Environmental Audit Committee
Oral evidence: Air Pollution in England, HC 21
Monday 14 September 2026
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 14 September 2026.
Members present: Mr Toby Perkins (Chair); Julia Buckley; Jonathan Davies; Barry Gardiner; Sojan Joseph; Manuela Perteghella; Adrian Ramsay; Martin Rhodes; John Whitby.
Questions 221 - 262
Witnesses
II: Emma Hardy MP, Minister of State, DEFRA; Bill Parish, Deputy Director for Noise, Agricultural and Industrial Pollution, DEFRA; Simon Lightwood MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Minister for Buses and Local Transport), DFT; and Jennifer Raynor, Deputy Director for Environment and Adaptation Strategy, DFT.
Written evidence from witnesses:
- Written submission from the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs, Department for Health and Social Care and Department for Transport (AIR0144)
Witnesses: Emma Hardy, Bill Parish, Simon Lightwood and Jennifer Raynor.
Q221 Chair: Welcome, everyone, to the second panel of today’s Environmental Audit Committee evidence session on air quality. I am delighted to say that we are joined by Ministers and relevant experts from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Department for Transport. Ministers, I will start by asking you to introduce yourselves and the people who are supporting you.
Simon Lightwood: Good afternoon, everyone. It is great to be here. My name is Simon Lightwood, and I am the Minister for Buses and Local Transport. I am joined by Jennifer Raynor.
Jennifer Raynor: Hi, I am Jennifer Raynor. I am the deputy director for environment and adaptation strategy.
Emma Hardy: Hi, I am Emma Hardy. I am the Minister of State in DEFRA, and I am joined today by Bill Parish.
Bill Parish: Good afternoon. I am Bill Parish, deputy director for agriculture and industrial pollution in DEFRA.
Q222 Chair: Minister Hardy, you have been newly promoted—congratulations. You have appeared regularly at the Environmental Audit Committee, and it is always a pleasure to have you with us. Previously, we discussed the cross-governmental aspect of air pollution—the number of different Departments responsible for areas that are impacted. Ahead of this meeting, we very helpfully had a document from your Department laying out the responsibilities across the various Departments, which the Committee is publishing today.
How successfully do you think the Government are working across different Departments in those other areas of responsibility? Can you explain some of the contradictory ways in which your desire to have better air pollution standards butts up against things that might be moving in the opposite direction?
Emma Hardy: Absolutely. I will start by acknowledging the work of campaigners. I particularly want to pay tribute to Rosamund, who I have had the pleasure of meeting on a number of occasions. I want to recognise her advocacy and how she has been instrumental in pushing things forward, along with many other campaigners. Rosamund and what she has done deserve particular recognition.
To answer your question on cross-Government working, it could be better. We are launching this new air strategy call for evidence. We have to do the air strategy in 2028, and we are bringing it forward to start a call for evidence this year. One of the things I want to look at is how we can improve cross-Government working because, in putting that document together for ourselves, we can see where the responsibilities lie.
Setting up a cross-Government group to meet formally and talk about air quality is a really good way forward. Since there has been a change in Prime Minister, it feels like now is a really good time to say, “There have been some changes at the top. Let’s see how we can all work more effectively together across Government on tackling air pollution.”
That is because you are right. We will be talking about what we can do in terms of air pollution, but we are obviously mindful that there are different perspectives on how it impacts the cost of industry or the cost of living, for example. It is something we could have done better, so I want to do some work on it. Creating a more formal cross-Government group, where we can openly and honestly discuss where there are trade-offs in achieving this, is a better way forward. We want to do that as part of this air quality strategy call for evidence.
Q223 Chair: We very much welcome that approach, and you will certainly have the Committee’s support. I said to the previous panel that we are very disappointed not to have a Minister here from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government. It has a number of areas of responsibility, not least construction, planning and local government monitoring of air pollution, but it was not willing or able to send a Minister. From your perspective, is MHCLG a Department that recognises the role it plays, or can play, in improving air quality? What sort of conversations have you had with them?
Emma Hardy: We have not had a formal conversation at Minister-to-Minister level, but I know there are meetings at official level about different areas. One of the things we want to do through this air quality strategy call for evidence is look at things in a more straightforward and simple way that we can communicate to the public and also talk about cross-Government.
We have done it with themes. One of the themes is healthy schools. Thinking about how we make schools healthier for children includes school streets, which are obviously in DFT, but it also means the Department for Education when we think about ventilation. And that also means building regulations, which are in MHCLG. There are all these different aspects.
The worst government is when we are too siloed. I am not saying we have perfected this—it is absolutely a work in progress—but we are trying to think about it in terms of themes. How does this impact you and your children as a dad? You want healthy schools and some of our other themes: nature and the countryside, cleaner and safer communities, and healthy homes.
Rather than thinking in terms of this bit being DEFRA and that bit being MHCLG, we have tried to address it by thinking about how you as an individual interact with the air, and where. We then ask which Departments have something to do with healthy schools, and we bring those together.
It is very much the beginning of trying to work together. As I say, I feel like there have been some changes at the top. There is a new Prime Minister, so let us try to find a new way of doing this, because I openly admit that it has not been as good as I would have liked.
Chair: Agreed.
Q224 Julia Buckley: Welcome, Ministers. Minister Hardy, it was really reassuring to hear that you have been working so closely with Ella’s family. Turning to the central aims of Ella’s law, which are to ensure that everyone’s health is protected from air pollution regardless of where they live, can you tell us what consideration has been given to those core principles in terms of future legislation and any barriers that you have identified?
