Examination of Witnesses (Question Numbers
180-201)
JIM FITZPATRICK
MP, MR DANIEL
INSTONE, MR
ROBERT VAUGHAN
AND MR
TIM WILLIAMSON
23 FEBRUARY 2010
Q180 Joan Walley: But, given all
that, what I do not understand is why it is so difficult for local
authorities to actually set up low-emission zones. Why do we not
have more of them?
Mr Vaughan: I think local authorities
have different ways of tackling the issue.
Q181 Joan Walley: Or sometimes not
at all.
Mr Vaughan: Low-emission zones
might seem an attractive solution in many instances and some authorities
have set them up. Obviously, London has set up its low-emission
zone and other authorities, such as Oxford and Norwich, have focused
their low-emission zones on a particular type of transport, buses.
We have spoken to local authorities about what prevents them from
setting up low-emission zones and many do quote things like competition
with other authorities, the risk of displacement of pollution
to other areas of their authority, depending on the size of the
low-emission zone they chose, and also the need to actually negotiate
that with the politics of local government as well, so many have
considered them, but, as I say, they have come to different conclusions
as to what the best approach is, and often low-emission zones,
whilst they might be a very sensible approach in many ways, local
authorities have properly determined what is the best approach
at a particular time.
Q182 Joan Walley: Can I just ask
finally on this: is there anything that is being done at the moment
to make local authorities give more attention to this as part
of the planning process, and we touched on it, but to really make
it be considered as part of the planning process?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Well, DfT are
in the lead on low-emission zones. They have a study at the moment,
looking at the effect of this in Europe and working out responses
to the questions that Daniel raised about whether they can be
introduced, should they be introduced, what is the cost, how best
are they applied, what vehicles to apply them to, so I think they
are producing this data to be able to disseminate it to local
authorities and to be able to give best advice to those authorities
who do want to use LEZs as a way to improve local air quality,
so we know that they are researching and collating that at the
moment. Obviously, when that is ready, I am sure that DfT will
be publishing it for local authorities to be able to look at and
see if it is a tool and, if so, which element of the tool would
be good for their area.
Q183 Jo Swinson: I want to turn to
the issue of power stations. Why does the UK have six of the ten
power stations that emit the most NOx anywhere in Europe?
Jim Fitzpatrick: The Environment
Agency is obviously the statutory authority which has responsibility
for licensing power stations. Each installation must have a permit
which allows them continuing emission limit values and other conditions
based upon the application of the best available techniques. As
I say, the Environment Agency has to decide what they should be
for each installation and, in that instance, they are the ones
who issue the licence and they have to be satisfied that those
requirements are being met.
Q184 Jo Swinson: In issuing their
licences, to what extent do they assess the environmental and
the public health impacts of these power stations?
Mr Vaughan: The Environment Agency
carry out a full detailed assessment of all impacts a power station
might have or any installation, for that matter, where they are
the regulator. In the particular instance of a power station,
it is determined that SCR, for example, was not economic to retrofit
for the power stations concerned, the coal-fired and oil-fired
power stations, at the present time and they considered that a
different method of abatement was more economically viable and
the best available technology.
Q185 Jo Swinson: My understanding
is that, when the decision was made not to fit them with this
selective catalytic reduction technology, that was because the
plants had a limited life. Is that going to be reviewed now that
the working life of those plants has been extended? Will the Environment
Agency now require them to fit the appropriate technology to deal
with the emissions or look to closing them, or is this just going
to keep going on where they will have their lives extended, pumping
out all of that pollution?
Mr Vaughan: I am afraid I cannot
answer that question.
Jim Fitzpatrick: The regulator
can review the permit conditions at any time and I am advised
that they will certainly do so when the best available technology
reference document for large combustible plants is revised in
2012, so it is very much a matter for the Environment Agency,
but there will be a requirement in due course that they will have
to review the best available technology element.
Mr Instone: It is worth noting
there is, if you like, a double standard of review here. You have
not only got the EU reviewing their guidance documents, which
are known as BREFs, as a means of keeping up-to-date with technology;
but we also have, going through the final stages of the process
in Brussels at the moment, a revised EU Industrial Emissions Directive.
We have got, if you like, a process of review in Europe which
is rightly refining and bringing standards up-to-date to allow
for changes in technology. This is not a static situation therefore.
Mr Williamson: It is probably
worth noting as well that the Environment Agency regulate within
the framework of the Air Quality Directive so meeting limit values,
but also the National Emission Ceilings Directive, so the national
ceilings and the national total emissions. It is finding a space
between those two legislative requirements in which to operate
the permits.
