The following amendment has been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Caroline Jones.

We move on now to the next item, which is a debate on air quality, and, believe it or not, I'm about to call on Simon Thomas to move the motion.

Motion NDM6733 Simon Thomas, Dai Lloyd, David Melding, Jenny Rathbone

Supported by Lee Waters, Rhun ap Iorwerth, Siân Gwenllian, Vikki Howells

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes:

a) that 21 June is clean air day;

b) the damaging impact of air pollution on our health—Public Health Wales figures show air pollution causes 2,000 deaths a year which is 6 percent of Wales's total deaths; and

c) that NO2 and particulate matter must both be dealt with in order to combat air pollution.

2. Calls on the Welsh Government to tackle persistent air pollution and introduce clean air zones to change behaviour and improve the health of citizens.

Motion moved.

Now I can be political, Chair. [Laughter.] Thank you very much. I'm very pleased to open this debate, which, of course, is a cross-party debate, supported by Members from all parts of the Chamber on Clean Air Day, which is tomorrow, and we, as Plaid Cymru, have used it as a good way of making a clean air action week, but, whichever way you approach it, I know that there is great interest in all parts in clean air. I just want to set out why this motion is so important to me, but also to other Members and our communities, and what we can do to mynd, to get hold—I've come out of Welsh into English and I'm struggling still—what we can do to get hold of some of these issues.

So, we do know—and the chief medical officer's report has made it clear—just the effect of clean air, or, rather, polluted air, in Wales. We have 2,000 early deaths in Wales as a result of this and we have some of the most illegal and damaging levels of air pollution—Port Talbot, Chepstow, Cardiff, Newport and Swansea reported those in 2015. I want to particularly emphasise at the start of this debate the effect on vulnerable people, particularly children. Children exposed to severe air pollution are five times more likely to have poor lung development and increased infection susceptibility as well. There's also a real link with poverty here, because there are five times more carcinogenic emissions emitted in the 10 per cent most deprived wards in Wales than the 10 per cent least deprived areas of Wales. We just need to think a little bit about how we live in our communities and the tendency of people with more money to congregate around—well, to live in avenues, and avenues have trees, and to live near parks, and the tendency of people who are less well off to congregate in housing that directly faces onto the street where there's no barrier between yourself and the pollution emitted by cars.

So, these are the reasons for some real failures in Wales—lately, the fact that Client Earth has taken the Welsh Government to court. Welsh Government has responded with action plans. Last week, it announced 50 mph limits, which will need to be tested, I think, because it's not absolutely clear that that will do enough to clean up the air. There's a theory behind it, but it's not absolutely clear that that will do it, and we need to take further action as well, which is the reason for the motion today.

Just for an example, I'm particularly concerned that we put more power in the hands of our citizens to monitor and know more about the air that's in their local communities. The British Lung Foundation found out, through a freedom of information request, that only one school in Swansea had a pollution monitor nearby and not one single school in Cardiff has a pollution monitor nearby. So, if you're talking to children and parents about taking alternative routes to school, cycling, walking or whatever, or just turning off the engine when they're idling outside the school, you don't have the evidence to give them, because we're not collecting it. And even when we go further, about what we should be collecting—because some of these air pollution monitors say that we have safe levels, but they collect over a long period of time; they're not real-time collecting at 8.15 a.m. when all those engines are running, and that's where we need to get to. So, it's very important, I think, that we strengthen and embolden that aspect as well.

Now, as part of this, I certainly think we should have a clean air Act for Wales. There are individual things that are being done, but I think we need to bring them together, have a piece of legislation, show our ambition and demonstrate that, in the way that we have done with the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and the future generations commissioner as well. That very much, I think, would turn around empowering clean air zones in towns and cities. Now, clean air zones are seen and known to work. Awyr Iach Cymru, the coalition of bodies campaigning for clean air in Wales, say that they're the most effective way of reducing emissions and changing behaviours in the shortest possible time. Just for an example, one introduced in Berlin in 2008, and expanded two years later, led to particle and nitrogen oxide emissions that were 50 per cent and 20 per cent, respectively, lower than the predicted trend. So, there's a way of empowering and using Welsh Government to empower local authorities to deliver clean air zones. That's why, I'm afraid, we won't be accepting the amendment tabled in the name of UKIP, because I think the clean air zones are actually a really essential tool in tackling air pollution in Wales.

We also need to look at how we replace our reliance on fossil fuel cars. In my initial proposal for a clean air Act, I proposed that we phase out fossil-fuel-only cars by 2030. I thought that was a bit of a punt, and, as the First Minister himself said yesterday, it's

'too early; I don't think the technology's ready.' 

Well, the mayors and leaders of cities in the UK, representing 20 million people, precisely called for that only on Monday, and they happen to include the mayor and leaders of Cardiff city council as well. I'm not trying to make this a party-political thing in that sense. I think the First Minister needs to get on board, needs to understand that, in fact, this is already happening. China, which is the world's largest vehicle market, is considering a ban on the production and sale of fossil fuel cars in the near future. It's no coincidence that China is also the leading investment country in hydrogen. Copenhagen, countries all over western Europe, are considering—not considering, implementing bans, bans on sale and bans on fossil-fuel-only cars entering those cities.

