Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee Oral evidence: Air quality: follow-up, HC 509 Tuesday 6 July 2021 Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 6 July 2021. Watch the meeting Members present: Neil Parish (Chair); Ian Byrne; Geraint Davies; Rosie Duffield; Barry Gardiner; Dr Neil Hudson; Robbie Moore; Mrs Sheryll Murray; Julian Sturdy; Derek Thomas. Questions 1 - 75 Witnesses I: Rebecca Pow MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Bill Parish, Head of Air Quality and Industrial Emissions, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (via video link). Examination of witnesses Witnesses: Rebecca Pow MP and Bill Parish. Q1 Chair: Welcome to the EFRA Select Committee. We are talking about air quality today. We have the Minister Rebecca Pow and Bill Parish with us. Would you like to introduce yourselves for the record, please? Rebecca Pow: I am Rebecca Pow and I am the Environment Minister at DEFRA. Bill Parish: Good afternoon. I am Bill Parish. I am deputy director for air quality and industrial emissions at DEFRA. Q2 Chair: As far as I am aware, we do not have to declare an interest, because I do not think we are related. You are very much welcome, Bill. Minister, why will you not commit to meeting the World Health Organization’s PM2.5 target of 10 micrograms by 2030? What is the hold- up? Rebecca Pow: I am very pleased to be speaking to your Committee again, following on from the previous hearing not very many months ago. I will give the same answer I probably gave then. Whilst obviously we take this extremely seriously and the PM2.5 is of the greatest concern for human health, as we have said all along, we have to get this target absolutely right. The figure that the WHO has stated is a guide. They fully understand the route that we are taking, because actually we are acting by their guidelines, which is to take all the evidence and advice and have a clear pathway and plan to setting our target. That is what we are doing. That is what we have absolutely committed to through the Environment Bill with the dates we have set. We have been taking evidence from a great many sources on how to actually set this target. We will be coming up with what our thinking is by September. A huge amount of modelling is going on. In fact, even more modelling and collating of data since we last spoke, which I can tell you a little about later, if you would like to know about that. Then we have to go right around Government to get the support of all the other departments on exactly what this target should be. Then we will consult, and we will be consulting in early 2022. Then we will actually set the target, and everyone will know what the target is, as we have said all along, by 31 October 2022. In fairness, we might find out that we want to set it lower than the WHO guidelines. We are completely open to what it might be. All of the experts will tell you the same story. I am sure you have had them before your Committee. I meet them; I met with a whole load of them last week. Q3 Chair: What I would say to you, Rebecca, is that you came before and said, “We might even set higher standards”, but the problem is we have all sorts of standards set and targets to go for net zero. We have talked about actually bringing forward the banning of diesel and petrol cars. Yet now, all of a sudden, we have to do a lot of talking to people before we can set any targets. Why is it so different with air quality than it is with many other aspects of environment? As I have said to you before, air quality is probably the one thing that really directly affects people’s day- to-day lives. That is why I am concerned. We could say, given the fact that you are not going to set it until October 2022, that there is a lack of urgency. Would it be unkind to say that to you? Rebecca Pow: That would be totally unkind. You are absolutely right that this affects everybody’s daily lives. Also, you say, “Why can we not just do it tomorrow? Other people are taking action”. It is because it is not as straightforward as, for example, just changing fuel in a car. It is very complicated. Whatever expert you speak to, they will tell you the same thing. Professor Alastair Lewis, who I believe you heard from in your last inquiry, is on our air quality expert group. He will tell you it is not just as straightforward as writing down a number on a line. We have to get this right. Also, you have named a lot of other things that will impact this: how we get to net zero, what we are doing with cars and how climate change can change. All of these things have to be factored in. In our modelling, there has been some really complicated modelling on all of these different inputs, to try to see if we can come up with the right target. DEFRA consulted on this back in July 2019 and, although it came up with saying that it was potentially technically feasible, we have to have the pathway to get there. That is what we were absolutely determined to be working on. I am going to take issue with you about the lack of urgency, because we have already introduced a great many things that will already be helpful to us. We have already introduced that ban on burning of coal and wet wood in households. We introduced that in May this year. That is since our last meeting. We have brought a whole raft of measures to show that we are working on it. Q4 Chair: Sorry, Minister; we will not go into wood, because we have a question about that later. It is just the principle, as far as I am concerned. I will throw your words back at you. Why is it we can set a target for net zero, albeit further away, but yet we cannot set a target for air quality? Is it actually simple to get to net zero and more complicated to deal with air quality? The two do not quite chime together and we are trying to work out why. I know you are telling me you are consulting, but surely we are consulting on net zero, are we not, and yet we have set a target for that? You then tempt us with the fact that you might set an even tighter target, and yet you have not consulted, so you cannot actually tell us that, can you? Where are we? Rebecca Pow: We did one consultation in 2019. We are working on the next one. As I have told you, we will be coming up with a target in September and we will be consulting again in early spring. The point is that we are taking dual action. We are setting a target for concentration and we are setting a population exposure target. Both of these things are extremely technical and extremely complicated. I would reiterate again that both of those expert teams, which are both independent—the air quality expert group and the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, which are filled with expert scientists and academics—support the pathway that we are taking. We have to take their advice. The net zero target is 2050, whereas we are actually looking at a date much closer to us than that. I would say we would be irresponsible if we did not take this clear pathway. I am very happy to bring Bill Parish in. We talk about this at great length. Even last week, I had Professor Alastair Lewis in, and Professor Frank Kelly on the medical side, and I have spoken to Professor Stephen Holgate. All of those experts agree with the steps that we are taking, because we have to be responsible. Q5 Chair: The World Health Organization says we should hit this particular target. Many other countries are doing it. Why is it so much more difficult for us? Rebecca Pow: I have to take slight issue again. I am not sure that many other countries are doing it. As far as I understand, I do not know of any other industrial country doing anything like what we are considering, and certainly not considering a population exposure target. What we are considering with the 10 micrograms per cubic metre is way lower than what the EU has set. We are leaders in this, which is why we are also determined that we have to get it right, because there are going to be some very difficult decisions for society to make when this target is set. We have to make sure that we have consulted widely so that we bring people with us, because there are going to be some very difficult decisions to make about, for example, whether you halve the number of vehicles used. There is a whole range of issues. Do you just stop all burning of barbeques and street markets and street food? All of these things will have to be considered. They are not easy by any manner of means. We are certainly not ducking out of any of it.