Emma Hardy: I absolutely support and share the ambition behind Ella’s law and what they are trying to achieve, and of course I completely understand the reasons why. What I am trying to think about from a DEFRA perspective is, “What is the most effective way we can improve air quality?” I am trying to think more practically about what we can do. Looking at that call for evidence about what we can do for schools, in homes and in the countryside, I am trying to think about it that way, about the targets where we need to focus work and about where we can see a difference.
There are two things that I think we could do better. One of them is about the targets we are setting. Some of them—I want to put this the right way—are not old-fashioned, but they recognise air pollutants from the past. They focus quite a lot on what we are doing about the ones created by soot, rather than the ones created more by modern air pollutants. I want to have a look at some of the things we are doing to make sure that we are actually measuring and focusing our time and energy on the main pollutants that we have in front of us, and I want us to do that through the call for evidence.
The other thing we have with the system at the moment is that once a local area reaches compliance with an air quality strategy, it is like, “Box ticked—done.” What I want to think about through the strategy and the call for evidence, and obviously working with everyone, is rather than just saying, “Right, you’ve met it—tick,” asking, “How about continuous improvement, then? Okay, so you’ve met it, but what more could be done? What could we do next? How could we take this further?”
There are two things there that I want to look at: are we measuring the pollutants that are of most concern, and are we setting a mindset and a culture of continuous improvement rather than just having a static target? That is what I am trying to think about.
Q225 Julia Buckley: That is really useful to hear. We wanted to ask how we move beyond that minimum compliance level. We heard earlier about how we have almost fallen behind EU targets, and we are worried that the gap will get bigger. Will any specific actions be taken, thinking about the population and the environment, that will look beyond just that minimum? What are the specifics?
Emma Hardy: Do you want to say a little about some of the other particles we are looking at measuring, Bill?
Bill Parish: As an example of how we are trying to work beyond the simple limit value, we have set a long-term PM2.5 reduction target, and the interim target was updated in the environmental improvement plan in December last year. We are aiming to achieve 10 micrograms across the whole of the country by 2030, which is level with the targets set out by the EU. We set a different target, a population exposure reduction target, and our aim is to reduce population exposure to PM2.5 by 30%, based on the 2018 baseline, by 2030. That population exposure reduction target’s purpose is to continue driving down PM2.5 exposure even if that 10 microgram basic limit has already been achieved. We are trying to look at it from an outcome focus rather than a simple concentration limit.
Q226 Julia Buckley: That is really interesting. Can I ask you a bit more about that? Obviously, Ella’s law is about making sure that everybody and every postcode is covered. You are talking about a 30% reduction, but we know that the current situation has really high inequalities. We often find in deprived areas, particularly urban settings, that those levels are much higher, so they should be areas that have a greater target for reduction. Is this 30% reduction an average across the UK, or do you have more targeted measures that take into account the impact of deprivation and inequality?
Bill Parish: The PERT is a national target, but to measure our progress against that target, we are putting in a lot more PM2.5 monitors. We need to place those monitors close to centres where the big population exposures are, and those will be big urban environments, including those more vulnerable communities. Since 2024, we have installed 65 new PM2.5 monitors. Our monitoring network will be expanded to about 197 PM2.5 monitors in total by the end of 2027. With a much more granular understanding of PM2.5 concentrations close to those areas, we have a much better understanding of exposure. That is a mechanism by which we hold ourselves accountable for the progress we are making against that target.
However, when we drill down to another level of granularity—let’s say square kilometre grids—there are communities within communities, and some of them are much closer to busy roads or centres of industrialisation. We have been working closely with the UK Health Security Agency to pilot vulnerability maps. With UKHSA, we have developed maps that will help local authorities to identify, using existing criteria overlaid with concentration data and modelling, where deprived communities will be disproportionately exposed. That gives us real-life data to allow us to identify and home in on where the more deprived neighbourhoods that have been disproportionately exposed are.
The next step is, “Okay, now we have looked at it from an outcome point of view rather than just a simple concentration level. What action does the local authority need to focus on?”
Q227 Julia Buckley: What funding resources will be made available to those deprived communities so that they can tackle such issues?
Emma Hardy: That is probably one for MHCLG, because it will be funding for local authorities. Apologies, Chair and Julia.
Q228 Manuela Perteghella: Nitrogen pollution is a threat to public health, but also to our natural environment. It causes degradation of habitats and loss of biodiversity. Will DEFRA commit to a comprehensive national nitrogen strategy, and how would it integrate air quality, water, climate and biodiversity objectives?
Emma Hardy: Nitrogen is really complex. It goes across air quality, water quality, biodiversity, climate, agriculture—all of them. At the moment, rather than addressing it as a single stand-alone strategy—my gut feeling is that Government are good at doing strategies and maybe need to get better at doing—some of this is addressed through the various strategies we have already published. Some parts are addressed through the environmental improvement plan. There are some ways of dealing with it through the water White Paper and the farming road map. There are different ways of tackling nitrogen across existing frameworks and policies.
It is really challenging and really difficult because ammonia is the largest source of nitrogen, which is causing the difficulty. It is really hard to tackle ammonia. We are working across Government and with stakeholders, particularly farmers, to try to do that, but it is a very difficult challenge.
Q229 Manuela Perteghella: So you are not going to publish a national nitrogen strategy at the moment?
Emma Hardy: We do not have plans to, but we are looking at how Scotland has done the nitrogen balance sheet. We do not currently have plans to publish a strategy, but we are looking at how the balance sheet is working in Scotland and whether it is effective.
Q230 Manuela Perteghella: To track progress across sectors?
Emma Hardy: Yes.
Q231 Manuela Perteghella: Are you working with other Departments like the DFT and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to ensure that you are at least coherent in your approach to reducing nitrogen emissions?
