Skip to main content

Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill [HL]

Volume 825: debated on Friday 18 November 2022

Committee

Relevant documents: 4th and 7th Reports from the Delegated Powers Committee

Clause 1: Overview

Amendment 1

Moved by

1: Clause 1, page 1, line 4, after “must” insert “, subject to subsection (2A),”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment, together with another in the name of Baroness Jones, ensures that where the duty to achieve clean air cannot be achieved within five years the Secretary of State may postpone the deadline for a particular pollutant in relation to a specified area by a maximum of five years subject to strict conditions.

My Lords, I thank everyone who has helped me get the Bill to this point—it has been a lot of people. This is quite a momentous moment, because this is a very important Bill. Air pollution is the UK’s largest environmental health risk. This Bill will set England and Wales on course to comply with the World Health Organization’s new air quality guidelines in the next five to 10 years; it will achieve our carbon budgets and protect our natural environment. Just as we followed the science for Covid-19, we must follow the science with the air pollution pandemic.

There have been several important international developments since the Second Reading of my Bill on 8 July, which I wish to highlight. We are also much closer to two important anniversaries, which I shall remind noble Lords about.

On 28 July, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution recognising the right to

“a clean, healthy and sustainable environment”

as a human right. The resolution calls on states, international organisations and business enterprises

“to scale up efforts to ensure a clean, healthy and sustainable environment for all”,

with 161 countries voting in favour, including the UK, and none against. That means that the Government have signed up to a UN resolution to make clean air a human right. My Bill turns that declaration into something meaningful in England and Wales. Today, here in your Lordships’ House, I hope that we will do the Government’s work for them by making clean air a fundamental and legally enforceable human right for people in this country.

On 26 October, the European Commission published its proposals for the revision of the European Union’s ambient air quality directives, after more than four years of analysis, discussion and consultations. It has proposed new limit values for fine particulate matter, so-called PM2.5, and nitrogen dioxide, so-called NO2, to be attained by 1 January 2030 and put the EU on track to achieve zero pollution for air by 2050.

Important upcoming anniversaries include the 70th anniversary of the Great Smog of 5-9 December 1952 and the 10th anniversary of the tragic death of Ella Roberta Adoo Kissi-Debrah, aged nine, on 15 February 2013. I am very grateful to her mother, Rosamund Kissi-Debrah, for being here today, listening to this debate and agreeing that the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill could be called Ella’s law. We will be doing this for Ella and children like her, but also for all of us, so that none of us has to suffer from poisoned air. So my Bill is very timely. In fact, it is being presented in the right place at the right time to address the public health, environmental and climate emergencies that we face.

I am grateful to everyone who spoke at Second Reading or has spoken to me since about the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Whitchurch, has asked me to highlight her support for my Bill in her necessary absence today. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, pointed out that the issue of internal air pollution in schools and homes is also extremely dangerous. She is also unable to be here today. The noble Lord, Lord Moylan, raised issues that we have recognised. Other noble Lords have written, showing how the standards in my Bill can be achieved or used to deliver clean air.

As noble Lords will remember, in my opening speech at Second Reading I thanked the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee for scrutinising my Bill and confirmed that I would propose amendments to the Bill to address its three recommendations. I have therefore tabled amendments here in Committee to deliver on my assurances. Those amendments slightly delayed Committee for my Bill until today, so I took the opportunity to table a small number of other amendments to make my Bill as perfect as possible. In total, I have tabled four types of amendments in a single group for debate, which covers all amendments.

These are, first, on time extensions. An amendment to Clause 1 would allow the Secretary of State to

“postpone the deadline for a particular pollutant in relation to a specified area by a maximum of five years subject to strict conditions”

where the initial deadline cannot be achieved. No time extension would be possible beyond 1 January 2033. A consequential amendment is proposed for local authorities.

This amendment would mean, for example, that the Government could delay the deadline to comply with the World Health Organization’s new air quality guideline for annual mean concentrations of fine particulate matter in one or more zones to January 2033. This is long enough, given that the European Commission’s press release announcing its recent proposals included a baseline map showing that this guideline would be achieved across most of the UK by 2030. The conditions I have tabled for this postponement would ensure that the Minister’s feet are still held to the fire—that is quite a graphic image; I am sorry about that.

