The next group of amendments relates to air pollution and air quality. Amendment 44 is the lead amendment in this group, and I call on Simon Thomas to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Simon Thomas.

Amendment 44 (Simon Thomas) moved.

Thank you, Llywydd. I hope that I will be more successful than Angela Burns. I’m not sure that I will be. But certainly, to date, the discussion on this Bill has seen greater discussion between the two main opposition parties on improving the Bill in a collaborative manner. I’m pleased that we are dealing with this second stab at the Bill in a more inclusive manner than we did the first time.

Amendment 44 and the rest of the amendments in the group set out a framework for ensuring that we use this Bill as an opportunity to safeguard the public from the detrimental impacts of air pollution. In doing so, I want to say at the outset, and emphasise at the outset, that there is no safe level—in health terms, there is no safe level of air pollution, be that nitrogen oxides or other PMs, which are the very minute particles in the air. Now, of course there are legal levels, there are statutory levels, and there are directives and legislation around those. But, in health terms, there is no safe level. Therefore, it is important, I think, that we do look at this Bill as an opportunity to improve the situation in that context. I noted that Stage 1 discussions had seen a number of stakeholders raising air pollution as an issue that needs to be tackled, with evidence from the heart foundation and the lung foundation both saying that there should be at least a reference to the general principle of reducing air pollution. Now, Plaid Cymru is of the view that we should go a little further than that, because we do agree with the EFRA committee in Westminster that stated that the current air pollution levels were a public health crisis in the UK. Therefore, we want to see this Bill and the Government taking this opportunity to take action on that health crisis.

In the Welsh context, air pollution is second only to smoking—which is very prominent in this Bill—as a cause of early deaths in Wales, causing 2,400 early deaths annually. That’s 6 per cent of the total early deaths in Wales. The case is split in two: the PM2.5s—the very small particles that I mentioned—produce some 1,300 early deaths, and nitrogen oxides lead to 1,100 premature deaths. Those are Public Health Wales figures presented to the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee back in January of this year.

Of course, air pollution isn’t restricted to one nation or to one community—it crosses borders and boundaries. It is covered by European legislation, for the UK Government, and the Government here in Wales has relied upon a national framework in the UK context in terms of dealing with this. Now, I understand why the Government has chosen to address this in that way, because it’s more convenient, and it reduces the burden, but I certainly can’t place my trust in the current Government, which is currently being re-elected—perhaps we’ll have to wait and see—in terms of tackling air pollution. Andrea Leadsom, of course, didn’t want to publish the strategy on tackling air pollution at all before the election, using purdah as an excuse for saying nothing at all on the issue. Environmental lawyers from ClientEarth had to take this to court to ensure that the strategy was published by the Government in Westminster, and it was published at the end of last week, after these amendments were tabled, so there is something in these amendments that perhaps would be altered by that strategy. What’s important in my view, and in Plaid Cymru’s view, is that we shouldn’t rely on the Westminster Government to produce a strategy, but that the Welsh Government should also provide, prepare and publish an air pollution strategy that sets out how air pollution can be reduced.

There is a broader context to all of this, of course. We are to leave the European Union, and will therefore lose—unless we transfer them to national legislation—some of the directives already in place relating to air pollution. One clear case of that is one that came to a decision on the Aberthaw power station recently in Wales. Therefore, if the Government’s argument is that there is reference to air pollution in other legislation, that is a case that could be made, but there are two reasons for including it in this Bill. One: that any other reference is in the environmental context, but we’re talking about the health context here. Secondly: as we are to leave the European Union, it is more important than ever that we should be very clear in the legislation that we pass here that we want to maintain the standards, if not improve those standards, if truth be told.

Therefore, that is the context in which I seek to move amendment 44 and the other amendments. Now, amendment 44 recognises that the UK Government does lead in this area and states that we need to publish a national Welsh strategy no later than six months after the publication of the UK Government’s air quality programme. I think, in seeing the report published at the end of last week, the Government has already committed to some response within 12 months. So, it’s six months in the amendment and I think the Government has said that it would respond within a year.