Emma Hardy: Yes, and the DFT is here. We are looking at how to tackle the different problems we face—water, air and soil—in a way that minimises the burden on farmers, and we are looking at how we are working across Government to do that. The short answer is yes, but it is a challenge, particularly with ammonia.
Q232 Manuela Perteghella: Are you drawing any lessons from countries other than the UK that have already implemented national nitrogen strategies, such as the Netherlands and Denmark? Are you looking at best practice there?
Bill Parish: Yes, we are looking at best practice, and the reality is that Denmark and the Netherlands had to get quite brutal with their farming sectors. Now, Denmark and the Netherlands are embarking on compulsory buy-outs, whereby they are actually taking land out of agricultural production and paying farmers to stop being farmers: they are shutting farms down. That has been really difficult politically.
At this stage, we are proposing to work with the farming industry to reduce its pollution as much as it can while farmers can keep their farms. It is not an easy time for the cattle sector in particular to contemplate significant extra costs on its operations in order to adopt what needs to be done to reduce pollution.
There is no denying that the cattle sector itself is responsible for 46% of our national ammonia emissions. It is a sector in which ammonia emissions are currently unregulated. We committed in the farming road map and in the environmental improvement plan to consulting on how we will bring that sector into environmental permitting, because environmental permitting worked really well for the poultry and pig sectors. We are working up proposals for how we can introduce legislation for that sector and help it to respond to the challenge, put the infrastructure in place and reduce its contribution to ammonia emissions.
We are focused more on contemplating a regulatory approach for that sector, supported by grant funding, the technology fund and slurry infrastructure grants, but—put simply—we are adding a little more stick to the carrot and looking at how we can make faster progress on reducing emissions from those sectors.
Q233 John Whitby: You may have just answered some of this, but the reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from some sectors has highlighted just how little emissions from agriculture have reduced over time, particularly ammonia emissions. The Chief Medical Officer also spoke about ammonia in the previous panel as something that we can and should address. We are aware that there are alternative ammonia-reducing practices out there, so, first, how are you supporting farmers to adopt those ammonia-reducing practices without undermining their viability? I think you have half answered this.
Secondly, will the Department commit to strict, mandated regulations around fertiliser use and storage, rather than relying on voluntary measures?
Emma Hardy: As Bill has mentioned, we are committed to consulting on measures to look at extending environmental permitting to beef and dairy. However, we really recognise that farming has been under real pressure: farmers have just had the worst drought in however many years, and the winter before last they had one of the worst floods that they have ever had. We are therefore trying to work with the industry. Yes, we want to move forward on what we can do around permitting, but we want to do that with the industry by working together.
The things that we are doing to support farmers include looking at more precise spreading and how they can use equipment in that way. The farming equipment and technology fund had £46.7 million available for farmers, growers, foresters and their contractors; £30 million was to help farmers invest in equipment to help them manage slurry in ways that reduce pollution, which obviously includes ammonia. I should say—well, it goes without saying, really—that whatever we do for ammonia often helps with water as well. It helps with both forms of pollution, so it is really effective. We have just put another £10 million into slurry management in 2026 as well, so we are putting the money in to try to support the farming community.
We were having regular meetings with the farming community around reducing water pollution, which obviously helps with ammonia and air pollution together. During the period of drought, the focus had to be on tackling the drought, but we will recommence those meetings on looking at water pollution and air pollution as soon as we can.
Q234 John Whitby: You mentioned the Netherlands. What have we learned from countries like the Netherlands that have already implemented more stringent ammonia controls?
Emma Hardy: We regularly look at what other countries are doing. We mentioned what Scotland is doing on its nitrogen balance sheet. It is really useful to look at what other countries are doing. The Netherlands made quite a courageous move in paying farmers to stop farming. That is not something that the Government and I are looking at doing. We are looking instead to support our farming sector to be profitable and to continue to be successful, while at the same time looking at what they can do with agriculture. We have increased farm inspections. We have done all of that through the EA. We are looking at permitting. There are all these other things going on as well, but we have no current plans to adopt what has been done in the Netherlands.
Q235 Chair: May I pick you up on the use of the word “courageous”? That would generally be considered to be a good thing, but your subsequent answer suggests that you thought the idea was bad. I am not sure whether it was a euphemism, but when you said “courageous”, did you do so because you think it is a good approach, or do you think it was reckless?
Emma Hardy: This reminds me of when I first became a Minister. I was commenting on the programme, “Yes, Minister”, in which everyone always agrees with the Minister. I said, “When will I know when you actually disagree with me?”, and they said, “Minister, it’s when we call you courageous.” I am not going to criticise decisions made by another sovereign country; I will say only that we do not have plans to adopt them here.
Chair: That makes sense. Thank you for the clarification.
Q236 Barry Gardiner: Minister Hardy, in August you announced the new opt-in scheme for people to sign up to get alerts on their phone if levels of five pollutants reach “high” or “very high” levels. Can you recall how many people had signed up to the scheme by the end of August?
Emma Hardy: Is it about 2,500-and-something? I know I recently answered one of your written questions about it.
Barry Gardiner: Well, the answer you gave to the parliamentary written question was 525, actually, but there we are.
Emma Hardy: Ah, right. I do remember signing off that question.
Q237 Barry Gardiner: What I really want to ask is why you do not do it in the same way as for heat waves or flood alerts by putting it out on the weather channels or putting it out to the Met Office, so that people do not have to opt in to get the information. With the best will in the world, you might reach 10,000. Why not put it out there as public information in the way we do with heat waves and so on? Then everybody will know.
Emma Hardy: The air quality alert is brand-new: it started on 30 July. It is super-new, so obviously any support the Committee could give in encouraging people to sign up would be great.
