General Regulatory Chamber
Information Rights
IC-250573-B2Z4
Heard on: 9 October 2024 |
||
B e f o r e :
TRIBUNAL MEMBER ANNE CHAFER
TRIBUNAL MEMBER AIMEE GASSTON
____________________
ADAM DAVIES |
Appellant |
|
- and - |
||
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER |
Respondent |
____________________
For the Appellant: in person
For the First Respondent: did not appear
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
Decision: The appeal is Dismissed
Cases
R v Secretary of State for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, Secretary of State for Transport, Welsh Ministers, Mayor of London (Interested Party) ex parte ClientEarth [2018] EWHC 315 (Admin)
R v Mayor of London ex parte LB Hillingdon [2023] EWHC 1972 (Admin)
R v Mayor of London ex parte Chris White [2023] EWHC 2356 (Admin)
Information Commissioner v DfT & Hastings [2018] UKUT 184
Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy v The Information Commissioner and Alex Henney [2017] EWCA Civ 844
Vesco v Information Commissioner [2019] UKUT 247
Craven v IC and DECC [2012] UKUT 442
Context
"Introduction
On 26 July 2017 the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs ("DEFRA") published the "UK plan for tackling roadside nitrogen dioxide concentrations" and associated documents (hereafter "the 2017 Plan"). This was the third attempt by the UK Government to provide an Air Quality Plan ("AQP") that met its obligations in law.
The first AQP, produced in 2011, was quashed by order of the Supreme Court in 2015. The Government was made the subject of a mandatory order requiring the Secretary of State to prepare new air quality plans in accordance with a defined timetable (see R (on the Application of ClientEarth) v The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2015] UKSC 28, 4 All ER 724). The second AQP, produced in purported compliance with the order of the Supreme Court, was published on 17 December 2015.
In a judgment dated 2 November 2016 ([2016] EWHC 2740 (Admin), ("the November 2016 judgment"), I held that the 2015 plan was also deficient. I made a direction that DEFRA must publish a new AQP, which complied with the relevant EU Directive and domestic Regulations, by 31 July 2017. It was in purported compliance with that order that DEFRA published the 2017 Plan.
The Claimant in these proceedings is "ClientEarth", a registered charity, whose objects include promoting and encouraging the "enhancement, restoration, conservation and protection of the environment, including the protection of human health, for the public benefit". By these proceedings, the Claimant challenges the 2017 Plan on the ground that it too failed to meet DEFRA's legal obligation. ClientEarth was also the claimant in the two previous judicial review cases. The Defendants are the Secretaries of State for Food, Environment and Rural Affair, and for Transport, and the Welsh Ministers. The Secretary of State for Food, Environment and Rural Affair has taken the lead for the Defendants in this case (and I refer to him hereafter as "the Secretary of State").
Proper and timely compliance with the law in this field matters. It matters, first, because the Government is as much subject of the law as any citizen or any other body in the UK. Accordingly, it is obliged to comply with the Directive and the Regulations and with the orders of the court. Second, it matters because, as is common ground between the parties to this litigation, a failure to comply with these legal requirements exposes the citizens of the UK to a real and persistent risk of significant harm. The 2017 Plan says that "poor air quality is the largest environmental risk to public health in the UK. It is known to have more severe effects on vulnerable groups, for example the elderly, children and people already suffering from pre-existing health conditions such as respiratory and cardiovascular conditions". As I pointed out in the November 2016 judgment, DEFRA's own analysis has suggested that exposure to nitrogen dioxide (NO2) has an effect on mortality "equivalent to 23,500 deaths" every year."
The Preliminary Stages of the Request
"To use your own data quoted in the Evening Standard
(https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/sadiq-khan-ulez-cameras-payment-chargescheme- b1064837.html), you say 27,000 tons CO2 will be saved. That is dwarfed by the 4.7 million tones of carbon emitted by replacing the 200,000 cars that you say will need to come off the road. Please can you therefore:
1. Explain where your 27,000 tonnes figure comes from.
2. Forced replacement of 200,000 roadworthy cars at an average of 30 tonnes CO2 release per manufacture (excluding import, etc) is 6m tons CO2 emitted into the atmosphere. Is this taken into account in your figures?