I do think it’s important that we have a Welsh strategy so that we can respond to any policies that don’t work, or to any changes in the science that underpins policy. The most prominent example of this, of course, is that we have moved, over the past 15 years, away from petrol engines for most transport in Wales and in the UK and moved towards diesel engines. Now, this was done for very a good reason at the time, with the increase in the number of diesel cars from 10 per cent of vehicles sold at the beginning of this century to over 50 per cent, which is an increase of 3.2 million to 8.2 million by 2010. I don’t blame Gordon Brown or the Labour Party here, if truth be told, because they were responding to the situation as they saw it then, but the problem was that the car manufacturers had conned us. They’d misled us. They’d fixed the test to demonstrate that these diesel engines weren’t emitting PMs in laboratory conditions, but once you put them on the roads in a day-to-day scenario, then the emissions were extremely damaging from these diesel engines. And I admit that I was one of those people who did switch to diesel for those reasons. I now find myself in a situation where I am polluting the air every time I use my car.

We need to tackle this issue and, unfortunately, the Government’s strategy makes no mention of any diesel scrappage scheme or introducing electric vehicles, but rather pushes responsibility down to local authorities. Well, if that is the case, then it’s even more important that we in Wales respond with a national scheme.

I do think that we do have other legislation in Wales—the environment Act and also the well-being of future generations Act—but there is nothing on the face of this Bill that mentions reducing air pollution and this is our opportunity to put that on the face of the Bill passed by the Assembly today.

Er mwyn bod yn glir am welliannau 45 a 46, sy'n ymwneud â gwelliant 44 a’r hyn y maen nhw’n ceisio ei wneud—i fod yn glir bod gwelliant 45 yn ceisio gosod cyfrifoldeb ar Lywodraeth Cymru, nid yn unig i gynhyrchu strategaeth, fel yr wyf newydd sôn amdano, ond hefyd i gyhoeddi canllawiau i fyrddau iechyd lleol ynghylch sut y dylai byrddau rybuddio trigolion am lefelau uchel o lygredd aer a ragwelir ar gyfer eu hardaloedd. Mae yna wefan y gallwch edrych arni; caiff ei rheoli gan fforwm ansawdd aer Cymru. Gallwch edrych arni a gweld beth yw ansawdd yr aer yn eich ardal chi, ond mae'n gyffredinol iawn. Nid oeddwn yn gallu cael gwybod beth oedd y lefel ar y stryd lle’r wyf i'n byw, er fy mod yn byw yn llythrennol rhwng ysgol a ffordd fawr. Byddwn wedi meddwl bod honno’n ardal ddelfrydol i wybod beth yw ansawdd yr aer, ond ni allwn ddod o hyd i hynny o’r wybodaeth sydd ar gael yn gyhoeddus ar hyn o bryd. Rwy’n meddwl felly y byddai gwelliant 45 yn gosod y cyfrifoldeb hwn. Mae'n rhywbeth y mae Sadiq Khan, y maer Llafur yn Llundain, yn ceisio ei wneud ar hyn o bryd, fel bod pobl yn deall beth yw ansawdd yr aer yn eu hamgylchedd lleol a’u bod yn gallu cymryd camau i’w wella os gallant, ond, yn bwysig, cymryd camau o ran iechyd y cyhoedd i ddiogelu eu hiechyd eu hunain, ac mae hynny'n arbennig o wir am bobl ifanc a phlant ag asthma sy'n byw mewn ardaloedd o'r fath.

Byddai gwelliant 46 yn gosod cyfrifoldeb ar Lywodraeth Cymru i gyhoeddi canllawiau i awdurdodau lleol ar sut y dylai awdurdodau lleol fonitro ansawdd yr aer o dan Reoliadau Safonau Ansawdd Aer (Cymru) 2010 y tu allan i ysgolion ac ar lwybrau teithio llesol. Mae hyn yn mynd i'r afael yn benodol â hynny. Mae Sefydliad Prydeinig yr Ysgyfaint, er enghraifft, wedi canfod nad oedd llawer o gynghorwyr lleol—tua 20 y cant a ymatebodd i gais rhyddid gwybodaeth—yn ystyried ysgolion yn flaenoriaeth ar gyfer monitro ansawdd yr aer, a chyfeiriodd 53 y cant arall at ganllawiau cyfredol DEFRA, yr ydym yn dibynnu arnynt yng Nghymru—am ryw reswm rydym yn barod i ddibynnu ar ganllawiau DEFRA —nad ydynt ychwaith yn blaenoriaethu ysgolion. Mae'n bwysig, rwy’n credu, bod lefelau llygredd aer ar lwybrau i ysgolion yn cael eu monitro, fel bod pobl yn deall effaith y cyfan, trafnidiaeth o wahanol fathau, ond hefyd yr effaith wrth i blant gerdded a seiclo i ysgolion.

