End UK tax incentives for diesel vehicles, ministers are urged

Ministers are coming under growing pressure to remove tax incentives for diesel cars and offer compensation to motorists so they can swap to more environmentally friendly vehicles.

A group of medical professionals, environmental campaigners and lawyers has written to the chancellor ahead of the budget to demand a change to the vehicle excise duty that they say subsidises diesel cars.

Separately, senior Labour and Tory politicians have called for a comprehensive vehicle scrappage scheme to help people with diesel cars change to greener alternatives.

The letter from campaigners, including the British Lung Foundation, Greenpeace and doctors’ groups, says toxic air poses a daily risk to people’s health – particularly the young and those suffering from lung problems.

“Air pollution has … been shown to stunt children’s lung growth, which could leave them with health problems in later life,” it states. “We all deserve to breathe clean air.”

On Saturday the Guardian revealed that thousands of children and young people at more than 800 nurseries, schools and colleges in London faced dangerous and illegal levels of toxic air, much of it from diesel cars.

The transport secretary, Chris Grayling, indicated the government may bow to pressure, saying motorists should be wary of buying diesel cars, adding: “We’re going to have to really migrate our car fleet, and our vehicle fleet more generally, to cleaner technology.” However, he said that diesel “was not going to disappear”.

Air pollution causes 40,000 early deaths in the UK and costs the country £27.5bn a year, according to a government estimate. MPs have called it a public health emergency.

The letter adds: “We know diesel vehicles, in particular diesel cars, are a major source of pollution in towns and cities … yet vehicle excise duty (VED) not only fails to recognise this, but is still incentivising them. We are therefore asking for a revision of the VED first-year rate in your upcoming budget statement.”

Sadiq Khan, the mayor of London, has added his voice to calls for a change in vehicle excise duty for diesel cars. He also said the government should introduce a comprehensive clean air act and a diesel scrappage scheme to compensate those motorists who bought diesel cars after being told they were more environmentally friendly.

“A number of years ago Londoners and others around the country were encouraged to buy diesel cars, businessmen and women, charities, families were all encouraged to buy diesel.

“We are saying to the government you need to choose a national diesel scrappage fund to help people move away from diesel … and we would target this to the poorest families.”

Judges told ministers last November they must cut the illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) in dozens of towns and cities in the shortest possible time after ruling that their plans to improve air quality were so poor they were unlawful.

The government has until April to come up with proposals to bring before the court.

Last year the environment, food and rural affairs select committee described the situation as a public health emergency and recommended the government introduce a diesel scrappage scheme.

Its chair, Neil Parish, told the Guardian he was disappointed that the advice had been ignored and called on the government to change course.

Parish said: “Defra has lost again in the courts on its failure to tackle air pollution. The option of a scrappage scheme should be back on the table to help get the dirtiest diesels off our roads quickly.”

He said it was vital any scrappage scheme was “focused and does not merely become a subsidy for the middle classes. Cash from the scheme should either promote ULEVs [ultra-low-emission vehicle] or incentivise public transport use.”

Legal NGO ClientEarth brought the case against the government and was one of the groups to sign Sunday’s letter to the chancellor.

Its chief executive, James Thornton, said: “The high court has ordered the government to take immediate action now to deal with illegal levels of pollution and prevent tens of thousands of additional early deaths in the UK.

“The government needs to recognise that diesel is the primary cause of the problem, and to promote a shift to alternatives. It’s perverse that our tax system encourages people to buy dirty vehicles.”

End UK tax incentives for diesel vehicles, ministers are urged

Diesel vehicles face charges after UK government loses air pollution case

Drivers of polluting diesel vehicles could soon be charged to enter many city centres across Britain, after the government accepted in the high court on Wednesday that its current plans to tackle the nation’s air pollution crisis were so poor they broke the law.

The humiliating legal defeat is the second in 18 months and ends years of inadequate action and delays to tackle the problem which causes 50,000 early deaths every year.

