Air Quality (Hansard, 30 June 2004)

§ Mr. John Randall (Uxbridge) (Con)
I am grateful to have the opportunity of airing this subject this afternoon. We should all be concerned about air quality, but because it is something that we cannot immediately see, or even feel, it has not been at the top of many people's lists of priorities over the years. I am just about old enough to remember my father coming home from work in the smogs of the late '50s and early '60s. At that time, pollutants in the air were visible—they formed smog—and their nature meant that they caused deaths, which would have been headline news. We can be proud of our record over the years of removing the smoke from our city centres and of the fact that, after restoration work, our buildings are no longer covered in ash and other pollutants. Today's air pollution is of a different nature, which in many ways makes it more dangerous.

We see many media articles about the problem, and the House of Commons Library has produced a good debate pack—well up to its usual high standards—which outlines many of the problems caused by increasing air pollution, such as climate change. Recently, my elder son saw the film "The Day After Tomorrow." Although it shows a worst-case scenario, when I showed him some information that I had received about climate change he was rather shocked to see that the fantasy was not so far removed from the reality revealed by the figures. We would all do ourselves a lot of good to realise that the situation is serious and cannot be lightly put aside.

However important it is. I want to concentrate today not on climate change in relation to air quality, but on the problems of air quality affecting those of us who live in west London, especially my Uxbridge constituency. Not so many years ago, relatively speaking, Uxbridge, West Drayton, Hayes and Harlington were almost in the country; they would have been regarded as semi-rural only 60 or 70 years ago. People came to our area from central London because they wanted fresh air. That was one of the area's big selling points and why people started using the Metropolitan line to go to Uxbridge—incidentally, the line celebrates 100 years of going to Uxbridge this weekend. Metroland was an oasis for people escaping the smoke of central London.

Over the years, however, the area has changed. Perhaps I am getting older or becoming more cynical—in the seven years since I have been an MP, the latter has become more and more true—but I believe that I can now tell the difference in the air quality around my home and those of my constituents and neighbours. Like many people, I suffer minor symptoms of such pollution—I find myself increasingly bothered by nasal congestion, for example. In the local area, the incidence of respiratory disease and asthma seems to have increased. Some evidence may be anecdotal, and some—perhaps in the case of asthma—might have emerged because more is known these days; inhalers and so forth were not around a while ago. However, when I go around schools, I see that more and more of our young people are suffering from such conditions, and I think that air quality has a large part to play in that. When I escape to a rural area—perhaps not one in this country—I can taste fresh air mush more than I did 108WH before. It concerns me that a lot of people in and around our cities have to put up with air that, if they knew what was in it, they would be unhappy about.

One problem is that whenever I look into the issue and collect briefing notes and details from the various Departments, which are incredibly helpful, much of the information I receive is mumbo-jumbo to a man such as me who does not have scientific training. Some of my constituents do not understand the figures because they are not stated in a way that is accessible by the lay person. I do not necessarily blame anyone, but we must think hard about how we educate people, and not just about the problems. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Minister answering my debate today have an important role in ensuring that our constituents believe what they are told.

In my part of west London, there are two principal threats, and a person does not have to be very intelligent, which is lucky in my case, to work out what they are. One is road traffic, which is a huge problem for us. There is increasing road traffic going in and out of London on the main arterial roads and all the other roads. Although I do not want to reminisce too much, I could hark back and say that the idea of a rush hour in Uxbridge 10 or 20 years ago would have been fantastical. Now, traffic congestion is a serious problem in the area. If there were an easy solution, I appreciate that by now somebody might have come up with it. Unfortunately, severe problems are being caused while we search for one.

The biggest and most immediate problem is Heathrow. I say that the problem is immediate because there is the very real threat of a third runway being built at Heathrow if the air quality is deemed sufficiently high to allow that. From the Government's response to the White Paper, it seems that if the air quality considerations, which are huge, can be satisfied, the third runway will go ahead.

A large section of opinion believes that problems relating to air traffic around airports are not properly understood. My neighbour, the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), might want to enlarge on that point, because his constituency is not so much in the firing line, but the firing range itself. Suffice it to say that my constituents, the hon. Gentleman's and others are unhappy about how air quality is monitored. The issue is one of confidence. DEFRA is monitoring air quality, but locally we have our worries about whether the monitoring is rigorous enough and done properly. I am not accusing the Department of doing anything underhand, but the process is of such importance to our constituents that we must have confidence in it.

I recently wrote to the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), because I found it strange that the Department of Health did not have any input to the monitoring of air pollution—after all, it has to pick up the bill in the end. Although I understand that officials from the Department's health protection, toxicology and radiation branch are in regular contact with the air and environment quality division of DEFRA, I would prefer the Department of Health to have a larger role.

At the moment, there seems to be one monitoring site at Harlington. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington might have something to say about that, but 109WH I am beginning to wonder whether the site is big enough for the job. I also want to be reassured that the monitoring work does not have any link to the aviation industry. Again, it is a question of confidence. It is not that I necessarily distrust the monitoring, but I need to be convinced as a local resident that the air quality figures for Heathrow are not being produced to help a particular case. We all know how statistics can be used. That is all I have to say on the matter.

§ Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD)
I have sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's comments. Does he agree that the important question is not simply whether the air quality is monitored properly, but what the real results are? Does he share my concern that the number of flights touching down at Heathrow will increase far beyond the aviation industry's capacity to reduce aircraft emissions by efficiency measures? Air quality is likely to get worse in the next few years.

§ Mr. Randall
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. There are some serious questions and it would be good if we could have a more joined-up debate with other Departments. I would not lumber the poor old Minister with transport matters, however, as I am sure that the Departments involved have enough discussions.

