www.theguardian.com Open in urlscan Pro
2a04:4e42:400::367  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

https://www.google.co.uk/search

<form action="https://www.google.co.uk/search" class="dcr-g8v7m4"><label for="src-component-31650" class="dcr-0">
    <div class="dcr-1eoq5xi">Search input </div>
  </label><input type="text" id="src-component-31650" aria-required="true" aria-invalid="false" aria-describedby="" required="" name="q" placeholder="Search" data-link-name="nav2 : search" tabindex="-1" class="selectableMenuItem dcr-11nw881"><label
    class="dcr-0">
    <div class="dcr-1eoq5xi">google-search </div>
    <div class="dcr-190ztmi"><svg width="30" viewBox="-3 -3 30 30" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" aria-hidden="true">
        <path fill-rule="evenodd" clip-rule="evenodd"
          d="M9.273 2c4.023 0 7.25 3.295 7.25 7.273a7.226 7.226 0 0 1-7.25 7.25C5.25 16.523 2 13.296 2 9.273 2 5.295 5.25 2 9.273 2Zm0 1.84A5.403 5.403 0 0 0 3.84 9.274c0 3 2.409 5.454 5.432 5.454 3 0 5.454-2.454 5.454-5.454 0-3.023-2.454-5.432-5.454-5.432Zm7.295 10.887L22 20.16 20.16 22l-5.433-5.432v-.932l.91-.909h.931Z">
        </path>
      </svg><span class="dcr-1p0hins">Search</span></div>
  </label><button type="submit" aria-live="polite" aria-label="Search with Google" data-link-name="nav2 : search : submit" tabindex="-1" class="dcr-1ecm11e">
    <div class="src-button-space"></div><svg width="30" viewBox="-3 -3 30 30" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg" aria-hidden="true">
      <path fill-rule="evenodd" clip-rule="evenodd" d="M1 12.956h18.274l-7.167 8.575.932.932L23 12.478v-.956l-9.96-9.985-.932.932 7.166 8.575H1v1.912Z"></path>
    </svg>
  </button><input type="hidden" name="as_sitesearch" value="www.theguardian.com"></form>

Text Content

Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
Print subscriptions
Sign in
Search jobs
Search
US edition
 * US edition
 * UK edition
 * Australia edition
 * International edition
 * Europe edition

The Guardian - Back to homeThe Guardian


SUPPORT THE GUARDIAN

Fund independent journalism with $5 per month
Support us

Support us
 * News
 * Opinion
 * Sport
 * Culture
 * Lifestyle

ShowMoreShow More
 * News
   * View all News
   * US news
   * World news
   * Environment
   * US politics
   * Ukraine
   * Soccer
   * Business
   * Tech
   * Science
   * Newsletters
   * Wellness
   
 * Opinion
   * View all Opinion
   * The Guardian view
   * Columnists
   * Letters
   * Opinion videos
   * Cartoons
   
 * Sport
   * View all Sport
   * Soccer
   * NFL
   * Tennis
   * MLB
   * MLS
   * NBA
   * NHL
   * F1
   * Golf
   
 * Culture
   * View all Culture
   * Film
   * Books
   * Music
   * Art & design
   * TV & radio
   * Stage
   * Classical
   * Games
   
 * Lifestyle
   * View all Lifestyle
   * Wellness
   * Fashion
   * Food
   * Recipes
   * Love & sex
   * Home & garden
   * Health & fitness
   * Family
   * Travel
   * Money
 * Search input
   google-search
   Search
   
   
    * Support us
    * Print subscriptions

   US edition
   * UK edition
   * Australia edition
   * International edition
   * Europe edition
   
 * * Search jobs
   * Digital Archive
   * Guardian Puzzles app
   * Guardian Licensing
   * About Us
   * The Guardian app
   * Video
   * Podcasts
   * Pictures
   * Inside the Guardian
   * Guardian Weekly
   * Crosswords
   * Wordiply
   * Corrections
   * Facebook
   * Twitter
 * * Search jobs
   * Digital Archive
   * Guardian Puzzles app
   * Guardian Licensing
   * About Us