Q186 Chairman: Nevertheless, there
seems to be a slight assumption behind what you are saying that
as long as we are doing as badly as the rest of Europe everything
is okay?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I do not accept
that description, Chairman. I know that we have discussed earlier
in these proceedings the question from Dr Turner about whether
we are satisfied that certainly because we are within a Directive
then we are okay. Clearly there is an imperative to get within
a Directive otherwise the discretion we had about infraction proceedings
and fines comes into being; and naturally we do not want to go
there if we can at all avoid at. By the same token, because of
the developing science, the emerging data, the serious nature
of the impact of air quality on public health, the research which
is being undertaken by the Department of Health, by the Department
for Transport, by ourselves, clearly indicates that just getting
within the confines of Directives ought not to be our objective;
we want to get to the best possible place on air quality. So I
fully accept your concern clearly implicit in the question you
raise. We would agree with you that we do have to do better, which
is why we are striving as much as we can.
Mr Instone: Could I just add to
that also on the point about "it's okay to do as badly as
Europe", or is it? The points that were made earlier about
our actively influencing new Directives in Europe both in relation
to emphasising the importance of PM2. 5, where we have got the
very strong links with health—perhaps stronger than in any
other area—we have brought that into the process of revision
at the EU level; secondly, the concept that was already mentioned
earlier in our evidence, about getting in the idea of exposure
reduction; those are all initiatives that we have very strongly
been pushing in Europe to try to make the future EU Directives
more responsive and better targeted on the health impacts. That
is therefore a very dynamic situation where we have been strongly
influencing the way that Directives are framed in Europe to make
them much more closely aligned particularly with our health objectives.
Q187 Dr Turner: Obviously policies
to deal with air quality depend to a large extent on accurate
monitoring. What can you tell us about the development of air
quality monitoring by both local government and central initiatives
in the UK at the moment? Where are we at?
Mr Williamson: We operate an extensive
network of monitors and we supplement that using complex modelling
techniques. We believe that gives us a better spatial coverage
than just using monitoring. It also allows us to understand those
locations where you would not otherwise have an air quality monitor.
We spend a considerable sum of money every year supporting that
network. It is designed primarily to serve the requirements, and
the very prescriptive requirements, of the European Air Quality
Directives; but it serves a number of other functions as well.
It is our primary tool for generating data for research so we
can better characterise and understand what is a very complex
area.
Q188 Dr Turner: Are you, for instance,
able to deploy the sort of technology which exists which can identify,
for instance, an individual polluting vehicle entering a low-emission
zone?
Mr Williamson: There are some
technologies, remote sensing technologies, which have been developed.
There is a limit to the number of pollutants that they can actually
address and pick up. PM10 is a difficult one, simply because the
way in which you analyse gases is slightly different from the
way in which you analyse a solid particle, which is made up of
a number of different components and does not behave like a gas.
Those technologies do exist but they are very much for research
rather than ongoing monitoring. The kind of monitoring equipment
that we own and have out in the field is expected to run 365 days
a year, 24 hours a day. The kind of equipment that exists to measure
roadside emission plumes from vehicles is not that robust, and
I do not think that would be the right use of that equipment;
but there are some significant developments. There are constant
developments in the field of monitoring. One of the areas that
is receiving a lot of attention at the moment on a Europe-wide
basis is a portable emissions monitoring system—so onboard
monitoring systems particularly for HGVs; and that will be something
that is introduced through the Euro VI emissions standard for
Heavy Goods Vehicles.
Q189 Dr Turner: This may seem a simplistic
question, but without being able to monitor vehicles individually
how can you police a low-emission zone effectively?
Mr Williamson: All vehicles on
the road are required to conform to what are called the "Euro
standards", the emissions standards laid down through a series
of Directives in Europe. They are age-dependent, so from a certain
date all new vehicles will have to be of a certain Euro standard.
By understanding how old the vehicle is, using number plate recognition
technology or other systems, then we can work out which Euro standard
they should conform to. Euro standards have already been introduced.
Those vehicles will have been tested and there is an ongoing process
of research looking at the real world emission levels of those
vehicles, and that is factored into our national atmospheric emissions
inventory; and that is one of our principal tools for understanding
the behaviour of the emissions in question. A lot of it relies
on modelling, but it is modelling very much based in real world
understanding of what vehicles do
Q190 Dr Turner: Surely if these vehicles
are tested—and vehicle testing is normally an annual process—anything
can happen in between?
Mr Williamson: The testing I am
referring to is not the MOT test. Again, that is a relatively
limited test in terms of emissions. The kind of testing I am talking
about is ongoing research undertaken by the DfT—and by others
in Europe as well, so there is a Europe-wide programme—who
will constantly test vehicles both on test bed, so a rolling road
situation, and actually on real world driving conditions.