The hon. Gentleman and I recently attended a launch of a paper by the Sustainable Development Commission. It contained some alarming facts and some interesting solutions. There, he mentioned something that I did not know. We are always told that we cannot tax flights, but internal flights in the United States are taxed, so there may be some merit in the proposal. That strays into the transport aspect of the debate, and although it is important I will not go down that line, particularly bearing in mind the number of hon. Members who want to speak.

Another proposed development impinges on my constituency and that of the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington. At present I take a neutral view, not having all the facts. As the Minister, or at least his Department, will be aware, there is a plan for an incinerator at Colnbrook. It is all part of the Government's plan on incineration—or rather it is part of the EU's plan, but if I say that I will be labelled a Tory Eurosceptic who blames Europe for everything. There is an existing waste disposal incinerator and a new one is planned, which is causing much local concern. It has not quite reached the headlines in my constituency, but it has in Slough and some villages in the Hayes and Harlington constituency.

I am sure that the operator, Grundon, will do all that it has to do. There is no question but that the new facility will be built to European specifications, but various materials, including X-rays and clinical waste, which all have to be got rid of, will be disposed of there. I get the strong impression that local people are not convinced by the reassurances that are being given about it, and I would be grateful if DEFRA could somehow—perhaps through a public exhibition—convince the public that the proposal is okay.

There will always be a problem convincing the public because although we have certain limits, the EU is constantly raising them. What is okay by today's 110WH standards will be unacceptable in 2010. The more we find out about these things, the higher standards become. My constituency already suffers from a great deal of pollution as a result of road traffic, Heathrow and the prevailing westerly winds. If we get more pollution from the new incinerator, quite frankly many people will seriously wonder why on earth they should stay put. But life is not that simple—people cannot simply up sticks and go. I notice that 25 local GPs have signed a petition and have asked many questions about the incinerator. I would bow to their knowledge on these matters, even though I want to be as neutral as possible.

Fortunately, we in the London area have just had some elections, but we never know whether a general election is just around the corner. Some issues that I have mentioned become local party political issues, and I am anxious to ensure that that does not happen. If people do not like airports nearby, they have to think about alternatives. If they do not like incinerators, they have to consider alternatives—for example, more recycling and perhaps less packaging.

Some people know that in my previous existence I was a retailer. I am always amazed by the amount of packaging that is used even to wrap things like furniture, when tying it up in the back of a van with an old blanket can provide adequate protection. Now it has to be bubble-wrapped and all sorts of other things, but there is just as much damage, if not more, because people assume that the security of all that packaging means that they can treat items more roughly. There is an incredible amount of waste in packaging, and we as a nation have to take that seriously. It is no good our saying that we do not want an incinerator or a third runway unless we are prepared to consider the options.

I come today not in anger, but to voice my concern for my constituents and others, and for my health and that of my children. I feel that I am rather in the dark. There is plenty of paperwork on this subject, but there is a great danger of people being deluged with scientific facts and figures. I am happy to admit that I am not a scientist and cannot quite understand some facts and figures. I can just about make out carbon dioxide and a few other chemical signs, but that is about it, and they get more and more complicated over time. We in Uxbridge and the surrounding area are a decent lot, but we are not all experts.

We have to persuade people using the real facts about air quality, and we have to do something to improve it. After all—I was about to add, "without being too dramatic", but it does sound dramatic—if we are not careful, air pollution will be a silent killer.

§ David Taylor (North-West Leicestershire) (Lab/Co-op)
Several hon. Members present are here because of aviation, and that is the topic on which I shall focus. We recently received the air transport White Paper, which anticipates a growth in airports until 2030 and in the allocation to airports in the United Kingdom. It does that using a fairly straightforward econometric model, which shows that the growth will lead to significant increases in emissions from all airport-related sources. That will diminish local air quality around those airports, particularly those that are set to expand rapidly. Airport growth means more flights and more 111WH car and truck movements. Where increases in volume outpace technological improvements that could control and reduce pollutants, we have a serious problem. The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) referred to that.

It would be unfair to say that all airports will have poorer air quality to the extent of breaching legal limits. We are saying that, in terms of tonnes per year of NOx and particulate matter of all sizes—the two pollutants that have the greatest health impact—and where there are tough legal limits, the volumes emitted will increase. Ground level ozone will also be a problem, although pollutants such as carbon monoxide will probably decrease, as will sulphur dioxide because of better combustion from vehicles and clean fuels.

Modelling exercises estimate the quantities of pollutants from all sources. At airports, those sources are: aircraft during take off, landing, taxiing, holding and so on; airport operations; airside vehicles; staff transportation; airport-related traffic—passenger vehicles, public transport and so on—and internal operations, such as combined heat and power plants and standby generators. I realise that the Minister here today is not heavily involved in those matters, but I am sure that he will write to me after consulting his ministerial colleagues. One of the difficulties with environmental issues is that they are, by their very nature, cross-cutting, and therefore difficult to handle.

At most airports the hot spots for air quality problems—focused, as I said, on NOx and particulate matter—occur in the immediate vicinity of runway ends and the terminal road access interface. That is particularly true of what I must now, reluctantly, call Nottingham East Midlands airport in the northern part of my constituency. The area around the airport is straddled by the M1, the M42, which links Birmingham to Nottingham, and the Derby southern bypass; it is very much the transport nexus of the east midlands, focused in a small area, and a quantifiable human health impact is occurring. Domestic properties and the people who live in them are being affected.

I ask the Minister either to respond to the following point or to write to me about it. When pollutants breach limits, residents and their houses are affected. Schools are also affected and there are schools fairly close to airports in all parts of the country. There are other at-risk groups—elderly people in care homes, for example. Where the mix of residents and the land-use patterns are as I have described, surely a local authority has a duty of care to invoke an air quality management zone. Will the Minister say where responsibility for that lies? Only by the use of air quality management zones can we begin to address the methods of controlling and reducing pollution, whatever the source.