3. Likewise, have you taken into account the cost of transporting the scrap metal to
Turkey, disposal of batterie, or emissions from import transportation?
4. Your own figures suggest only 135kg (200,000/27,000,000) of CO2 savings per
scrapped car. How do you square that with the (avg) 30 tonnes CO2 emitted per
manufacture?"
"Please find below the information we hold within the scope of your request.
The principal aim of the ULEZ is to reduce harmful emissions from road transport by disincentivising the use of older, more polluting vehicles. The ULEZ specifically targets the air pollutants that are most harmful to human health: nitrogen dioxide (NO2) and particulate matter (PM). In addition to incentivising people to use less polluting vehicles, the London-wide ULEZ will also encourage a shift to active, efficient and sustainable modes of transport, thus delivering a reduction in carbon emissions.
The evidence base and expected outcomes of the proposals were set out in the key
consultation documents, which are available on Transport for London's consultation page: https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/cleanair.
Modelling was undertaken by Imperial College London working with TfL in order to assess the air quality impacts the ULEZ expansion could have. The result of this work is summarised in the key consultation document ('Our proposals to help improve air quality tackle the climate emergency and reduce congestion by expanding the ULEZ London-wide and other measures') and the Integrated Impact Assessment undertaken by Jacobs Ltd. ('London-wide ULEZ Integrated Impact Assessment (ULEZ Scheme IIA)'). Section 5.2.1 of the ULEZ Scheme IIA summarises the expected carbon impacts of the policy. Appendix B of the consultation document provides information on the modelling methodology in further detail. There is no need to switch to a brand-new or electric vehicle to meet the ULEZ standards.
Compliant vehicles have been widely available since 2006 meaning many people are likely to switch to a used, rather than new, vehicle. As set out in the scheme IIA, for scrapped vehicles there is a target for a minimum of 95 per cent recycling and recovery under the "End of Life (ELV)" directive.
The Mayor will continue to work with TfL and the boroughs to invest in policies to encourage and enable more walking, cycling and public transport use which will further address carbon and air pollution emissions in London."
The UK government is now consulting on new legal limits for PM2.5 and the Mayor has made the case for these to be aligned with the new interim WHO targets and for the legal limit for NO2 to be updated as well.
All London residents live in areas that are within the PM2.5 UK legal limits (25 µg/m3), as shown in Figure 13. However, more needs to be done to reduce the significant number of Londoners which live in areas exceeding the lowest WHO interim target of 10 µg/m3 (Table 5) and the even lower guideline of 5 µg/m3. Although there has been a reduction in Londoners living in areas of exceedance since 2016, 88 per cent of Londoners still live in areas which do not meet the lowest interim target (10 µg/m3), and all Londoners live in locations where concentrations exceed the guideline limit of 5 µg/m3.
Appendix B: Modelling methodology and data sources ................................................95
Methodology and assumptions ................................................................................... 95
London-wide unique vehicle estimates ....................................................................... 96
Compliance rates ........................................................................................................ 96
Vehicle switching and travel behaviour change .......................................................... 97
Compliance rates in 2023 with proposed changes ..................................................... 98
Hybrid Forecast .......................................................................................................... 99
Appendix C:Air quality modelling ...............................................................................100
Appendix D: Air quality impacts ....................................................................................104
Air pollutant emissions .............................................................................................. 104
Air pollutant concentrations ...................................................................................... 112
"As I'm sure you can appreciate, the GLA is receiving a high volume of correspondence about the ULEZ. Unfortunately, this means we are not able to respond to all enquiries individually. I have set out below more information about the reasons behind the Mayor's decision to expand the ULEZ Londonwide and the support available for Londoners.
The Mayor has decided to expand the ULEZ across all London boroughs from 29 August 2023 to tackle the triple threats of air pollution, the climate emergency and traffic congestion, and ensure five million more Londoners can breathe cleaner air.