Mae gwelliannau 47, 43 a 42 yn welliannau canlyniadol a fyddai'n galluogi’r newidiadau pwysig hyn yn y Bil hwn i gael eu deddfu. Diolch yn fawr.

Air pollution must be regarded as one of the many growing challenges to improve public health in Wales. Air pollution is a direct result of human activity, whether through vehicle usage, agriculture and industry, and burning fossil fuels. Although there have been some vast national improvements in air quality management in recent years, the need to target localised pockets is essential to improve the inequalities that exist in Wales’s air quality. Simon Thomas made the comment about walking to schools. Well, let’s be really clear about this—Wales is home to some of the most polluted areas in the UK, and if you were a schoolchild walking along the edge of the A472 near Crumlin, you’d be walking through a place that has the highest rate of pollution in any area outside London. It’s predominantly caused by congestion from heavy-duty vehicles—it’s the fold of the hills—but ultimately the people living in that area are increasingly being exposed to harmful pollutants, which is denigrating their health.

Research is enabling us to have a far fuller understanding of just how harmful long-term exposure to air pollution is for our health. In order to curb the impacts of air pollution on our health, we need to explore what can be done in our devolved capacity to manage our air quality effectively. Fundamental to this is delivering infrastructure projects with sustainability and pollutant reductions in mind, but also by raising awareness through public health messaging, so that individuals are aware of the threat air pollutants pose to their health. These amendments tabled by Simon Thomas have laudable aims and are a step in the right direction when it comes to confronting the need for collective action on air quality.

Although there are a number of initiatives in place, it is critical that all public bodies are accepting their responsibilities and are working in tandem together. At present, local governments have a requirement to effectively monitor the local air quality and alert the public when levels exceed guidelines. Equally, they have a responsibility to deliver localised air management strategies, so it is essential that these are tied in with national strategic objectives.

However, although we will be supporting all bar one amendment, we do have concerns with amendment 45, and we’ll be grateful for further clarity from the proposer. We’re concerned over the potential impact that amendment 45 may have on the finances of local health boards, because, of course, not everyone has access to a website. Not everyone can access good health messaging in that way, and we have concerns that we are not keen to give Welsh Government a power to issue guidance that may be extremely difficult for the local health boards to follow through, because we are firmly of the view that we can drive public health improvements without adversely impacting on the funding available to overstretched health boards, and we have concerns that that amendment might bring forward a much greater level of pressure on their already overstretched funding. But the rest of the amendments we absolutely accept, and we’d like to thank Simon Thomas and Plaid Cymru for bringing them forward.

I support the intention behind Simon’s group of amendments, and support the majority of them. We cannot, however, support amendment 45. We agree with the need to alert the public about high air pollution but believe this would be better undertaken by local authorities, or even the Welsh Government, but not local health boards. Therefore, we will be abstaining on this one amendment, while supporting all the other amendments. Thank you.

I call on the Minister, Rebecca Evans.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. These amendments seek to introduce a specific provision on air quality in the Bill by adding a new part. I share the concerns behind the amendments. The quality of the air that we breathe is a matter of critical importance to public health.

As I have consistently stated, the Welsh Government has continued to demonstrate the importance that it attaches to this issue. This was most recently shown by a wide-ranging consultation led by the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment and Rural Affairs. Air pollution is an issue that requires true cross-Government working, and we are fully committed to taking this agenda forward through a range of existing and planned work. To illustrate this, a number of commitments have already been made that meet the objectives behind amendments in this group. For example, in relation to amendment 45, the Cabinet Secretary for the Environment and Rural Affairs and I have already written to the Chair of the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee to outline that the Welsh Government will issue guidance to local health boards encouraging them to support local authorities in their air quality work.