The air transport White Paper and the associated background paper state that some airports could have significant air quality problems in future. The hon. Member for Uxbridge and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) know more about it than me, but I believe that there is an air quality management zone in force at Heathrow. Fairly horrific air quality is possible if and when end-of-runway alternations happen, and it would be even worse if there was a third runway.

Manchester airport has a small problem, which arises from the fact that there is development right up to the boundary, a closely spaced two-runway layout with very tightly packed terminal buildings and a significant road network. It does not have an air quality management zone, but many believe that it ought to. There might be political problems with that, given that Manchester airport is owned by local authorities in the Greater Manchester area.

Birmingham airport is close to where I live. I believe that its management will proceed with great care when considering the possible second runway. The air transport White Paper indicates that there could be air quality problems owing to factors not dissimilar to those affecting Manchester. The site is confined and closely spaced and a second runway has been proposed. There is poor dispersal, with dwellings in fairly close proximity. If the second runway went ahead, an air quality management zone would be needed without doubt.

Finally, I turn to my own airport, if I may refer to it in that proprietorial fashion. I have described the geographical setting of Nottingham East Midlands airport. Its likely growth, as envisaged by the air transport White Paper, will—or could; I have to be fair—have a serious effect on the surrounding settlements and villages, such as Kegworth, Castle Donington and the smaller villages around. If so, North West Leicestershire district council, the local authority with responsibility, will have to rack up the air quality monitoring and management. It does that work now, but much more is necessary.

I conclude with a couple of broad themes to put things into perspective. I think that we all agree that generally dumping more known pollutants on to people is not a sparkling idea, but that will be one of the outcomes of airport expansion on the scale envisaged in the White Paper. I am not sure that the research on the impact on air quality that was carried out in parallel with the production of the White Paper was adequate. Recent background papers have made me feel uneasy. The trouble is that although the campaigning organisations—local community groups, the Campaign to Protect Rural England, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth and others—have some resources, they do not have enough to undertake the scale of research necessary to analyse, predict and tackle some air quality problems.

There is an absence of technological solutions to reduce air pollution from fossil fuel sources that causes problems around airports. If that continues, the only way to control the huge increases in NOx and particulate matter is to remove or reduce the road traffic contribution to the problem, stop or restrain the increase in flights, or introduce a contribution from both measures. It is important that the Government and airport operators commit to major public transport access to the facilities that airports and aviation provide.

The hon. Member for Uxbridge did not want to be labelled a swivel-eyed right winger blaming everything on the EU; nor do I. I am sceptical about things European from time to time, but not about the positive impact of the EU in terms of driving up environmental standards in western Europe. I welcome that, and I 113WH predict that today's EU air quality standards are likely to become much tougher over the next 30 years, which is the period covered by the air transport White Paper.

In the light of that, I hope that all Ministers who have an influence on how aviation is developed in the United Kingdom will take the fabled precautionary approach. We are talking about a period of three decades and the likelihood of minimum standards of air quality rising significantly. Let us not take decisions or sanction development now that will make it impossible to hit those targets in the years to come.

§ John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I congratulate my friend and near neighbour the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate.

I come to the debate in desperation, because I am not sure where else to go. A few weeks ago we had a debate on aviation during which I raised a number of points about air pollution and urged a ministerial response. Today, I am asking again. I plead at an early stage in my speech for a meeting with the Minister, his advisers and perhaps some of his colleagues in other Departments to examine the specific problems with air pollution that are occurring in my constituency, because they exemplify the potential problems throughout the country.

We in my constituency suffer from the worst air pollution in the country, comparable only with inner-city London itself. My constituents endure the prospect of that situation worsening and being poisoned by the air that they breathe—a continuous process from now until the prospects of runway development are clear, and for ever afterward. I am here in desperation. I want someone to talk to me about the potential Government solutions, because I do not know where else to go.

My constituents live in an area with a lethal cocktail of air polluters. There are three sources: industry, the airport and the aviation industry, and motor vehicles that go along our local roads, in particular, the combination of the M4, M25 and M40 and the minor roads associated with them. They combine to pollute the atmosphere in such a way that certain parts of my constituency will soon be rendered unliveable in—not just by definitions of quality of life, but on health grounds as set by the standards of the European Union and the present Government. I come here asking questions, because I am now desperate for solutions to my constituents' problems.

A number of industries in my constituency provide valuable employment. It is no coincidence that they are situated in the constituency next to the airport, because for many industries our area is the logistical centre for Europe, if not the world. I give the example of Nestlé, which has a pollutant problem: it provides employment, but something about the coffee-burning process is affecting the ability of my constituents living in the area to breathe. We have met the company every three months for a number of years and have tried to identify solutions. Some problems have been resolved, but many have not.

There are a number of individual factories such as that in my constituency, and current legislation dealing with enforcement when an air pollution incident occurs 114WH is not sufficient to enable my constituents to be confident that they will be able to breathe properly again within days. Incident after incident occurs, and they feel that, even working with the local authority and the Environment Agency, they have no power to control the situation. I believe that we must reconsider the immediate enforcement powers that local authorities have in relation to industrial processes.

The second major threat, apart from individual industries, is incinerators. The hon. Member for Uxbridge mentioned the processes through which we have passed in relation to the development of Colnbrook, next to Heathrow airport. That is a good example for the rest of the country of incineration gone wrong. There was an incinerator at Colnbrook and the company wanted to enhance its facilities. It went through the planning processes with one local authority—the one in whose area the proposed incinerator was situated. However, the prevailing wind means that the major pollutants come across the boundaries of the next planning authority, which did not adequately deal with the planning application. This is not a party political issue, as all the parties in the area agree on that. Incineration capacity will enlarge dramatically and my constituents are worried about what effect that will have on air pollution.