Ministers are now bound to implement new measures to cut toxic air quickly and the prime minister, Theresa May, indicated the government would this time respond positively: “There is more to do and we will do it.”

The most likely measure is using charges to deter polluting diesel vehicles from “clean air zones” in urban centres, which could be in place next year in London and in 2018 in Birmingham and other cities. Nitrogen dioxide, the pollutant at the heart of the legal case, has been at illegal levels in 90% of the country’s air quality zones since 2010 and largely stems from diesel vehicles.

EU law requires the government to cut the illegal pollution in the “shortest possible time” but legal NGO ClientEarth, which brought the cases, argued the government’s plans ignored many measures that could help achieve this.

In the high court on Wednesday, Mr Justice Garnham agreed. He said it was “remarkable” that ministers knew they were using over-optimistic pollution modelling, based on flawed lab tests of diesel vehicles rather than actual emissions on the road, but proceeded anyway. He also said the law required the protection of health to come above the costs of measures: “I reject any suggestion that the state can have any regard to cost.”

The government said it would not appeal against the decision and agreed in court to discuss with ClientEarth a new timetable for more realistic pollution modelling and the steps needed to bring pollution levels down to legal levels. The parties will return to court in a week but if agreement cannot be reached, the judge could impose a timetable upon the government.

At prime minister’s questions, May said: “We now recognise that Defra [the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs] has to look at the judgment made by the courts and we now have to look again at the proposals we will bring forward. Nobody in this house doubts the importance of the issue of air quality.”

The government’s own estimates show air pollution causes at least £27.5bn a year and in April MPs called the issue a “public health emergency”.

ClientEarth lawyers said they looked forward to working with Defra ministers to make a genuine attempt to rapidly cut pollution to legal limits throughout the UK, including a national network of clean air zones by 2018. “The government will have to be tougher on diesel,” said James Thornton, CEO of ClientEarth. “If you put in clean air zones, it works overnight.”

“Today’s ruling lays the blame at the door of the government for its complacency in failing to tackle the problem quickly and credibly,” said the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, who took part in the case. “In so doing they have let down millions of people the length and breadth of the country.” Khan aims to have pollution charging in place in central London by 2017 and across the area within the north and south circular roads by 2019.

The government said it would not appeal against the decision and agreed in court to discuss with ClientEarth a new timetable for more realistic pollution modelling and the steps needed to bring pollution levels down to legal levels. Photograph: Philip Toscano/PA

ClientEarth defeated the government on the same issue at the supreme court in April 2015. Ministers were then ordered to draw up a new action plan, but on Wednesday that new plan was also found to be illegal. The UK’s duty to cut illegal air pollution as quickly as possible derives from EU laws but the action required following the high court defeat will be taken well before Brexit takes place. The government has said it will transfer all EU rules into UK law but, post-Brexit, the government could revise air pollution legislation.

The court defeat is also a blow for the new runway at Heathrow the government has backed. Its approval depended on the effectiveness of the government’s national air pollution plan to meet legal requirements on air quality. The Liberal Democrat leader, Tim Farron, said: “This ruling deals a huge blow to May’s reckless Heathrow expansion plans. The government has already illegally delayed meeting EU pollution limits until 2025 – building a third runway would make the situation even worse.”

Documents revealed during the high court case showed the Treasury had blocked initial government plans to charge polluting diesel vehicles for entering towns and cities blighted by air pollution, due to concern about the political impact of angering motorists.

Both the environment and transport departments recommended changes to vehicle excise duty rates to encourage the purchase of low-pollution vehicles. But the Treasury also rejected that idea, along with a scrappage scheme for older diesels, which ClientEarth supports.

The government’s draft plan had envisaged 16 clean air zones, but in the final plan the number was cut, on the grounds of costs to business, to just five outside London: Birmingham, Leeds, Nottingham, Derby and Southampton. The further cities and towns that now need to introduce clean air zones will be determined by the more realistic pollution modelling ordered by the court on Wednesday.