Similarly, relevant to amendment 46, the Welsh Government has committed to issuing new air quality policy guidance to local authorities in the next few months. This guidance will recognise schools and active travel routes, amongst others, such as care homes, hospitals, nurseries, and sports grounds, as sensitive receptor locations. It will also note that older people, those with pre-existing medical conditions, babies, children and people undertaking prolonged physical activity are not confined to the aforementioned locations and deserve the same level of protection wherever they may be.

Local authorities must therefore take a risk-based approach in siting their monitors. This should be informed by where the evidence indicates people are likely to be exposed to the highest levels of air pollution. Our steer to local authorities is that, in working towards the well-being of future generations, they should give specific consideration to the long-term risks to babies and children posed by exposure to air pollution, whether in their own homes, in their school or nursery, or travelling between the two.

In relation to amendment 44, section 80 of the Environment Act 1995 already requires Ministers to produce an air quality strategy containing policies with respect to the assessment and management of air quality. It would be inappropriate for this to be duplicated in this Bill. Due to the trans-boundary nature of air pollutants, the current air quality strategy, which was published in 2007, is presented in a document with common aims covering all parts of the UK.

Members may also be aware that, sitting alongside the UK-wide strategy, DEFRA has now published a joint UK consultation for a new draft plan. The plan focuses on the specific goal of achieving compliance with EU legal limits for nitrogen dioxide on certain roads in the shortest possible time. This draft plan focuses on one important aspect of air quality and does not replace the existing UK air quality strategy. The consultation on the draft plan for nitrogen dioxide closes on 15 June.

The plan includes significant new commitments by the Welsh Government to consult, within the next 12 months, on the detail of a proposal for a clean air zone framework for Wales. This critical new development is one of a number of significant pieces of work that we will be undertaking on the subject of air quality in the coming year. Others include making revisions to ‘Planning Policy Wales’ in relation to air quality, implementing the recently agreed improvements to local air quality management in Wales and reviewing what more can be done in relation to the trunk road network.

I am, however, disappointed with aspects of the UK Government’s draft commitments in the nitrogen dioxide plan, given the lack of information within the consultation on what further action will be taken to address emissions on a UK basis. For example, 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 Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and others have called for the UK Government to launch a diesel scrappage scheme that would give grants to cut the cost of a low-emission vehicle for an owner scrapping their diesel vehicle.

Another major concern with amendment 44 is that the drafting is defective as no definition of public bodies is given. This is problematic in two respects. Firstly, from a practical perspective, it’s not clear who is caught by the term ‘public body’. This could lead to confusion. Lack of clarity over the scope of the duties could lead to public bodies inadvertently breaching the duty to have due regard to the air pollution strategy placed on them by amendment 44. Where a legal duty is imposed, there needs to be certainty about its scope and this amendment doesn’t provide that.

Secondly, and more importantly, the drafting of amendment 44 is outside the legislative competence of the Assembly. As drafted, the reference to public bodies would include public bodies exercising functions of a Minister of the Crown. To place such a duty on these public bodies would require the consent of the UK Government. If the amendment as drafted is passed, it could lead to a reference, which would delay the coming into force and implementation of the other much-needed public health provision contained within this Bill.

For all these reasons, I am unable to support any of the amendments in this group, but would reassure Members of action taken to tackle this important issue through the various activities I have outlined.

I call on Simon Thomas to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Can I thank the Minister for responding to the debate and at least welcome in part what she said in terms of some of the action that’s been taken. I’ll attempt to restate my arguments in a more persuasive way for Angela Burns and possibly for Caroline Jones.

