The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1 and 2 in the name of Simon Thomas.

The next item on the agenda, then, is item 6, which is the Welsh Conservative debate on air pollution. I call on David Melding to move the motion. David.

Motion NDM6050 Paul Davies

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Recognises the role air pollution plays in the health outcomes of communities across Wales.

2. Notes that the World Health Organisation has found that particulate pollution has risen 8 per cent globally in the past five years, with experts in the UK believing that about 29,000 deaths are linked to air pollution.

3. Expresses unease at levels of air pollution in Wales, noting that Crumlin, in Caerphilly, has the highest nitrogen dioxide levels recorded outside of London, and that evidence provided in a Public Health Wales NHS 2015 consultation response found a direct correlation between air pollution, and an increased prevalence in respiratory disease.

4. Calls on the Welsh Government to develop an effective low emission strategy (LES), in consultation with stakeholders, to reduce the emissions of air pollutants.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Perhaps, with your indulgence, I could apologise to Sian Gwenllian, who’s still in the Chamber, for getting her name wrong earlier. Esgusodwch fi—I’m very sorry.

Air quality needs to be a high priority in this fifth Assembly. It does not currently appear as a specific Cabinet responsibility. I did check the list of responsibilities that the Cabinet Secretary has and it’s not there, despite the length of the list. And before I, sort of, fall back into a sort of pit of complacency, air pollution didn’t really get very much attention during the Assembly election campaign and I don’t think it appeared specifically in any of the parties’ manifestos. So, I think we’re all in the same category of perhaps not giving this the priority it deserves. But air pollution is key to public health and it’s a real challenge because while many advances were made after 1970, principally in the shift from coal to gas, we have lost ground since the mid-2000s, as we’ve seen the use of diesel, in particular, increase in terms of motor traffic.

Wales has some of the worst air quality in the UK. Crumlin recently made the news because its pollution levels were higher than anywhere else in the UK except Marylebone Road in London. Normally, if we’re being compared to Marylebone I would be happy, but in this case it was bleak indeed. And we now have the benefit of advances in research that demonstrate the harm caused by air pollutants. We are perhaps in a similar place as we were a few years ago to passive smoking. In fact, I think air pollution, generally, is probably more of a risk, and it is estimated that over 1,300 deaths a year can be attributed in some material way to poor air quality in Wales. So, that is indeed very, very significant.

Air pollution is largely the result of human activity, through vehicles, industry and agriculture. However, individuals have very little control over their own exposure. I don’t know if any of you have ever watched a video that actually demonstrates the flows, of air pollution and particulate matter especially, around urban areas and buildings. Its extent and intensity is truly shocking. I have to say, when I saw that first, I was really, really surprised. You do not have to be on top of an exhaust to actually suffer the pollution and inhale deep into your lungs particulate matter.

The prevalence of air pollution is higher in Wales than in Scotland or Northern Ireland. It should be said, however, that it is lower than in England. Cardiff is the most polluted area in Wales with a particulate matter concentration of 9.5. I’m new to this brief—please don’t ask me 9.5 in what. [Laughter.] Perhaps I shouldn’t have conceded that. [Laughter.] That’s compared to an average for Wales of 7.5 concentration. [Interruption.] Ah, I with great relief give way to the noble Member for Aberavon.

Thank you for taking the intervention. It’s actually 9.5 on, I think, a scale of 10. There’s a scale that is allocated, and 9.5 is in that scale. So, it’s the highest value.

I am very grateful to the Member. And then the prevalence of pollution through nitrogen oxide seems to be increasing, with eight out of 10 monitoring sites in Wales recording an increase last year.

I just want to turn to some of the health impacts, because inhaled particulate matter and exposure to nitrogen oxide causes a considerable increase in morbidity. It is calculated that it reduces life expectancy on average by between seven and eight months. Of course, there are many, many vulnerable groups that suffer much greater risks to their health, a point that’s been more strongly made quite recently by the British Lung Foundation, and I commend their work on this to Assembly Members.

The whole sort of health harms that occur to society come at a cost, and also they cause other harms in terms of the use of public services, the effectiveness of the economy and business as days are lost to ill health. And, indeed the Royal College of Physicians estimate, that the cost to the UK is about £20 billion a year that can be attributed to air pollution. It really is quite remarkable.

I want to turn now to how we achieve cleaner air, and it has been a challenge. I mean, in the 1950s it was first apprehended, and, as I said, by 1970 they had begun to make very significant progress, but perhaps in the modern age now, with the rapid increase in car use and frequency of its use, it’s something that needs very particular attention. And I should say also—I don’t particularly like turning to this point—but in post-Brexit Britain, all Governments need to co-operate to improve air quality—all Governments within the UK. There are responsibilities here shared across the different Governments. And, of course, what we do can affect other parts of the UK, so it’s very, very important. The legislative guidance and regulations that are currently embedded in the EU must not be lost, and in the work that now follows, as we unpick our membership of the EU, it’s very important that those safeguards are continued and, where appropriate, planted in our own regulatory and legal frameworks.

I think also in terms of Brexit, the future of the metro needs to be very carefully considered. In my view, help with this project is something we can quite legitimately take to the UK Government and say, ‘This is key to the progress of our economy in south Wales, but in particular to health and well-being and opportunities people have via public transport.’

And better air quality monitoring is also required, especially in Wales’s 36 air quality management areas and in particular, I think, monitoring of air quality near schools. The impact on young people of air pollution is particularly acute.

We must ensure that the Welsh Government delivers effectively on its own national air quality strategy, and that is something that we will pay a lot of attention to in the Welsh Conservative Party. And I’ve no doubt that the Minister will pay a lot of attention to this as well, as to where the general policy framework will now have to be strengthened in terms of taking forward the consequences of Brexit.