Q191 Martin Horwood: First of all,
Minister, gentlemen, can I apologise for being late. The reason
I am late is relevant to my question actually. I drove to my local
station at Cheltenham Spa to find that my train had been cancelled;
I then drove to Swindon to find there were no parking spaces;
and I have had to drive the entire distance to London, thereby
adding to the capital's particulate matter quite considerably!
What policies are being developed to encourage people to switch
to alternative low carbon forms of transport?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I think we covered
some of this a little earlier, Mr Horwood, in terms of the range
of initiatives and incentives that are being promoted by government:
all the way through from the developing of more electric vehicles;
the encouragement of hybrids; the vehicle tax incentives for hybrids
and low-emitting vehicles; the Act on CO2 campaigns to raise people's
awareness of their own carbon footprint and to try encourage them
out of their vehicles; and the present campaign, I think, is drive
five miles less per week. So there are a whole number of public
awareness initiatives. There are a number of incentives, fiscal
and otherwise, to encourage individuals and vehicle manufacturers
to produce and to purchase cleaner vehicles. The Local Transport
Act provides for local authorities to engage in contracts with
bus operators; and a lot of local authorities are demanding cleaner
fleets be operating within their areas; so there are a whole number
of different ways that we are trying to encourage people out of
individual vehicles and into more collective forms of transport
by modal shift and others.
Q192 Martin Horwood: I have to say,
as a member of this Committee my awareness was pretty high, but
it did not make my journey any easier. If I had tried to take
the bus I think I would have been waiting all week. Are you talking
to ministers in, for instance, DfT about the need to meet the
kind of targets we have been talking about and the urgent need
to invest in things like rail infrastructure? The recent stimulus
package during the height of the recession, the same amount of
money that we spent on the VAT cut could have paid for the entire
backlog of rail utilisation projects in this country, could it
not?
Jim Fitzpatrick: You are tempting
me to answer questions on behalf of Treasury and the DfT at the
same time when we are here to give evidence on behalf of Defra,
but I am quite happy to offer an opinion.
Q193 Martin Horwood: I understand
that you are having conversations with them about this in the
light of the tasks?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Forgive me, we
outlined a little earlier the comprehensive nature of the engagement
with DCLG, DECC, DfT, Treasury, the Department of Health in terms
of dealing with air quality and a number of its different aspects.
We clearly have an interest to make sure that as transport is
a contributor to the deterioration or to the quality of the air
that we breathe, and we are the ministry which is responsible
for air quality, we have to have a relationship and we clearly
do engage with them to make sure, as best we can, that the policies
which they implement help us in that regard, much as they help
government in an holistic approach to government policy.
Q194 Martin Horwood: Are you happy
or unhappy with the contribution they are making so far—DfT?
Jim Fitzpatrick: As somebody who
was a Transport Minister for two years, up until last July, I
think I would probably say that we are happy with what is being
achieved so far; but as we have been discussing this morning—and
I think the Chairman said maybe I should not be too close to transport
in respect of this—we can always do more. We know we can
do more. We know that there are initiatives and opportunities
for all government departments to improve performance on every
subject, and air quality is no different. We would hope that there
would be an improvement in transport's profile in respect of the
impact it has on air quality; and I am sure that colleagues in
the Department for Transport are working hard to achieve that.
Q195 Martin Horwood: On my way here
I drove through the London low-emission zone, but this is still
quite an isolated example, is it not? We do not yet have any national
framework for low-emission zones. When countries like Germany
have already got them in place, are we not even disadvantaging
people like our own haulage industry by giving them no incentive
to develop vehicles that will comply with low-emission zones?
Continental competitors might well be ahead of the game now because
of the national frameworks in countries like Germany?
Jim Fitzpatrick: Just before you
arrived colleagues were explaining the various obstacles to the
introduction of low-emission zones, and the fact that the Department
for Transport are carrying out a study at the moment as to how
best to introduce low-emission zones. There is the understanding
that the London Zone is quite an expensive one to run because
it operates on automatic number plate recognition systems, as
opposed to other European models where they are operating on a
paper-based system or a warden system or whatever. It is learning
these lessons to work out what is most useful and what can be
deployed to best effect to reduce the emissions and improve local
air quality. In terms of vehicle manufacturers, given the trans-national
nature of companies and Euro standards, I would be very surprised
if we were giving an advantage to foreign manufacturers because
Germany has its own. Most of these companies are producing for
world markets these days, and if they know that the Euro Zone
has the sixth standard coming in that would be replicated in other
countries in due course; and for the 27 Member States' manufacturers
it would be commonsense for them to produce to the same standard
right across the board, surely.