Keith Taylor, Green party MEP, said: “The failure highlighted by the judge today is as much moral as it is legal: ministers have displayed an extremely concerning attitude of indifference towards their duty to safeguard the health of British citizens.”

NO2 exceedance

Diesel vehicles face charges after UK government loses air pollution case

Electric vehicles could go first at traffic lights under UK clean air zone plans

Drivers of electric vehicles could be allowed to use bus lanes in five UK cities and even go first at traffic lights, to tackle illegal levels of air pollution, the government has suggested.

Launching its consultation on clean air zones to be introduced in Birmingham, Leeds, Nottingham, Derby and Southampton, the environment department said air pollution killed 50,000 people each year at an annual cost to society of £27.5bn.

Electric vehicles, which emit no pollution directly, are seen as a key way for local authorities to bring down levels of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in the five cities, which are in breach of EU limits.

Local authorities should consider incentives to encourage people to switch to electric vehicles, said the draft clean air zone framework, published on Thursday.

These could include cheaper parking and “allowing access to bus lanes, exemptions from other restrictions such as one way systems, and priority at traffic lights for Ulevs [ultra low-emission vehicles].” But local authorities will be encouraged to consult with residents on such ideas first, an environment department spokeswoman said.

The government said it wants each city to have a mandatory charge by 2020 for dirty buses, coaches, taxis and lorries, but not private cars. Birmingham and Leeds will tackle older vans too.

Next week the environment secretary, Andrea Leadsom, faces a legal challenge from environmental law group ClientEarth in the high court over the government’s NO2 clean-up plans.

The mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, this week called the capital’s toxic air a “health emergency” as he launched proposals for a bigger and earlier clean air zone than the one planned by his predecessor, Boris Johnson. Unlike the other schemes, London’s does cover cars.

The details and workings of the zones in the five other cities, chosen by the government last December because of their NO2 levels, will be published next year.

Environment minister Thérèse Coffey said: “We need to tackle air pollution and creating clean air zones will improve the quality of life for people who live and work in our towns and cities, both now and in the future.”

The Department for Transport also announced £35m on Thursday for more electric car charging points for taxi ranks and workplaces, and a scheme to encourage uptake of electric scooters.

“While any government action on pollution is welcome, it’s no coincidence that it comes just five days before ClientEarth returns to court because of the government’s inaction on this public health crisis,” said Alan Andrews, a lawyer at the firm.

“Requiring just five cities in the UK to introduce clean air zones doesn’t solve a national problem which causes thousands of premature deaths. Other local authorities won’t introduce voluntary clean air zones unless they are made to, or paid to.”

The environment department said other local authorities could introduce clean air zones if they wished.

But Friends of the Earth said the government should financially support the zones in other towns and cities blighted by illegal levels of NO2.

Jenny Bates, a campaigner at the green group, said: “Everyone, no matter where they live, should have the right to breathe clean air. Local authorities should be supported – including financially – to introduce clean air zones across the country.”

Table – NO2 exceedances at UK cities

Electric vehicles could go first at traffic lights under UK clean air zone plans

Smoking in vehicles: the hidden agenda behind the ban | Zoe Williams

‘It stamps into public lore an image that so fixates conservative opinion – that of the negligent parent.’ Illustration by Belle Mellor

I imply, really – who would not pick the interests of a youngster, in a auto, in excess of people of a smoker, wishing to smoke whilst driving? Young children are cute, whilst smokers are grey, stupid people who smell of 70s pubs. It really is a child protection problem, not a civil liberties issue – the rights of individuals who do not have a selection should come prior to these who are totally free to make idiotic alternatives at any time. This week’s free of charge vote in the Commons – 376 MPs voting for a ban on smoking in automobiles, 107 towards – underlined this: right-contemplating folks defend kids.

In reality, this is not about child safety or civil liberties. It is dressed up as a clash amongst those two titanic, so often oppositional, concepts but anybody with a passionate – or even reasonable – curiosity in either would have a lot far more pressing worries.