There are opportunities. There have been some advances that create real opportunities for the future of air quality and its improvement. I turn to the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013. If that’s taken up extensively, if local authorities in particular use the tools that are in it, then I think we could see some marked decrease in the use of vehicles, especially in urban areas—in the centre of urban areas—and people taking up opportunities to walk and cycle, which will lead to direct health benefits to them as well as improving the quality of the air we all breathe. So, there are double benefits there in terms of the advances we can make.

I think also we face a wider challenge to redesign our urban spaces, and perhaps I slip slightly here from just being the Conservative spokesman to talking about one of my pet enthusiasms. There are too many cars in urban places, basically. I think the next generation will look back and think, ‘How on earth did they allow their urban environment, especially the most precious parts of it around schools and the centre of cities, to be dominated by car or more generally vehicle use?’ I mean, I have a car—it’s a—. I nearly said ‘Mini Metro’. It’s a Fiat 500, which is the same genre, perhaps. I do barely 5,000 miles a year, but lots of people need to use their car more frequently. But I think, whatever the car use appropriate for people, they can take other opportunities, other than the car, when they are presented. Certainly, we need to design our urban areas so that people can park in satellite areas and then take public transport into the centres. We need to reform the way that children get to school and try to unravel the school run and how that has dominated the current generation when it never used to happen before. There are important things that we need to do, and they will create ways where we can improve the general quality of the environment and of life.

I also think direct alternatives to car use need to be promoted, and this is why, as I said earlier, the metro is so important. I’m an enthusiastic user of the bus, of the train; I often walk to the Assembly; I sometimes have to drive. That ought to be a typical profile for citizens. It shouldn’t be exceptional. It should be how, certainly in urban areas, we all make our journeys.

Every large van in the UK runs on diesel. Now, how have we got there? They’re highly polluting, some of those vehicles—visibly polluting. It’s just astonishing the black muck that comes out of those vehicles. There are alternatives—liquefied petroleum gas, for instance, scores on some environmental measures. I know that it does have some carbon implications, but it does lead to cleaner air, and there is a good infrastructure in place to use LPG. So, that could be looked at. Taxi fleets could also run on LPG. There are definite ways we could improve air quality in that direction as well. Local authorities need to act decisively when air pollution levels are seen to be and are recorded to be too high. They need to be more active.

Finally, can I just say that we do need a greater understanding amongst the public so that we can move forward with full co-operation? At the moment, the harmful health effects and also the harmful effects on the economy, I don’t think, are fully appreciated. So, there is some work for us to do in the fifth Assembly. Thank you.

Thank you. I have selected the two amendments to the motion. I call on Simon Thomas to move both amendments—1 and 2—tabled in his name. Simon.

Amendment 1—Simon Thomas

Insert as new point 4 and renumber accordingly:

Condemns the practices of some car manufacturers of artificially deflating their diesel particulates emissions and misleading consumers.

Amendment 2—Simon Thomas

Add as new point at end of motion:

Calls for safe cycling and pedestrian routes to enable people to improve their health and environment through active travel.

Amendments 1 and 2 moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I thank David Melding for opening this debate. It is a crucially important debate, as he’s already outlined. The link between air pollution and health is now robustly developed and one that we must tackle. I stand here as someone—. As we are admitting what cars we drive, I have a diesel vehicle. When I bought that vehicle five years ago, there was no mention of the fact that emissions from diesel vehicles were so damaging to health. The story sold to customers was that diesel was better for the environment because of climate change and carbon dioxide. We now know that nitrogen dioxide is far more dangerous directly to our health. I also bought a diesel vehicle because, it now appears, the people making those cars had told barefaced lies to their customers and had engineered the cars in an artificial way. For example, I now understand that the engine in my vehicle, if it is colder in Wales than 18 degrees Celsius—and it’s often colder than that in Wales—switches to something that is far more problematic for air pollution. That wasn’t explained in any way to people at the time.

We also now understand, because the WHO has just come to a decision, that emissions from diesel vehicles are a group 1 carcinogen—that is, the most dangerous of all. So, we must tackle this issue. There is some disagreement on numbers. The WHO said that around 29,000 deaths per annum in the UK are linked to air pollution. The British Lung Foundation says that the figure is as high as 40,000. But everyone is agreed that it is far more than are killed on our roads themselves; that is, air pollution from diesel vehicles specifically actually kills more people in the UK than do accidents on our roads. So, we must tackle this problem.

Some of the solutions, to be fair, have been outlined by David Melding. We would want to see the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 being used far more to encourage people to walk not just to schools, but also to work, and to cycle far more. It’s true to say that, in many towns and suburbs, it is difficult to walk and cycle because of the air quality. It can be very difficult to cycle in cities and large towns because of the air quality, and therefore I would like to see us being far more experimental here in Wales.

I do support what David Melding said about actually looking again at our town centres. We have to plan so that the individual comes before the car in our town centres. We must look at large towns and cities that have experimented with carless days or carless zones. There are towns that I have personally visited, such as Amsterdam, where the pedestrian and the cyclist always come before the car and people move very easily. Outside Amsterdam train station there is a bike park that is far bigger than the car park. That is what we can do in northern Europe. It is something that is done by nations that are similar to ours, and it is something that we can achieve here in Wales.

Rwy’n meddwl mai’r pwynt olaf i’w wneud yw hwn: er ein bod yn torri’r rheolau hyn mewn tua 38 o barthau yn y Deyrnas Unedig, a rhai ohonynt yng Nghymru, ar hyn o bryd, cyfarwyddir ansawdd aer gan ddeddfwriaeth Ewropeaidd. Cyfraith yr UE yw’r gyfarwyddeb ansawdd aer. Nid yw wedi’i gorfodi arnom, gyda llaw; cytunasom iddi’n hapus. Nid yw wedi’i gorfodi; roeddem yn cytuno â hi. Mae Llywodraeth y DU, dro ar ôl tro ar ôl tro, yn tramgwyddo yn erbyn y gyfarwyddeb hon. Nid wyf am i ni gael gwared ar y gyfarwyddeb wrth i ni adael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Yr hyn sydd ei angen yw i Lywodraeth newydd y DU sy’n debygol o ddod yn yr hydref ailymrwymo i egwyddorion y gyfarwyddeb ac egwyddorion rheoli ansawdd aer, a gwneud yn well yn y dyfodol i gydymffurfio â’r egwyddorion hynny nag y maent wedi’i wneud yn y gorffennol.