Now, I think we can use technology to tempt people away from cars that are polluting and we can use technology to encourage people to look at alternatives. So, I think there can be a vision for a clean and green and non-polluting public transport sector powered by hydrogen. We'd like to see the Wales train franchise—it's up and running now, but there are break clauses in it. I'd like to see those used as a way of putting pressure to get hydrogen trains introduced. They're already in Germany. They're already being developed. There's talk of Alstom building hydrogen trains in the north-west of England. Let's be at the forefront of this technology.

We already have an agreement with the Welsh Government on electric vehicles. I confess I've been campaigning for an electric vehicle point to be put in here in the Assembly. It's here, and I'm very pleased to see it, and I know there are at least two members of staff using it, but no Assembly Member yet, because I haven't made the jump to electric vehicles. I can't travel from Aberystwyth here—. I come by train most of the time, by the way. But I can't travel—I know sometimes you need to use a car, and you can't do it. So, that infrastructure has to be there to encourage people to change their mode of transport, and I think we can easily move people to a new technology that's exciting and new, but, in turn, we have to use that as a reason to encourage them to use the car less, as well. So, that has to be part of the equation.

There's an awful lot, therefore, that we can do here in the Assembly, and I think the main thing, to conclude, is that I want us to use not just this debate, but the debates that we'll be having over the forthcoming weeks and months, to show that Wales isn't just at the forefront of thinking about the environment, but at the forefront of investing in the sort of technology that will take us beyond that. To give a plastics example, we've been talking about plastic straws for quite some time in the Assembly. It was very good to see that a new start-up company in Ebbw Vale is now the one that's making paper straws that have been taken up by McDonald's and, I'm sure, other companies as well. That shows that this green economy is not about returning to the past, it's not about rejecting technology, it's about embracing the best to ensure we have clean, green environments, clean air for our children and young people, and jobs, as well, in our cities and towns.

David Melding.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd, and I'm delighted to take part in this—

I do apologise, David Melding.

I'm sorry. I should have called the amendment first. I jumped, sorry. I thought you looked surprised at me calling you. [Laughter.] I do now need to call the amendment introduced in the name of Caroline Jones, and I'll call Gareth Bennett and apologise for not for not having called—.

Amendment 1—Caroline Jones

In point 2, delete 'and introduce clean air zones to change behaviour and' and replace with 'by introducing cleaner transport alternatives and tackling industrial pollution in order to'.

Amendment 1 moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. Thanks to Simon and the others for bringing today's debate, and I formally move our amendment. We do seem to have talked about clean air quite a lot lately in the Chamber, but, of course, the air quality is not signally getting any better, so I suppose it's still a pertinent issue, so we can talk about it again. And there are developments, as Simon Thomas made clear, in places like Berlin and other cities, where they are going ahead with various initiatives, some of which we do have reservations about: clean air zones—I'll raise that later on. But we, of course, agree with the spirit of today's debate in that we agree that we need to make moves to improve the air quality. So, in that respect, I gather most, or all, of the parties, in fact, would be in agreement.

Looking at the issues, traffic congestion, of course, is a major issue. Schools have become bigger and less local, and more children are in families where both parents work most days, so we now have large numbers of parents driving their kids to school, and the school run is a major component of the traffic problem at rush hours, as can be evidenced by the noticeably less traffic at these times during school holidays. So, one thing we need to think about—all of these things are interrelated. It's a whole tapestry of things, and it's difficult, sometimes, to think about how a Government would deal with these issues, but one thing is we need to encourage more kids to walk to school, through supporting initiatives such as the walking school bus and other similar walking patrols.

We also need better public transport. In Cardiff, and no doubt in other major towns in Wales, we have business parks and such like built in places on the edges of cities, without any real public transport links. This is a failure of the planning system. We need more arterial bus routes going around the edge of major towns. Certainly, we need them in Cardiff; probably in Newport and Swansea they would be an advantage as well. They have a lot of arterial bus routes in London; we don't really do them in Cardiff.

Active travel is another key point. We need infrastructure such as cycle and footpaths, although, of course, there's always the physical difficulty of incorporating all of these elements in limited urban spaces. But there are opportunities. There are some disused railway lines, which could be utilised. There's one in the west of Cardiff, which runs between Fairwater and Creigiau, which is still there from being cut in the Beeching era, I imagine. The line is still there; it wouldn't take that much of an effort to actually clear the line and use it for some purpose. We do have the campaign to reopen the Rhondda tunnel, which I asked a question about earlier today, so I'm hopeful that that scheme will progress.

Another planning issue is the large number of fast food outlets, which sometimes congregate closely together in certain parts of certain towns. This, because of the large number of extractor fans in operation, will tend to have a noticeably poor effect on the air quality, and this, again, leads to issues of planning, because, in my experience, when I used to cover council meetings—a long time ago, but I think the situation hasn't changed a lot—planning officers will sometimes face local opposition from members about planning applications, but they tend to say, 'Well, you know, the applicant will win this on appeal, so we have to push this through.' So, planning permission gets given. Then, the next case comes up, and they cite the precedent and they say, 'Ah, well, we gave the planning permission to this one, so we have to give it to that one.' So, we then end up with large numbers of fast food joints in condensed areas, which certainly does not do the air quality a lot of good. So, I think we do have to address a lot of these things through looking at the planning system.