Let me explain why my constitutents are worried. I have been asking a number of questions about birth defects in my area. I have been working with Dr. van Steenis, who has worked with a number of Members of Parliament, on the development of incineration and the coincidence of incinerator locations and increases in birth defects.

§ David Taylor
Is my hon. Friend aware of research from five or so years ago—the Dolk report—which considered levels of congenital malformations focusing on pregnant women living within 3 km of a hazardous waste site? Does he fear, as I do, that the pressure on and the unavailability of sites for hazardous waste means that more such material will be incinerated and that the problem will thus be transferred?

§ John McDonnell
I share those anxieties, which relate to the point made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge about the development of packaging and the non-resolution of the problem of incineration and waste management at source, allowing us to become dependent on incineration for the long-term future.

The research on the link between incineration and pollution and birth defects to which Dr. van Steenis has pointed a number of hon. Members prompted me to ask a number of questions about my constituency. The latest figures available from the Government—from the Office for National Statistics—confirm that the number of birth defects in the London borough of Hillingdon, which encompasses the constituencies of Ruislip-Northwood, Uxbridge and Hayes and Harlington, has risen from 194.8 per 10,000 births to 266.9 per 10,000 births in 2001. Thal is a 37 per cent. increase in five years. The peak came in 2000, when there were 348.6 birth defects per 10,000 births, so at one period there was a 79 per cent. increase in birth defects in the borough.

I tried to relate those statistics to development in the area—the development of additional motorways or the increasing impact of the airport—but the factor to 115WH which they seem to relate is the development of incineration at Colnbrook. The Government are enabling the incineration process to develop so that a range of waste is being incinerated that can emit particulates into the atmosphere. I approached the Environment Agency, which told me that there was no conclusive research linking pollution from incinerators and birth defects. Elsewhere in Europe, such research is going on apace, and there are examples of Belgian courts having halted incineration as a result of the health impacts of incineration in local areas.

The statistics are extremely worrying. We need an explanation of the high incidence or birth defects. I am requesting a meeting with Health Ministers to argue the case for more general research in that area and, specifically, for the monitoring of birth defects and more precise identification of the time scales over which their incidence increased. From a lay person's examination of the statistics, that escalation appears to relate to the 1992 legislation passed to allow alternative fuels to be used in power stations and industrial processors, including incinerators and cement kilns. There is also a cement factory in my area.

§ David Taylor
Like my hon. Friend, I take a keen interest in the matter. He accurately quoted the figures for the London borough of Hillingdon, which appear to have doubled in a five-year period. Would he be astonished to know that the Leicestershire rate is the highest in England? At 564.9 per 10,000 births, it is two-and-a-half times as high as Hillingdon's. It may be that a noxious cocktail of influences out of which incineration may need to be stripped is leading to those figures.

§ John McDonnell
There may well be a cocktail, but I do not know. I come here in desperation to ask the questions because I no longer know where else to go. I have asked the questions, I have the statistical data and there seems to be a correlation. However, at present, there is resistance to responding to that correlation with further research or with immediate action, such as preventing any further incineration on the Colnbrook site until we are clear that it is not having an impact on the birth of healthy children within our local community.

Industry is the first source of pollution in my constituency. The second, obviously, is Heathrow airport. Based on the Government's own statistics and assuming the most aggressive use of abatement measures that the Government can identify, and without any further development at Heathrow—terminal 5 is already under construction, and the cap of 480,000 air traffic movements remains—it is predicted that in the next 11 years, 5,000 of my constituents will be poisoned by nitrogen dioxide at levels above the EU's legal limits. If we said that we were going to poison 5,000 people elsewhere in the world, particularly in the developing world, it would sound like Halabja to me. People lost their homes to flooding in the Ilisu dam project; if thousands of people were going to die, we would be campaigning and up in arms against a barbaric Government risking the lives of their electorate and civilians. We would be on the streets demanding action, 116WH yet in 11 years' time, 5,000 of my constituents will be poisoned and we are part of the conspiracy to implement that policy.

§ Norman Baker
Is not part of the problem that when there is a sudden incident, for example a train accident in which 100 people are killed, we can understand the need to take action, but it is difficult for society and Governments to respond to a chronic problem over a number of years when there is no immediate headline or spur for people to take action?

§ John McDonnell
I agree, and that is why I am almost in despair, because I raise the figures time and again but get only a limited response. That is due not to a lack of good will, but to inertia because of the scale of the problem and because for many other constituencies it is a problem for the future. However, for my constituents, it is a problem now. We are already predicting the number of people who will be poisoned by air pollution in 2005. As the hon. Member for Uxbridge said, those people are often economically unable to move away from the area—they are trapped.

If the third runway goes ahead, it is predicted that 35,000 of my constituents will suffer poisoning from nitrogen dioxide. If the runway does not go ahead and the Government consult about alternation of existing runways at Heathrow over the next couple of years, according to even the best air pollution estimates, 14,000 people will be poisoned by nitrogen dioxide. Those figures are unacceptable in a civilised society. The figures impact on aviation policy, but also on dependence on health services, GP facilities and even, tragically, hospice facilities for people dying as a result of air pollution. The problem is not only lung disease, but associated cancers, as discovered in the American studies on the development of airports.

Another way in which the lethal cocktail of air pollution affects my constituency is through motor vehicles, often linked to either the airport or motorways going through my constituency. Having campaigned for nearly 30 years against the development of further motorways and roads because they would increase traffic, I am astounded that the recent response has been to widen the M4 and the M25 and to return to a retrograde policy of further road development. I thought that we won the argument 10 years ago on control of motor vehicles and investment in public transport.