Q196 Martin Horwood: In effect you
are relying on the Euro Zone to raise air quality by being ahead
of our game?
Jim Fitzpatrick: As Mr Instone
explained only a moment or two ago, for example on PM2. 5 we are
actually leading Europe and we are giving them our latest evidence
and data to say this is more of an issue than perhaps it was thought
before; so we are not relying on other Member States and then
just cosying up to their standards. We are actually trying to
lead in our own right at the same time. One of the benefits of
being part of the European Union is that we do not have to reinvent
the wheel on our own: we can see what is happening in other Member
States, share that best practice, learn from each other and then
apply those lessons to positive effect if at all possible.
Mr Instone: It is worth adding
on that, we have talked at some length about the importance—and
we have given some examples—of close collaboration with
other government departments in the UK; but a very key part of
what we also do is to have very close contact with officials in
other countries in Europe so that we can compare what we are doing
and influence them even before proposals get formally tabled by
the Commission in Brussels. That is an absolutely key part of
what we do, to learn from each other on that.
Q197 Martin Horwood: If that is true,
and if that has been true over time, why is it that the Netherlands
and Germany are so far further advanced in having national frameworks
for low-emission zones?
Mr Instone: Different countries
are bound to go at somewhat different speeds, just as different
local authorities in the UK are going at somewhat different speeds.
I think the interesting question is it is precisely because Germany
and the Netherlands (you are quite right) have introduced them
more widely, because they are further ahead, that is making us
look very hard and benchmarking ourselves against what they have
done. It is also true that other countries in Europe, apart from
those, have made even less progress with introducing low-emission
zones. Yes, there is an element of variable geometry, but I think
the geometry would be more variable if we were not all busily
learning from each other.
Q198 Dr Turner: Do you think government
could be doing more to encourage retrofitting of things like particulate
traps and other methods of reducing vehicle emissions?
Mr Instone: We already have systems
for introducing particulate traps, and that is something which,
for example, the low-emission zone in London has encouraged. This
is something that is under very active consideration. One of the
arguments in support of low-emission zones—obviously there
is a balance of advantage and disadvantage as has been mentioned
before—one of the advantages of low-emission zones is that
they can encourage the use of new technology, particularly retrofitting,
that would not otherwise occur. I stressed earlier the importance,
in improving air quality, of doing something about the existing
often older vehicles in the fleet, which can be even more important
in the short-term than getting new vehicles on the road. One of
the things we are very actively looking at is the scope for low-emission
zones to encourage retrofitment. You are absolutely right, one
can take this further than simply particulate traps, so this is
something that is under very active consideration.
Mr Vaughan: Also in the past,
DfT has supported reduced pollution certificates, or has issued
reduced pollution certificates, which are also available for vehicles
that have retrofitted to the correct Euro standard. For Euro V,
they issued 39,000 reduced pollution certificates, which allowed
vehicle hauliers to claim against VED for vehicles that were retrofitted
or met the Euro V standard, which was about 10% of the fleet.
Q199 Dr Turner: Which leads me directly
on to the fact that the Treasury announced in 2009 that they planned
to incentivise the early uptake of Euro VI for HGVs. Has this
started yet, and if not, when?
Mr Vaughan: It has not started
yet because, firstly, the Euro VI has only recently come in. The
Community actually incentivise once the standard is available.
The actual determination of the fine detail of the standard is
still yet to be agreed. The Treasury have made it clear that those
standards are not available to incentivise yet.
Q200 Dr Turner: Brake and tyre wear
has been something of an intractable problem, particularly producing
particulates. Has the Government got any plans to control this?
What research has been undertaken to analyse the health effects
of particulates from brake and tyre wear?
Jim Fitzpatrick: I think it is
fair to say that, as tailpipe emissions have decreased, emissions
from brake and tyre wear are becoming of increasing relative importance,
because there is more research, there is more evidence, there
is more data, research advice has been conducted on options to
reduce tyre and brake wear but many of these have negative effects
on road-holding, so there is a lot of further work to be undertaken.
The increasing uptake of hybrid vehicles will have some positive
effect on brake wear as a proportion of the vehicle braking effect
is translated into power. Obviously all-electric vehicles are
likely to have these systems. In one sense new technology is,
in itself, helping eliminate some of these emissions; but also,
because of the greater understanding of the whole question of
air quality and emissions, there is greater focus being given
on brake and tyre pollution; and obviously that is a matter for
much further research.
Q201 Chairman: I think we have probably
covered the ground we wanted to this morning. Thank you very much
for coming in, it has been very helpful to us.
Jim Fitzpatrick: Thank you, Chairman.
We will supply you with the two or three pieces of evidence that
came up during the course of discussions in due course.
| 
