My Lords, I thank the Minister for his introduction and the noble Baronesses for introducing their amendments as well. I have the final two amendments in this group: Amendments 64A and 64B. These amendments address our concerns about the proposed revoking of the National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018, particularly Regulations 9 and 10, and of the Commission Implementing Decision 2018, which lays down a common format for national air pollution control programmes. The Government have justified this revocation by saying that
“we will be removing some items of REUL relating to the National Air Pollution Control Plan (NAPCP). The current format … is long, complicated, resource intensive and duplicative, and does nothing to improve the quality of the air we breathe. By revoking this item, we can better focus on what will actually help clean up our air, such as by delivering on the ambitious air quality targets we have set in statute through the Environmental Act”.
I would like to explain why we believe they should not be revoked.
The National Emission Ceilings Regulations deal with emissions of ammonia fine particulate matter, sulphur dioxide, NOx and other serious pollutants. These emissions are the inputs which mix in the atmosphere to become concentrations or outputs, which are measured for health and regulatory purposes relative to the WHO’s air quality guidelines. The Environment Act 2021 and the air quality strategy of 2023 focus largely on concentrations. The environmental improvement plan of 2023 proposes just vague measures to reduce emissions without providing a robust mechanism to review, plan, consult and implement plans when new breaches of emission ceilings occur.
Regulations 9 and 10, which the Government seek to abolish, provide for the preparation and implementation of a national air pollution programme to limit those harmful emissions in accordance with national emission reduction commitments and, importantly, for full public consultation. Removing the obligation to draw up and implement a national air pollution control plan strips away any clear duty on the Government to show how they will reduce emissions in line with their legally binding emissions targets. To succeed in this, we need rules that require the Government to control emissions of harmful pollutants at their source. Without such measures, all their plans and targets are empty gestures.
5.15 pm
Last year, Clean Air in London identified three breaches of Regulation 9 and this year Defra admitted breaching the PM2.5 emission ceiling. The answer to a breach of these regulations, which are intended to control air pollution, is not to abolish them but to take immediate measures to tackle a problem that poses one of the greatest threats to human health and the environment. What are the Government’s explanations for revoking this? They do not hold up to scrutiny. Talking of scrutiny, why has there been no consultation or engagement on these prior to the publication of the schedule?
I offer our strong support for the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, because we are very concerned that the water resources regulations of 2003 are included. She has clearly laid out her concerns and the reasons why the regulations are important, so I will not repeat them.
In the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, there are proposals for extensive powers for a new system of environmental impact assessments to replace the current regulations, including the water resources regulations of 2003. Powers in the LURB only streamline and simplify current requirements and they will be applied to all EIA regulations. DLUHC is currently consulting on those proposals, including with the devolved Administrations, and planning for new regulations to be considered later this year, but if this is delayed at all then any new EIA regulations will not be in place before next spring. Why are the Government revoking just one set of EIA regs, which apply only in England and Wales, before those plans are realised and new regulations are in force?
Last year, Defra’s Nature Recovery Green Paper consulted on opportunities
“to improve the scope and process of these regimes”,
including the water resources EIA. In the absence of any government response to that consultation, can the Minister explain why the water resources EIA has been singled out from the other four EIA regimes under Defra’s jurisdiction and what the rationale is for revoking it?
I draw attention briefly to our concerns about the inclusion of the Flood Risk Regulations 2009. These impose a duty on the Environment Agency and local authorities to prepare assessment reports on past floods, to map areas at significant risk of flooding, and to prepare flood risk maps and flood risk management plans. The more recent Flood and Water Management Act 2010 similarly requires that particular authorities must
“develop, maintain, apply and monitor a strategy for local flood risk management”
in their areas but does not set out provisions around, for example, how often these must be reviewed. Will the Minister set out, in writing to me if that is easier, whether there are aspects in the Flood Risk Regulations that are not duplicated in the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 and what the impacts of losing these may be?
Finally, I have a question about the Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2013, which are included. We understand that they originated from primary legislation: the Pollution Prevention and Control Act 1999. Presumably, this transposes that directive. Does that mean it is included as a technicality? Are the Government aware of all transposed legislation and are there further implications for primary legislation when legislation is transposed like that?