Barry Gardiner: We have just publicised it for you.
Emma Hardy: Yes, you have just given it a plug. It is similar to the flood alert system, in that you have to opt in and sign up for it. Yes, it would be great if we could get a few more, but we have also got the APAC, the Air Pollution Awareness Coalition, which I set up a number of months ago—I do not think it has been a year yet—and which is working with health and ENGOs. We have just got Enact Equality to be a member. It is looking at how we can communicate and raise awareness of air pollution, because they are experts.
I was listening with interest to the previous panel’s response to questions about what more we can do. The advice I have had from DEFRA is that public attitudes research says that people listen to professionals much more than to something I might say, for example. We are trying to get our message out on air pollution through the air pollution awareness campaign and through getting people to sign up to the new air quality alert system. It was only launched on 30 July, so it is brand-new.
Q238 Barry Gardiner: I have your lovely rainbow tabulation for nitrogen dioxide and for PM2.5. What really struck me, looking at it, is that you have 10 grades from light green, which is low, to purple, which is very high, but all the nitrogen dioxide levels, from “moderate” to “very high”, are actually illegal in the UK. For PM2.5, even the third band of the “low” level is illegal in the UK. We are telling people that illegal air quality is “low” and “moderate”. This sounds like “Nineteen Eighty-Four”—we are just not using words properly when we are doing this sort of stuff, are we? It is illegal. Why do we not tell people that it is illegal, not that it is low?
Emma Hardy: Are you talking about the bands in how we set the levels for—
Barry Gardiner: For PM2.5, the annual and 24-hour exposures are shown on the chart. The annual UK legal limit is 20 micrograms per cubic metre. It also shows the 2021 WHO guidelines and what you then call hourly mean concentrations. As I say, you are calling stuff that is illegal “low”. That seems quite extraordinary.
Emma Hardy: Bill, do you want to explain how we came to set the different bands?
Bill Parish: The limit values that we have set in current legislation are based on long-term exposure. We are trying to reduce pollution below the legal limit all the time. If somebody is exposed to concentrations of a pollutant above that threshold day in, day out, they may expect to start experiencing some health impacts.
The DAQI—the daily air quality index, to which I think Mr Gardiner is referring—is a very different device. It was developed by the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants, and it is about short-term exposure. Yes, the pollutants may on certain days, for a day or two, exceed the legal limits—the legal limits are average concentrations over the year—and we are warning people when the pollutants have exceeded certain limits on those days. The banding that we use for deciding whether it is medium, high or low is based on very short-term exposure. In other words, we are warning people that there could be acute spikes of air pollution because of weather conditions and so on. That is very different from the limit values that we set in legislation. We aim to keep long-term exposure below those limits.
Q239 Barry Gardiner: The chart sets out the annual, 24-hour or one-hour exposures and sets the limits on each. The annual UK limit is 20 micrograms per cubic metre. The 2021 WHO guidelines are 5 micrograms per cubic metre for annual exposure and 15 micrograms per cubic metre within a 24-hour period. Against that, you are showing that 12 to 23 micrograms per cubic metre is low and 24 to 35 micrograms per cubic metre is low. You then have moderate, which goes up to 53 micrograms per cubic metre. This is a dog’s breakfast if you are trying to tell people what is going on in their life on any given day. These are supposed to be the daily air quality limits, and at the moment you are telling people that an illegal limit is perfectly acceptable.
I want to get on to ammonia, because you, Mr Parish and I had a conversation about that last week. I am deeply concerned about what you have just told the Committee. Ammonia reacts with other pollutants in the atmosphere to form secondary inorganic particles that contribute to PM2.5. You said that most of the achievements in the Netherlands and Denmark had been attained by basically shutting down farms. In fact, the Air Quality Expert Group highlighted the successful policies in the Netherlands, where regulatory controls of agricultural ammonia were responsible for around half of a 64% reduction in emissions between 1990 and 2016. That decrease was mostly due to measures implemented before 2010, such as changes in feed composition, the use of low-emission stables, the covering of manure silos and the direct incorporation of manure during application. Denmark reduced levels of ammonia by 40% between 1990 and 2016 by measures such as slurry-spreading technologies and building floor technologies. We are not talking about shutting down farms. In fact, the Air Quality Expert Group comments on the high stocking levels that these places had.
I am afraid that I feel that what you said earlier was rather misleading to the Committee. It chimes, I am afraid to say, with exactly the way this country has been negotiating at UNECE on ammonia. I mentioned to you last week the Swedish environmental organisations that—
Chair: Let’s come on to the question, if we can.
Barry Gardiner: The UK has been arguing, against the rest of the parties, that you should de-stress and take away the importance of meeting the formal technical annexe that UNECE is putting forward. We are pretending that we are in the lead on this and that we are trying to do the right thing, but behind everybody’s back at the international negotiations, we are actually negotiating against that position.
Emma Hardy: I was just waiting for the question, but I will comment on what has been said.
Barry Gardiner: Well, there are two questions. First, given what I have just said about your own Air Quality Expert Group’s analysis, do you feel that it was a fair comment to make to this Committee that in fact it was all achieved through closing down farms? Secondly, why is it that in the international negotiations the UK is an outlier seeking to water down the regulations? Those are the two very specific questions.
Emma Hardy: I do not believe that I did say that about the Netherlands. The Netherlands is one of our friends—
Barry Gardiner: Mr Parish did.
Emma Hardy: I do not believe he did. Let us check the transcript, but I am sure that is not what was said.
The Netherlands is one of our friends and allies. It is a country that we work closely with and that we can learn a lot from. We are doing precision spreading and slurry management through grants. All those things are great examples. However, we would not go as far as the Netherlands in actually paying people to stop farming. I want to be completely clear on that, but in many other things it is a great example. We are good friends with the Netherlands and are working closely with it.