Secondly, a new clause would set limit values for fine particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide of 10 and 20 micrograms per cubic metre respectively, to be attained by 1 January 2030. These would act as interim thresholds or backstop targets, depending on the progress made, and would match the latest European proposals. An additional limit value for nitrogen dioxide of 40 micrograms per cubic metre, to be attained by 1 January 2024, would strengthen existing obligations. This amendment builds on debates in this House on the Environment Act and international developments.

Thirdly, my amendments respond to three recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that I accepted in a letter to the committee dated 4 July, and in my opening speech at Second Reading. In essence, these amendments would align parts of my Bill relating to the tightening of future standards after Royal Assent more closely to mechanisms in the Climate Change Act 2008 which require the Secretary of State to “comply” or “explain” to Parliament. The tightening of future standards would require a draft of the instrument to be laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament. These technical changes would be achieved by a new clause which would replace several subsections in Clause 2, and the substitution of several subsections in the existing Clause 3. Together, these amendments would improve my Bill, and I am grateful to the committee for drawing my attention to the need for them.

Fourthly, I have taken the opportunity to table a small number of other amendments to improve my Bill and correct several omissions and typographical errors—for example, adding Network Rail alongside other public authorities; substituting the new citizens’ commission for clean air for the Environment Agency when reviewing and revising standards and advising Ministers; substituting the World Health Organization for the International Organization for Standardization in relation to indoor air pollutants; adding standards aligned to the World Health Organization’s good practice statements for ultrafine particles—PM0.1—in indoor and outdoor air and its air quality guideline for 24-hour mean nitrogen dioxide in indoor air; and, finally, correcting the name of Highways England to National Highways, following its rebranding in 2021.

These amendments will give the UK the best and most up-to-date clean air standards in the world, and they each improve an incredibly strong Bill. Together, they make my Bill oven-ready for the Government to adopt. They can take it and run, and do something fantastic for the UK. For those who want more, or something slightly different, I encourage them to present evidence to Ministers, the citizens’ commission for clean air, and public authorities once my Bill has achieved Royal Assent and given them new powers and duties. If I can, I would be very happy to help in that process if it will deliver clean air sooner.

As I said in July, let us give Rosamund “Ella’s law” on the 70th anniversary of the great smog and before the 10th anniversary of Ella’s death on 15 February 2023. I hope your Lordships will support my amendments today and that the Government will agree to allow my Bill time to progress in the other place early in the new year and to reach Royal Assent.

My Lords, I rise very briefly; I do not want to detain this Committee for long, because there is other important business. Having been a bit of an expert on Private Members’ Bills down the other end, I know that time is of the essence.

I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on bringing this forward. I am sure her amendments will improve the Bill—whether that is the view of the Government, we shall see. We will be told that this matter is too big for a Private Member’s Bill—it is one of those things; I may have even had to say it myself once or twice—but I urge my noble friend on the Front Bench to see it as an opportunity. If there are things in the Bill which are not quite to the Government’s liking, there is ample opportunity to change them. I am sure that the noble Baroness, within reason, will allow that, without a complete filleting of her Bill.

We have waited too long for proper clean air legislation. We tried to introduce provisions to what is now the Environment Act. We owe it to the people who live with the consequences of this pollution, which unfortunately people are dying from. I urge the Minister to take this back and say that it is a golden opportunity to do something really wonderful. The Government could take pride in being part of a world-beating Bill, which is the sort of thing I believe they like saying.

My Lords, I echo the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Randall, in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, on bringing forward amendments that strengthen the Bill. I wish that the amendments on the time extension were not necessary, but I understand that pragmatically, it makes sense to include them.

It is absolutely right to call this Ella’s law, and it is good to have Ella’s mother here today. However, this week there has been news of an inquest that will provide a change if this Bill goes through: that following the death of two year-old Awaab Ishak, who died from respiratory arrest following months of exposure to black mould and damp in his housing association home. The coroner said that this inquest was a defining moment, asking:

“how does this happen? How, in the UK in 2020, does a two-year-old child die from exposure to mould in his home?”