Mae hon yn ddadl bwysig. Mae llygredd aer yn lladd mwy o’n dinasyddion yn gynamserol nag y mae damweiniau ar y ffyrdd. Rwy’n credu bod angen ailystyried y ffordd rydym yn adeiladu ein trefi a’n dinasoedd a’n systemau trafnidiaeth i sicrhau bod dileu llygredd aer yn flaenllaw ymhlith y targedau y mae hynny’n ei gyflawni. Y peth olaf heddiw yn y cyd-destunau hynny, wrth gwrs, yw dweud na fydd M4 newydd o amgylch Casnewydd yn gwneud dim o gwbl i helpu i gyflawni’r nod hwnnw.

Studies have shown the danger to public health that follows from repeated exposure to air pollution. Air pollution increases the risk of mortality by cardiovascular and respiratory conditions. The risk is particularly acute for children, with their exposure linked to diabetes, cognitive function, birth outcomes and liver and kidney damage. It is worrying, therefore, to note that Wales has some of the most polluted areas in the United Kingdom. There is a clear link between air pollution, deprivation and health.

Some of the most polluted areas are in my South Wales East region. In Torfaen, for example, 18 per cent of adults are being treated for respiratory illness. In Blaenau Gwent, the figure is 17 per cent. Across Aneurin Bevan health board areas as a whole, 15 per cent of adults are receiving treatment for breathing problems. Recently, I was concerned to discover that the A472 between Pontypool and Crumlin has the highest level of nitrogen dioxide, which my colleague, David Melding just mentioned; it’s higher than near Madame Tussauds in London. Indeed, the level recorded in 2015 and 2016 was higher than anywhere else apart from central London, as he said earlier.

Under the Environment Act 1995, local authorities—in this case, Caerphilly County Borough Council—have a duty to review local air quality and assess whether health-based air quality objectives will be achieved. In November 2013, Caerphilly declared an air quality management area and a further assessment was undertaken last year. Again, excessive levels of air pollution were confirmed. As a result, the council required a complete air quality action plan for the area. I understand that they are currently consulting with local residents, businesses and other key stakeholders to have input into production of the plan. It is estimated that a draft action plan will be ready for consultation in November this year, Minister. Could the Cabinet Secretary confirm this is the case and will she work closely with Caerphilly County Borough Council to explore all the options to bring air pollution levels down to safe levels?

Presiding Officer, air pollution contributes to over 1,500 deaths in Wales. It is clear we need to develop an effective and coherent emissions strategy to reduce this deadly scenario. We already have the active travel Act to improve pedestrian and cycle routes to encourage healthier lifestyles and to reduce pollution in Wales. We have the tranquil, greener and cleaner places, and grant schemes to support local authority projects to improve air quality, such as traffic flow changes in Merthyr Tydfil and the planting of trees on the Gwent levels. It is essential that Welsh Government monitors the funding of these schemes to ensure they deliver that improvement to the air quality in Wales that we all wish.

As earlier contributors have already mentioned, there are certain measures to be taken: some cars and heavy goods vehicles should be stopped from going to congested areas and highly populated areas in this part of the world. Also, one area that I’d like to ask the Minister about is, in London, when you go, there are so many bays that have bicycle hiring in central London by different banks. So, why can’t we have some of these areas in Swansea, Cardiff and Newport, and, in the north, some in the Wrexham area, where some of the banks can put bicycles for people to hire in congested areas in Wales also? Thank you very much.

Thank you. David Rees.

Diolch, Lywydd—Dirprwy Lywydd, sorry. I welcome the opportunity to speak in today’s debate. Air pollution can have extremely detrimental effects on our health, as has already been mentioned by several speakers. It’s associated with a wide variety of respiratory and inflammatory conditions, as particulates, including sulphates, nitrates and black carbon, penetrate the cardiovascular system. It particularly affects those with pre-existing health conditions.

There is also evidence that prolonged exposure can lead to severe heart and lung disease and, on occasions, cancer. Outdoor air pollution is now the biggest single killer, globally, with over 3 million people—and I know David Melding has highlighted those in Wales—more than HIV/AIDS, actually, and malaria, so you can see the level we’re at. As urban air quality declines, the risk to individuals with those pre-existing conditions increases.

Dr Flavia Bustreo of the World Health Organization, assistant director general for family, women and children’s health, has said:

‘Air pollution is a major cause of disease and death. It is good news that more cities are stepping up to monitor air quality, so when they take actions to improve it they have a benchmark…. When dirty air blankets our cities the most vulnerable urban populations—the youngest, oldest and poorest—are the most impacted.’

The air quality in my constituency and hometown, Port Talbot, is often in the headlines due to the high levels of pollution, or, perhaps more accurately, particulates, occasionally reaching as high as 9—not 9.5, but 9—on the scale, but actually reaching that on more than 10 occasions. There’s an upper limit of 40 occasions that should exist in a year and we’re getting to 25 per cent of that limit. That’s really unacceptable.

Of course, Port Talbot is a predominantly industrial town, but it also has the M4, a major trunk road, running through a very narrow coastal strip. If you know Port Talbot, you’ll know it’s very narrow, and you’ll also know that there are mountains on one side so the flows of the air clearly are affected as a consequence of that.