We do now have a future generations commissioner here in Wales, which is potentially a good development. She's a very able person. I hope she will be able to have a meaningful input into these things. But she has to be able to have some, as I say, meaningful input into putting a stop to things like councils building willy-nilly on green belt land, and councils knocking down their bus stations to build huge office block complexes, which will drag more commuters into central urban areas. And the Welsh Government will need, ultimately, to take proactive measures in these areas, rather than simply talking about issues and sometimes passing legislation, like the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013, which doesn't seem to really do much to alter the situation, although I'm sure it was passed with good intent. We need to look at how that actually works, how that policy works, and make it work in a more meaningful way.

Looking at today's motion, as I say, we support the aim of improving air quality. We do have an issue with clean air zones, because we feel that we need to provide better alternatives first before we start banning people from driving particular cars into towns and cities. After all, if we banned all of the drivers with fossil-fuelled cars from driving into Cardiff and Swansea tomorrow, I'm sure there wouldn't be the capacity on the buses and trains for people to get into those places at all, and we don't currently have the infrastructure for electric cars. Sure, we need to progress with these things, and my sentiments are with Simon Thomas—let's move forward with developing this kind of infrastructure—but at the moment, it's not there. In UKIP, it does feel to us like putting the cart before the horse, so we don't really currently support that particular notion. So, for that reason we oppose today's motion, unless it's amended by our own amendment, which raises that issue. Thanks very much.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Can I congratulate you on the alacrity with which you readjusted your position there? On two occasions I forgot to call Ann Jones when she was the Chair of a relevant committee, and I felt so bad on the second one I bought her a box of chocolates. [Laughter.] I'm not suggesting that that's a precedent.

I'm not buying you a box of chocolates. It's not going to work. [Laughter.] 

I didn't correct myself very quickly, so my error was more egregious.

Can I thank Simon Thomas for taking the lead in today's debate and getting a really good consensus? I thought we even had UKIP, but it seems, unless their amendment passes, they won't quite come on board, but it was a largely constructive contribution that we've just heard. I do think that the motion as put this afternoon really does forcefully convey the feeling that is shared, I think, across this Chamber, but really strongly amongst the public, who, again, I think, are pushing us harder on this important area of public policy than we have been in the past, and are ahead of us. It should surprise no-one, given the importance of clean air and its benefits for health and well-being.

Can I just say that I will be referring to some of the Conservative Party's policy development? Because we've looked at this and we believe tackling air quality is really, really essential. We've put it at the heart of our urban strategy, 'Liveable Cities', which we launched last month. I raise this, really, as an example of how the consensus is forming, and not in a way of, 'Look, we've done this, we are very clever, you should all copy it', because much of what's in the strategy builds on what's already out there, and has been advanced by all people, really, from around this Chamber. So, I think it's very, very important. We had a particularly good response from some of the key stakeholders, such as WWF and the British Lung Foundation, and I know they work with all political parties. Again, I claim absolutely no specific endorsement from them. They are worthy organisations with excellent expertise that can help us improve our public policy. Having said that, there is a hard edge to this as well, because we do have some very poor air quality in Wales, compared to other parts of the UK—and the UK doesn't do that well overall. Cardiff and Port Talbot have higher particulate matter levels than Birmingham or Manchester, and as we've discussed several times in this Chamber, there's a road in Caerphilly that's the most polluted outside London. As the motion says, air pollution contributes to around 2,000 deaths per year. That's 2,000 premature deaths, and it is, really, a tragedy for those people and their families—a very, very big impact indeed.

These facts should trouble us, and I know that they do trouble Members, but we do need, I think, to move on to some very specific ways forward and build on the consensus that we now have. So, we are taking some very specific actions, because it is human activity that is largely driving that. There are some forms of natural activity that can affect air quality, but the one we're talking about is pretty much what we are doing in terms of carbon dioxide, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen dioxide. These levels of pollutants are pretty much determined by everyday human activity, and many of us undertake these things, like travelling by train, using cars to an extent perhaps that is way over what the optimum would be given the consideration of reasonable alternatives, the type of power plants that are still in operation—Aberthaw's been discussed several times in this Chamber—down to household appliances and what we spray in the air to allegedly freshen it. I could go on and on. The list is a very long one. So we need to come up with some specifics, and we've started to do that now in the strategy by calling for clean air zones in Wrexham, Newport, Cardiff and Swansea, and a commitment to make Cardiff the UK's first carbon-neutral city. We could be leading the way. We could be really presenting Wales as a leader in this sector, and attracting those young people that want to come and live and work in a very clean and innovative environment. That's what we should be doing, because if we don't do it, we'll be dragged along to do it as the fiftieth or sixtieth city or whatever to do it, whereas we could be the leaders.

We also think that monitoring's important, particularly around schools and nurseries, and how we move people around—we heard about the school run just now from Gareth. Again, anyone of my age, born in 1962—I still am flabbergasted when I see evidence all around me of the school run, because to my generation it was just completely something we did not experience, and we had better lives for it, I think, in terms of how we got to school. But other proposals in our document include policies for green rooms, green spaces, active travel, electric vehicles, energy efficient housing, renewable energy and tree canopies. There are other things. These are all achievable and they need to be done in a comprehensive, coherent way so that we have a real change, and we can go to the likes of the World Health Organization—I'll conclude on this—showing that we are leading best practice rather than being quoted for some of the highest pollution levels in western Europe. Thank you.