The Mayor made this decision following a public consultation and after taking into account a detailed consultation report and integrated impact assessment. The consultation report that explains the analysis process and sets out the themes raised during the consultation is now available for everyone to read on the GLA and Transport for London (TfL) websites."
I do not understand what you are talking about. Your last email thanked me for the extra information, and now a week later you are saying you couldn't open it. So someone at TfL is lying. These were requests that were
1. initially put in through your online portal, only for that to reject the submission because your portal isn't working
2. sent by email, only for you to say you don't understand the email
3. sent as a full attachment to another email, for which you thanked me
4. now rejected by you on the basis you can't read attachments to emails
How am I supposed to get these FOI requests to you if you do not accept emails, attachments or submissions on your own FOI platform?
"Please be advised we are deliberately trying to avoid answering the question you correctly set out in your various previous communications. The reason is we don't want you to have the information you're legally entitled to and so are making it as difficult as possible for you to submit your request. We actually enjoy this. But the underlying issue is that we know that the information we have put into the public domain is incorrect and are very nervous you will all find out. So please keep trying and we will continue to be as obstructive as we possibly can. Good luck!"
"To confirm on the 28 June and 7 July you submitted two requests consisted of in excess for 150 individual questions. Some of your questions were broken down into several further parts making a total of 178 individual parts that required an answer.
In the reply of 26 July, it was explained that under regulation 12(4)(b) of the Environmental Information Regulations (EIR), we are not obliged to comply with a request(s) if we believe that it is 'manifestly unreasonable' to provide all of the information you have requested in your 2 most recent requests, as it would impose an unjustified burden and significant impact on TfL staff requiring an unreasonable diversion of limited staff resources. Your requests place an onerous burden of cost and staff resource to address when there is already a vast amount of published information available for public scrutiny concerning these issues.
To explain further, the EIR allow public authorities to refuse a request(s) for information which is manifestly unreasonable. The inclusion of the word "manifestly" means that there must be an obvious or clear quality to the unreasonableness. The purpose of the applied exception is to protect a public authority from exposure to a disproportionate burden or an unjustified level of distress, disruption or irritation, in handling information requests. This exception can be used when the cost of compliance with the request(s) would be too great or is vexatious. In assessing whether the cost or burden of dealing with a request(s) is 'too great', a public authority is required to consider the proportionality of the burden or costs involved and decide whether they are clearly or obviously unreasonable.
As advised a large amount of information concerning the ULEZ expansion and emissions is already publicly available either on the TfL website or via published FOI requests. This current line of information and data being sought by yourself would divert staff away from their core functions within the organisation for unjustified amounts of time and impose undue burden onto a small team of subject matter experts to undertake."
TfL are refusing to provide any information supporting their numerous claims regarding the ULEZ expansion scheme. They have made various assertions that, on the face of it, are incorrect, dishonest and/or scientifically unsupportable. We have been asking for answers since June, and they keep giving different responses, consistently refusing to answer the questions, and the scheme is due to be implemented by 29th August. If we are to issue an injunction to prevent it happening, we urgently need the information requested.
I have provided more context in the uploaded docs.
1. Too Many Questions. The questions were crowdsourced from the public group of 35,000+ to avoid repetition. TfL say they would answer the questions one at a time, from individual members of the group, but not in one go. That is an abuse of process. It is ridiculous to require each question to be separately asked by a different individual. As the Mayor made multiple statements supposedly supporting the ULEZ expansion, it is unreasonable for TfL to say that FoI requests for each statement results in too many questions.
2. TfL have said that it is "not in the public interest" for them to spend the time required to answer the questions. This is nonsense. The issue has reached the front page of every national newspaper, and is the no 1 policy of the opposing mayoral candidate. It caused thousands of people to march on Trafalgar Square last weekend. It is the official reason stated for the Labour Party losing the Uxbridge byelection. In response to this excuse, I provided TfL over 400 emails/messages from the public to me directly supporting my request for this specific FoI (see attached doc). TfL chose to ignore that in their "internal review", and instead changed their reasoning to...