I am quite sure that I did not hear Bill say that, but do you want to comment, Bill?
Bill Parish: I commented on what both Denmark and the Netherlands are contemplating now, because they are clearly finding it difficult to make further progress on reducing the impacts linked to cattle production. The Air Quality Expert Group is quite right: yes, you can make progress with measures on housing, precision spreading and slurry storage. That is exactly what we propose to introduce as measures through environmental permitting. Those measures are being encouraged now through grants. As I said earlier, we are now looking at how a regulatory mechanism can complement those grants to help to reduce pollution from the cattle sector, using exactly the mechanisms that the Air Quality Expert Group set out. It set out that it is possible to make reductions, and that is the direction in which we want to go.
Q240 Barry Gardiner: Indeed, and the Netherlands made reductions of 64% by 2016 and Denmark of 40% by 2016. We had targets under the Gothenburg protocol to the convention on long-range transboundary air pollution and under the national emission ceilings regulations. That was to reduce ammonia emissions by 16%, compared with emissions in 2005, by 2030. As things stand, in the past 21 years we have managed to reduce them by 9%, haven’t we?
Emma Hardy: There is more to do on ammonia. There is no doubt about that, but as I said, we have set up the farming equipment and technology fund, which helps people to invest in the right equipment, and we have the slurry infrastructure grant, which helps them to pay to manage slurry more effectively. We are looking at introducing permitting, which is a bit more stick—if we want to put it that way—but I am also, I have to say, acutely aware of the difficult summer that farming has had and of the really hard winter it had only a couple of years ago. Generally, as a politician, an individual and a Minister, I prefer to work with an industry to bring it with us, to take it along on this journey with us and to introduce things in partnership with it, which is why we are looking at how we can incentivise it with slurry stores through grants, and at how we can look at regulation, inspections and permitting. Both things need to be hand in hand, so that we are working with the industry.
Q241 Barry Gardiner: Minister Hardy, I absolutely agree that farmers have been through a very tough period, and we want to do all that we possibly can to help them, but if you look at a 9% reduction versus 40% and 64% in the other two countries, I think you can agree that we could do a lot more, a lot more quickly. I will, however, change my direction of fire. Given that non-exhaust emissions are now the dominant source of particulate matter from road transport and will persist beyond electrification, what action is the Department taking to ensure that the regulation keeps pace? How will you implement the UN brake emissions regulations into UK law? Will that align fully with the Euro 7 regulations?
Simon Lightwood: I think that was directed at me—
Chair: It was definitely directed at you. You have had an armchair ride up until now.
Simon Lightwood: Good afternoon, Chair and colleagues. It is great to be here. I welcome the opportunity to talk to you as the newly minted Minister with responsibility for decarbonisation, sustainability and air quality within the Department for Transport when it comes to public transport. The transition to zero emission vehicles will significantly cut air pollution, by completely removing tailpipe emissions, but of course the Department absolutely recognises that zero emission vehicles will not solve the particular problem of brakes, tyres and road-surface wear. As transport continues to decarbonise, tackling those sources will be increasingly important. To support that, we recently consulted on adopting the Euro 7 standard in Great Britain. That will require us to regulate brake and tyre wear particles for the very first time, helping to reduce those emissions to clean up our air. We will publish the Government response to the consultation shortly.
Alongside the regulatory action, we have been investing in strengthening our evidence base, so that we have the most up-to-date data possible on tackling non-exhaust emissions through our four-year research programme, which completed in 2025. The programme’s findings have helped us to play a leading role in the development of common international limits for brake and tyre wear emissions. That work underpins the Euro 7 standard and provides the consistent framework for such emissions and for cutting those pollutants across international markets. The Department will continue to contribute to future development of the regulations at a UN level, including considering more stringent limits as technology continues to progress.
Q242 Barry Gardiner: Minister, when can we expect to see binding standards in place? I know you said that you are out to consultation at the moment and that you are feeding into the UN brake emissions regulations, but we are keen to find out when we will know what the standards are going to be and when they will actually be operative.
Simon Lightwood: We continue to work at an international level. In the consultation we proposed that new brake emission regulations will be introduced for all new cars and vans by 29 November 2027.
Q243 Sojan Joseph: What recent assessment has been made of the contribution of maritime emissions to air pollution in UK coastal and port communities, and what steps is the Department taking to reduce associated health impacts through the clean maritime plan and subsequent policies?
Simon Lightwood: This area is not normally my responsibility. I have prepared for this bit, but my colleague here might be able to chime in as well. The Department is committed to ensuring that we have cleaner air for our coastal communities and people living near ports while maintaining the vital role that ports and shipping play in supporting trade, jobs and economic growth.
We are taking action at the domestic level but also at the international level to reduce emissions from shipping, support the transition to cleaner fuels and technologies and work with ports to improve their environmental performance. There is already an established framework to address air pollutant emissions from shipping. At the international level, the International Maritime Organisation regulates emissions of sulphur oxides, nitrogen oxides and particulate matter. We are continuing to make progress in this area. The recent adoption of the north Atlantic emission control area by the International Maritime Organisation will extend the highest tier of air pollution controls to all UK waters once it is fully effective from 2028. I don’t know if you want to expand on that, Jennifer?
Jennifer Raynor: The north Atlantic emission control area has recently been adopted, and, as the Minister said, the whole of the UK’s waters will be covered by the most stringent air pollution targets.