Both the council and Welsh Government have put measures in place to monitor high pollutant emissions, and Natural Resources Wales oversees general regulation, including compliance with European Union legislation, whilst a specific Welsh air quality forum measures headline air quality indicators across Wales. That’s great news. But, seeing that some of the most recent data that have been published only take us up to 2013, I do ask the Minister, or Cabinet Secretary, to scope and update guidance, especially in light of the recent publication of a longitudinal study by the World Health Organization, which demonstrated that outdoor air pollution has grown by 8 per cent globally in the past five years.

The WHO also identified Port Talbot as one of the worst affected towns in the UK. It was identified as the worst town in the UK for PM10s and only fared slightly better on PM2.5s, so I am very concerned about the implications that has on the health of my constituents if we don’t increase our efforts to improve air quality and reduce PM10s and PM2.5 emissions.

Environmental legislation for the past 25 years has led to continued reduction in the levels of harmful pollution in Wales and more widely across Europe in fact. I applaud the Welsh Government for continuing to commit to improving air quality and seeking ways to progress and streamline the way that air pollution is managed, not only to meet legislative requirements, but also to enhance the health of people in Wales.

In light of the result of the EU referendum, the environmental impact of a ‘leave’ strategy should also be of great concern to all of us here in the Chamber. The EU had been safeguarding compliance and producing regulations around issues such as air quality and safe levels for many decades. We must not lose the benefits of this key overarching guidance, such as the industrial emissions directive 2010, the air quality framework directive 2008, and the integrated pollution prevention and control directive 2006, just to name three. In the coming negotiations with the EU, we must ensure that environmental concerns stand at the forefront of the agenda. I hope the Welsh Government will continue to look to Europe for guidance and leadership on these issues and ensure that safeguarding both the health of our current population and the environment for future generations continue to be embedded in governmental policy and practice. This will include sustainable and substantial investment in our public transport systems, and active travel routes to encourage more people to leave their cars at home as much as possible.

We must also look at schemes that reduce emissions, particularly in industrial developments, whether that be through a greater use of renewable energy, which we are very much for here in Wales, or through schemes that build upon recycling developments, such as the proposed power plant in the steelworks in Port Talbot, which is actually about using waste gases, so you’re reducing the emissions and making them beneficial. You actually reduce emissions twice, because you’re reducing the emissions from the waste gases, but you’re also reducing emissions from extra electricity being generated, because you’ve got it: win-win situation.

The Welsh Government published a short-term action plan in 2013 for Port Talbot, aimed specifically at cutting PM10s, and it’s still alive. We need to review it, modernise it, and learn from it to ensure that we tackle the challenges ahead not only for Port Talbot, but for the whole of Wales.

The Presiding Officer took the Chair.

Perhaps I should declare an interest in supporting amendment 1, having received very recently the dreaded letter from Volkswagen in respect of my own car.

If I leave open my bedroom window in my Swansea home overnight, I’ll be waking up with a good old smoker’s cough, except, of course, it’s not a smoker’s cough, is it, it’s a Port Talbot cough. It’s brought to me across the bay from a part of my region—

Will you take an intervention on that point?

Yes, by all means.

Member of the Senedd:

Are you defending the bad air?

I will defend the bad air in the sense that, clearly, there are very few occasions when the wind is blowing in the direction of Swansea; it mostly actually comes off the coast into Port Talbot.

Well, actually, earlier on, you said that the mountains behind Port Talbot actually shove it all my way. But I can tell you that’s what it is anyway. David Rees has already mentioned the problems with Port Talbot, and I don’t want to over-highlight those. Perhaps I should admit, though, to contributing to that poor air quality when I drive my artificially deflated car into Swansea every day. When I do that, I pass one—or two, I think, actually—of the six electronic nowcaster boards that are a mysterious feature of the Swansea city landscape. These are signs that are designed to take data from 47 monitoring stations around the city, identifying which areas are becoming over-polluted at any one time, and then re-directing local traffic to avoid those hotspots, or those cough spots. I’m not sure if they’re supposed to reduce air pollution in themselves, or protect us from it, because at the moment, they actually do neither. These signs, which cost the Welsh Government £100,000 back in 2012, are still not working.

Just last month, the World Health Organization identified Swansea—not just Port Talbot—as now exceeding ambient air quality guidelines, and even though it does name Port Talbot, I don’t think the title of the most polluted town in Wales is one we should be fighting for, even against Crumlin. I don’t think it takes, to be honest, Public Health Wales to find a direct correlation between air pollution and an increase in respiratory diseases—although of course it’s pleasing to have the obvious confirmed there. Respiratory diseases are particularly prevalent amongst older people in Wales, and last year DEFRA advised that as older people are more likely to suffer from heart and lung conditions, more effort should be put into making them aware of the effect of air pollution in their own environment.

A total of 29,776 people died of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in 2012 in the whole of the UK. That’s quite a high number I think anyway, but 27,000 of those were over the age of 65. Over 45,000 people in Wales are admitted to hospital each year with respiratory conditions like COPD and lung cancer, and with the health of older people—which already presents complex challenges to the NHS—being more likely to be affected by pollution and low air quality, surely there’s a strong argument, isn’t there, that a clear and effective low-emissions strategy for Wales, properly implemented, would reduce impact on the Welsh NHS and social Services—not just in the terms of the £20 billion that one of the earlier speakers mentioned, but in reducing the personal poor experience of many older people who have a range of co-morbidities.

I’m a great believer in people being part of solving their own problems. Take the fabulous, although sadly late, now, Margaret Barnard of Breathe Easy Neath Valley, who, having being diagnosed with COPD back in 2005, spent the next 10 years of her life working with the British Lung Foundation locally, to raise awareness of respiratory diseases and their causes, and fighting for the improvement to the design of portable oxygen. She also got me to do an abseil to overcome my fear of heights to raise money for the British Lung Foundation, so that’s how persuasive she was.