We had a meeting yesterday about the introduction of a stopping service at Hayes and Harlington station that could run to the airport. That would probably double the number of people able to get to Heathrow airport using public transport rather than cars or motor vehicles. However, we cannot even afford the development of the station for that purpose because we are £1.2 million short. We are grubbing around to find that money from the Strategic Rail Authority, which may not exist in six weeks' time, from Transport for London, or from the London borough of Hillingdon—I will not go into the incompetence of long-term capital investment by the local authority. The failure to invest in public transport, even in my area where there is recognised need, means that the polluters combine to poison my constituents.

Let me illustrate what that means. At school, large numbers of the children in my constituency are given a box with their name on it to put their puffer in because of the high rates of asthma and respiratory problems. Our local education authority provides a good service, but the hon. Member for Uxbridge will know that it has to give teachers special training on how to deal with children who have an asthma attack at school, because that is so common. That is the point we have reached.

I just ask the Government for help. Will someone please give us a solution? An air quality management area was declared three years ago. It has been so effective that air quality has worsened over that period. We have applied Government policy at a local level and it has failed. I ask for a ministerial meeting; I want a discussion about the way forward. In addition, I want some assistance for my area and the constituencies of Uxbridge and Ruislip-Northwood.

First, I want adequate investment in full, independent monitoring around the airport. We should work with local community organisations, the primary care trust and the local authority so that we get an accurate picture of what is going on. Secondly, I plead again—for the sixth time, I think—for funding for local research on the health implications of air pollution in my area. That research would monitor what is happening and its effects in detail. At the moment, our local primary care trust bears a financial burden from Heathrow airport. We are not compensated for that, nor do we get any additional money for air pollution monitoring.

I would also like a thorough discussion on preventive techniques and some long-term planning to deal with the specific problem that the area faces. If there were an asbestos factory in my constituency, we would all be piling in with policy after policy. There would be enforcement and action on health, benefits and support. However, because we are talking about the slow erosion of air quality over time, limited action has taken place. In addition, I ask for treatment for my constituents who are suffering from health problems.

§ Mr. Randall
Twenty or 30 years ago nobody really recognised the problems with asbestos. There was an asbestos factory half a mile from where I have always lived, but it was not a problem until people suddenly realised that it was. That will happen again. We must take this matter seriously.

§ John McDonnell
I agree. When I first left university, I worked for the National Union of Mineworkers dealing with health and safety and the pneumoconiosis scheme. In the old days, when miners went along to claim for a bit of dust, the doctors used to tell them that it was good for them—and in a way it was. Someone who got a bit dust on their lungs did not suffer from anything else because the pneumo killed them. It took a long time to get pneumoconiosis recognised and to secure compensation and for the mining industry to take it seriously. Why? Because of the economic force of the mine owners, successive Governments thought that the problem was irrelevant.

I have a crisis on my hands, and the crisis in my constituency could well be repeated in constituency after constituency if current policies—particularly aviation 118WH policies—go ahead. The Government need to tackle the crisis, with some assistance at local level that is reflected in national policy.

§ Norman Baker (Lewes) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate. I am sure that his constituents appreciate the way in which he regularly and quite rightly nags away at the issue. I welcome the other contributions, which have been useful to the debate. In particular, the speech from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) was very powerful and delivered with sincerity and conviction.

I am only sorry that the Minister, for whom I have a lot of time, is in some ways the wrong Minister to answer the debate: we need a Transport Minister, because many issues that have been raised are Department for Transport matters. That shows the folly of splitting up the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Government were right to bring the environment and transport together after the 1997 election, but we now have separate Departments, which is not helpful when dealing with an issue such as air quality.

§ The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
The Government's aim is to provide a Minister to reply to the topic being debated, and this is a debate on air quality rather than on transport. There are many similar issues that have implications for a variety of Departments, and we try to join up our response to such debates. It is for the Member who initiates the debate to make clear the topic to be discussed.

§ Norman Baker
I fully accept that, and I am sure that the Minister will do his best to respond. I often come to debates when DEFRA Ministers end up defending the indefensible as a consequence of the actions of other Departments; I suspect this afternoon will be no different. I add, mischievously, that the Minister is nodding at that point.

We have heard a lot about airports and Heathrow in particular, and rightly so. There are issues of air capacity and the effect on air quality of the Government's policy on expansion of the aviation industry. I am concerned that the predict-and-provide policy in aviation will lead to a dramatic increase in the number of flights and in emissions of carbon dioxide—those were not really touched on, although the aviation industry will double its CO2 emissions between 1990 and 2010—and air pollutants. That will directly affect those living near Heathrow and other airports, as we graphically heard from the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.

The Government must recognise that there is a level of air pollution beyond which it is not sensible to go. If extra flights generate that pollution, they should be stopped. In some places around the world, local authorities are able to stop traffic coming in if the air pollution in a town goes beyond a certain level. It seems to me that there ought to be similar monitoring capacity at our airports: if the pollution reaches a certain level, flights should be stopped until the air pollution is cleared. Obviously, one cannot stop flights landing, but one could prevent them from taking off.

That might seem a drastic solution, but the alternative is simply to accept that the number of flights will increase exponentially, and the technological improvements that the aviation industry is no doubt working on to make planes cleaner will not be sufficient to offset the massive increase projected over the next 20 or 30 years. Air pollution, with all the accompanying problems that Members from constituencies around Heathrow have described, will sadly get worse. That is an unacceptable message to give to the constituents of the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington and for Uxbridge, and those elsewhere. We cannot continue to gamble with people's health in the way we are just because the aviation industry wants to demonstrate that it has an economic benefit for the country. It undoubtedly does, but that cannot outweigh the health impact it has on those who are directly affected.

The Government's answer is to promote an emissions trading scheme for airlines to reduce emissions. I am not quite clear whether that will relate simply to CO2 or to other pollutants as well; perhaps the Minister will respond to that point. I notice that in the Transport Council the other day, which was referred to in Hansard, there was no mention of the emissions trading scheme or any other steps to reduce air pollution, although plenty of other issues relating to airlines were discussed. I am concerned that the Government are adopting the emissions trading policy as a "one golf club" option when they should consider other options to reduce pollution and control emissions of carbon dioxide.