The coroner will write a prevention of deaths report, not to the housing association, because she has been so impressed with the steps it has taken, but a more general one to local authorities and other bodies responsible for social housing, which would, I believe, be covered by this Bill. It gives tenants of private landlords the right to take action on their human rights, in respect of which landlords have been very dilatory, and it could well help.

These two cases relate to children, but the health of many adults has been ruined by the lack of clean air, whether inside or out. I hope the Government understand that. The Bill is not quite as broad as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, outlined; it is very particular in providing strict law about the human right and how it affects public bodies. I hope that the Government will recognise that now is the right time to move this forward, especially after their comments about the Awaab Ishak inquest earlier this week.

I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her thorough introduction to the Bill and her explanation of the amendments. I will not go into any detail about that. However, it is important to remind noble Lords and the Minister of the seriousness of the issue we are discussing today.

Air pollution has been breaching legal limits across the UK since 2010. The Government recognise that this is the single largest environmental risk to health in the UK, with links to cancer, asthma, stroke and heart disease. Toxic air also drives health inequalities. Government analysis confirms that air quality tends to be poorest in the poorest communities and that those communities are also more likely to have health conditions that make them more vulnerable to toxic air.

Therefore, it was very disappointing that the Government decided not to be ambitious on this during the passage of the Environment Bill. They refused to include the World Health Organization target that would have set the UK on the pathway to becoming a global leader in environmental protection. Instead, they launched yet another consultation, looking at new targets for PM2.5 and other pollutants. They also said that they would develop a more sophisticated population exposure reduction target.

They said these new targets would be published by the deadline of October this year but, since then, we have seen nothing. The Minister and the Secretary of State in the other place have been unable to say when we will see these targets and when they will be published. All we have heard is that

“we will continue to work at pace in order to lay draft statutory instruments as soon as practicable.”—[Official Report, Commons, 28/10/22; col. 18WS.]

What does this mean? How fast is working “at pace”? Does the Minister agree that it is completely unacceptable to make commitments on the Floor of your Lordships’ House that are not followed up, particularly when there is a legal requirement to do so?

It also makes a mockery of the Minister’s response at Second Reading that the Bill is not necessary because of the framework in the Environment Act. What good is a framework if it does not have the overarching targets that are needed to deliver change? I ask again when the Government will publish the targets. Will they commit to the WHO recommendations and when will we see action on meeting them? I am aware that one of the noble Baroness’s amendments allows for a time extension, but we need to see a clear government commitment to the targets in the first place.

While I am on the subject of promised action following the Environment Act, there is a statutory instrument coming shortly that would designate National Highways as a relevant public authority under that Act. I ask the Minister when the other designations will be made.

It has been suggested that, if this Bill passes into law, it will become Ella’s law. I end by paying tribute to Ella’s mother, Rosamund, who is here with us today, for her tireless campaigning since her daughter died after suffering a fatal asthma attack caused by toxic air. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, said in her introduction, we are here for Ella. I genuinely do not understand why the Government do not do more.

My Lords, I start by expressing my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, for her hard work campaigning on this important issue and to all noble Lords who have contributed to today’s debate. I thank Rosamund Adoo Kissi-Debrah for being with us today. The death of her daughter, Ella Adoo Kissi-Debrah, was a tragedy, and I pay tribute to her family and friends who have campaigned so tirelessly on this issue and continue to do so.

Noble Lords across the House were horrified to hear this week about the tragic death of Awaab Ishak. We are absolutely clear that every person in this country, irrespective of where they are from, what they do or how much money they earn, deserves to live in a home that is decent, safe and secure. Awaab’s case has thrown into sharp relief the need for this Government to continue our mission to reset and rebalance the tenant-landlord relationship in this country. My friend in the other place, the Secretary of State for Housing Michael Gove, is taking immediate action on this matter.

I turn back to the Bill. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, knows, the Government fully appreciate the intention behind her proposed legislation. We welcome her ambition to drive down air pollution and its impacts on public health and the environment. We share that ambition. The Government take air quality and its effects extremely seriously. Although we have achieved significant reductions in air pollution, it remains the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK, so we know there is further to go.