Q244 Sojan Joseph: Can I ask about a specific port, which is not far from me? The Dover port on the English channel is one of our busiest waters, with so many ferries moving every 24 hours, and there are lorries parked on the motorway in my constituency every time there is disruption in the water. There is a quick solution to get better air and reduce that lorry movement: the channel tunnel runs at less than 50% of its capacity, so we basically need to move the lorries on to rail. That would be wonderful to reduce the air pollution caused by hundreds of thousands of lorries. Subsequent Governments have ignored this. Is there any thought on it from the Department? If it is an easy fix, why are we not doing that?
Simon Lightwood: I turn to my colleague here, but on rail generally, you will see with the establishment of Great British Railways that our main focus is around passengers but also increasing freight on the rail network in order to achieve the very benefits you are talking about, including internationally.
Jennifer Raynor: We are looking at ways in which we can reduce the impact of ports and the emissions from ports on air quality. At the end of August, we published the Department’s “Net Zero Ports: Call for Evidence”. That really highlighted the vital role that ports can play in reducing emissions and the opportunities for them to improve air quality. We are focusing on championing what ports need in terms of their energy needs in wider Government. That will hopefully remove barriers to ports, for example, delivering shore power, where the ships can plug in rather than keep the engines running and increase air pollution that way.
Q245 Sojan Joseph: What steps is the Department taking to address the gap between the ambitions of the clean maritime plan and the progress to date in reducing maritime-related air pollution?
Simon Lightwood: I will have to turn to Jennifer on that one.
Jennifer Raynor: The clean maritime plan was published under a previous Government in 2019. This Government published the maritime decarbonisation strategy in 2025, and that set out our vision for decarbonising maritime and improving air quality and the wider environment. As the Minister set out, it sets out our domestic and international approach to that.
Q246 Martin Rhodes: How is the Department for Transport quantifying the specific contribution of aviation to the air quality of local communities?
Simon Lightwood: I will turn to you again, Jennifer.
Jennifer Raynor: We publish the statistics on emissions from across the economy, including aviation. The Government are committed to decarbonising aviation, helping us reach net zero, clean up our air and reduce air pollution.
Q247 Martin Rhodes: What about the impact on particular communities, perhaps those that are near airports? How are we looking at that? How is the information that you are gathering at that higher level impacting different communities differently and how are you measuring that?
Jennifer Raynor: Local areas monitor their air quality, and they will have to have air quality action plans and management areas to do that. In specific hotspots, be that aviation or ports, there are specific measures to try to reduce emissions as much as possible. A lot of the air pollution coming from airports is surface access, so improving public transport and transitioning to electric vehicles will help in those areas.
Q248 Martin Rhodes: Some things are relatively easy to attribute to that, in terms of the impact on local communities. If you are talking about the road transport coming in, it is very clear that is in a specific geographic area. What about the wider impact of aviation? How is the specific impact of that on the community measured, as opposed to the wider impact?
Jennifer Raynor: We might have to take that question away and write to the Committee about that.
Q249 Jonathan Davies: We know that electrification alone will not remove all emissions associated with transport. Minister Lightwood, can you give us an overview of the steps that the Department is taking to reduce traffic volumes in the most polluted areas?
Simon Lightwood: This Government are taking a balanced, whole-system approach, focused on improving services and infrastructure so that people have a real choice in how they travel. I draw the Committee’s attention to our “Better Connected” document, which is a fantastic read. We are looking to create a more joined-up, people-focused transport system that makes sustainable travel more attractive, convenient and affordable for everyday journeys. That will help accelerate that journey to low-emission travel.
Members will be aware of the affordability measures we have introduced: maintaining the £3 bus fare cap for the rest of 2026—the Prime Minister announced that, from January, it will reduce to £2 throughout 2027; free bus travel for children over the summer; freezing rail fares for the first time in 30 years; and announcing just the other week that we will remove the time limits for disabled travellers so that they can travel 24/7 from April 2027.
That has all been supported through the Bus Services Act, which I was pleased to lead through Parliament, and the Railways Bill. Alongside that critical investment in our public transport, we supported active travel through the third cycling and walking investment strategy, which was published in June. Something like £4.5 billion is projected to be invested into active travel up until 2030 from a wide range of funding streams, including £1.1 billion for Active Travel England to track the progress of active travel. We have set ambitious targets for something like 60% of children aged five to 16 to usually walk to school by 2035.
We want to move people away from cars by providing a wide menu of alternative, trusted, cleaner, greener, more sustainable, and affordable means for people to get about.
Q250 Jonathan Davies: For many people in more rural areas, bus services are patchy or finish early at night. The Labour Rural Research Group has looked into that in its recent report—I will absolutely send you a copy, because there is some good stuff in there. An electric car may be a solution for those people. I know they are coming down in price, but the cost of affording one is still a barrier to people scrapping their ageing internal combustion engine cars. What work is the Department doing to address that inequality for people who cannot afford to buy EVs?
Simon Lightwood: Ensuring a fair and inclusive transition to zero emission vehicles is a key priority for the Government. We recognise that the benefits and opportunities associated with electric vehicles must be accessible to all parts of society, not just those who are able to purchase a new vehicle or install a home charge point. Up-front costs continue to be higher than for some conventional vehicles.
Overall, the cost of electric vehicles is falling. The second-hand market for electric vehicles is growing, and they can offer significantly lower running costs. According to Autotrader’s data from April, EVs were cheaper than petrol cars for the first time. I think that is a really interesting point. A broad and increasing range of EV models are now available on the second-hand market for around £20,000, with the average price of a three-and-a-half-year-old EV around £18,000.