The Minister may be aware of the figures that I have showing that pollutants at Heathrow in particular are reaching unacceptably high levels. In 2000, 8,949 tonnes of nitrogen dioxide, 414 tonnes of sulphur dioxide, 1,000,400 tonnes of carbon dioxide; and 102 tonnes of particulates were emitted around Heathrow, and those figures will have since become worse. Studies in the United States have shown that particulates are particularly damaging to health They are micro-particles that can get into your body and do great damage. The figures for particulates are much too high—roughly double, if not slightly more, the levels experienced at Gatwick, which is of more concern to me with my constituency hat on, as I represent Lewes. I have great sympathy for those who live in the conurbation near Heathrow. We need to do everything possible to limit such pollutants and if technology cannot provide the solution, there should be a cap on the expansion of air flights from Heathrow until that solution is achieved. Predict and provide is simply not an option for Heathrow.

We must also do more to increase access by public transport to Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, because, as the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington said, many of the pollutants come from road transport, not simply from aviation. I sympathise with him when he talks about the difficulties of getting £1 million or so for an obviously much needed rail improvement. The difference that it would make is obvious to me, even though I am not the Member for that area. We cannot deliver the simplest rail improvements that everyone agrees are necessary and desirable, yet we know that there will be another Government announcement for more roads and road widening, and the RAC and the AA will no doubt say that it is not enough. Why is 120WH money spent on roads considered investment, but money spent on railways considered subsidy? Have we in the 21st century really not got around that mindset?

I received a parliamentary answer a week ago from the Department for Transport showing that over the past 30 years the cost of motoring has decreased in real terms by 5 per cent—so much for all the fuel protesters. It also showed that the cost of travelling by bus has gone up 68 per cent. in real terms and by train 86 per cent. It is hardly surprising that we have a problem with road traffic pollution when all the economic indicators have encouraged people to switch from public transport to the roads. The trend for rail and bus costs to go up and for motoring costs to go down has continued under the present Government.

§ David Taylor
The hon. Gentleman might have been present in the House a week or two ago when we debated an issue relevant to this debate. When I pointed out that Britain was in the middle of the European table for taxation on motor vehicles, I was howled down by members of Her Majesty's official Opposition, who try to depict any fiscal attempt to control environmental degradation as an attack on the motorist. Surely, that is simplistic nonsense.

§ Norman Baker
It is. We all owe it to the environment to be honest about the fact that the cost of motoring has gone down. The sooner we in Parliament agree on that and take appropriate measures through economic instruments the better. The Treasury is beginning to understand how economic instruments can help the environment—the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, in particular, understands that—but we must go further. That will require courage from the Government, but if they show some, the Liberal Democrats will support them.

I am concerned about the inadequate monitoring of air pollution. In a parliamentary answer on 26 December 2002 to my question about how much the Government were spending on monitoring, the Minister said that £4.79 million was spent on monitoring ambient air quality and £2.4 million on regulated industrial processors. That might sound a lot, but it is not; there is an inadequate network of sites for monitoring air pollution. I gently point out to the Minister that those sums combined amount to less than the Government spend on cars for Ministers and others to rove around London quite unnecessarily. That is not a statistic of which I would be proud were I a Minister.

Local authorities provide inadequate monitoring as well. Research that I have undertaken with colleagues shows that of the 408 local authorities in England and Wales, 237 failed in 2002 to meet the minimum inspection level of two inspections a year of industrial processors that was set by DEFRA, and more than 50 authorities failed to check each processor even once. There is a big problem with local authority monitoring. I do not know whether the Minister will argue that local authorities are not taking their responsibilities seriously and that there is no reason why they should not, or whether he will accept that they receive insufficient funding. As far as this debate is concerned, the answer does not really matter; the point is that local authorities are not monitoring the processors that they should. We must improve that.

The Minister also knows that although there have been many welcome improvements in air quality in this country during the past 10, 20 or 30 years, we sometimes see statistics that demonstrate a worrying reversal. For example, he will be aware that nitrogen dioxide in London has increased by an average 15 per cent. during the past two years. Only one of the 19 monitoring sites recorded a decrease and there have been some horrific increases. The monitoring station in Marylebone road, which is not that far from here, recorded a 32.1 per cent. increase in such emissions during that time. Things are going wrong in London, in our other cities and in the countryside. He will also be aware of a number of occasions when the ozone-monitoring site in my constituency—at Lullington heath in Sussex—recorded levels that exceeded the maximum advisory limit. Therefore, there is an additional problem with low-level ozone in rural areas.

The Government have more to do. I know that the Minister takes those matters seriously and that he is concerned about them, but I do not see the results. The Government as a whole do not give dealing with air pollution the weight that they should. Sometimes these important matters get swept aside when people make economic cases for further transport infrastructure development.

Lastly, I will say something about trees and forests and the effects that they suffer as a result of air pollution. This is not simply a matter involving people, although they are the most important thing. A parliamentary answer demonstrated that in the UK there are 22 million dead trees and more than 900 million that are suffering from moderate to severe defoliation. That puts us 26th out of 33 in the 2002 European table. There is clearly a big problem with the effect of air pollution on the natural environment. I hope that the Minister can answer the questions that other hon. Members and I have put today. This is a serious issue.

§ Miss Anne McIntosh (Vale of York) (Con)
We have established on the record the fact that there is a lot of dead wood in Sussex. I take this opportunity to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing this debate. It is very timely because of the review of the air quality strategy, to which, regrettably, nobody else has referred during this debate. I hope that the Minister will respond on that matter.