But sometimes, it’s got to be Government that really takes the lead—and I think this is one of those occasions. While we all, of course, need to take control of our own behaviour, to avoid a range of diseases and conditions as we get older—you know, eating better, doing more exercise, stopping smoking and so on—it isn’t as easy to control our exposure to poor air quality. Because one electric car—let’s be realistic here—doesn’t make the difference. This need population-level action and I think all Governments of the UK should look across the world, not just to Europe, for inspiration on this, not least about what to avoid, but also, of course, what to adopt. I know it was some time ago, but in 1996 the UK Government introduced PowerShift grants to assist companies to convert their fleets of vehicles to LPG, which is 88 per cent less polluting than diesel. But the scheme was cut short in the 2000s, with the result that businesses, and potentially members of the public, turned their backs on LPG and went back to petrol and diesel. And it’s only now, some 20 years later, when the hybrid and the electric cars are becoming more familiar, that we recognise that was an opportunity missed there.

While I think that carbon taxes can be part of the answer, heavy-handed application makes them an easy target, doesn’t it, for blame when industries run into trouble. I think that nudges to our driving culture can help us as individuals make a meaningful and whole-population contribution to better air quality.

I’m pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate today, and I thank David Melding for initiating it. As has already been mentioned, there is the situation in Crumlin on the A472, of course, where the emissions there are the highest in the UK outside of London. Of course, it’s more than just a reading on a sensor—this is about the health and well-being of people, and Government and local authorities have a statutory duty to further the public health of people, and to take steps, indeed, to protect their health. The issue in Crumlin is a public health issue, not simply a transport issue. The emissions readings that have been referred to there have sadly not yet resulted in a comprehensive plan from either local or national Government, although as other Members have suggested, that work is being consulted upon at the moment. Indeed, whilst I note the improved road layout in the area since the time of the sensor readings, I know that there are many residents—some I’ve spoken to—who are concerned that the new layout there may actually exacerbate the air quality, due to the high speeds now that vehicles are able to reach because traffic has been freed up.

In her contribution to this debate today, I’d be very grateful if the Cabinet Secretary would address a few points for consideration. First, can she enlighten us in terms of whether or not Natural Resources Wales have, or are planning to, extend their monitoring of PAHs—polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons—and also pollution in waterways, especially in relation to traffic pollution? As David Melding said, this is a new area for many of us, so I’d be grateful if Members didn’t ask me to repeat these acronyms again. Members will also appreciate that the residents in Crumlin are most concerned about not just the problem with the air pollution, but about finding a solution to the air quality in their area. In the short term, I urge the Welsh Government to ensure that all buses using the route through Crumlin are encouraged to either use low-emissions buses or even electric buses, and I’d be grateful if the Cabinet Secretary could elaborate on any proposals to extend or to use the UK Government’s low-emissions bus scheme. Also, I think it might be worthwhile for the Government to convene a summit of hauliers to explore the possibility of them being supported to upgrade to low-emissions or electric vehicles in the future. It’s vital, in an industry that is facing difficulty, that they are brought in and are seen to be part of the process of helping us to tackle problems with air pollution in this country.

In the longer term, I wonder if the Welsh Government would consider the introduction of low-emission zones in Wales along the London model in high-emissions areas of this country, perhaps starting off in communities like Crumlin as pilot schemes. The Cabinet Secretary will be aware, I’m sure, of the plans some decades ago for a new road to alleviate the specific problems in Crumlin. Such plans were lost following the dissolution of Gwent County Council in the 1990s. I wonder whether she has had discussions with Caerphilly County Borough Council on the possibility of resurrecting plans for a new road in the Crumlin area to alleviate the problems in the residential area on the Hafodyrynys hill.

Llywydd, as I mentioned in my opening remarks, this is a public health matter, and the first priority of any government must surely be to uphold and further the health and well-being of its citizens. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

I’m very grateful for the opportunity to take part in this particular debate because, of course, I come from an area where air quality is actually very, very good—on the north Wales coast. In fact it’s so good that historically it’s been one of those places that has received investment in its health services in order to look after people who were impacted by poor air quality from many of the cities, historically. So, Abergele Hospital, for example, was a hospital that was established to treat those individuals who had TB and other lung conditions, because of the excellent quality of the air in that particular area. But I know that this is a problem for many other parts of Wales. Like David Rees, I agree that the EU, and our membership of it, has actually helped to improve air quality, and thank goodness. It’s a long time since we’ve had any of the sort of inner-city smogs that we used to get as a nation, which killed thousands and thousands of individuals each and every year. I was just looking at one of the briefing documents for today’s debate, and I’m told that the London smog of 1952 killed 12,000 people, which is an astonishing number when you think about it. So, although we have made significant improvements in recent years, it is alarming that we are still, as Simon Thomas quite rightly said, seeing more deaths from air pollution and poor air quality than we are from road traffic accidents. I think that should spur all of us into wanting to see some more action on this particular issue.

Many people have referred to public health. Of course, the impact of air pollution actually starts before somebody is actually born. So, it’s in the womb during gestation while lungs are developing that we’re actually hindering the next generation unless we actually get on top of this problem. Of course, if you’ve got underdeveloped lungs—if you’ve got underdeveloped capacity within your lungs—that has a lifelong impact right through into your old age, and people living with chronic lung conditions very often were brought up in smoke-filled areas or in inner-city areas when we had those historical problems with air quality in them.

Nobody so far has referred, to a great extent, to indoor air pollution. Of course, we know that that is also a problem across Wales and here in the UK, and it’s not just the headline hitters like carbon monoxide poisoning, which is still an all-too-frequent problem here in Wales as a result of people not servicing their gas appliances at home. I think, also, we could actually take some action on that through the regulatory system, to require carbon monoxide equipment and test equipment in the same way that we have fire alarms in our homes in the future. I think that that’s something that does need to be considered going forward.