3. Proportionality. They now says this is not a proportional use of time/money. According to the press, TfL have spent between Ł1/4bn and Ł1/2bn on cameras, software, advertising and the scrappage scheme. The cost of preparing the answers, which anyway should already be available as the Mayor/TfL has relied of them in their various statements and the court case, is a tiny, miniscule proportion of the total spend. Further, considering the various personal tragedies, loss of business, freedom of transport, family connections, and work/job losses that people are suffering as a result of the expansion (as documented in the press), to claim it is disproportionate to provide the underlying supporting data for the scheme is contemptuous.
- a vast amount of relevant material had been published including FOI/EIR responses and a wide range of documentation including reports, consultation materials, studies and guidance. Some of the complainant's questions would likely be answered by this published material had he reviewed any of it.
- The large number of questions were excessive, disproportionate and an unjustified level of burden on small, specialised teams within TfL.
- On a conservative estimate of 10 minutes per question it would require 30 hours work however this request would require far more time as the wide range of questions covered many issues relating to information held in many different specialist areas "TfL would need to establish for each question if it holds the information, where it's held in the organisation and who holds it. This is before TfL could then begin the process of identifying the information, extracting, collating and verifying it before any could be disclosed."
- This would impose a significant burden, take staff from other core areas of managing the traffic system, would impact on vital operational work and would not be justifiable.
28. The Commissioner's view is that the public interest in TfL's decision to expand the ULEZ has been met satisfactorily through the high court decision, TfL's public consultation on the matter (which the high court decided was satisfactory), its response to other requests for information about the ULEZ, the other relevant information and research that's already in the public domain and the relevant information that will be published in the future.
29. The Commissioner's decision is therefore that there's greater public interest in TfL being able to rely on regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to refuse the requests in this case, and not in TfL complying with the requests. This is so that TfL can focus its staff and resources on its core business, which includes managing the ULEZ and its consequences.
- The Commissioner made no mention of his own guidance and asserting that the Commissioner had materially failed to apply it citing (inter alia) that the Commissioner had not addressed the value of making the information available or the importance of the underlying issue
- Some information was not EIR and therefore should have been disclosed
- TfL and the Commissioner had failed to mention the presumption in favour of disclosure
- He argued With a legal, CEO and Professor career spanning of over 30 years, I am quite capable of recognising a characteristic of obvious or clear unreasonableness, but I do not see it here. He argued the ICO having stated that the request was on its face reasonable, could not then say that it was manifestly unreasonable
- Within a framework of criteria discussed in the ICO's guidance on "manifestly unreasonable" he argued that neither TfL nor the ICO had properly addressed the issue of cost, that given the scale of TFL's budget for ULEZ the cost of responding to the request did not create a disproportionate burden, that given the scale of TFL it could not cause disruption and that while TFL had stated that it did not hold all the information in an easily accessible form and ICO stated it had not seen compelling evidence to the contrary "First, I have never been given the opportunity to present evidence (compelling or otherwise) to the contrary. But more importantly, it is not my obligation to do so. It is TfL's obligation to demonstrate its reasoning for refusing to provide the information,", he stated that no distress had been caused but even if it had been such distress was not "unjustifiable", that the request could not be disproportionate given the scale of TfL and the issues for residents.
- He argued a public interest in disclosure saying it would promote greater public awareness of environmental matters, more effective public participation in environmental decision making, that many people were affected and stated "as the CEO of a leading environmental MRV company, I am one of tens of thousands of people who are suspicious of wrongdoing" (my emphasis).
Legal Framework
57 Appeal against notices served under Part IV.
(1) Where a decision notice has been served, the complainant or the public authority may appeal to the Tribunal against the notice.
…
58 Determination of appeals
(1) If on an appeal under section 57 the Tribunal considers—
(a) that the notice against which the appeal is brought is not in accordance with the law, or
(b) to the extent that the notice involved an exercise of discretion by the Commissioner, that he ought to have exercised his discretion differently,
the Tribunal shall allow the appeal or substitute such other notice as could have been served by the Commissioner; and in any other case the Tribunal shall dismiss the appeal.
