Burnham Urged to Launch Inquiry Into Unequal Air Pollution Health Impacts
A letter from 150 scientists, MPs and activists says lower-income and minority-ethnic communities bear a heavier burden from polluted air
By AXY Politics Desk ·
Key points
- 150 scientists, MPs and activists have urged the government to hold a national inquiry into the unequal health impacts of air pollution.
- Institute for Fiscal Studies research cited in the letter finds lower-income areas in England have persistently higher pollution levels.
- Minority-ethnic populations were exposed to air pollution levels about 6% higher than white populations, according to the same research.
- Freedom of information data from Mums for Lungs shows more than 200,000 children were taken to hospital with breathing difficulties in 11 English cities and areas in 2025.
- Parts of London, Glasgow and Bristol still had illegal levels of air pollution in 2025, according to new government data.
A group of 150 scientists, members of parliament and campaigners has urged the government to hold a national inquiry into the unequal health impacts of air pollution, arguing that lower-income and minority-ethnic communities are paying a heavier price than others. The letter, coordinated by the charity Enact Equality, asks Prime Minister Andy Burnham to act. Its signatories include the climate activist Greta Thunberg. The call, published by The Guardian on 19 October 2026, follows new research and new data that point to the same conclusion: the people who are most exposed to dirty air are often the people with the fewest resources to avoid it or recover from its effects.
The letter cites research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, a respected economic think tank, which found that across England, lower-income areas have persistently higher levels of air pollution than wealthier areas. The same research found that minority-ethnic populations were exposed to air pollution levels about 6% higher than those experienced by white populations. Those findings form the core of the case the signatories want ministers to examine.
What the letter asks the government to do
The signatories want a national inquiry into how air pollution affects these groups. According to the letter, the UK does not have a dedicated mechanism to address the health inequalities caused by pollution. The problem is recognised in research and in public debate, but there is no formal body set up to examine who is most exposed, why that happens, and what should be done about it.
An inquiry is a formal, independent examination that can gather evidence, call witnesses and publish recommendations. Governments often commission them when a problem is serious, cuts across several departments and is not being tackled by existing policy. The letter's authors argue that unequal exposure to air pollution fits that description. Air quality is regulated mainly through environmental rules, but the health consequences fall on the NHS, on schools, on workplaces and on families, so responsibility is spread across several parts of government. A dedicated inquiry would be one way to bring the evidence together in a single place.
The health effects and why they matter
The health effects of air pollution are well documented. The source material says exposure is linked to heart disease, strokes, cancer, asthma and effects on lung development in children. Air pollution is often described as a mixture of gases and tiny particles, and the most closely studied of these particles is known as PM2.5, which refers to fine particles less than 2.5 micrometres across. Because they are so small, they can be inhaled deep into the lungs and can pass into the bloodstream, which is one reason researchers link them to such a wide range of illnesses.
These conditions carry costs well beyond the individual. Hospital treatment places demands on the health service, people who are ill lose working time, and families often provide care. That is why the letter's authors present the issue as one of both fairness and public health. If some groups are exposed to higher levels of pollution, they are more likely to experience these costs, which means an unequal environmental burden can translate into unequal health outcomes over time.
Why pollution falls unevenly on different communities
Air pollution comes from many sources. The source material lists wood-burning stoves and industrial fossil fuel burning, but identifies traffic as the leading threat to clean air. Petrol and diesel vehicles emit a variety of toxic pollutants, including nitrogen dioxide and fine particles from exhaust and from tyre and brake wear. Traffic pollution tends to be most concentrated along busy roads, near motorways and in dense urban neighbourhoods, which helps explain why people who live close to those routes can be exposed more heavily.
The source does not set out in detail why these differences follow income and ethnicity lines, but the patterns are consistent with well-known features of housing and land use. Homes close to major roads and industrial sites are often cheaper to rent or buy, and residents of those areas may have fewer options to move. Lower-income households are more likely to rent, to live in older housing or to have limited choice about where they live. The Institute for Fiscal Studies research cited in the letter is the basis for the claim that these differences are persistent across England rather than occasional or temporary.
The term persistent matters here. It means the gap between lower-income and wealthier areas has been present over time, not just in a single year. That makes it harder to explain as a short-term effect of one event, and it points instead to structural factors, such as where housing, roads and industry are located and who can afford to live in different places.
Progress in London and the cities that still exceed limits
The letter's authors do not argue that nothing has improved. The source material points to London's ultra-low emission zone, known as the ULEZ, as a measure that has had a significant impact on air quality. The scheme, which began in central London in 2019, charges the most polluting vehicles for entering the zone, with the aim of pushing older, dirtier cars off the roads. According to the source, children's lungs were found to have grown bigger and stronger as a result of the policy, which is one of the strongest pieces of evidence cited for the benefits of cutting traffic pollution.