Julie Morgan. 

Thank you very much for calling me to speak in this very important debate, which is so important to our children and to future generations. Congratulations to the cross-party group of Members who have put this motion forward. I think it is, when you think about it, absolutely shocking that 2,000 people in Wales are dying as a result of air pollution, and obviously for people with asthmatic conditions and different lung conditions it is such a dangerous situation to be in polluted air. It's something that I think we are all very concerned about.

In Cardiff, Public Health Wales estimates that 225 deaths a year—that's 5 per cent of all deaths—can be attributed to particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide in the Cardiff and Vale health board area. The ClientEarth report, which has already been referred to this afternoon, in September 2017 showed up the unacceptable pollution levels at schools. In Cardiff, of the seven schools that were mentioned, three of them are in my constituency of Cardiff North—that's Cathays High School, St Joseph's school and Ysgol Mynydd Bychan. Those are all situated along Whitchurch Road, along North Road, along the arterial roads that are coming into Cardiff, where all the traffic pours down those roads to people who work in Cardiff centre, or work in this area. So, those schools are within 150m of a road that exceeded the legal limit on air pollution, and I think that is an absolutely shocking situation, and it is shocking that our children are actually exposed to these levels.

We don't know, really, what the long-term impact will be on the health of children living in heavily polluted areas or going to schools next to very busy roads, and of course, it is interesting reading one of the briefings for this debate, which said that, of course, because children are so much smaller than adults, they are much closer to the fumes, much more likely to be affected by them. There is also the issue of inequality, and we know there are more fumes in poorer areas. So there are huge issues related to this subject. So, I'm very glad that the Welsh Government is taking action, that there are already going to be the temporary lower speed limits on some of our major roads, and the £20 million new air quality fund. But I think that it's important to be aware that many of the levers to tackle these issues are within our grasp. It's already been said in the debate that this is a problem that is caused by us, and by our activities, and one of the ways that we can, of course, address it is by promoting active travel.

I hope very much that the metro and the increased number of stations and services will really help encourage people to use public transport and to get out of their cars. I'm particularly pleased that, in Cardiff North, we're going to have the development of the new Velindre hospital, and I'm very pleased that there is now a plan for the train or tram to go right into the middle of the hospital. And so, the fact that, over a year, there will be thousands and thousands of people going to that hospital, and the fact they'll be able to go straight there—I think that's the sort of initiative that we need to have: that when we do have new projects like that, we absolutely build in, right from the beginning, the ability for people not to use their cars, but to use public transport easily and conveniently.

I support the efforts that Cardiff council is making. I support clean air zones; I think it's the way forward. Cardiff council published its transport and clean air green paper this year, and its vision of Cardiff as a 20 mph city—the whole of the city—I think, again, is something that would take us forward. Earlier in the day, when we were on questions to the Commission, I mentioned the Sustrans 'Bike Life' report, which showed that more people would cycle if there was more investment in cycling infrastructure. I know in Cardiff, there are cycle superhighways in the pipeline, which would be great, but also, there's a great need to join up cycle journeys, and people do need to feel safe cycling along residential streets. For example, I think there's always a great nervousness that someone will open a car door and knock people off their bikes. I just think you've got to make people so aware of people that are cycling and to provide safe places to cycle. I also mentioned the importance of encouraging more women to cycle and referred to this particular report showing that women, in particular, are lagging behind in terms of using bikes and being involved in driving this forward.

So, I think that this is a very important debate, I support it entirely and I think this is something that the Welsh Government is behind. I think we need to drive it as much as we can with all our actions and with all the different levers that we have here to take it forward.

Llywydd, I very much welcome this debate today as well, which is very, very important for health in Wales and quality of life in Wales, and there are practical things that can be done. One thing I've mentioned previously, for example, is the possibility of having LPG conversions for taxi fleets, which would be one important and significant contribution to improving air quality in our town and city centres. It's very affordable and very quickly repays itself in terms of lower fuel costs. We had the active travel Act, which Julie Morgan has just mentioned—it's there, it's on the statute book. Local authorities are working up their policies and implementing their new routes and, as Julie mentioned, we have examples such as here in the capital city around some of these cycle highways.

But there is also the need, of course, to make sure that it does all connect up, as Julie said. I think one way of facilitating that is by having a default 20 mph speed limit as a national policy, right across Wales, which would then be the starting point for local authorities. They could exempt certain roads from that blanket policy for valid and particular reasons, but that would be the starting point. What that would do then would be to help create these more cycle and walking-friendly urban environments that would facilitate people feeling safe and secure to cycle from their homes and connect up with the new cycle network under the active travel Act. We also have other important drivers—we have the metro system going forward, new possibilities for bus travel with the greater powers that Welsh Government will have to make sure that we do make this modal shift to a properly integrated transport system. It's not going to happen overnight, but there are, I think, a lot of policies now aligned, pointing in the same direction, which offers new momentum and real possibilities for us.