Neither has anybody mentioned the impact of asbestos in some of our public buildings—and I know this is something that my colleague Nick Ramsay has championed in the past—in terms of the residue of asbestos that’s still in many of our schools here in Wales. This is something that we really need to be moving on to address now, given that many of these buildings have had asbestos in situ since the 1960s. Not to mention the fact that the other thing that impacts on air quality indoors, of course, is cleaning products, sometimes, and simple things like air fresheners, which very often trigger things like asthmatic attacks for people with asthma and other problems, and for people with lung conditions that can be irritated by that. So, I think there’s an awful lot that we can do through the regulatory framework here in Wales to complement action that is taken at a UK level and beyond to improve our game. We mustn’t also neglect the fact that many of these air pollutants also have an impact on climate change. That in itself brings costs to the public purse in terms of trying to address the impact of climate change, particularly flooding, which has been a big problem here in Wales over the years.

There’s one final point I’d like to make, and that is the role of trees in helping to address air pollution. We know that trees and vegetation, particularly in our city areas, not only add to the attractiveness of those areas, but they also actually help to filter the air in a very positive way and have a positive impact on the air quality in our urban towns and cities. So, I’d encourage the Cabinet Secretary to consider these things as she looks to developing the air quality strategy in the future.

The focus this afternoon in this debate seems to have been mainly on cars, industry and individuals, and of course sensible efforts to reduce emissions from these sources are to be commended. However, there’s a far bigger polluter than cars or people.

There are approximately 90,000 cargo ships on the world’s seas. They burn 7.29 million barrels a day of the dirtiest and most polluting fuel left over from the oil refining process. The stuff is so dirty and heavy that you can walk on it when it’s cold. Cargo ships produce 260 times the pollution of the world’s cars each year. Because of that, Wales and the UK could shut down every facility producing carbon and other pollutants and take every car off the road and it wouldn’t even dent the amount of air pollution being created by these cargo ships.

Air pollution is a global problem and Wales and the UK need to work with the IMO and other global bodies to encourage the development and introduction of alternative means of fuelling these cargo ships or reducing the pollution in other ways, such as requiring cargo ships to be equipped with technology such as scrubbers, catalytic conversion and developing alternative energy sources. Otherwise we’re just trying to empty an ocean with a thimble.

With the ever-increasing understanding of the importance of safe air quality on quality of life and on health and well-being, precisely because of this, I wanted to speak in this debate, in particular due to the fact that I’m a chronic asthmatic, and my son has been hospitalised on many occasions due to his asthma. There is unease at levels of air pollution, and I note that Crumlin in Caerphilly has the highest nitrogen dioxide levels recorded outside of London, which is a key factor. This sits in my constituency of Islwyn and exists topographically in a constricted, high-sided valley containing key arteries for heavy-goods vehicles that go to Ebbw Vale, Caerphilly, Torfaen and beyond.

As a new Member, last week in this Chamber I raised this very important issue with the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, and I have written to and am meeting with key authorities in this matter. It is clearly not acceptable that the A472 in Crumlin, according to Government data, has nitrogen dioxide levels only exceeded by Marylebone Road in central London—bearing in mind that London exceeds its annual mean of nitrogen dioxide safe levels in just eight days. I want to place on public record my appreciation to Welsh Labour councillor Andrew Lewis, who represents Crumlin on Caerphilly County Borough Council. He has passionately taken up the case of air quality for his residents and was featured in last week’s ‘Caerphilly Observer’ once again giving this issue public prominence.

I was going to give key data and facts in terms of COPD and asthma, but that’s already been referenced by other Members. I asked the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs what action can the Welsh Government take to work with the local authority and other stakeholders to lift the scourge of air pollution, and I was reassured by the Cabinet Secretary’s answer to me that Welsh Government has sought strong assurances from the local authority concerning the actions they intend to take to improve the local air quality. The local authority is, as has been referenced, establishing a steering group and seeking to gather input from local groups and residents, and will then develop a strong air quality strategy. This will include a list of strategic traffic-management options for the area and appropriate measures to tackle air quality in the area. The authority have indicated an initial date of November for when this will be implemented, and I am assured that the Welsh Government will keep monitoring this ongoing work and ensure that we are responding to an obvious problem that needs remedying.

It may seem like common sense, but it’s also important, if we are serious about having the best data possible to monitor air quality, that it monitors it as closely as possible to the location in question. Welsh Labour councillors Jan Jones and Philippa Marsden from Ynysddu have also raised with me the issue of air quality for Wattsville and Cwmfelinfach. Local residents need reassurances that it is adequate that air-quality readings for a site in Nine Mile Point are calculated by co-location studies, but ones that are based in Blackwood high street and White Street in Caerphilly. They have been told that there are no continuous monitors within the area in Wattsville itself. So, there are no co-location studies being undertaken in the area of interest. If we are determined, as is needed, to assess and monitor air quality, then the validity of data we rely upon must be the most accurate that it can practicably be.

I note that the Welsh Labour Government wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 3 per cent every year and achieve at least a 40 per cent reduction by 2020, compared to figures from 1990. The Environment (Wales) Act 2016 sets a target for emissions to be reduced by at least 80 per cent by 2050. This is to be celebrated and not amended post-Brexit. While I understand the right to chair a committee under our constitution, I will not be alone in being concerned that the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee is to be chaired by UKIP Assembly Member, Mark Reckless, the man who wanted the very green Margaret Thatcher airport. To quote UKIP Welsh party leader, Nathan Gill—

Can I just make the point that you had the opportunity to object to that Chair yesterday; today—

I’m referencing it, Llywydd. I’ll move on.

I would agree with this motion that it is beholden on the Welsh Government and all of us to safeguard the quality of life of our planet and to ensure that the people of Wales enjoy the highest standards of air quality.

