I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her thorough introduction to the Bill and her explanation of the amendments. I will not go into any detail about that. However, it is important to remind noble Lords and the Minister of the seriousness of the issue we are discussing today.
Air pollution has been breaching legal limits across the UK since 2010. The Government recognise that this is the single largest environmental risk to health in
the UK, with links to cancer, asthma, stroke and heart disease. Toxic air also drives health inequalities. Government analysis confirms that air quality tends to be poorest in the poorest communities and that those communities are also more likely to have health conditions that make them more vulnerable to toxic air.
Therefore, it was very disappointing that the Government decided not to be ambitious on this during the passage of the Environment Bill. They refused to include the World Health Organization target that would have set the UK on the pathway to becoming a global leader in environmental protection. Instead, they launched yet another consultation, looking at new targets for PM2.5 and other pollutants. They also said that they would develop a more sophisticated population exposure reduction target.
1 pm
They said these new targets would be published by the deadline of October this year but, since then, we have seen nothing. The Minister and the Secretary of State in the other place have been unable to say when we will see these targets and when they will be published. All we have heard is that
“we will continue to work at pace in order to lay draft statutory instruments as soon as practicable.”—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/22; col. 18WS.]
What does this mean? How fast is working “at pace”? Does the Minister agree that it is completely unacceptable to make commitments on the Floor of your Lordships’ House that are not followed up, particularly when there is a legal requirement to do so?
It also makes a mockery of the Minister’s response at Second Reading that the Bill is not necessary because of the framework in the Environment Act. What good is a framework if it does not have the overarching targets that are needed to deliver change? I ask again when the Government will publish the targets. Will they commit to the WHO recommendations and when will we see action on meeting them? I am aware that one of the noble Baroness’s amendments allows for a time extension, but we need to see a clear government commitment to the targets in the first place.
While I am on the subject of promised action following the Environment Act, there is a statutory instrument coming shortly that would designate National Highways as a relevant public authority under that Act. I ask the Minister when the other designations will be made.
It has been suggested that, if this Bill passes into law, it will become Ella’s law. I end by paying tribute to Ella’s mother, Rosamund, who is here with us today, for her tireless campaigning since her daughter died after suffering a fatal asthma attack caused by toxic air. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said in her introduction, we are here for Ella. I genuinely do not understand why the Government do not do more.