That '20's plenty' campaign that I mentioned, Llywydd, to have this default 20 mph speed limit right across Wales, is a very important part of this wider picture. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, NICE, strongly advocate it, for example, and they make the point, with the research that they've done, that it would facilitate more walking and more cycling in our urban environments, create more friendly environments for children to play outdoors, and as they point out, and indeed as an article by Dr Sarah Jones in the British Medical Journal has pointed out, it does meet the public health challenges of addressing air pollution, addressing road traffic casualties and addressing obesity. They link those three together as perhaps one of the very major public health challenges that is faced in the UK at the current time and identify a default 20 mph speed limit as one of the most obvious and effective ways of addressing all three of those major challenges.

NICE also point out that as well as addressing creating more walking and cycle-friendly local environments, a 20 mph default speed limit would also address the particulate matter and nitrogen dioxide aspects of air pollution. So, I think, looking at what that policy has to offer in the round, and the fact that it is being implemented in the UK by a number of local authorities—you know, it's something that's practical, it's something that's very affordable, and it's something that's becoming an increasing reality in the UK—gives us a worked-up policy that we could adopt in Wales that would be a major contributor to many of these air pollution issues and much else besides.

I’m very pleased to participate in this important debate, and I would first of all like to congratulate my colleague Simon Thomas on the leadership that he’s shown on this very important issue. I don’t know if I’ve mentioned in the past that I’m a doctor by calling, but, naturally, I approach this issue from the point of view of the public health impact of these issues. It is crucially important for us to realise that air pollution has a dire impact on all of our lungs, but particularly on the lungs of young children, and there is increasing evidence that it impacts on the lungs of unborn children—that is, even the unborn are affected by the pollution breathed in by expectant mothers. That could scar your health throughout your life. So, we can’t over-emphasise the importance of this issue.

Many years ago, we were willing as a society to suffer water that wasn’t clean. Now, you wouldn’t suggest any situation where we should put up with water full of impurities, but we are willing to put up with air that is full of impurities. We need a major change of attitude, because we need to move forward and create these clean air zones, as Simon and many others have already suggested and supported. Many years ago, we had to put up with that smog in our largest cities—the pea soupers, as they were called, in Manchester and London—where the air was so dark you couldn’t see your hand in front of your face. Well, we saw legislation then to clean the air, but, of course, things are far more subtle these days. We are still suffering as a result of those impurities, but they aren’t visible now. So, on the face of it, we think everything is fine, but things aren’t fine—they’re a very long way from being fine, and we need to legislate to ensure that they are put right.

Just on that point—reminding us of legislation in the past—one implication from the London Clean Air Act was opening the phurnacite plant in Cwm Cynon in order to clean the coal to be used in London, and it was the people in the Valleys who had that smoke. That’s what we need to avoid, and that’s why modern technology is so important.

Yes, exactly, and, of course, that builds upon the perception that many years ago we were happy to accept our miners working underground and having all of this dust in their lungs, and that air pollution that they had to breathe in. It was seen as okay because it was so important to have those jobs. Well, we need to move away from that kind of mindset. We are starting to do that, but there is far more work to be done. As has already been mentioned, the situation is worse in our most deprived areas. People are always asking: why do people have to suffer greater ill health in our most deprived areas? Well, it's because there are all sorts of impacts that are more common in those areas, and air pollution is one of those. It is far more prevalent in our most disadvantaged areas, therefore we must focus our clean air zones on those most deprived areas.

Broadly speaking, the point is—. I’m pleased now because as doctors and nurses we’ve known about the impacts of air pollution for decades, but there has been no action because people thought that the air was sort of clean, because it was no longer visibly unclean. I’m pleased to see now that there is a change of mindset—yes, as David Melding has said, under public pressure—but, sooner or later, we have to take action on this. Therefore, we as an Assembly must play our part, because the health of our people, and mainly the health of our children, relies on the fact that we breathe clean air. A breath of fresh air in every sense of the words.

Members might be aware that I should be speaking in this debate as the constituency representative of what was only a month ago labelled the most polluted town in the UK. I'd like to put on record that they got it wrong, and that the figure that they quoted of 18 mg/cu m in fact should've been 9.6 mg/cu m, which brings us down to the average level and hitting the limits. So, I'll make sure that's on the record—that's an error of transcribing data.

What I want to highlight is the fact that, clearly, there are issues we need to address, but there are complications. Very often this afternoon, what I heard—so far—is mainly a discussion of vehicle emissions, effectively, and PM2.5, but, of course, in my town we also have industrial issues that we need to be facing. We need to address both, and it's very difficult to address both. I'll try to highlight both points.

Clearly, industrial emissions are part of the historical development of our industry over the years, and Port Talbot—the steelworks—is clearly the biggest one. When Dai Lloyd was talking about the impact of particles and the issue of PM10 from the steelworks—you see that. You can see it shining sometimes in the light as it comes down, and you can see the dust and the particles affecting people. There is clear evidence in our communities where that falls. The number of complaints continue to rise as a consequence of the pollution emanating from the works—they're rising, unfortunately—but I do give credit to Tata, because they have made huge strides in addressing some of these issues. They still need to make further strides—no-one's going to hide from that fact—but we have to look at the question as to what our point of acknowledgement is of an industrial past and an industrial future that give a strong economy. Is it one in which we basically get rid of that industry and remove that element of pollution, but, of course, suffer the economic consequences of that?