In perspective: secondhand smoke is implicated in 1 in 5 situations of sudden infant death. Because smoke is a lot more intense in a modest, enclosed area, it is logical to assume that babies are more endangered by smoking in vehicles than by smoking elsewhere.

Nevertheless, the smoking figures are virtually constantly in constellation with other variables – factors surrounding or inherent to the kid, from bad housing to low birth fat. Birth bodyweight is of course connected to smoking in pregnancy, but again other aspects, such as maternal education, age and class, have an effect. A study in Ohio discovered mould spores in the lungs of sudden infant death victims and midwives regularly say that mould is hazardous. Kia Stone, a young mother profiled in the Guardian’s Breadline Britain series 18 months ago, misplaced her daughter shortly afterwards. A huge mushroom was even now increasing out of the damp plaster in the bedroom when she received house from the autopsy.

No one even collects figures for mould as a chance issue – separate from damp and leaks. Bedrooms that are too sizzling are also a aspect, as is frequent home moving, and living in overcrowded conditions, B&ampBs or hostel accommodation. The connection isn’t created – presumably by way of sheer lack of interest – that buildings in which people can’t control the heating are often also scorching or as well cold.

Considering that the connection between sleeping position and sudden infant death was produced in the 90s, really small has been explained that is radical, simply because almost everything left to say issues difficulties considered to be “intractable” – which is shorthand for “connected to poverty”. We cannot blame the coalition for that attitude, which has obtained for years – but skyrocketing numbers living in squalid B&ampBs, or households moved repeatedly by councils and slung into flats a hundred odd miles away, in anticipation of the housing advantage cap? These are all charges the government is ready to shell out, without a doubt pays enthusiastically.

Secondhand smoke is also blamed for ear infections, meningitis, asthma and eczema. Malnutrition, for comparison, can trigger all these factors and fairly a lot every little thing else, indirectly, by putting children under constant physical (in no way mind psychological) pressure without a doubt, meals poverty in this nation, in accordance to David Taylor-Robinson of the University of Liverpool, has “all the indications of a public wellness emergency”, with hospital admissions as a end result of malnutrition practically doubling in the past four many years. Where are the Conservative MPs tweeting their humble calls for guidance about that?

Almost all the Tories so fervently towards smoking in cars are simultaneously quite sanguine about foodbanks. Six weeks ago nearly 300 MPs voted against a motion calling on the government to reduce dependency on emergency meals assist. It is challenging to observe, with out the alternative of yelling and swearing, how disingenuous this is, how slimy and mawkish for a government content to dwell with the concept of men and women residing in squalor, in fuel poverty, going hungry, all of a sudden to locate itself unable to bear the concept of a kid in a smoky car.

But even those who care about smoke and poverty – let us get in touch with them, for brevity, the opposition – want to be far more mindful ahead of they rush into this territory. The extent of in-automobile, little one-centric smoking is unknown. Its influence is unknown, there currently being no sensible way of figuring out regardless of whether a child acquired a particular condition from a home or a vehicle. This is the definitive contemporary non-situation, the phenomenon that sounds so undesirable we needn’t difficulty ourselves with how widespread it is.

It stamps into public lore an picture that so fixates conservative viewpoint – that of the negligent mother or father, the one particular who may possibly profess to care as much about their young children as you or I, but is just waiting for society’s back to be turned prior to smoking all more than them.

Who tends to make the ideal parent? The middle class, of program: in the suggestions loop of the bourgeoisie, their behaviour (breastfeeding, lengthy maternity depart and effectively-planned paternity leave) begets greater bonding, prospects them to care far more, which leads to even greater behaviour. (Well, it is apparent, is not it? Middle class folks in no way smoke all above their children in enclosed spaces – in the rather circular logic that comes about, as soon as “middle class” is synonymous with “accountable”, smoking at all makes you no longer authentically middle class.)