(2) On such an appeal, the Tribunal may review any finding of fact on which the notice in question was based.
(a) the state of the elements of the environment, such as air and atmosphere, water, soil, land, landscape and natural sites including wetlands, coastal and marine areas, biological diversity and its components, including genetically modified organisms, and the interaction among these elements;
(b) factors, such as substances, energy, noise, radiation or waste, including radioactive waste, emissions, discharges and other releases into the environment, affecting or likely to affect the elements of the environment referred to in (a);
(c) measures (including administrative measures), such as policies, legislation, plans, programmes, environmental agreements, and activities affecting or likely to affect the elements and factors referred to in (a) and (b) as well as measures or activities designed to protect those elements;
(d) reports on the implementation of environmental legislation;
(e) cost-benefit and other economic analyses and assumptions used within the framework of the measures and activities referred to in (c); and
(f) the state of human health and safety, including the contamination of the food chain, where relevant, conditions of human life, cultural sites and built structures inasmuch as they are or may be affected by the state of the elements of the environment referred to in (a) or, through those elements, by any of the matters referred to in (b) and (c);".
4(1) Subject to paragraph (3), a public authority shall in respect of environmental information that it holds-
(a) progressively make the information available to the public by electronic means which are easily accessible; and
(b) take reasonable steps to organise the information relevant to its functions with a view to the active and systematic dissemination to the public of the information.
…
(3) Paragraph (1) shall not extend to making available or disseminating information which a public authority would be entitle to refuse under regulation 12.
Exceptions to the duty to disclose environmental information
12. —(1) Subject to paragraphs (2), (3) and (9), a public authority may refuse to disclose environmental information requested if—
(a) an exception to disclosure applies under paragraphs (4) or (5); and
(b) in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exception outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
(2) A public authority shall apply a presumption in favour of disclosure.
…..
(4) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(a), a public authority may refuse to disclose information to the extent that—
(a) it does not hold that information when an applicant's request is received;
(b) the request for information is manifestly unreasonable;
"The Aarhus Convention's twin protections for environmental and human rights; and its focus on involving the public, provide a mechanism for holding governments to account in their efforts to address the multi-dimensional challenges facing our world today, including climate change, biodiversity loss, poverty reduction, increasing energy demands, rapid urbanisation, and air and water pollution."
Consideration
- As the Commissioner correctly pointed out his guidance is guidance not law.
- The Commissioner's analysis set out in Annex 2 which maps categories of question to the definition of environmental information is clearly sound. All the requests seek information about elements of the environment, factors affecting those elements, measures etc. The definition of environmental information is wide, properly interpreted it covers the entirety of the request, and as per Henney, one must have due regard to the "bigger picture". If there are small elements which do not fall within environmental information then they are de minimis. Furthermore the analysis of "manifestly unreasonable" under EIR is in essence the analysis of "vexatious" under FOIA, if the Commissioner had parsed each and every question into one category or another the result and (improbably) produced a substantial list of requests which did not fall within EIR then the correct analysis would have concluded that that part of the request was vexatious.
- Whether or not the Commissioner sufficiently addressed the regulation 12(2) presumption in an appeal under s58, the tribunal can remedy that defect.
- While the Appellant may have considerable experience of recognising things as being unreasonable, individuals often have difficulty in perceiving their own shortcomings. The fact that the Commissioner acknowledged the superficial value of the requests does not prevent the Commissioner from characterising it on a closer examination as manifestly unreasonable. In any event under s58 the tribunal makes its own findings of fact.
- The Appellant's arguments as to cost are somewhat weak. TfL provided a convincing explanation of the difficulty of identifying where the information (if held) would be, the disruption of involving specialists in different areas of the organisation and the impact it would cause. The logic of his argument would appear to be that a large organisation should be prepared to spend several percent of its revenue on an information request is somewhat strange. If an individual requests environmental information then it should be supplied, even if the cost runs into many thousands of pounds and causes disruption to a large organisation; or perhaps it is more solipsistic – if I make a request for information it should be provided whatever the cost. TfL's conservative estimate of the costs was properly characterised by the Commissioner as very conservative and Wikely J's decision in Craven is determinative of the issue for this tribunal:
"Taking the position under the EIR first, it must be right that a public authority is entitled to refuse a single extremely burdensome request under regulation 12(4)(b) as "manifestly unreasonable", purely on the basis that the cost of compliance would be too great (assuming, of course, it is also satisfied that the public interest test favours maintaining the exception). The absence of any provision in the EIR equivalent to section 12 of FOIA makes such a conclusion inescapable."