I have several transport interests and it is important to place them on the record: they include British Airways, BAA plc, First Group, the RAC and Eurotunnel. My interest in air quality dates from last year's figures, which we put on the parliamentary record in early-day motion 1279. I congratulate all hon. Members who have contributed to this debate and I urge them to sign the early-day motion. I hope that they will support it. I recognise the work that the Government have done and I pay tribute to it, but they are falling far short of having a coherent strategy to tackle the problem of air quality. It is a genuine problem, which the Minister must deal with. The Government have signed up to mandatory EU levels, yet in their national policy they have set only indicative targets and objectives, leaving the matter largely for local authorities to monitor and control.

Moving and powerful examples of the health problems that result from poor air quality were given by my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and by the hon. Members for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) and for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor). It appears from press reports, in addition to the excellent debate pack that was prepared for today's debate by the House of Commons Library, that exhaust fumes from vehicles may be to blame for up to one sixth of cot deaths. That information came from a recent study. Similar studio show that the UK has the worst asthma record in the European Union, with the proportion of the population affected by it—just under 14 per cent.—almost double the EU average.

The contributions that we have heard this afternoon have shown that air pollution is caused not only by activities in and around aviation, but by car transport. It is particularly alarming that two reports made in the past week—one from the Institute of Economic Affairs and the other from, I think, the university of Central Lancashire—speak despairingly of the contribution of rail transport to environmental pollution. As all the main parties are committed to transferring freight from road to rail wherever possible, that is deeply alarming. I hope that DEFRA and the Department for Transport will look into that in a genuine cross-cutting exercise. I would be very disturbed if we were causing pollution by moving freight on to rail.

There have been positive contributions. The UK Petroleum Industry Association—UKPIA—has produced the "Future Road Fuels" report as part of the debate on alternative fuels. I also welcome the fact that my party has done, and continues to do, a great deal on alternative fuels.

It is interesting that the Minister who will respond to the debate has responsibility for rural affairs. As we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge, although Uxbridge used to be well known for being a rural part of London, that is no longer generally perceived to be the case.

The debate is timely because figures for air quality tend to be seasonal, they are very high in periods of extreme temperatures, such as those we experienced in August last year. The poor air quality headline indicator figures show that pollution in urban areas was moderate or higher on 50 days on average per site last year, which compares unfavourably with 20 days in 2002. The situation was even worse in rural areas, where air pollution was moderate or higher on 63 days on average per site, compared with 30 in 2003. I urge the Government to develop a coherent strategy to improve those figures. I acknowledge that the weather and pollution are no respecters of frontiers; pollution from other parts of Europe is a factor, as we have seen with acid rain. However. the Government must recognise that while such other factors play a part in creating poor air quality, the main causes of pollution are the combustion of coal, transport emissions and industrial pollution.

The economies of the constituencies of many Government Members owed a great deal to coal and its extraction; that has had consequences for energy policy. I welcome the investment in clean coal technology, and I hope that that technology can continue to be explored as a part of the reduction of sulphur dioxide emissions.

The combustion of coal, transport emissions and industrial pollution contribute to pollution, and so too might incineration. In about 1996, there was a plan to build an incinerator to dispose of animal carcasses on the border of Aiskew and Bedale in my constituency, and I had contact with local GPs at that time. It is interesting to note what happens in other parts of the European Union. Half of my family comes from Denmark, so I follow what happens there closely. Denmark disposes of 56 per cent. of its household waste through incineration. The Minister might wish to comment on that. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington pointed out the problems with a local incinerator. However, waste offers possibilities for getting clean and smokeless energy recovery and distribution. In Denmark, that has been used to bring what Danes call distance heating to local homes. I urge the Government to look into that, particularly before this year's hot summer pushes up pollution levels even further.

I commend the work of the National Society for Clean Air and Environmental Protection. It has raised concerns about the DEFRA's forthcoming review of the air quality strategy. There is worry that there has not been sufficient consultation and great concern about what choice of baseline year and scenario years will be taken, as that will be crucial to evaluating the effectiveness of air quality control measures.

We have had an excellent debate this afternoon. The Government have identified a way forward, but they will have to reconcile their obligations under the European Union provisions to which they have signed up with the fact that they have set only indicative, not statutory, targets and objectives and that it is left to local authorities to monitor and control matters. Those who have spoken this afternoon identified deficiencies in the monitoring and control procedures. We must recognise the work of the Mayor of London in improving air quality, but many causes of pollution fall outside the power of local authorities. I commend clean air and good air quality to the Minister and I hope that he will come forward with a stricter air quality strategy based on greater consultation and a wise choice of baseline year.

§ The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
I start by welcoming the last remarks of the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and her references to reconciliation—not a word that is always used in our debates. When dealing with air quality, one of the first challenges is to ensure that we make an incremental improvement year on year, which is how to deal with environmental issues. We must properly reconcile often conflicting interests, or balance priorities.

I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate, which is rapidly becoming an annual fixture. As was mentioned, he has assiduously raised air quality issues in relation to his constituency. The contributions to the debate demonstrate how generally well informed hon. Members are and how seriously they take such issues. The hon. Gentleman began his remarks by referring to the smogs of 50 years ago. I remember what it was like as a visitor to London from the fresh, clean air of north 124WH Wales—having to grope my way through the murk to the underground in conditions that are almost impossible to imagine in the modern day. Smog was headline news in those times, whereas good air quality is not news. "Man breathes clean air" is not as potent a headline for the average journalist as "Man chokes in smog".

The environmental changes that have occurred during the past 50 years have not all been in a negative direction. River water, air quality and the state of our buildings have seen major improvements, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that much remains to be done. We have to meet new challenges all the time. I am sympathetic to his references to the technical language, the detail and figures that scientists and technicians offer us. What has struck me since becoming a Minister at DEFRA is the gap in the language between the simple statement, "We want clean air," and the language of emissions and particulates, percentage improvements and deterioration, which must be measured year-on-year to make sure that the quality of our environment is protected and improved. Those targets and thresholds, boring though they seem, are essential to achieving improvement. In addition, it takes time to influence aspects of air quality. Decisions that were taken 10, 15 or 20 years ago about emissions from vehicles are only now having an impact on the quality of our environment.

