applied
more intensively in due course as the whole question of air quality
moves up the political agenda. In that instance, then perhaps,
and I am sure, we ought to be giving more attention to it. I think
as we described earlier on, the discussions that we are having
at the moment with the devolved administrations will lead us to
produce a document later on this year which will address air quality
and climate change in a holistic approach which we will be sending
to the Committee in due course because that will be an important
piece of work.
Mr Vaughan: DfT already are committing
funds to the promotion of electric vehicles, in particular, and
the establishment of electric charging points through the newly
created Office of Low-Emission Vehicles within DfT, and that is
also pushing forward funding for green bus purchase by transport
operators, and it just distributed £30 million last November
to a number of different transport providers across the country
specifically for green bus fleets.
Q165 Dr Turner: That is fine, but,
now that a hydrogen-based transport fleet is looking to be technically
feasible, should we not be putting in more effort to incentivise
the development of that because that would eliminate the particulates,
apart from in braking systems, it would eliminate NOx emissions
and sulphur emissions and it would eliminate CO2 emissions? Since
that is now looking technically possible, why do we not put more
resource into that?
Mr Instone: That is something,
as my colleague has indicated, that the Office of Low-Emission
Vehicles will be looking at because of course you get both air
quality and CO2 benefits from that, so that is something which
is very much under active consideration. What is clear is that
we need a range of measures here because of course getting the
air quality improvements requires not simply introducing new vehicles
into the fleet, new kinds of vehicles, although obviously that
is part of it, but also trying to remove as many as possible of
the most polluting vehicles, so it is particularly important that
we address that issue of what are we doing about the large number
of vehicles that are going to be in the fleet, particularly in
the short to medium term, so that is why some of the measures,
for example, the tax measures that the Chancellor announced in
previous budgets for encouraging reduced pollution from heavy
vehicles, are very relevant, so we have to think, therefore, about
quite clearly a range of measures at both ends, both for the new
vehicles where promoting them is absolutely essential and also
doing what we can as quickly as possible to clean up the vehicles
that are already on the roads.
Q166 Chairman: Just developing this
a bit, in terms of making the public more aware of the effects
of air quality on health, do you have a strategy to try and raise
awareness and to improve understanding about this?
Mr Instone: We have done a variety
of work on this area. For example, simply in documents we have
published in the past, that is meant to be raising awareness.
We have also introduced various campaigns, or the Government has,
in relation to CO2, and we have talked about campaigns like Act
on CO2 and the work to encourage people to use public transport,
so we have done a lot, particularly bearing in mind, as has already
been indicated, the very strong synergies between action to reduce
CO2 from vehicles and action to remove local air quality pollutants.
There is always scope for doing more here, but there has been
quite a lot of activity, particularly in the transport area, encouraging
modal shift and encouraging the reduced use of cars.
Mr Vaughan: Just to add on the
public awareness and the information provision, we do help operators
with a website where we do provide a very great deal of information
to the public about air quality in their local area, what their
local authorities are doing to improve air quality in their local
area and what they themselves can do to protect themselves if
they need to if they are a vulnerable group, for example. We also
provide, and have provided in the past, funding to services, such
as air texts and air alerts, which alert vulnerable groups through
messaging text services if pollution is going to be particularly
high on particular days. Also, many local authorities at the local
level do an awful lot of work to promote air quality through teaching
packs, business partnerships and travel planning and so on and
so forth, as my colleague Daniel has said, linking with climate
change wherever they can because the opportunities are there to
achieve the same benefits.
Q167 Chairman: In practice, how do
you think the improved public awareness of these issues might
actually lead to behaviour change? Do you think that, in reality,
that actually happens or that people just go on doing what they
would have done anyway?
Jim Fitzpatrick: What was quite
apparent when I met the local authorities who are doing well and
then subsequently at the Air Quality Summit was how effective
local communities were once they had recognised they had an issue.
