How sickening for ministers to hector us about our health, when their drive for diesel turned our air toxic

FOR many years, governments of every hue have taken a personal interest in our health and wellbeing to such an extent that the term ‘nanny state’ was coined.

We are instructed to eat at least five portions of fruit and vegetables every day. Official literature is full of advice about the desired daily intake of beans and pulses.

So far as alcohol is concerned, the recommended weekly limit has been significantly reduced. A few years ago, Britain’s chief medical officer, Sally Davies, even suggested that one glass of wine a day can put you at risk of cancer.

Less controversially, perhaps, successive governments have sought to reduce smoking by slapping such hefty taxes on a packet of cigarettes that only the rich or feckless can continue with the habit.

Maybe we should all be grateful for this well- intentioned advice and cajoling. I suppose it is preferable to have rulers who would like to keep their citizens alive rather than to kill them off.

Except that this appears not to be the case. Despite constantly nagging us to eat and drink the right things, and, of course, to exercise as much as possible, the State is quietly despatching more people than it saves. More charitably, one might say that it is sitting ineffectually on the sidelines as we drop like ninepins.

According to a major study by the University Medical Centre of Mainz in Germany, air pollution is killing 64,000 people a year in Britain. Globally, it is believed to cause more deaths than smoking.

In Britain, about half the grisly toll is attributed to deaths from heart and artery disease. Respiratory problems caused by toxic air are said to account for most of the remaining fatalities.

Before we proceed any further, I should issue my own health warning. We should be wary of studies which produce exact numbers in cases that are difficult to prove. How can the boffins in Mainz be certain that the deaths they cite are not at least partly caused by other factors than pollution?

THAT said, other reputable authorities have come up with similar figures, though not so high. A 2016 report by the Royal College of Physicians and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health conjectured that air pollution in Britain was responsible for 40,000 deaths a year.

In other words, researchers in Mainz are not wildly out on a limb. Moreover, though you may accuse me of naivety, I am inclined to place a good deal of credence in the findings of a major German university.

So let’s go along with the figures. Aren’t they shocking? And yet, as I say, governments which admonish us about the perils of smoking and of drinking fall strangely silent when it comes to the dangers of inhaling noxious air.

One explanation, I suggest, is that they are aware they are responsible for a significant proportion of this lethal pollution. A major culprit in our large cities (most of which routinely exceed EU air quality limits) are diesel cars.

That they are death-traps can scarcely be denied. They spew out much more nitrogen oxide and nitrogen dioxide than petrol cars, both of which gases can be damaging, and more than 20 times the number of particulates — the minute particles that penetrate lungs, brains and hearts.

Until recently, we were actively encouraged by officialdom to buy diesel cars. The reasoning was that they create less carbon dioxide — the great contributor to global warming — than the petrol engines which it was intended they would supplant.

This is one of the great scandals of our time. For, as long ago as 1993, a report by the Department of the Environment conceded the potentially deadly effects of diesel vehicles. A few years ago, an anonymous former senior civil servant who worked for the Department of Transport in the Nineties revealed that diesels were promoted by government in the belief they would cause more deaths in the short-term — but fewer in the long-term.

It took nearly two decades before the really harmful nature of these engines was fully publicised. Result: a collapse in diesel sales and economic calamity for motor manufacturers.

Of course, the current Environment Secretary, Michael Gove, and his senior officials can’t be personally blamed for what has happened. But there is no question that government bears a historic responsibility.

Who picks up the tab? Why, the hapless owners of diesel cars who discover that their value has plummeted. In some London boroughs they are also in the firing line for extra parking charges.

Meanwhile, from April 8, owners of diesel cars manufactured before 2015 — hardly ancient — will have to pay a supplement of £12.50, in addition to the Congestion Charge every time they are used in the capital’s so-called Ultra Low Emission Zone. Only much older petrol cars will be liable.

WITHOUT doubt the motivation — namely to reduce harmful air pollution — is welcome. But isn’t it interesting that the poor motorist has to pay for a problem that was largely created by government?

There are other areas where officialdom has contributed to the problem of toxic air. For example, power stations burning wood pellets receive hundreds of millions of pounds in subsidies, though these pellets cause air pollution and may be as damaging as the coal which they replaced.

It’s true Mr Gove is on the case, and recently suggested that wood- burning power stations could be phased out. As part of his Clean Air Strategy, wood-burning stoves may be targeted ( another cost lumped on the unfortunate consumer) while manufacturers will be told to reduce emissions from scented candles, carpets, laminate flooring and glues.

The fact remains that this Government, like previous ones, seems far more concerned with the prospective threat of climate change than the real- and-present danger of air pollution, which is killing 64,000 people a year, if those researchers at Mainz are to be believed.

In his Spring Statement yesterday, the Chancellor pleased environmentalists by designating a further 445,000 sq km around distant Ascension Island as a marine protected area. Great, as far as it goes. Philip Hammond also seemingly proscribed gas boilers in new homes from 2025, which suggests that consumers will have to use ground source heat pumps, which ( surprise, surprise) are at present far more expensive.

Climate change lobbyists will be delighted, since gas boilers produce carbon dioxide, which contributes to global warming. They also cause some air pollution, though are much less harmful than diesel engines.

But there was little or nothing in Mr Hammond’s statement to suggest that the dangers of air pollution are viewed by the authorities as an urgent threat to our health and well-being.

Nanny will continue to urge you to eat your five portions of fruit and veg a day. She will wag her finger at you if you enjoy a second drink. But when it comes to deadly particles swirling around our homes and in our streets, she sings an entirely different tune.