The UK Government has been accused of "pure political expediency" in seeking to delay publishing plans to tackle air pollution until after the general election.
Ministers had been given until 4pm on Monday to set out draft measures on reducing illegal levels of nitrogen dioxide pollution, after the courts ruled existing plans to meet EU-mandated air quality limits were not sufficient.
But in a surprise move on Friday night, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs[Defra] lodged an application with the High Court to postpone publication until after the June 8 poll.
Tony Lewis, head of policy at Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, led criticism of the move, saying: "They've had months to get their air quality plans ready and using purdah as an excuse is pure political expediency."
However, in an emergency statement Andrea Leadsom, the Environment Secretary, told MPs that it was "not appropriate" to publish the plan during the pre-election period and pledged to unveil the draft proposals on June 30.
Responding to an urgent question from Labour in the Commons, she said the move would not delay the implementation of the plans and insisted ministers were deeply committed to improving air quality.
"In accordance with the guidance covering both the local and general elections, the proprietary and ethics team in Cabinet Office have told us it would not be appropriate to launch the consultation and publish the air quality plan during this time.
“I also want to make very clear that we now have entered a period of time where we are strongly advised not to be publishing consultations and so what we are trying to do is a very short extension, which we do not believe will make a difference to the implementation of our plans but at the same time we are safeguarding our democracy."
But Sue Hayman, Ms Leadsom’s Labour shadow said it was unacceptable to hide behind the election and accused ministers of presiding over a public health emergency.
"Only a Labour government will legislate for a new Clean Air Act setting out how we would tackle air pollution that damages the lives of millions while this Conservative Government continues to shamefully shirk its legal responsibilities and puts the health of millions at risk."
There has been speculation the clean air plan - which would be published in full on September 15 - could include potentially controversial measures such as charges for motorists to drive diesel vehicles, which cause much of the pollution, in towns and cities, or a diesel scrappage scheme.
Defra has argued a delay is necessary in order to comply with election "purdah" rules on government announcements during the election period.
During purdah ministers continue to run the country but must defer from making any major policy decisions, signing any large or contentious procurement contracts or making any other significant long-term commitments until after the election; unless, that is, postponement would be detrimental to the national interest or wasteful of public money.
In 2015, purdah began when parliament was dissolved, which means that ahead of the 2017 General Election the period of restriction is starting almost two weeks earlier than it did two years ago. The dissolution of parliament will take place on Wednesday May 3.
Within months, the UK Government is facing the prospect of being hauled before the European Court of Justice unless it shows it is dealing with nitrogen dioxide pollution in 16 areas of the UK.
Glasgow has been described as "the most polluted city in Scotland" by environmental lawyers ClientEarth over what it called "illegal and harmful levels" of nitrogen dioxide[NO2], which comes mostly from diesel vehicles.
New EU data shows Glasgow has the highest average annual concentration of NO2 outside of London, with 68 micrograms of NO2 per cubic metre of air; 70 per cent higher than the Euro limit.
A recent survey revealed Scotland's most polluted street was Hope Street in Glasgow, with St John's Road, Edinburgh, second. Similar high emissions are to be found in streets in Aberdeen, Dundee, Falkirk, Perth, Crieff and Cambuslang, South Lanarkshire.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel