Welsh engine idling fines will rise

Welsh legislation on air and noise pollution includes a proposed duty for drivers to be advised against letting engines idle, as well as increasing the fines which can be imposed for idling..

The Welsh Government’s Environment (Air Quality and Soundscapes) (Wales) Bill was introduced to the Senedd on 20 March. It includes powers to prescribe a financial range, rather setting a fixed value, for penalties.

Welsh climate change minister Julie James has said that current fines were not deterring drivers.

“The Bill will do two things,” she said. “It will put a duty on people to be given advice very firmly about it. We will work with the schools and other places where vulnerable people are – so hospitals and care homes are the obvious other ones –to make sure that advice is given to visitors and residents. We will work with the schoolchildren, who are an enormous resource in this regard. In terms of doing the right thing with them as well, but in the end if somebody is just not prepared to comply because it’s the right thing to do, then having the power to set a monetary range that would actually make a difference to that person, and might make them think twice about it, is very important.

“The current penalty of £20 is clearly not having that effect; it clearly isn’t enough to deter people. So putting a monetary range in regulations will facilitate that enforcement and, again, the point about putting it in the regulations is to make sure that – as we’re currently living through an age of rampant inflation, for goodness’ sake – if I put it on the face of the Bill and it’s £50, £50 might not be worth very much at all in two years’ time. So making sure that the regulations are fit for purpose and that the range can be reconsidered regularly will be an important part of this.” minished. We will continue to stand up for residents and the many businesses who face an even more uncertain future. We are standing up for what is right, which includes clean air, with Bromley’s excellent record in this regard already plainly evident within the mayor’s own research papers.”

Ian Edwards, leader of Hillingdon Council, said: “We remain confident that the court will see that the mayor failed to follow due process, that his proposed scrappage scheme is inadequate, the irreparable harm ULEZ expansion would have on outer London and its neighbours, and that it will rightfully quash these disastrous plans.”

Tim Oliver, leader of Surrey County Council, said: “Our consultation response in July 2022 clearly highlighted that the mayor’s decision failing to include Surrey residents in any scrappage scheme was unacceptable, and proposed a number of other recommendations to help mitigate both the financial and potential environmental impacts of the expansion. Our concerns have not been addressed by the mayor.”

A spokesperson for Sadiq Khan said: “The mayor is pleased to see the court has refused permission for the majority of the grounds. We will continue to robustly defend his life-saving decision to expand the ULEZ and continue with preparations without delay. It is a shame that some local authorities have chosen to attempt this costly and misguided legal challenge instead of focussing on the health of those they represent.

“Around 4,000 Londoners die prematurely every year due to air pollution. This is a health emergency and the mayor is not prepared to stand by and do nothing while Londoners are growing up with stunted lungs and are more at risk of heart disease, cancer and dementia due to our toxic air.”