I will not go into detailed arguments: my noble friend Lord Benyon set out the Government’s full position at Second Reading, as well as the range of action we are taking to tackle air pollution and its effects. The sources of air pollution are diverse and complex, and there are no easy solutions. In these difficult times, we must deliver interventions that avoid placing disproportionate costs on individuals and small businesses. We are working across all sectors to drive down emissions and concentrations of harmful pollutants, encouraging innovative solutions and raising awareness to ensure that we can bring society with us.

We are concerned that environmental degradation can have implications for full enjoyment of human rights. The UK understands that the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment is a component of the rights elaborated in Articles 11 and 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights; namely, the right to an adequate standard of living and the right to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health. However, specifically on this resolution, we regard the recognition of the right as political and consider that there is a lack of international consensus on the legal basis for this right. It is important to have due regard to the usual formation of international human rights law. Nevertheless, we supported the General Assembly resolution on the right to a clean, healthy and sustainable environment. We are committed to environmental action and will continue to champion more ambitious efforts on environmental protection.

Climate change and environmental degradation can have an impact on the well-being of people and we know that states must continue to protect, respect and promote human rights obligations. Our comprehensive existing legal framework, now bolstered by the landmark Environment Act 2021, gives us the capability and accountability we need to do this, which is why this Government are expressing reservations in regard to the noble Baroness’s Bill. The Government remain committed to setting ambitious targets under the Environment Act. We are currently finalising the government response to the consultation and we will continue to work at pace to lay draft statutory instruments as soon as practicable.

Once again I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Her Bill will help to raise awareness of the effects of air pollution, its impacts and the actions that can be taken to reduce it and to protect the vulnerable from its effects, which is of course welcome. I thank the noble Baroness for her assiduous campaigning on air quality and I look forward to continuing discussions with colleagues across your Lordships’ House on this vital matter, as the Government continue to make progress on improving the air we all breathe.

I thank all noble Lords who have spoken on the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Randall, was critical but also extremely kind, calling it a golden opportunity and world-beating; I thank him very much. It is always good to have a Conservative support my radical thoughts, so it was very kind of him. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, mentioned Awaab Ishak. She said it must have happened before, it will happen again, and we have to stop it as best we can.

I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I borrowed some of her amendments that did not get into the Environment Bill to put into my Bill, so I thank her very deeply for that. She talked about the toxic air in poor communities. It is a fact that poor communities suffer more from air pollution. It is absolutely inevitable: they live closer to the roads, they have fewer options for getting out into the countryside or into parks, and so they suffer more. It seems an even greater injustice to keep them in a position where they are suffering from polluted air. She talked also about the Government’s commitment to targets; a commitment to a target would be good.

Finally, I thank the Minister for his kind words. I am glad he understands that the Bill is brought with very good intentions to actually help people—not just children but absolutely everybody. I also appreciate that there are no easy solutions, but we have to start somewhere. The Bill is a very good place to start. I realise that it is tough. The Minister spoke about costs to individuals and businesses, but there are already costs to them from polluted air. It costs the NHS, families and social security. It is a cost to us that we somehow do not calculate.

The Minister made a point about bringing society with us. That is crucial. You cannot just say to people, “You can’t do this any more”; you have to offer them a benefit or an option. I am obviously more than happy to work with the Government to help them along those lines.

I thank everybody. I will sit down now. I beg to move.

Amendment 1 agreed.

Amendments 2 to 5

Moved by

2: Clause 1, page 1, line 6, at end insert—

“(2A) Where the duty in subsection (2) cannot be achieved for a particular pollutant in a given zone or agglomeration on or before 1 January 2028 the Secretary of State may postpone the deadline by a maximum of five years for that particular pollutant, in relation to the specified zone or agglomeration only on condition that the Secretary of State—(a) takes into account advice from the Citizens’ Commission for Clean Air (CCCA) and the Committee on Climate Change; and(b) sets a new deadline for achieving clean air and maintaining it thereafter; and(c) publishes a clean air plan that shall demonstrate how the new deadline will be achieved before the new deadline for the particular pollutant in the zone or agglomeration to which the postponement would apply; and(d) has not already postponed the deadline beyond 1 January 2028; and(e) lays a statement before Parliament explaining the failure to achieve clean air throughout England and Wales by 1 January 2028 and how it will be achieved throughout England and Wales by 1 January 2033 and maintained thereafter.”Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment, together with another in the name of Baroness Jones, ensures that where the duty to achieve clean air cannot be achieved within five years the Secretary of State may postpone the deadline for a particular pollutant in relation to a specified area by a maximum of five years subject to strict conditions.