That's a very difficult thing to do, and I expect, perhaps, the Minister to give me an indication, in her answer, as to how Natural Resources Wales will be attacking some of those questions, because it's their responsibility to monitor these, and it's their responsibility to enforce the regulations and to ensure that the organisations that are emitting that type of level of pollution are abiding by the EU rules—yes, EU rules, for some of those who don't remember. They are actually the ones making sure that we have those limits, and it's important that we get them right. 

Will the Member give way?

Yes.

I'm grateful. He's touched on a very important thing, which, as he's quite rightly said, hasn't been—apart from a short contribution from Dai Lloyd there—aired in this debate. He may be aware—well, he is aware, I know, but I just wanted to get it on record as well—in his own area, of course, there is the start of some of the answers to this twin dilemma of vehicle emissions and industrial emissions. He has the hydrogen research at Baglan. I understand that Tata put out a lot of hydrogen as waste gas at the moment—if only we could capture some of that and use it. It's right on the railway line—it could be used in a hydrogen train. The idea is just so exciting when you look at it that way. As well as monitoring the pollution in his constituency, which is important for everyone in Wales, we need to build on some of the technology that's there to plot that cleaner future.

I fully agree that the technology to look at, not just the hydrogen but the recycling of some of the waste gases released, and the emissions as a consequence of that, and how you can do some carbon capture on the stacks and those issues—these are technologies that we are advancing and we need to build upon them. We need to encourage people like Tata to actually invest in that research as well, so I totally agree with you on that.

In the remaining time, I want to focus also on the legal emissions aspect, because clearly we also have a problem. The M4 in Port Talbot was one of the areas reduced to 50 mph, and I will question the actual section, and I would love to have an understanding of where the measures were taken and how they were measured, because if you know Port Talbot, the M4 works its way through it and the section that had the speed limit put on is actually in the open air, it's above the River Neath and it will disperse quite easily. The section that wasn't put on is right against mountains and jammed in between the coastline and the mountains and where you would expect, actually, greater measurements of pollution to be recorded. So, there are some questions on that, and we also have the railway line going through it. Please don't ignore railway lines.

When people talk about the solution as the metro, please remember that the metro doesn't go west of Bridgend. In fact, it doesn't even go into Bridgend; it might go into Maesteg a little bit but it doesn't go to Bridgend. So, if we are talking about solutions, we need to look at solutions for Valleys that haven't got railway lines, Valleys that have limited transportation where people are forced to use their cars. And if we're also looking at ways in which we can have better flows on motorways, junction 41—Dai Lloyd might remember this; Suzy will—junction 41 was trying to be a solution to get traffic flowing easier, and then the worst polluted street, which is in Caerphilly—I'd have had four or five that would have beaten that easily because of all the congestion that was created. So, when you look at solutions, look at the wide solution; don't look simply at a simple solution to one problem, because you are creating more problems.

So, the air pollution is something that we have to address. I welcome the £20 million air quality fund. I really want to see how that works. I really want to see how the action plan in Port Talbot in particular will work, because even though we have got it now down to 9.6, we still have an issue to address, and the residents of Port Talbot clearly will tell you that we need to address it.

So, please, can you assure me that the action plan that is being put in place is going to address both aspects of pollution, not just vehicles, and will also look at how we can ensure that we can live with an economy and the pollution simultaneously.

I call the Minister for Environment, Hannah Blythyn. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm grateful to Members for tabling this, the latest in a series of debates on air quality. It's a subject that we've all said before, and I as Minister for Environment have said, is a top priority not just for me in my own portfolio but across Government as well. I think today's debate sponsored by Members from all parties is a testament to the consensus we have in this place and in Wales on the need to take action, and we must take action across sectors to reduce the impacts of air pollution on both the health of our communities, our environment and our economy.

I support the motion as originally tabled. The Welsh Government marked the first Clean Air Day last year with the publication of statutory guidance for local authorities, reshaping the air quality management duties in the context of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Today's debate to mark the second Clean Air Day tomorrow provides a platform for us to promote Clean Air Day and to encourage awareness and involvement both within this place but outside it as well. I think we are all in agreement that this must go beyond simply a day and we must sustain the interest generated through Clean Air Day in the activity around it and ensure not only that it stays at the forefront of people's thoughts but more importantly informs all of our actions.

Reducing public exposure to air pollution is one of Wales's national well-being and public health outcomes framework indicators. Earlier this year, we issued guidance with Public Health Wales to the NHS. This acknowledges that the NHS in Wales makes a contribution at local, regional and national levels to dealing with air pollution risks. The guidance includes action to support the assessment and mitigation of air pollution and its associated health risks and also provides information on behaviour change using the planning system and improving environmental sustainability and managing public health risk.

Our local air quality management guidance to local authorities states that nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter are the pollutants of primary concern from a human health perspective. We are clear that we must achieve compliance with legal limits, but actually this is about going much further and striving to reduce levels of these pollutants across the board. Our consultation on 'Planning Policy Wales' reiterates these points.