This is a narrative that runs in a straight line from the fascination with parenting courses (typically prescribed for dad and mom towards whom there is no case but poverty – as if failing to be rich enough have been in itself evidence of inadequacy in this area) to the dark, usually – but not constantly – tacit suggestion that some people only have children in the very first place for the kid advantage.

Progressive politicians have to consider it as a principle that mother and father really like their young children with the very same intensity irrespective of cash flow bracket, and they must make this principle the basis of their political exercise. They are trapped time and once more, by the apparently innocuous language of threat management, into positions that, created to demonise behaviour, in fact demonise a class.

Twitter: @zoesqwilliams

Smoking in vehicles: the hidden agenda behind the ban | Zoe Williams

Smoking ban in vehicles carrying youngsters expected to be passed

Health professionals have been lobbying for a ban on smoking in automobiles carrying young children. Photograph: Clive Gee/PA

Senior Conservatives in the cabinet are split more than how to vote in the Commons on Monday as a move to ban smoking in automobiles with children is anticipated to be passed with Labour support.

David Cameron, citing the require to visit flood-impacted locations, is very likely to be absent from the House. The well being secretary, Jeremy Hunt, backs the ban, but his colleague, the justice secretary, Chris Grayling opposes it.

Divisions in Tory and Liberal Democrat ranks imply the measure will be supported by the Commons, guaranteeing it gets to be law. Michael Gove, the education secretary, is supporting the ban, but the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, and the company secretary, Vince Cable, have stated they oppose it on libertarian and sensible grounds. Clegg has said he does not see how such a ban could be enforceable, the position adopted by Grayling as lord chancellor.

The communities secretary, Eric Pickles, is an additional sceptic. Final week he raised inquiries over what transpires when a car is stopped with children and a smoker inside, and whether or not it is different from smoking at home. “We need to make things criminal if we really feel that they are enforceable,” he explained.

No ten insisted it was not looking for to enforce any line, even surreptitiously, as the government at times seeks to do on nominal totally free votes.

Well being pros have been lobbying MPs to support the ban ever considering that peers narrowly agreed to support a ban on smoking in any automobile with kids younger than 18 in it. The amendment was inserted into the children and families bill.

Health professionals have been co-ordinated by Dr Nicholas Hopkinson, from Imperial University London, who is chairman of the British Thoracic Society’s continual obstructive pulmonary illness professional advisory group.

He stated: “This letter concerns a effective statement from the health-related specialists of this nation – the individuals who, each day, are treating illnesses brought on by secondhand smoke in young children – about the rights of children to breathe clean air that won’t make them sick.”

Simon Clark, director of smokers’ lobby group Forest, mentioned: “Smoking in cars with young children is inconsiderate but there is a line the state shouldn’t cross when it comes to dictating how folks behave in private places.”

The shadow public wellness minister, Luciana Berger, stated 300,000 GP appointments every yr end result from children suffering from the effects of secondhand smoke, like younger folks who have had to endure passive smoking in the back of a auto. “Young children are especially vulnerable to secondhand smoke as they have smaller lungs and quicker breathing prices than grownups,” she stated.

Smoking ban in vehicles carrying youngsters expected to be passed

Smoking in vehicles: a cloudy concern

Smoking in autos with children present is inconsiderate, ill-mannered and inimical to their health. But should it be unlawful? That is the query that MPs are to think about, when they vote on the Bill that has returned from the Lords.

For many, it will be an clear determination. Even some who generally think about themselves libertarian on this kind of troubles – not least the Mayor of London – have accepted that the indisputable damage carried out to the wellness of the young children ought to trump the individual’s correct to behave as they wish within their personal residence. However this kind of arguments lead us on to tricky terrain. What is there to distinguish a auto from an additional enclosed area of equivalent dimensions? Is this not an issue that can be dealt with greater by education and social pressure than by obtaining the police involved, and perhaps distracting them from more serious duties?