But progress has been uneven. New government data cited in the source material shows that in 2025, parts of London, Glasgow and Bristol still had illegal levels of air pollution. In this context, illegal means above legal limits, so these areas were not meeting the standards that apply to them. That finding suggests the benefits of city schemes have not reached every neighbourhood, and that broader action may be needed to close the gap.
The contrast between London's improvement and the continuing breaches elsewhere is central to the debate. It shows that targeted policies can work, but also that results depend on where measures are applied, how strictly they are enforced and whether the most exposed areas receive the most attention.
Hospital admissions and the impact on children
The letter comes alongside new figures obtained through freedom of information requests by the campaign group Mums for Lungs. According to the source material, in 11 English cities and areas, including London, Greater Manchester and Birmingham, more than 200,000 children were taken to hospital with breathing difficulties in 2025. Freedom of information requests are a legal route for members of the public to obtain records held by public bodies, which is how this data was gathered.
The research found that younger children were the most affected, with more than 120,000 babies and toddlers admitted to accident and emergency departments or to hospital. The source material explains why children are especially vulnerable. Their lungs are still developing, and they breathe more air relative to their body size than adults do. This means the same polluted air can deliver a larger dose to a child than to an adult. For families, admissions of this kind mean frightening emergency visits and disrupted early childhood. For the health system, they point to substantial and recurring demand for care.
Voices calling for action
Rosamund Adoo-Kissi-Debrah, whose daughter Ella became the first person in the UK to have air pollution cited on their death certificate, has been one of the most prominent campaigners on the issue. The source material describes her as the mother of a nine-year-old girl who was the first person in the UK to have air pollution cited on their death certificate. Ella Kissi-Debrah died in 2013, and in 2020 an inquest found that air pollution had contributed to her death, a ruling that has become a central reference point in the UK debate on pollution and child health.
In response to the new data, Adoo-Kissi-Debrah said a "failure of inaction by all the main political parties over so many years, has meant the UK population is exposed to illegal levels of emissions". Her comments put the issue in political terms, placing responsibility not on a single government but on successive administrations across the main parties.
What happens next
What happens next depends on the government's response. The source material does not include any statement from ministers about whether they will establish an inquiry, so no decision has been reported. A letter from outside experts, parliamentarians and campaigners does not by itself compel ministers to act. However, it can shape the political agenda, particularly when it is backed by new evidence on hospital admissions and unequal exposure.
Analysts would be likely to watch several signals. The first is whether ministers commit to a formal review at all. The second is the remit of any such inquiry, including whether it would examine income and ethnicity as well as overall pollution levels. A third is whether any findings would be tied to enforcement, funding and local action in places such as London, Glasgow and Bristol, where legal limits were still breached in 2025. A fourth is whether the inquiry would look at how pollution affects children specifically, given the scale of hospital admissions reported in the data.
The gap between the legal limits and the levels that many communities actually experience is likely to remain at the centre of that debate. For readers, the question is not only whether the air is cleaner on average, but whether the people who live closest to the most polluting sources, often the people with the least choice about where they live, are being protected as well.
For now, the letter sets out a clear demand: that the government treat unequal exposure to air pollution as a distinct health issue that needs its own examination, rather than a side effect of wider environmental policy.
Questions and answers
Who is calling for an inquiry into air pollution in the UK?
A letter signed by 150 scientists, MPs and activists, coordinated by the charity Enact Equality, has urged the government to hold a national inquiry. Signatories include the climate activist Greta Thunberg.
Why does air pollution affect some communities more than others?
Research by the Institute for Fiscal Studies found that lower-income areas in England have persistently higher pollution levels, and minority-ethnic populations were exposed to levels about 6% higher than white populations. Traffic is identified as the leading threat to clean air.
How does air pollution affect children's health?
Exposure is linked to asthma and effects on lung development, and children are especially vulnerable because their lungs are still developing and they breathe more air relative to their body size. Freedom of information data from Mums for Lungs shows more than 200,000 children were taken to hospital with breathing difficulties in 11 English areas in 2025.
What happens next after the letter?
The source material does not include a government response. Whether ministers commit to a formal inquiry, and what its remit would be, is the key question to watch.
Topics: Air pollution, Andy Burnham, Health inequalities, Institute for Fiscal Studies, Enact Equality, Greta Thunberg, Clean air
Sources: The Guardian Politics