Charging is really important as well. We want everybody to be able to charge an electric vehicle easily where they live, and that is why we are providing additional funding to councils to install cross-pavement charging channels. While local authorities may decide their own cross-pavement arrangements, over 80% have applied for funding from the Department in this area, so we expect more installation soon. But I am very acutely aware of the cost differential between charging at home and using the public network. In fact, I charged my EV on the way back from the Great North Run, which I ran yesterday—I wanted to get that in Hansard. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister beat me by over 20 minutes.
We want to narrow the cost difference between home charging and public charging, and we have commissioned an independent review of public charging costs, led by Philip New. That is examining what further measures we can introduce to reduce the prices that some drivers are facing, and it is going to be reporting in autumn of 2026.
Q251 Jonathan Davies: For people like me who do not have off-street parking, will it be cheaper to charge using the local council’s provision? One of the things that is hindering the shift is that people cannot realise the financial benefits if they have to charge at a supermarket or a service station.
Simon Lightwood: We have made funding available for cross-pavement charging. Essentially, it is like a channel in the pavement that the cable goes down. That enables people without off-street parking to take advantage of the much, much lower cost involved with at-home charging. But as I said, we are looking at how we can narrow the gap between the cost of public charging—it is sometimes 10 times the cost, if not more—and the home charging costs, and that is exactly the work that Philip New is undertaking for the Department.
You mentioned the availability of public transport in rural areas. When it comes to the bus funding that we have given to local areas, we have added a rurality element for the very first time. In the past, it was almost like a “Hunger Games” style funding competition to get the money to improve bus services. The rurality element has helped to narrow the gap, but there is still a lot of work to be done to improve rural transport provision across the country.
Q252 John Whitby: You mentioned the second-hand car market. There is a great electric car grant for new EVs, but has any consideration been given to applying any sort of incentive to the second-hand car market, to really kick on EV ownership?
Simon Lightwood: No, because what you are already seeing is that, for the first time, a second-hand electric vehicle is cheaper than a petrol car, if you look at Autotrader. You are already seeing the market itself dictate. People are adopting EVs because of the lower running costs, and I think we will continue to see that narrowing of the gap.
Q253 Chair: We recently saw the Mayor of London celebrating the reduction in road-based air pollution as a result of his introduction of ULEZ. We have seen many other mayors fight shy of that, given some of the political pushback around ULEZ previously. What is the Government’s approach to ULEZ? Is it pretty much agnostic, or is the Department encouraging more mayors to introduce these things, which we are told by the Mayor of London have been tremendously successful?
Simon Lightwood: I think it is for local areas to decide.
Q254 Chair: So you are broadly agnostic as a Department.
Simon Lightwood: We are agnostic. It is really important that these types of decisions are made by local leaders, because they understand their communities best. They understand the social and economic drivers and the local conditions.
Q255 Chair: I understand that, but given that something like 5% of vehicles are responsible for something like 70% of exhaust emissions pollution, and recognising why some mayors might have resistance in their local areas to schemes like ULEZ, shouldn’t the Government and your Department at least do all they can to try and make it attractive for local mayors to introduce it in their communities, and also help with the messaging? Many people who are opposed to ULEZ do not realise that they will not actually be affected by it. Many people consider it to be a sort of congestion charge, but it is a high-polluting vehicle charge rather than a general congestion charge. I would challenge you on whether a policy of being agnostic means the Government are doing all they can to reduce emissions. Shouldn’t you, at the very least, while maybe accepting that mayors get to make the final decision, do all you can to make it attractive for them to reduce the number of polluting vehicles on our streets?
Simon Lightwood: Local authorities play a key role in reducing transport pollution. As I said, they are best placed to decide on the priorities for their area. There is something like £21 billion of local transport funding across England over this spending period. We are backing local leaders with that long-term, simplified funding and giving them the certainty that they need in order to plan ahead to deliver and grow their economies. We set out in our local transport plan guidance the Department’s expectations on how funding can be used to reduce air pollution, but it is very much the case that local leaders should be able to decide. Is there anything extra you want to add, Jennifer?
Jennifer Raynor: Clean air zones have been introduced selectively by local authorities where the evidence shows that they are the quickest way to reduce the nitrogen dioxide exceedances in their area and where other options would not deliver the same results as quickly. DFT and DEFRA work really closely with local authorities and have provided £582 million of Government funding. Clean air zones do work. In the areas of cities that have them, between 2014 and 2019 nitrogen dioxide exceedances fell by between 18% and 46%. That is one option that a local authority has in dealing with its exceedances.
Q256 Chair: Minister Lightwood, on the more general move towards electric vehicles, hasn’t there been some confused messaging, particularly out of the Treasury? We have seen fuel duty under successive Governments remain at the same level for quite a long time. It has not remotely kept pace with inflation; it is significantly lower than it was 10 years ago. At the same time, the Government announced recently the intention to have a pay-per-mile tax on electric vehicles, which we know has had an impact on consumers choosing whether to move to electric vehicles. Shouldn’t the Government, more unmistakably in tax terms, try to drive forward that transition to electric vehicles, rather than, as I say, sending the somewhat mixed messages we are getting currently?
Simon Lightwood: Even with those changes taken into consideration, EV sales remain really strong. In May, for the first time, over a quarter of new cars registered were EVs, with registrations up 34% compared with May 2025. We committed £7.5 billion to 2035 to support the transition to zero emission vehicles. That includes £2 billion for the electric car grant, which has been hugely successful, helping over 120,000 people to choose an EV, with grants of up to £3,750 for the most sustainably manufactured vehicles. It also includes £1 billion for vans and trucks and £600 million for charging infrastructure.
Q257 Chair: We have just a couple more questions for Minister Lightwood. I know you are on a time budget, Minister Hardy, so if you feel you need to go, go with our thanks. We will not keep Minister Lightwood much longer, but thank you very much for the evidence we have heard from you.