There was one particular community group from Sheffield, and we
can send the Committee the study, Chairman, who identified that
they were having a big problem and then basically took it on themselves
to address it and enlisted the support of Sheffield City Council
and then started managing their own air quality with a whole number
of initiatives in respect of traffic management, in respect of
greening their area, in respect of encouraging modal shift, et
cetera, and they were able to show that they had an impact, as
was described a minute ago by Robert, and the monitoring of the
air quality in their area improved and it was down to the local
community taking responsibility for itself, so in that one example
it was quite clear that public awareness did actually work in
alerting people in a residential area, a relatively ordinary residential
area, if I may describe it as that and not in any way, shape or
form being disparaging, to take control of their own lives and
impress upon the City Council that they wanted to see action,
and they got action and it resulted in better air quality for
themselves and their families, much to their credit.
Q168 Dr Turner: Have you made any
assessment of the impacts and costs of air pollution on ecosystems?
Mr Wlliamson: We have certainly
made estimates of the impacts on ecosystems, but valuing the impacts
on ecosystems has proved extremely difficult and we are not able
to do that at the moment. What we do have though, what Defra has
certainly developed, is the ecosystems services approach which
looks at actually what services a healthy ecosystem provides,
and that includes well-being, clean air, clean water and so on.
There is a methodology that we can use there to start valuing
ecosystem impacts, but it does need more research; it is extremely
complicated. Valuing the effect on human health just looks at
one organism. If we are looking at ecosystems, we are looking
at a whole range of organisms, and some of the changes, some of
the damage that an ecosystem will suffer as a result of air pollution
is quite subtle, so changes from a certain type of plant growth,
heather for example, to a grass-based system counts as damage
in ecosystem terms. To the public, it may not look that different,
so it is a very difficult and very complex area. We are working
towards valuing the ecosystem impacts, but we are not able to
do so at the moment.
Q169 Dr Turner: Do you think that
the 2007 Air Quality Strategy may have been compromised and may
not be as radical as it might have been because of an obvious
complete lack of any cost-benefit analysis and methodology applied
to ecosystems, but not much evidence of a cost-benefit analysis
even applied in public health? Had there been a rigorous cost-benefit
analysis, do you think we could have ended up with a more radical
Air Quality Strategy?
Mr Wlliamson: I think that is
difficult to say; we are making a judgment on something we are
not able to do. The estimates certainly I get from my economic
colleagues are that we have captured the main, the largest value
in terms of monetary value impacts plus the effect it has had
on mortality of PM2. 5. The other impacts, if we were able to,
and we hope to be able to, value them, would be substantial, but
it is not thought to be game-changing, as it were, they would
not change radically the direction of travel; we are already moving
in the way that we believe would be right.
Q170 Dr Turner: Well, what further
action do you think government is going to have to take on air
quality if the UK is going to meet the long-term goals of the
EU's sixth Environmental Action Plan?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I think we have
outlined during the course of answering some of the other questions
that there are a whole range of actions that we need to be addressing,
and particularly we have been discussing mostly transport. Having
outlined these, it is very much a matter of trying to make sure
for vehicle emissions that either low-emission zones or fiscal
incentives are in place, whether it is technology and the introduction
of the new Euro standards that manufacturers conform to the requirements
which are laid out to them, whether it is local authorities being
able to benefit from a better understanding of traffic management
schemes, low congestion schemes or low-emission zones which will
help or whether it is the Local Transport Act helping local authorities
to negotiate cleaner buses with the bus operators. There are whole
ranges of different ways that the improvement in air quality can
be achieved, and that is only just mentioning a few that we have
mentioned already this morning. There is a lot of research being
undertaken by transport, and you have mentioned yourself the hydrogen
situation, and Daniel outlined that this will obviously be examined
by the Low Emission Unit, all the way through to, as Ms Walley
mentioned, DCLG and planning policy and guidance in respect of
section 106 agreements and developers being required to put in
charging points as a sort of modern way forward to again encourage
the use of electric vehicles. All of these things are at the disposal
of local and central government and they are initiatives that
can be followed by local authorities or by vehicle manufacturers,
and obviously we would hope that they would all be best embraced
to make sure that we can improve the quality of the air which
we all have to breathe because, regardless of where we are in
the country, it is flowing around and everybody is impacted by
it, but we know where the hotspots are in Central London and these
clearly have to have a bit of a focus.