Such judgments are finely balanced. The ban’s advocates insist that this is not the commence of a slippery slope – even although the logic of their place, offered the injury that smoking and passive smoking do, is surely to move above time to a complete ban, the two in public and private. And criminal sanctions, and the attendant publicity, have been deployed successfully to impose social adjust and stamp out other hazardous and unsavoury practices: witness the campaign against drink-driving.

Still, Parliament is supposed to be the custodian of our freedoms – so MPs are honour-bound to believe specially very carefully prior to stripping away even people freedoms that are open to abuse. The Bill is set to pass easily, which is definitely a great point for the kids it will protect. But it need to be witnessed as an exceptional measure, rather than a prelude to further regulation of our private conduct.

Smoking in vehicles: a cloudy concern

Ban on smoking in vehicles in front of youngsters moves closer following Lords vote

The prime minister would like to ‘listen to the arguments’ on banning smoking in cars with youngsters, No ten said. Photograph: Phil Noble/Reuters

A ban on smoking in vehicles in front of youngsters has moved a phase closer right after the Home of Lords voted to bring in new laws and Downing Street explained the prime minister was ready to “listen to the arguments”.

The thought will now be debated by MPs, who will be given a totally free vote on the situation – providing it a actual possibility of making it into legislation. It comes following Labour proposed an amendment to the youngsters and households bill that would give ministers a electrical power to carry in laws that would make it an offence for a driver to “fail to stop smoking in the motor vehicle when a kid or children are present”.

Sources said the prime minister was open-minded about the concern, as peers defeated the government by a slim margin of 25. It is the 89th time Labour and crossbench peers have inflicted a defeat on the coalition.

Asked what the prime minister thought of smoking in automobiles with young children, his spokesman mentioned: “This is an concern that is going to be discussed and debated in parliament right now, and the prime minister’s view is that he would like to listen to the arguments.”

In the morning, the Division of Health said it did not consider legislation was the most efficient way of stopping grownups smoking in front of children in autos. This was reiterated in the Lords by Earl Howe, a health minister, who said it would be complex to police and the government preferred “behaviour adjust”.

“Smoking in autos and in the property is most likely to be a consequence of a lack of understanding about the dangers of 2nd-hand smoke,” he mentioned, adding that the government was “spreading awareness”.

However, he also explained the government had not ruled out legislation and would take into account a overview of the evidence if the publicity campaign failed to have an impact. In closing remarks, Howe said: “We all want to eradicate smoking in automobiles carrying youngsters.”

The baffled position echoes Cameron’s selection to back plain packaging for cigarettes, ahead of dropping the policy, and then saying it would be adopted if there was proof it would be successful.

Andy Burnham, the shadow overall health secretary, said Britain need to comply with the instance set by Australia, Canada and some US states. Underneath Labour’s programs, it would be an offence to expose kids to tobacco smoke in cars and a breach would carry a £60 fine.

“When it comes to improving the well being of kids, we are duty bound to think about any measure that might make a variation,” he advised Sky News.

“Adults are totally free to make their own options but that usually does not apply to kids and which is why society has an obligation to defend them from preventable harm.

“Evidence from other nations displays that stopping smoking in the confined area of a vehicle carrying kids can avoid damage to their wellness and has strong public help.”

Smoking in workplaces and enclosed public spaces has been banned considering that 2007.

Nonetheless, Simon Clark, director of the smokers’ rights group Forest, told BBC Radio Four’s These days programme that the ban would be a slippery slope in the direction of a ban on all smoking in automobiles.

“I consider this legislation is extremely heavy-handed, entirely needless and, according to surveys, 84% of grownups wouldn’t dream of lighting a cigarette in a auto, in a modest enclosed area, with a little one current,” he explained.

“So grownups currently know how to behave. They will not need the state interfering in their lives like this. If there are nevertheless some folks who smoke in a vehicle with youngsters, then let us educate them, but let’s not legislate.”

Ban on smoking in vehicles in front of youngsters moves closer following Lords vote