As my colleague said earlier, the World Health Organization states that 29,000 people in the UK are affected by premature deaths due to air pollution, and 1,500 by road accidents. Listening to what has been said around the Chamber in this debate is very worrying, and it’s good to hear the warm words from every AM. But, I think probably part of the reason I’m stood here now, actually, is the huge contradiction between the warm words in this Chamber from the Labour Members and the reality and results of their policies. Just for a change, I’ll talk about Cardiff’s local development plan and other local development plans in my constituency, because what the Labour Party in the City of Cardiff Council, here, what you—. [Interruption.] I’ll give way.

Thank you for taking the intervention and before you go on to the Cardiff development plan again, you mentioned that there were warm words from me, as an example. Do you not agree that the Labour authority in Neath Port Talbot and the Labour Government have taken action to monitor the quality of air in Port Talbot to ensure there’s a plan in place so that we can ensure that that comes down, and that’s positive action?

Well, in speaking for my constituency, the action taken by your Government and your council—[Interruption.]—your Government and your council—is to increase air pollution where we live. And that is the irony—that is the irony—because you may very well monitor it but your policies increase it, and that is the key point.

Now, I’ll give you some local examples. Llantrisant Road—if you sneeze in the morning, you’re bumper to bumper, and what your policies are doing is bringing tens of thousands of extra cars on the roads, and it’s going to be the same in Caerphilly unless you take action there. What is happening in Cardiff, and, indeed, in the whole of South Wales Central, is that greenfield sites are going and green—. [Interruption.] I’ll not give way this time. Greenfield sites are going and we’re seeing proposals where traffic will be bumper to bumper. The danger now with the possible loss of funding with the metro is that there is no viable transport plan for our region—for the whole of south Wales, actually. And what we should be doing, rather than talking and saying, ‘Isn’t this air pollution awful and, you know, it’s really bad, and we’d like to make things better’, what we should be doing in this Chamber is legislating—legislating—using the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 to stop these local development plans destroying our local environments and forcing people in this region to breathe in polluted air, because those are the results of the policies that this body here has passed and what your councils in this area are also doing. So, what I’m asking, really, is for an end to the hypocrisy of saying, ‘Isn’t this awful, we’d like to improve things’, and take concrete measures to improve the environment and the quality of life in this region. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Presiding Officer. I would like to thank the Welsh Conservatives for tabling this debate on this very important issue, and I’m very happy to support the original motion. I’m very sorry that David Melding, the Member for South Wales Central, wasn’t reassured enough last week by my answer to him, that, yes, I am absolutely responsible for air quality; it is within my portfolio. And it is absolutely key to public health, something I’m very passionate about, and it does obviously have a significant impact on the health of people in Wales. Around 1,300 deaths a year can be linked to long-term exposure to fine particulates. Concern regarding the health effects of emissions from diesel vehicles is very topical following the Volkswagen emissions scandal and the news about diesel emissions below temperatures of 18 degrees last week. Simon Thomas referred to that in moving amendment 1, and, again, I’m happy to support that amendment.

I do support calls for the European Commission to clarify the regulations on emissions from diesel vehicles. I think regulations on the testing need to be much more transparent, and I think many Members made the point—Simon Thomas certainly did—that the EU legislation that covers us now, we signed up to it willingly. There is an opportunity—Andrew R.T. Davies, I hope you’re listening, because you were asked for three opportunities, so here’s one for you straight away—and I do think that going forward we are able to strengthen it, and it’s certainly something that I’ll be very happy to look at.

Several Members raised the issue around the poor levels of air quality in Crumlin. My colleague Rhianon Passmore, the Member for Islwyn, raised it with me last week, and it is obviously a very serious local problem. Since Rhianon Passmore raised it with me last week, I’ve made it very clear to Caerphilly County Borough Council—I’ve written to the leader to emphasise the importance of the plan, particularly the timetable that they’ve now given me—that they will consult on a draft air quality action plan by November. I think it’s really important that they keep to that, and my officials will be monitoring it very closely.

The Welsh Government has developed a very clear and agreed approach to local air quality management in Wales. We’ve established statutory air quality objectives through the Air Quality (Wales) Regulations 2010. Every local authority is required to review their air quality and provide an annual report on their findings. Where those air quality objectives are not being achieved, the authority must designate an air quality management area and then develop a local action plan.

We also issued statutory guidance to ensure local authorities follow best practice when reviewing air quality and developing action plans. New Welsh policy guidance was published in March this year and is being used in local authority reports already. I am also going to consider options for enforcement if necessary, again including using my powers to issue directions to local authorities in relation to local air quality management. But, of course, there’s always more that we can do.

I think we need to better utilise data gathered by local authorities and use them to inform the new state of natural resources report and area statements produced by Natural Resources Wales. And, I think they should be used to then inform the assessments of local well-being and associated plans produced by public services boards.

We are going to consult soon on proposals to improve the local air quality and noise management regime in Wales, and we’re going to build on the discussions that have previously been held between Welsh Government and local authorities. This will involve streamlining processes and developing a robust procedure for following up overdue progress reports and action plans. This consultation will include an open-ended question inviting comments and suggestions on any potential ideas for improving air quality in Wales. I very much look forward to receiving responses from interested parties. However, it is clear our local efforts must work alongside a national approach to air quality that tackles the main causes of pollution and protects people from them.

The Welsh Conservative motion calls on us to develop an effective low-emission strategy for Wales. I absolutely support this and I think we need to go even further. I think we need an approach that reduces emissions where possible, ensures that pollutants are effectively dispersed before they reach people if they cannot be prevented, and reduces the health risks from unavoidable exposure to pollutants. Steffan Lewis raised the question of possible low-emission zones and that’s something that, I think, in the upcoming consultation we have, I’d be very interested to hear people’s views on. But, at the moment, they are an existing option for local authorities.