3: Clause 1, page 1, line 8, leave out “Citizens’ Commission for Clean Air” and insert “CCCA”

4: Clause 1, page 2, line 22, leave out “Highways England” and insert “National Highways”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment responds to the rebranding of Highways England as National Highways.

5: Clause 1, page 2, line 24, at end insert—

“(h) Network Rail.”Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment ensures that Network Rail is included alongside certain other public authorities with duties and powers under the Bill.

Amendments 2 to 5 agreed.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 6

Moved by

6: After Clause 1, insert the following new Clause—

“Environmental targets: particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide

(1) In section 2(1) of the Environment Act 2021, for “set a target (“the PM2.5 air quality target”) in respect of the annual mean level of PM2.5 in ambient air”, substitute “establish limit values to be attained throughout England and Wales for the annual mean concentration in ambient air of— (a) nitrogen dioxide (NO2) to be less than or equal to 40 µg/m3 by 1 January 2024; (b) NO2 to be less than or equal to 20 µg/m3 by 1 January 2030; and(c) PM2.5 to be less than or equal to 10 µg/m3 by 1 January 2030.”(2) Omit subsection (2) of section 2 of the Environment Act 2021.(3) In subsection (4) of section 2 of the Environment Act 2021, for “setting the PM2.5 air quality target” substitute “implementing the NO2 and PM2.5 limit values”.(4) Omit subsections (6) and (7) of section 2 of the Environment Act 2021.”Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment ensures that the Environment Act 2021 is amended to establish new limit values as interim thresholds or backstop standards that align with certain World Health Organization air quality guidelines or interim targets.

Amendment 6 agreed.

Clause 2: Reviewing and revising the pollutants and limits in Schedules 1 to 4

Amendments 7 to 15

Moved by

7: Clause 2, page 2, line 26, leave out “Environment Agency (EA)” and insert “CCCA”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment gives the Citizen’s Commission for Clean Air responsibilities in place of the Environment Agency (“EA”) in response to observations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee that the EA is a non-departmental public body sponsored by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

8: Clause 2, page 2, line 28, leave out “EA” and insert “CCCA”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment gives the Citizen’s Commission for Clean Air responsibilities in place of the Environment Agency (“EA”).

9: Clause 2, page 2, line 35, leave out “and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO)”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment removes the International Organization for Standardisation (“ISO”) as a body advising on reviewing and revising future standards in Schedules 1 to 3.

10: Clause 2, page 3, line 1, leave out “EA” and insert “CCCA”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment gives the Citizen’s Commission for Clean Air responsibilities in place of the Environment Agency (“EA”).

11: Clause 2, page 3, line 5, leave out “EA” and insert “CCCA”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment gives the Citizen’s Commission for Clean Air responsibilities in place of the Environment Agency (“EA”).

12: Clause 2, page 3, line 17, leave out subsections (5) to (7)

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment removes subsections (5) to (7) in Clause 2 of the Bill which would be recreated in a more appropriate form within a new Clause following observations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about a mismatch between accountability and responsibility.

13: Clause 2, page 3, line 42, leave out subsection (11)

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment removes subsection (11) in Clause 2 of the Bill which would be recreated in a more appropriate form within a new Clause following observations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about a mismatch between accountability and responsibility.

14: Clause 2, page 3, line 45, leave out “EA” and insert “CCCA”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment gives the Citizen’s Commission for Clean Air responsibilities in place of the Environment Agency (“EA”).

15: Clause 2, page 4, line 1, leave out subsections (13) and (14)

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment removes subsections (13) and (14) in Clause 2 of the Bill which would be recreated in a more appropriate form within a new Clause following observations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about a mismatch between accountability and responsibility.

Amendments 7 to 15 agreed.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed.

Amendment 16

Moved by

16: After Clause 2, insert the following new Clause—

“Amending the pollutants and limits in Schedules 1 to 4

(1) Following the receipt of advice under section 2, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft statutory instrument containing an order amending Schedules 1 to 4 to include additional pollutants (and their limit values which may be zero) and to lower any limits.(2) Following the publication of new guidance by the WHO, Inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and UNECE, the Secretary of State may lay before Parliament a draft statutory instrument containing an order amending Schedules 1 to 4 to include additional pollutants (and their limit values which may be zero) and to lower any limits.(3) Before laying before Parliament a draft of a statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must take into account—(a) the advice received from under section 2(3) and (10);(b) revised guidance and good practice statements from the WHO, IPCC and UNECE; and(c) the precautionary principle.(4) In case of conflict between the advice received under section 2(3) and (10) and guidance and good practice statements under subsection (3)(b), any additional pollutants should be listed and the lower limit values should be adopted.(5) If the order makes provision different from that recommended by the CCCA or the CCC or the guidance or good practice statements of the WHO, IPCC or UNECE the Secretary of State must also publish a statement setting out the reasons for that decision.(6) A statement under this section may be published in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit.(7) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.(8) Where Schedules 1 to 4 are amended and a new pollutant limit is added or a limit is reduced in accordance with, but after the commencement of all sections of, this Act the new or amended limit will take effect after a period of 12 months, beginning with the date on which the relevant amending regulations come into force.” Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment would replace certain provisions formerly within Clause 2. It would establish a process for amending the pollutants and limits in Schedules 1 to 4 based on advice to the Secretary of State and subject to the approval of a resolution of each House of Parliament, in response to recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee.

Amendment 16 agreed.

Clause 3: Secretary of State’s duty: assessing air pollutants

Amendments 17 to 23

Moved by

17: Clause 3, page 4, line 37, leave out “in accordance with the most up to date ISO standards” and insert “in representative locations relative to the most up to date WHO air quality guidelines”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment requires the assessment and reporting of pollutant concentrations to be based on World Health Organization air quality guidelines instead of standards set by the International Organization on Standardisation (“ISO”).

18: Clause 3, page 4, line 39, leave out “in accordance with the most up to date ISO standards” and insert “measured in representative locations relative to the most up to date WHO air quality guidelines”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment requires the assessment and reporting of pollutant concentrations to be based on World Health Organization air quality guidelines instead of standards set by the International Organization on Standardisation (“ISO”).

19: Clause 3, page 5, line 25, leave out “Citizens’ Commission for Clean Air (the “CCCA”)” and insert “CCCA”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment is consequential on an amendment that defines the CCCA earlier in the Bill.

20: Clause 3, page 5, line 35, leave out subsection (10) and insert—

“(10) Following the receipt of advice under subsection (9), the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a draft statutory instrument containing an order amending assessment, publication or reporting methods.”Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment replaces subsection (10) following recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about a mismatch between accountability and responsibility.

21: Clause 3, page 5, line 38, leave out subsection (11) and insert—

“(11) Before laying before Parliament a draft of a statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (10), the Secretary of State must take into account—(a) the advice received under subsection (9);(b) the precautionary principle; and(c) the desirability of ensuring continuity and comparability of reporting.”Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment replaces subsection (11) following recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about a mismatch between accountability and responsibility.

22: Clause 3, page 5, line 41, leave out subsection (12) and insert—

“(12) If the order makes provision different from that recommended by the CCCA, the Secretary of State must also publish a statement setting out the reasons for that decision.” Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment replaces subsection (12) following recommendations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about a mismatch between accountability and responsibility.

23: Clause 3, page 5, line 42, at end insert—

“(13) A statement under this section may be published in such manner as the Secretary of State thinks fit.(14) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment adds two subsections following observations from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee about a mismatch between accountability and responsibility.

Amendments 17 to 23 agreed.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed.

Clauses 4 to 6 agreed.