While in his grounds of appeal he stated that he had not been given the opportunity to present his own evidence on the issue, in the hearing he had the opportunity but did not give any evidence to indicate that the Commissioner was wrong to conclude that answering the requests would cause a significant burden.
- The Appellant argued that no distress had been caused but even if it had been such distress was not "unjustifiable", that the request could not be disproportionate given the scale of TfL and the issues for residents. While this may be so; the tribunal noted a level of irritation, suspicion and aggression towards the Mayor (paragraph 11 above "Mayoral insults and refusal to follow the science") mocking of TFL staff (paragraph 15 above) and accusations of bad faith (paragraphs 25, 26) which would tend to support a conclusion that the request was manifestly unreasonable.
The weight of this interest will vary from case to case, depending on the issue's profile and importance and the extent to which the information will actually inform public debate.
37 While the issue is important and has a significant public profile the value of the disclosure of the information to the Appellant (when so much is already in the public domain due to publication by TfL, government departments, London boroughs, the clinical journals covering public health and elsewhere) would be very slight.
38 In considering the presumption of disclosure; it is clear that this comes into its own when there is a near balance between the two arguments, in this case, the lack of critical analysis of the questions before submitting them, the failure to seriously address material already released, the failure to distinguish between requests for information, rhetorical requests for advice clearly intended to be points of argument rather than requests seeking information, the underlying methodology for its compilation, the unclear relationship with the almost concluded judicial review mean that it does not shift the balance which was correctly identified by TfL and the Commissioner and which falls decisively in upholding reliance on the exemption.
Signed Hughes
Date: 3 November 2024
7 July request
A. Public Health
i. is higher in London (ULEZ and/or NULEZ) than elsewhere
ii. is caused by air pollution from cars
i. levels of asthma
ii. the number of deaths attributed to asthma
iii. levels of lung cancer
iv. the number of deaths attributed to lung cancer
i. Air Pollution
ii. Asthma
iii. Lung Cancer
i. Vehicle emissions (private ownership)
ii. Public transport (tube, train and bus)
iii. Industry and factory emissions
iv. Household emissions
v. Aircraft emissions
vi. Other
B. Air Pollution
i. London Borough of Barnet?
ii. NULEZ generally
iii. ULEZ
i. Vehicle emissions (private ownership)
ii. Public transport (tube, train and bus)
iii. Industry and factory emissions
iv. Household emissions
v. Aircraft emissions
vi. Other
i. Vehicle emissions (private ownership)
ii. Public transport (tube, train and bus)
iii. Industry and factory emissions
iv. Household emissions
v. Aircraft emissions
vi. Other
i. CO2
ii. NOx
iii. Particulates
C. Emissions
i. CO2
ii. NOx
iii. Particulates from tyres
i. in NULEZ
ii. in ULEZ
(yellow/orange/green) colour on the attached map?
i. Emission of tyre particulates, or
ii. carbon footprint?
i. non-compliant cars
ii. new EVs
i. How much increase in emitted particulates will be due to these new EVs?
i. no compliant car's official emissions figures exceed and non-compliant car's figures?
ii. (according to official manufacturers' figures) all compliant diesel cars emit less than all noncompliant petrol cars?
D. Cars in Circulation
E. Climate Change
i. Manufacturing?
ii. Import / distribution?
iii. Battery raw materials scrapping?
iv. Socio-economic issues and ethics of lithium mining?
v. Reducing the 70% of scrap car metal that gets shipped to Turkey (UK's current policy)?
vi. Battery recycling?