Mr Wlliamson: Going beyond that
to look at the ecosystem impacts, there is a strong dependency
on trans-boundary air pollution, so again it is working both on
a national emissions basis and international emissions. The UK
is a very strong and active participant in the Convention on Long-Range
Trans-Boundary Air Pollution, where a lot of drivers for that
are the ecosystem impacts, the environmental impacts and the kind
of impacts that are encapsulated in the sixth Environmental Action
Programme.
Q171 Dr Turner: What about shipping
and aviation then in that context?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Well, I actually
asked and one of the other areas, which I was just about to come
in on before you supplemented your question, one of the other
initiatives within the plan is on shipping and I was asking Tim
earlier about what the impact of shipping is, given that there
would not seem to be necessarily, apart from the flow of air,
a direct correlation between what happens on the seas and what
happens on land. Of course, shipping is the highest emitter of
sulphurous fumes and the MARPOL[4]
agreement which was reached at the IMO[5]
and the IMO's determination to take on board emissions demonstrates
that they recognise that shipping has to play its part in addressing
the challenge of climate change and addressing the challenge of
emissions. With aviation, similarly, clearly there are benchmarks
laid down and targets laid down for aviation with the Government's
policy of having policies in place to make sure that the level
of emissions, particularly carbon, are not exceeded beyond the
levels which are the accepted policy, and I think it is 2004/05
for aviation and earlier for shipping, that we try and reach these
international agreements to make sure that they engage and play
their part responsibly in addressing climate change and addressing
emissions and pollution, and both industries have clearly indicated
that they want to do that and that those negotiations are taking
place both at the IMO and at ICAO.[6]
Q172 Dr Turner: Are you satisfied
with the urgency of those negotiations, given the background of
the WHO report which suggests that worldwide 60,000 premature
deaths result from shipping emissions? The world's busiest shipping
lane is ten miles offshore from my constituency, so this is very
much affecting my patch and this is something which at least European
governments acting together can address by regulation by banning
excessively polluting ships from our waters.
Jim Fitzpatrick: I think I am
more confident about shipping than aviation in an international
sense because the agreement that was reached last year at the
IMO in respect of addressing emission levels and the carbon footprint
was very positive. The discussions at Montreal and ICAO were less
so and, in that instance, the decision of the UK and the EU was
to set its own targets on aviation in respect of international
travel, and the IMO did seem to have a more positive forward-looking
policy. However, they were both supposed to be part of the Copenhagen
Conference and I am not privy to the final detail, but my understanding
is that, as part of the follow-on process, aviation and shipping,
playing their part in the whole climate change conference agenda,
will be part of the ongoing dialogue. I certainly, as the former
Aviation and Shipping Minister at Transport last year, felt personally
that shipping was addressing public concerns internationally more
aggressively and positively than aviation was, which is why the
UK Government and the EU decided that we wanted to make sure that
we set our own stall out because we were concerned very much,
as you described, about the impacts of shipping and the Channel
as the busiest sea lane near our borders which would impact on
the health of our citizens.
Mr Vaughan: In particular, on
shipping the MARPOL Agreement was amended in 2008 to achieve reductions
of something in the region of 88% of oxidous sulphur with benefits
of up to £700 million for the UK.
Q173 Joan Walley: Just on shipping,
I am sure that there will be many ports and local authority areas
where, if agreement can be got on emissions from shipping in the
port areas, there could be remarkable improvements in terms of
air quality, so I wish you well on that, and I will not go down
the aviation route with the court case which is at Heathrow today,
but can I just go back to local authorities. You talked just now
about the wonderful good practice that there was and you referred
to the case study that you had in Sheffield, but I put it to you
that it is very hit and miss, is it not, the standard of awareness
amongst local authorities around the country on how to actually
draw up air quality control plans. My experience is that, whatever
procedures there might be, when you look at the way in which planning
permissions are linked into the whole planning guidance and the
local planning statements that there are, there is very little
being done in large parts of the country to really get strong
air quality control agreements together.
Jim Fitzpatrick: Well, I think
that we must share at least some agreement on that because we
convened the Air Quality Summit late last year to make sure that
we could give a higher profile to the good practice, the best
practice which was happening in certain parts of the country and
share that with as many local authorities as possible. Forgive
me, but I cannot remember how many local authorities turned up
at that.
Mr Vaughan: Eighty.
Q174 Joan Walley: I would be very
interested to know whether or not Stoke-on-Trent did.
Mr Vaughan: Yes, they did.
Q175 Joan Walley: I would just be
interested to know whether or not you have got any answer to the
residents who have great public awareness that they do not want
certain facilities in the wrong place which goes against the grain
of transport policy and actually encouraging safe routes to schools
and all of that when you get large lorries using narrow, unsuitable
roads for waste transfer stations.
Jim Fitzpatrick: Robert has just
advised me, we had around 80 to 100 local authorities there as
a third of local authorities in England and Wales in attendance,
which was a measure of the interest that there was. It was a very
well-attended and respectable turnout from local authorities.
In my own constituency in inner East London, we have exactly the
same issues with residents saying, "We want a ban on HGVs
on this road because it is too close to a school" or "It's
too narrow a road and we're worried about child safety, let alone
air quality". I am sure those issues are being replicated
right across the country and it very much is a matter for local
authorities to listen to residents as part of the democratic process
and I hope that the successes which have been achieved in certain
areas, that that best practice can be shared with communities
who have similar concerns to try to make sure that they can replicate
that success in their own locality.
Q176 Joan Walley: Do you think you
could do more to help DCLG prioritise making progress on this
agenda?
Mr Vaughan: Well, we do provide
guidance, DCLG provides guidance on pollution control, PPS23,[7]
and we have also provided guidance to local authorities which
was launched at the event that the Minister refers to on the use
of planning in low emissions and in low-emission strategies, and
we are working with a number of councils, beacon authorities,
in England in particular to promote better use of planning arrangements
and planning guidance to improve air quality. More local authorities
are now building in air quality considerations through the provision
of supplementary planning guidance to ensure that air quality
is taken into account in the preparation of planning developments
and planning proposals, so effort is being put into that area
to provide assistance to local authorities to ensure that planning
takes account of air quality impacts and also that, where it is
possible to develop those through section 106 agreements, they
are able to take account of the impacts they have on developments
so that local authorities can take advantage of that.
Mr Instone: We do have a very
strong and statutorily underpinned system of local air quality
management which in fact puts quite a lot of requirements on local
authorities both to review the level of air quality in their areas
and, if there are problems identified, take specific action to
address it. Indeed, some have criticised the system for being
too heavy-handed because it is quite a strong system, so there
is a very strong statutory underpinning in this area which sets
the framework for the way local authorities have to go about it,
and of course we have a very large number of local air quality
management areas which have been declared by local authorities
as a result of this process.
Q177 Joan Walley: I think it would
be very helpful, if the Committee has not already got the detail
of that, to have the detail of that before us for our Report.
Jim Fitzpatrick: Which particular
piece of information is it that you want?
Q178 Joan Walley: What has just been
referred to there in terms of—
Mr Vaughan: The statutory system,
what the system is. I am sure we can provide that.
Q179 Joan Walley: Yes, because I
think the concern is that it does not seem to be applied right
the way across the board.
Mr Vaughan: The statutory system,
well, the legal requirements are laid down in Part IV section
80-91 of the Environment Act 1995 and all local authorities are
required to review and assess local air quality and, where they
have indentified air quality problems, they must carry out further
detailed assessments as to what the sort of extent of the problem
is, what pollutants are particularly of concern and whether there
is any exposure to local residents, the population, and then put
in place action plans to address those concerns. As Daniel has
said, there are about 230/240 local authorities which have declared
air quality management areas and they might be no more than a
single house or a row of houses or they might be for the whole
authority, depending entirely on how the authority chooses to
address the issue.
3 Note from witness: The range of values attributed
to the impact on an individual is from £30,000 to €120,000,
depending on the statistical base used. Back
4
International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from
Ships, 1973, as modified by the Protocol of 1978 relating thereto Back
5
International Maritime Organization Back
6
International Civil Aviation Organization Back
7
Planning Policy Statement 23 is intended to complement the pollution
control framework under the Pollution Prevention and Control Act
1999 and the PPC Regulations 2000. Back
|