Clause 7: Local authorities

Amendments 24 and 25

Moved by

24: Clause 7, page 7, line 5, after “duty” insert “, subject to subsection (1A),”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment, together with another in the name of Baroness Jones, establishes responsibilities for local authorities where the Secretary of State has postponed by a maximum of five years the deadline to achieve clean air for a particular pollutant in relation to an area that falls partly or wholly within their area.

25: Clause 7, page 7, line 7, at end insert—

“(1A) Where the Secretary of State has postponed the deadline under section 1 of this Act by a maximum of five years for a particular pollutant in relation to a specified zone or agglomeration that falls partly or wholly within a local authority’s area, the local authority must—(a) take into account advice from the CCCA and the CCC; and(b) send and publish a letter to the Secretary of State annually giving the local authority’s reasons for failing to comply with the limits set out in Schedules 1 to 3; and(c) comply with the new deadline for that pollutant which cannot be later than 1 January 2033.”Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment, together with another in the name of Baroness Jones, establishes responsibilities for local authorities where the Secretary of State has postponed by a maximum of five years the deadline to achieve clean air for a particular pollutant in relation to an area that falls partly or wholly within their area.

Amendments 24 and 25 agreed.

Clause 7, as amended, agreed.

Clause 8: The Office of Environmental Protection

Amendment 26

Moved by

26: Clause 8, page 7, line 40, leave out “of” and insert “for”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment corrects an error.

Amendment 26 agreed.

Clause 8, as amended, agreed.

Clauses 9 to 12 agreed.

Amendment 27

Moved by

27: After Clause 12, insert the following new Clause—

“Network Rail

In section 4(1) of the Railways Act 1993, after paragraph (g) insert—“(h) to contribute towards achieving and maintaining clean air, as prescribed by the Clean Air (Human Rights) Act 2022 and the clean air enactments as listed in Schedule 6 to that Act.””Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment ensures that Network Rail is included alongside certain other public authorities with duties and powers under the Bill.

Amendment 27 agreed.

Clauses 13 to 19 agreed.

Schedule 1: Pollutants Relating to Local and Atmospheric Pollution

Amendments 28 to 33

Moved by

28: Schedule 1, page 12, line 27, leave out “1,000” and insert “2,000”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment aligns the standard for one-hour mean concentrations of ultrafine particles in outdoor air with the World Health Organization’s good practice statements published on 21 September 2021.

29: Schedule 1, page 12, line 28, after “(“ insert “PM0.1,”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment corrects an error.

30: Schedule 1, page 12, line 29, leave out “500” and insert “1,000”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment aligns the standard for 24-hour mean concentrations of ultrafine particles in outdoor air with the World Health Organization’s good practice statements published on 21 September 2021.

31: Schedule 1, page 13, line 3, after “(” insert “PM0.1,c

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment corrects an error.

32: Schedule 1, page 13, line 27, leave out “O3” and insert “O3

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment corrects a formatting error.

33: Schedule 1, page 13, line 28, leave out “O3” and insert “O3

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment corrects a formatting error.

Amendments 28 to 33 agreed.

Schedule 1, as amended, agreed.

Schedule 2: Indoor air pollutants

Amendments 34 to 37

Moved by

34: Schedule 2, page 14, line 20, column 3, at end insert—

“25 µg/m3

24 hours”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment corrects the omission of the World Health Organization’s air quality guideline for 24-hour mean concentrations of nitrogen dioxide (NO2) in indoor air.

35: Schedule 2, page 14, line 31, leave out “Pollutants from indoor combustion of fuels” and insert “Pollutant concentrations”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment corrects an error.

36: Schedule 2, page 15, line 2, column 2 and 3, before “PM1” insert—

“PM0.1: 2000 particles/ cm3

1 hour

“PM0.1: 1000 particles/ cm3

24 hours”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment corrects the omission of standards for ultrafine particles in indoor air aligned to the World Health Organization’s good practice statements published on 21 September 2021.

37: Schedule 2, page 15, line 3, after “(” insert “PM0.1,”

Member’s explanatory statement

This amendment corrects an omission.

Amendments 34 to 37 agreed.

Schedule 2, as amended, agreed.

Schedules 3 to 7 agreed.

House resumed.

Bill reported with amendments.