F. Congestion
G. Revenues and Taxes
H. Consultation and Cameras
I. ULEZ Compliance
J. Dangers and Annoyances
K. Demographics and TfL Statistics
vii. What was the rationale in choosing those specific locations?
viii. If "random", please provide the statistical reasoning of the choice
L. Alternative transport
ix. Have been launched in the last 8 years
x. are committed to for the near future (and to open when)
M. Will Of Parliament
xi. the Right to Repair Act,
xii. the Consumer Rights Act 2015
xiii. the Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021 (adopting) the EU Circulatory Economy Action Plan (p2 link here)
xiv. "ensure that the regulatory framework is streamlined and made fit for a sustainable future, that the new opportunities from the transition are maximised, while minimising burdens on people and businesses";
xv. "establish a strong and coherent product policy framework that will make sustainable products, services and business models the norm and transform consumption patterns so that no waste is produced in the first place [with] key product value chains addressed as a matter of priority. Further measures will be put in place to reduce waste and ensure that the EU has a well-functioning internal market for high quality secondary raw materials"
xvi. "entire life cycle of products. For example, it targets how products are designed, promotes circular economy processes, encourages sustainable consumption, and aims to ensure that waste is prevented, with valuable resources kept in the EU economy for as long as possible."
xvii. "These benefits will help us on our way towards the UK's Carbon Budget and Net Zero targets"
xviii. "An important aim of the new Regulations is to extend the life of certain categories of products"
xix. "It is hoped that prolonging the life… and delaying the need to buy expensive replacements will prevent unnecessary waste"
xx. "New rights … should enable consumers to repair goods when they break down and so continue using them even when their statutory rights to have them repaired or replaced under the have expired"
xxi. Secretary of State for BEIS: "Our plans to tighten product standards will ensure more of our electrical goods can be fixed rather than thrown on the scrap heap, putting more money back in the pockets of consumers whilst protecting the environment."
xxii. "With this legislation we aim to reduce the energy-use, carbon footprint and wider environmental impacts of energy-related products"
I look forward to hearing from you. As these issues are clearly of an urgent nature, please provide a response within 14 days.
Yours sincerely
Adam Davies
CEO, Nature MRV Ltd
Science for ComplianceTM
i. Congestion – congestion is a factor that affects various elements of the environment
(air, landscape to name just two), so information on this falls under Reg 2(1)(b), it
could also be seen as a measure (Regulation 2(1)(c).
ii. Consultation and Cameras, - questions about consultation and cameras fall under
Regulation 2(1)(c) (measures) as these affect the elements (air, to name one) and are
intrinsically linked to the factors (emissions) (Regulation 2(1)(b). Information on
consultations fall under Regulation 2(1)(d) (reports on environmental legislation), and
question about how much ULEZ cost falls under Regulation 2(1)(e) (cost benefit and
economic analyses).
iii. Cars in Circulation, - falls under Regulation 2(1)(c) as ULEZ is primarily a measure to
protect elements (Regulation 2(1)(a);
iv. Revenue and Taxes, Compliance, - information on compliance falls within Regulation
2(1)(d) and information on revenue and taxes falls squarely in Regulation 2(1)(e) 'cost
benefit and other economic analysis and assumptions used within the framework of the
measures and activities referred to in (c) ('measures')
v. Dangers and Annnoyances, - electric car fires affect the elements of the environment
so falls within the definition of 'factor' Regulation 2(1)(b);
vi. Demographics, TfL Statistics, - - information on the effects of ULEZ could fall under
Regulation 2(1)(c) (measures and activities), stats could fall under 2(1)(d) reports on
environmental legislation and/or 2(1)(e) – cost benefits and 2(1)(f) – conditions of
human life, especially the questions about how ULEZ will affect households with non
compliant cars.
vii. Alternative Transport and – falls under Regulation 2(1)(c) as a measure or activity
affecting both elements and factors;
viii. conflict with the Will of Parliament – falls within Regulation 2(1)(d) as conflict with
other laws/Parliament falls within the definition of monitoring or evaluating the
success or failure of ULEZ.