The local air quality management guidance also identifies the role of schools in tackling air quality. The first is a contribution we've heard much of today about the school run. Like David Melding says, it seems to be a modern phenomenon. When I went to school, the school run to me was actually me running away from my mum on the way home rather than cars around schools, so we need to look at how we tackle traffic congestion and air pollution, particularly during term-time rush hours.

And the second is educating both children and parents on air quality issues and exploring solutions collectively, such as car sharing and no idling policies around schools. To support this guidance, I will provide funding to raise air quality awareness through the Eco-Schools initiative and the Young Dragons project. In fact, I met with pupils and staff at Pen-Y-Bryn school in Cardiff just this morning to see what they were doing and how they were starting to implement this project, to see it in action and show my support for this scheme.

Schools that are involved have been sent 10 diffusion tubes, and they are invited to put these up at various locations around the school. The examples I saw today were by the main gates, by the car park, and one was right the way through, across the field by the trees, but there was also one that was neighbouring a busy road going past the side of the school. Those results will then be sent off to be analysed and then will come back to the schools and the children can develop their own campaigns in terms of how they can tackle this and how they can encourage the adults around the school to take this on board. They already had quite a number of ideas today, so I look forward to hearing how they take them forward. The project introduced pupils to the cause and impacts of air pollution, and information on how they can make these changes.

In addition, our clean air plan for Wales has set out key pollutants, including both nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter, and their effects on public health and the natural environment in Wales. I know a number of Members brought up the issue in terms of how it affects children and how we need to take action for our children and future generations, including my colleague Julie Morgan. This plan will help us to actually highlight specific activities that might already be under way to address air quality at sensitive receptor points, such as schools and hospitals, but also to determine what action could and should be done to take that further as well.

So, if I refer to David Rees coming in in terms of—. I applaud your efforts to come in and actually correct, once again and on the record, the WHO's figures for Port Talbot, labelling it the UK's most polluted town. You're absolutely right to correct that, but I think, as we said, we must not be complacent: we know action needs to be taken in that area. And you acknowledged, as other Members did, the particular challenges: the combination of both heavy industry and major roads, and actually how we strike that balance in terms of the economic, the environmental and health impacts as well in terms of the action we take.

In terms of looking at the specific location on the M4, that's an extension where it was, and it's where the monitoring we have shows that we are exceeding our legal limits. As you can imagine, bringing in speed restrictions is not always the most universally popular move—I've had some interesting feedback, shall we say. Somebody said to me, 'You're obviously not familiar with this stretch of road', and David knows that I have become more familiar over the last couple of years with that stretch of road, and I hopefully will continue to be so.

The action David and others will be familiar with is the Welsh Government's action plan on clean air for Port Talbot, and this reaffirms our commitment to proactively tackling poor air quality in the area. I've already asked officials to re-examine this plan, and the approach that it takes and the evidence that underpins it to make sure that it is still the best way to tackle the specific issues in the Port Talbot area, and to see what additional action we may need to take to bring that into line. To actually emphasise the importance of that, I intend to meet with Tata Steel, Natural Resources Wales and Neath Port Talbot council as soon as possible to support this process and see what action we need to be taking collectively.

Members will also be aware of action under way to tackle persistent air pollution in terms of clean air zones. Our 'A Clean Air Zone Framework for Wales' and the supplementary nitrogen dioxide plan aim to address those problems of traffic pollution. And building on actions on air quality and soundscapes in 'Planning Policy Wales', I am pleased to inform Members that the Welsh Government will also conduct a review of technical advice note 11 on noise. We will replace it in this Assembly term with a new technical advice note on air quality and soundscape.

Our clean air zone framework provides a consistent approach to the introduction of clean air zones by local authorities. It will help businesses and individuals and support cities to grow and transition to a low-emission economy. We know that clean air zones will deliver targeted action on air pollution hotspots to improve air quality and health and support economic growth. They encourage the replacement of old polluting vehicles with modern, cleaner technologies, such as ultra-low emission vehicles. But a clean air zone may not always be appropriate outside some urban areas where no alternative routes are available—other action may be required. Welsh Government is working with local authorities to identify local solutions to both achieve compliance in the shortest time and the best for our communities in the long term. 

You talked about the links to the decarbonisation agenda and the need to move away from fossil fuels, and use modern technology, and you obviously talked about the Riversimple hydrogen-powered cars, which is supported by the Welsh Government. I think it's how we strike that balance in terms of being at the forefront and managing the transition with those major car manufacturers that may already be in Wales, to make sure that we manage that, and, again, balancing the economic and the environmental, but for us to be at the forefront.

I'm aware that I'm running out of time, so I will try and draw to a close, but just one point: the importance of behaviour change I don't think can be overstated. So, work is under way to raise awareness of poor air quality and we're working with the What Works Centre for Wellbeing to develop a communications plan and raise awareness of the impacts on health and I've committed £70,000-worth of funding for this.

Can I close by just thanking Members again for bringing forward this debate? I think everyone made clear that it's not simply about the environment; I think it's a pressing social issue as well, as we've heard, and it has implications for our children and future generations if we don't take action. So, I thank Members for all their calls to action and I just want to close by reiterating this Welsh Government's commitment to taking action using all those levers at our disposal to ensure clean air for our communities and our country. Diolch yn fawr.