 * Environment
 * Climate crisis
 * Wildlife
 * Energy
 * Pollution
 * Green light


Smog over London. The Green party MP Caroline Lucas said the documents reinforce
concerns ‘that the government’s approach would create dangerous gaps in
transparency and accountability’. Photograph: Nicholas.T Ansell/PA
Smog over London. The Green party MP Caroline Lucas said the documents reinforce
concerns ‘that the government’s approach would create dangerous gaps in
transparency and accountability’. Photograph: Nicholas.T Ansell/PA
Air pollution



UK MINISTERS ‘MISLED PUBLIC’ WHEN SCRAPPING AIR QUALITY REGULATIONS

Exclusive: Documents show warnings that changes would weaken environmental
protections were ignored



Pippa Neill
Wed 6 Dec 2023 06.49 ESTLast modified on Thu 7 Dec 2023 03.40 EST
 * 
 * 
 * 



Ministers have been accused of “misleading the public” after documents obtained
by Ends Report and the Guardian revealed they ignored their officials’ advice
when scrapping key air quality regulations.

On 31 December, two key air quality regulations will drop off the statute book
under the Retained EU Law (REUL) Act.



The rules being revoked are regulations 9 and 10 of the National Emission
Ceiling (NEC) regulations, which set legally binding emission reduction
commitments for five key air pollutants.

Regulation 9 requires the secretary of state to prepare a national air pollution
control programme (NAPCP) to limit pollutants in accordance with national
emission reduction commitments. Regulation 10 requires that before preparing or
significantly revising the NAPCP, the secretary of state must consult the
public.



Caroline Lucas, the Green party MP, has asked ministers to “urgently take steps
to prevent these regulations from being stripped from our statute book in just a
few weeks’ time”, and has asked them to “explain why they felt this decision was
in the interests of people and planet”.

Ruth Chambers, from the Greener UK coalition, has also urged the new minister
for air quality, Robbie Moore, to “order an immediate rethink”.

The decision to scrap these regulations has also brought strong criticism from
the government’s own environmental watchdog, the Office for Environmental
Protection (OEP), which warned that revoking these regulations “weakens
accountability and transparency and – in the absence of an alternative,
comprehensive plan – it has the potential to weaken environmental protection”.

The government has dismissed these concerns repeatedly, stating that its
intention in revoking the regulations was to “reduce administrative burden” and
“remove duplication”.

In July 2023, the then environment secretary, Thérèse Coffey, reassured the OEP
that in revoking the regulations “there [will be] no reduction in the level of
environmental protection”, and emphasised that the government “uses expert
advice when making provisions that relate to the environment”.



However, it can be revealed that ministers knew this was not the case.

In advice given to ministers in March 2023, and obtained by Ends Report via an
environmental information request, officials at the Department for Environment,
Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) advised the government to carry out a public
consultation before reforming the regulations, and to put two options to the
public:

 1. . Revoke the NAPCP with no replacement, with the environment improvement
    plan (EIP) becoming the alternative process.
    
    2. Revoke the NAPCP provisions and introduce a new process for assessing
    policy options, with a new process triggered by a failure or potential
    failure to achieve a target.

The officials advised that any changes to the regulations should take place in
2024, to allow “sufficient time” for a public consultation.

Coffey ignored the advice to consult and chose option one.

The two options came with a list of pros and cons. For option one, the officials
pointed out that by revoking the regulations with no replacement, there would
“no longer be a legal requirement to publish a UK wide document on emission
policies under consideration by all UK administrations”, which they warned would
make “tracking or setting our progress towards UK wide emission targets
difficult”. They added there would no longer be clear action after a failure to
achieve an emission reduction target.

skip past newsletter promotion

Sign up to Down to Earth


Free weekly newsletter

The planet's most important stories. Get all the week's environment news - the
good, the bad and the essential


Privacy Notice: Newsletters may contain info about charities, online ads, and
content funded by outside parties. For more information see our Privacy Policy.
We use Google reCaptcha to protect our website and the Google Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.

after newsletter promotion

Emily Kearsey, an environmental lawyer at ClientEarth, said it was “further
evidence that the removal of these regulations does constitute a regression of
environmental law, and also that the government knew this.