Amendment 45—I think it’s important to remember that the Welsh Government has already stated that it intends, as I think the Minister just mentioned, to produce national guidance for local health board directors of public health, local authority directors of public protection, and Public Health Wales, encouraging them to support the delivery of local air quality management. So, I think there’s already in the pipeline some of this obligation coming through. I admit this is a more statutory approach, but some of that has already been done. I also would like to draw everyone’s attention, really, to the fact that the British Lung Foundation think that this could actually save money in the long term. The amendment itself is not prescriptive about the method in which alerts—if I can put it that way—are delivered. So, it may well be that local authorities would be the delivery mechanism; it’s just an obligation on the health boards to prepare that information. It's similar to what’s being proposed at the moment in London, where it’s seen as a very important part of living in that city: that you know what your public health is when you walk out of the door, which area is polluted or not. The British Lung Foundation, as I said, say that this could reduce the risk of unavoidable exacerbation for those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and other prevalent lung conditions and, therefore, potentially reduce hospitalisation. So, I think there's a way of trying to ensure that this is affordable and is a reasonable approach to ensure that people do not unnecessarily expose their own health or the health of their children to very poor air pollution.

The Member herself mentioned Hafodyrynys, where there’s very poor air pollution in Wales. I think there are four areas in Wales: Hafodyrynys is one; Mountain Ash is another; and somewhere in Swansea, I think, around the Swansea high street, by the station, is a third. I can't remember the fourth off the top of my head. I really would wonder if you asked people walking in those areas, ‘What is the air pollution here? Is it safe or not?’ I don't think that they'd be able to answer you, and I think that is the information we need to get out there so that they can take the necessary steps to protect themselves and their families.

I think the overall debate, and why I'm not completely convinced by the Minister's response, is that we've had a process for dealing with air quality for quite some time in Wales now. We have 40 air quality management areas—no significant improvement in those areas, otherwise some of them would have been revoked or changed in some way. That hasn't happened. Our current system is not working in areas of high air pollution, as Angela Burns mentioned. Really, I think it's not enough to rely on the UK Government to produce its own statute and then to, sort of, dovetail the Welsh bits into that.

The 2016 state of natural resources report by Natural Resources Wales says that breaches in emission targets pose a threat to human health and the natural environment. So, as I said earlier, the fact that it’s in environmental legislation already is not a reason for not putting it in public health legislation. In fact, it's a really good way of making that, sort of, circuit close and it’s a really good way of making sure that the ambitions in previous legislations, such as the well-being of future generations Act, are really carried out in practice and in detail in statute.

The final point, if I may: there's a social justice issue to this. The areas that have already been mentioned as suffering from poor air quality you might notice are also areas of quite real social deprivation as well. Huw Brunt, who’s the head of Public Health Wales, has undertaken a study of air pollution, deprivation and health, and that revealed that health outcomes for people living in deprivation were even poorer when they were located in areas of high air pollution. Mr Brunt argued for an effective air quality management approach, one which combines national level actions to assess and reduce risks for all, and local level intervention, targeted in high-risk communities to reduce air pollution and health inequalities. Only today, a study was quoted in ‘The Times’, for the United States, pointing out that those living in areas with the worst air pollution are about 10 per cent more likely to get cancer, a greater impact on cancer rates than either dirty water or toxic chemicals.

So, I would argue, and Plaid Cymru argues, that without a national Wales strategy on air pollution, the Welsh Government is failing to deliver on its own targets of a healthier, resilient, more equal and globally responsive Wales.

If amendment 44 is not agreed to, amendments 47 and 43 will fall. If amendments 44, 45 and 46 are not agreed to, amendment 42 falls. The question is that Amendment 44 be agreed to, does any Member object? [Objection.] We’ll proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour, 23, no abstentions, and 27 against. Therefore amendment 44 is not agreed.

Amendment 44 not agreed: For 23, Against 27, Abstain 0.

Result of the vote on amendment 44.

Amendments 47 and 43 fell.

Amendment 45, Simon Thomas.

Amendment 45 (Simon Thomas) moved.

Move.

The question is that amendment 45 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We therefore proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 19, four abstentions, and 28 against. Therefore, amendment 45 is not agreed.

Amendment 45 not agreed: For 19, Against 28, Abstain 4.

Result of the vote on amendment 45.

Amendment 46, Simon Thomas.

Amendment 46 (Simon Thomas) moved.

Move.

The question is that amendment 46 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will proceed to an electronic vote. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 24, no abstentions, and 27 against. Therefore, amendment 46 is not agreed.

Amendment 46 not agreed: For 24, Against 27, Abstain 0.

Result of the vote on amendment 46.

Amendment 42 fell.