The complexity of the issue is illustrated by the points raised by hon. Members. One or two speakers, including my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), invited me to write to them with the specifics. That is the only way to deal with some complex issues that have been raised. We have covered a great deal of ground, and if I am not able to cover all the points adequately today, I shall try to address them in writing for each Member who has contributed.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) sought a ministerial meeting. I am sure that we can arrange one, either with me or with my noble Friend Lord Whitty, who takes the lead on some of these issues. We simply need to identify the specific issues on which he would like to concentrate.

The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) was entirely in order—occasionally, even complimentary—in some of his remarks. However, he made several sweeping generalisations to which I would respond vigorously if there were time. It is important to consider each issue and deal with it properly. On many matters, concerns are raised by a particular study, but when the study and its implications are examined in context and set against monitoring and other evidence, it produces slightly different results.

The hon. Member for Vale of York was kind enough to acknowledge some work that the Government have done. She referred to my responsibility for rural affairs but, of course, local environmental quality is the other half of my brief. One strength of DEFRA, which makes life as a Minister there interesting, is the way in which we cover a range of issues from the international aspects of pollution and global warming down to the local environment issues of air quality, chewing gum and so on. It is therefore appropriate in a debate such as this to deal with issues that impinge on one another.

It is important to note that air quality has improved considerably over the past decade. However, as the hon. Lady said, in 2003 there was a significant increase in the number of days of poor air quality compared with 2002.

§ Miss McIntosh
Will the Minister give way?

§ Alun Michael
Given the number of topics that I must get through, I ought to gallop on.

The increase was mainly due to exceptional hot, sunny weather, which resulted in high levels of ozone. In addition, as the hon. Lady acknowledged, a significant amount of poor air quality was caused by pollution blown into the UK from abroad. It has always been recognised that the headline indicator can show significant yearly fluctuations because of variations in weather conditions, so we need to concentrate on long-term trends. Despite last year's overall increase, the average number of poor air quality days in urban areas in 2003 was about 15 per cent. lower than in 1993.

Several Members referred to asthma, which is clearly a growing problem. We must consider the other contributory factors, such as air conditioning and other environmental conditions that have both advantages and downsides for us. We accept that asthma can be aggravated by air pollution, but that is not, in general, a cause. It should be underlined that we are reducing air pollution levels, and that will continue.

A number of hon. Members referred to the overlap between different governmental responsibilities. We work very closely indeed with colleagues at the Department of Health and the Department for Transport. We are in almost daily contact with them about air quality and health issues.

The issue of monitoring and its adequacy was raised, and my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington made some specific points in that respect. The monitoring of the Harlington site, which was mentioned, is done by the contractors who do DEFRA's own monitoring. Much of the monitoring around Heathrow is undertaken on behalf of DEFRA. There is a specific Harlington site where monitoring is done for BAA plc, but evidence from that site is incorporated in the DEFRA monitoring network and the data are published on the web. The new work to be done at Heathrow following the aviation White Paper will involve scrutinising the monitoring at that site and others in the area.

Is the monitoring adequate? We believe that it is. Moreover, it will be supplemented by modelling. All that work will be scrutinised by a steering group of academics and by local authorities to ensure independence. Monitoring around Heathrow is also done by local authorities and DEFRA. It is worth underlining that monitoring is undertaken by and for DEFRA, but in addition to the finances that we commit, about £5 million a year is made available to local 126WH authorities for monitoring and for their other air quality obligations. The Government provide funding to local authorities for their air quality duties through the annual revenue support grant and supplementary credit approvals, and partly via the local transport plan. Hillingdon and Hounslow have applied for supplementary credit approval for the financial year 2004–05: Hillingdon has been awarded £178,500 and Hounslow £132,500.

The Government are fully aware of the concerns about air quality around Heathrow airport. That was a significant part of our debate and a significant issue affecting the decisions announced in the air transport White Paper. The Government have said that another runway at Heathrow could not be supported unless there was confidence that levels of all relevant pollutants could be consistently contained within EU limits. It is important to underline that. As promised in the White Paper, the Government have commenced the package of work on how to make the most of Heathrow's existing runways and on adding a new runway there after the Stansted runway while complying with air quality and other environmental conditions.

The Government are committed to reporting progress on White Paper commitments generally in 2006. Work is under way to improve technical understanding of air quality issues and modelling capabilities so that further assessments of air quality impact at Heathrow can be made within that time scale.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington also made reference to industrial activities in the area of Heathrow. Industrial activities with significant potential to pollute more than one environmental medium have been regulated by the Environment Agency under the integrated pollution control system since the early 1990s. Considerable improvements in environmental performance have resulted, and the results for recent years can be seen in the Environment Agency's pollution inventory on its website. IPC is gradually being replaced by integrated pollution prevention and control, which will carry on and enhance environmental performance. Both IPC and IPPC are based on the application of best available techniques for dealing with pollution. That concept incorporates considerations of the cost and benefits of the techniques. In addition, the air emissions of about 17,000 installations are regulated by local authorities. A recent performance review of the local authority pollution control regime praised the achievement of securing air pollution improvements at the vast majority of those installations.

I am not complacent about any of the issues raised in this debate. Hon. Members from all parties have rightly pointed to the implications of air quality for local communities and people. They have also spoken about people's fears, whether or not those are always justified. Air quality is therefore an important issue to tackle. We at DEFRA wish to engage with colleagues in the House on the issues that affect their constituencies directly. We also seek to lead on the air quality issues debated across Government.