Minister Lightwood, you are absolutely right that the market for new electric vehicles has continued to be positive, primarily driven by the fleet sector. There have been positive measures in place under successive Governments to encourage the fleet sector to move. They have been very clear to us that the second-hand market remains difficult, inasmuch as the amount that they lose from buying a new car, compared with a second-hand vehicle, makes it challenging for them to continue. The British Vehicle Rental and Leasing Association has spoken powerfully about the pressure on its members and the vital role that fleet plays. Anecdotal evidence from the motor sector is that the interest of non-fleet customers in the second-hand market is very much driven by the price signals. What representations have you made to the Treasury about the importance of continuing to send messages that encourage people to take those vehicles, when the Government are leaving fuel duty stagnant—and celebrating doing so—at the same time as introducing a new tax on electric vehicles?
Simon Lightwood: I have been doing this role for around two weeks, Chair, so I will pass over to my colleague to cover the conversations that happened before my time.
Jennifer Raynor: There is a three-pronged approach. You have regulation in the form of the ZEV mandate, the electric car grant, which the Minister spoke about, and all the charging infrastructure provisions. As you say, given that electric vehicle drivers do not pay fuel duty at the pump, the Government are introducing a new add-on to vehicle excise duty so that all drivers contribute an appropriate share to use of the roads. Rates will be 3p per mile for electric cars, which is around half the average fuel duty equivalent rate. Plug-in hybrids will pay half that rate again, because they will continue to pay fuel duty on some of their mileage.
Q258 Chair: You are telling me what I already know. I appreciate that you are only two weeks into the role, Minister, so we look forward to the forthcoming Budget to show further progress. This country has done well on electric vehicles, but my worry is that the mood music is facing slightly in the wrong direction because we are hearing suggestions that the ZEV mandate will be watered down. Even some people on our side of the Chamber are suggesting that that should happen. As the Chancellor considers these difficult choices as he heads towards the Budget, will you make sure that he is considering the impact of his decisions on fuel duty and electric vehicle pay-per-mile charges on electric vehicle sales?
Simon Lightwood: As you know, Chair, taxation is a matter for HMT and the Chancellor. I am sure he will have heard loud and clear what you have said today.
Q259 Chair: If he has not, can you make sure that he does?
Simon Lightwood: I am sure we will have those conversations, but it is important to put on record that we have gone out to consultation about the ZEV mandate. I want to emphasise that the phase-out dates are not changing. The Government’s overall ambition remains the same.
Again, EV sales have remained strong. As I said, in May, for the first time, over a quarter of new cars registered were EVs. Registrations were up 34%, compared with May 2025. The car grant has helped 120,000 people to make that transition. I hear exactly what you say about the taxation, however, and I am sure the Chancellor has too.
Q260 Chair: Before I bring in my colleague, on the issue of plug-in hybrids, have the Government done any assessment of how much they are actually using electricity, as opposed to just their fuel? Anecdotally, I hear from many people, particularly in the fleet sector, where drivers are probably not actually paying the bill themselves, because their companies are, that they continue to have plug-in hybrids, but that those are basically operating as emitting vehicles. Have you ever done any assessment of that? Can you tell us about it?
Simon Lightwood: That is one I will come back to you on in writing, Chair, if that is okay. I do not have that to hand.
Chair: Of course. Finally, I bring in Barry Gardiner.
Q261 Barry Gardiner: To follow up on the interesting discussion you had with Minister Lightwood, Chair, this is about the role of central Government. I understand, Minister, what you are saying about local mayors, local decisions and devolution, but often, certainly in the past, different areas have received different incentives from Government. Would it not be better if there were a national framework that each mayor and community could look at and say, “If we go down that route, we know what support we will get from Government to do this”? That is not trying to take the decision away from them, but giving them certainty about the support they would have if they did choose that route.
Simon Lightwood: I can write to you with further details, if that would be useful. I hear exactly what you are saying. Fundamentally, in terms of direction of travel, the Government as a whole are about devolution and empowering local leaders. I think we do set a national framework, but with the flexibility to take into consideration local needs, local pressures and so on. But I will take that away and write back to you, if that is okay.
Barry Gardiner: I appreciate that. Giving them certainty enables them to take the decision. At the moment, when they do not have that certainty, they think, “Well, it could be this or it could be that.”
Simon Lightwood: Sure.
Q262 Chair: Finally, on that point, we all know about the political pressure against mayors introducing schemes that reduce emissions. The Government should at least be in the lead, saying, “Look, this is the benefit to your health. Don’t see this as, ‘Am I going to pay more for my travel?’”— 95% of drivers will not, and every single year the number of drivers who will pay ULEZ is going down—“but as, ‘Am I going to be kept safer in the future? Are my children going to be safer?’” If we have that conversation, we might see the public demanding schemes, rather than pushing back. I will just leave you with the thought that, although I accept this is a local decision, rather than the Government being agnostic, it would be helpful if they were doing what they could to support mayors to do these things. Instead, they are saying, “This is a local decision” and basically leaving mayors swinging in the wind if they choose to do something we know will make a real difference.
Simon Lightwood: I hear what you say, Chair, but when I spoke earlier, I talked about incentivising the transition to public transport by ensuring that we have high-quality, reliable and affordable public transport. Record funding is going into mayoral combined authorities across the country to support mayors to do exactly that—with bus franchising in Greater Manchester, we have seen 14% year-on-year growth in passenger numbers—to get more people out of their car and using public transport, and to ensure we have a more integrated transport system. The Department is doing a lot to support mayors, but I hear your overall message.
Chair: Thank you very much indeed. We appreciate your evidence, Minister, and that of Ms Raynor.