“They might not have been advised on the regression explicitly, but it’s hard to
come to any other conclusion when the civil servants are specifically outlining
the gaps that would be created by removing these regulations”, she added.

In the document, the officials also warned that the EIP was not an adequate
replacement for the NAPCP. They highlighted that the EIP cycle was every five
years, meaning that it could be four years between legal air quality limits
being exceeded and the government setting out new policies and measures.



“This document shows the broader way in which the government has been basically
misleading the public that [revoking these regulations] is in their best
interests”, Kearsey said.

“Despite the hollow reassurances about having used expert advice, it is now
clear that not only did ministers fail to seek the advice of external experts,
but also refused to heed the advice of their own officials when deciding to
scrap air quality regulations under the REUL Act,” Lucas added.

“This reinforces the concerns of campaigners that the government’s approach
would create dangerous gaps in transparency and accountability. The state of our
filthy air is a public health emergency and is associated with the equivalent of
up to 40,000 deaths a year in the UK. It’s essential that the government starts
treating this issue seriously – first by maintaining existing regulations and
second by strengthening their targets, so that another generation of children
does not have to grow up breathing dirty air.”

A Defra spokesperson said: “The emissions reduction targets set out in the NEC
regulations remain unchanged and as such there has been no reduction in the
level of environmental protection. We are committed to achieving these reduction
targets and are maintaining the reporting provisions to ensure there is
transparency on our progress.”

“When we consulted on the NAPCP, as required by the NEC regulations, a number of
stakeholders said the format could be improved. With this in mind, we are
considering how we can simplify the process to reduce administrative burdens and
improve transparency.”

Explore more on these topics
 * Air pollution
 * Pollution
 * news

 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Reuse this content




MORE ON THIS STORY






MORE ON THIS STORY




 * PAKISTAN USES ARTIFICIAL RAIN IN ATTEMPT TO CUT POLLUTION LEVELS
   
   21 Dec 2023


 * PARIS MAYOR PLANS TO TRIPLE SUV PARKING TARIFFS TO CUT AIR POLLUTION
   
   8 Dec 2023


 * CAN UK’S ‘JET ZERO’ HOPES TAKE OFF WITH A PLANE FUELLED BY USED COOKING OIL?
   
   26 Nov 2023


 * GAS COOKERS PUMP OUT POLLUTANTS LINKED TO CHILDHOOD ASTHMA, REPORT FINDS
   
   8 Nov 2023


 * STOCKHOLM TO BAN PETROL AND DIESEL CARS FROM CENTRE FROM 2025
   
   11 Oct 2023


 * DRIVERS LIKELY TO BENEFIT FROM LONDON ULEZ, SADIQ KHAN TO SAY
   
   16 Sept 2023


 * ‘A LIFELINE FOR DIRTY CARS’: EU BACKS NEW AIR POLLUTION LIMITS, BUT NOT UNTIL
   2035
   
   13 Sept 2023


 * ‘AUTOBESITY’ ON COURSE TO WORSEN AIR POLLUTION CAUSED BY MOTORING
   
   8 Sept 2023
   …
   …




MOST VIEWED


MOST VIEWED



 * Environment
 * Climate crisis
 * Wildlife
 * Energy
 * Pollution
 * Green light

 * News
 * Opinion
 * Sport
 * Culture
 * Lifestyle

Original reporting and incisive analysis, direct from the Guardian every morning
Sign up for our email

 * About us
 * Help
 * Complaints & corrections
 * SecureDrop
 * Work for us
 *  
 * Privacy policy
 * Cookie policy
 * Terms & conditions
 * Contact us

 * All topics
 * All writers
 * Digital newspaper archive
 * Facebook
 * YouTube
 * Instagram
 * LinkedIn
 * Twitter
 * Newsletters

 * Advertise with us
 * Guardian Labs
 * Search jobs


Back to top
© 2023 Guardian News & Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights
reserved. (dcr)