I think it means there is very little point in developing a stand-alone strategy for air quality in a single silo. I think it’s really important that air quality is embedded across all policies on infrastructure, planning, transport, active travel and public health, to name a few. So, my officials are in the early stages of canvassing local authorities on how we do improve national planning policy and guidance in relation to air and noise pollution. We are also working closely with partners, as no organisation or sector can obviously tackle this issue on their own.

Natural Resources Wales, for example, have been undertaking research on the air quality benefits of trees. They’ve estimated that trees remove around 250 tonnes of air pollution from the atmosphere each year in the three urban study areas of Wrexham, Bridgend and the Tawe catchment. This is the equivalent in monetary terms of over £1.5 million-worth of savings to the NHS every year from the resultant respiratory conditions. We’re also working with regulators and industry to address the specific challenges associated with air pollution from industrial sources in Port Talbot and the Swansea valley. Simply complying with air quality objectives in the relatively few areas where they are breached is not enough if we are really going to reduce the health burden of air pollution on society—

Cabinet Secretary, will you take an intervention?

Yes.

It’s just on this particular issue of trees and shrubs alongside roads in particular. I’ve noticed that there’s been a significant move to fencing roads at the moment to act as buffers for sound, as opposed to planting, which, obviously, would have the added benefit of reducing pollution. Is this something that you will look at, with your Cabinet colleagues, to see how that might be reversed—that situation?

Well, I think it’s about getting the balance between air pollution and noise pollution, but it’s about, as I say, getting that balance. That hasn’t been raised with me before, but I’m very happy to look at it.

Beyond Wales, there are many areas of non-devolved activity that are needed to bring down emissions as quickly as possible. For example, the House of Commons’s Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee has recommended the UK Government launch a diesel scrappage scheme, and that would give grants to cut the cost of a low-emission vehicle for an owner scrapping their diesel vehicle. So, after Simon Thomas’s confession, maybe that’s something that I’m certainly going to watch closely, but maybe Simon Thomas would like to do it also.

Work is also taking place at the current time at an EU level, but, as I’ve already said, we didn’t sign up to EU legislation kicking and screaming: we did it because it’s right for the people of Wales, we did it because it’s right for public health, and I do think this is an opportunity where, going forward, we can look to strengthen it.

I met this morning with the Future Generations Commissioner and, obviously, air quality is something that forms part of the ongoing implementation of the Act. One Member referred to taxis, and something that I discussed with the commissioner this morning was, in Quebec, they have just brought forward a taxi fleet of electric cars. So, again, there are examples. Somebody asked me if I’m looking across Europe; well I’m actually looking across the world to see what examples of best practice we can take lessons from.

Finally, I will be, obviously, supporting the motion, but, in relation to the second amendment from Plaid Cymru, I’m absolutely supporting that. That’s in line with the aims of the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 and our recently published active travel action plan. Thank you.

I call on David Melding to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. You would have noted that nine Members in addition to myself and the Cabinet Secretary took part in this debate. I think that’s a great sign of the importance people place in this policy area.

Simon Thomas started off and referred to the air directive that we base our current policy on, which comes from the European Union. This is key and was referred to several times in the debate, most passionately in a very pro-EU approach from Darren Millar, that we need to carry forward this framework and even improve upon it. He did then also mention the importance of indoor pollution, which is a key area.

Mohammad talked about the risks to children in particular, and David Rees then followed up and emphasised that vulnerable people are often in the most vulnerable urban areas and so get a double hit. It’s very, very important we’re aware of that. David also talked about the fact that air pollution is a world-wide killer and that the World Health Organization is trying to raise awareness of this and encourage Governments to improve approaches.

Suzy is a Volkswagen-owning abseiler, which is quite something, but, on Volkswagen, I think it’s important to remember that the consumer has been misled in this area, and it’s quite shocking, because, when people want to invest a bit more and improve their own performance in terms of emissions and reduce them, then they’ve been let down in this way. That’s no way to form the partnership we need with the public in terms of encouraging them to make good choices.

Suzy then talked about the low-emission strategy that would bring great benefits, a point that was taken further by Steffan, urging low-emission zones. The Minister seemed quite responsive to that and certainly wants to look at it. Steffan also talked about other approaches like using electronic buses, because buses do pollute quite a lot in urban areas.

Michelle Brown talked about cargo ships, something I’d not thought of. In terms of its impact, it is important. I mean, it is outside our jurisdiction mostly—not when they actually finally enter port—but it is something that needs to be looked at by states and Governments across the world. But it was a really important point, I thought, that was made and one often—well, I’d overlooked it, so possibly others have as well. So, thank you for that.

Rhianon Passmore talked about her own experience and that of her family. It does come down to this, doesn’t it? This impacts people and can have a real impact on health and well-being. As the representative of Crumlin talked about the role of the local authority in terms of trying to improve the situation there, it’s something that needs careful planning because, sometimes, if you can improve traffic flow, it just speeds it up and makes it a more popular route, and you’re back to where you began again.

Neil McEvoy started globally but got to Cardiff pretty quick. [Laughter.] I did agree with him on the metro. I thought that is really, really key.

Can I finally say I thought that the Cabinet Secretary made an outstanding response? You really took on what Members had said and took on the suggestions, and emphasised—you know, broadly, I think we would agree that there’s a good framework here. It’s not an area where we could say that there has been a lack of action, but we need to go further. The challenges are great. And, in particular, you have our support in looking at a low-emissions strategy, strengthening the EU directive, and using data more effectively across agencies—I thought that was a key point. An excellent debate, and I seem to, in my first minority party debate, be on the verge of a modest victory, so that encourages me to try harder again in future. Thanks.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? The motion is therefore agreed without amendment in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36

We now move to voting time, and it’s been agreed that voting time will take place before the short debate. Unless three Members wish for the bell to be rung, I will proceed directly to voting time.