I call on Jenny Rathbone to reply to the debate.

I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. I think it illustrates that there is cross-party support for really tackling this incredibly important issue. Simon started off by pointing out the 2,000 early deaths highlighted by the chief medical officer and the problems that we face in Chepstow, Newport, Cardiff and Swansea. He was one of several people who mentioned the link with poverty, which I'll come back to in a moment. He recognised that the Government is taking action on speed limits on some of our motorways and that this is supported by people like the British Lung Foundation, but that we don't know nearly enough about what is going on, particularly how it's impacting on children, and he pointed out that only one school in Swansea has a monitor nearby, so we simply aren't collecting the information that we need to know what we need to do and the extent of our problem.

He pointed out the need for a clean air Act for Wales and I would support that call. He reiterated that clean air zones work because they lead to reductions in the noxes and the particulates that are killing some people—leading to an early death—as well as permanently disabling many of our children. He also mentioned the need to reduce the number of fossil-fuel cars and the fact that he'd taken a punt on 2030, but that was reiterated by many city authority leaders, including Cardiff, who have pledged that we should indeed phase out dirty vehicles by 2030. So, that is going to happen as far as I'm concerned.

We obviously need to think about what's happening in terms of technology, with China being a leading investor in hydrogen and we want to see more hydrogen trains being introduced by the new train operator. I didn't know that we have an electric vehicle charging point, but that's great.

Gareth Bennett is resisting the idea of clean air zones, but nevertheless, he made some important points, which I think we can all support, about the school run being a major cause of pollution, but I don't think there's a causal link between both parents working. I think it's much more to do with attitudes about what is the appropriate way for children to get to school. When I was seven, I always went to school on my own, I crossed busy roads, I got on a bus or I walked. It's just the mindset that children are not capable of taking themselves to school and they are, and we need to—

Will you take an intervention on that point?

Sure.

I accept that point, but I think it's also fair to accept that the roads are far more dangerous than they were when you and I were going to school, and drivers themselves are not always aware of what is on the pavements today. So, it's not just one, it's a combination of things.

I agree, but I think 20 mph zones in urban areas would tackle that problem, although I appreciate that some of the most dangerous driving is done on infrequently used rural roads.

Gareth also made the point that fast-food outlets mean there's a cluster of additional vehicle movements, and I agree that more attention needs to be paid to this sort of thing in planning considerations. Councils building on green spaces without the transport links is absolutely a no-no as far as I'm concerned, and he also questioned whether the active travel Act had been effective.

He also said that if we banned diesel and petrol cars tomorrow, we'd have chaos—we simply don't have the infrastructure. Well, I'd just like to point out to him that tomorrow there will be a clean air zone in force in Cardiff for four evenings this week, starting tomorrow, in order to manage the Ed Sheeran concert at the millennium stadium. So, it's perfectly possible to do, if we have the will to do it, and I'd like to encourage Cardiff council to do this more often and not just when there are major entertainment events on, when we wouldn't need to be disrupting the public transport, which is a major disincentive to people leaving the car at home.

David Melding rightly pointed out the important contribution to public policy that the Conservative Party has made with its urban regeneration strategy that's been supported by various organisations like WWF and the British Lung Foundation. He also pointed out that Cardiff and Port Talbot have higher levels of air pollution than Birmingham and Manchester and that that should trouble us. He acknowledged that it's human activity driving the problem and, therefore, it's perfectly possible that we have solutions.

Julie Morgan pointed out the numbers of people in schools in her constituency who are close to major roads, particularly around the Gabalfa roundabout, and the people travelling into Cardiff by car. I have to say that's a feature of—the nine most polluted schools in Cardiff are all near major roads. Some of them, we can imagine proposals to dampen that down, but in other cases, it will be about reducing absolutely the number of commuters. 

John Griffiths talked about the need to convert our taxi fleet to LPG, and I'd point out that taxis in London will have to be clean by next year, and private hire vehicles will have to be clean by 2020. So, if they can do it, there's no reason why we can't do it. This is something where we're oversupplied anyway, so we need to raise the bar. He pointed out that the metro could have a possibility of achieving modal shift, but it won't happen overnight. Sadly not. Many of the proposals that are being offered are things that won't happen for the next five years, so we have to do other things in the meantime: 20 mph speed limits would encourage more walking and cycling, and also tackle obesity as well as road traffic accidents.

Dai Lloyd, interestingly, highlighted the impact on the unborn child because of the air breathed in by pregnant mothers. We previously tolerated unclean water, we no longer do. We shouldn't now be tolerating unclean air.

Dai Rees reminded us that Port Talbot is not the most polluted town in the UK, but I would remind him that the plume goes up to Maesteg, where one of the highest levels of child asthma is being suffered, so there are some problems around industrial pollution—some are historic and some are current—and there are complex issues around how we resolve them. We have to, I agree, seize on solutions that don't create new problems and have unforeseen consequences.

The Minister agreed that we need consensus. We've got the consensus to take action, certainly amongst those who spoke, and we need to ensure all our colleagues are doing the same. We don't have time to mess around, we absolutely have to seize the moment and take action now, because we are impacting not just on today's children, but future generations, as well.

The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting under this item until voting time

Voting deferred until voting time.