The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1 and 3 in the name of Rebecca Evans, and amendments 2, 4 and 5 in the name of Darren Millar.

So, we move to item 8, which is the Plaid Cymru debate on air pollution. I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to move the motion.

Motion NDM7264 Siân Gwenllian

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Believes that air pollution is a public health crisis, which contributes to an estimated 2,000 deaths a year in Wales.

2. Notes that large areas of Wales do not monitor air quality.

3. Calls for a clean air act for Wales, which would include measures to:

a) give communities the right to have pollution-monitoring equipment outside of schools and hospitals;

b) create infrastructure that would enable local authorities to introduce pollution and congestion charges where appropriate,

c) reform the planning process to require the impact of a development on air pollution to be given greater weight in the planning system;

d) accelerate the transition to an electric transport system so that petrol and diesel cars are phased out by 2030.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased to be able to open this debate on a very important issue in terms of public health, and very important in terms of the environment as well, namely air pollution. The evidence is very clear. I think that this is a significant problem. Air pollution will kill 2,000 people every year in Wales—think about that.

Both short and long-term exposure to ambient air pollution can lead to a host of conditions—reduced lung function, respiratory infections, aggravated asthma to name just three. Maternal exposure to ambient air pollution is associated with adverse birth outcomes, low birth-weight, for example, pre-term births, small for gestational age births. Emerging evidence also suggests that ambient air pollution may affect diabetes and neurological development in children. It's the cause of many cancers, and some air pollutants are also linked to psychiatric conditions. The effects of air pollution disproportionately affect people in deprived areas, and, unfortunately, the policy responses have often suggested that this is not understood. We're still waiting for a clean air Act. I'm not sure at this point in time whether the Government intends to deliver the commitment made by the First Minister in his leadership campaign to have such an Act.

We are disappointed to see the wording used by the Government in amendments 1 and 3 in front of us this afternoon. Most of Wales doesn't have air quality monitoring, and it's well highlighted that the modelling used is inaccurate. A quote from Professor Paul Lewis, esteemed professor from Swansea University, noted that there's no detail in the clean air plan at all as to what a national air pollution monitoring network would do, and it might not actually lead to any significant increase in monitoring: it's likely that, rather than invest in technology, they'll just work with the modelling company to improve the models—currently having a 30 per cent error rate—to predict air pollution levels across Wales.

My colleagues will elaborate further on why we in Plaid Cymru believe the current response is completely inadequate, and, I dare say, complacent. We will, however, support the Conservative amendments in front of us today, as they add to the motion, we believe, and are constructive.

Of course, this isn't a problem in any way confined to Wales. We're talking about a global issue. We might, for example, note that over 1.5 million people—1.5 million people—will die each year in China because of air pollution, and this somehow appears to be considered normal, perhaps inevitable. Let's contrast that with the measures that have, quite rightly, been taken to mitigate the spread of Coronavirus. In this case, the interests of industry, of the economy, have taken, quite rightly, second place to the priority of containing a very real threat to public health. But when it comes to environmental problems that cause a big threat to public health—and climate change is the obvious big one here—the scale of inaction really is quite telling.

The point is: let's imagine if we took pollution to be as serious a threat as a virus. We would be solving the problem almost overnight, I believe. But, instead, we're really not seeing the culture change we need in a number of areas—in the planning system, in budgeting processes and wider attitudes within Government—that suggest that we're taking this as seriously as we ought to. It still seems that, too often, there's a conflict between economy departments, say, and everybody else, that views pollution somehow as a necessary phase of economic growth. Surely, if we're not at the end of that way of thinking, we're rapidly, rapidly approaching it.

I'll finish with this quote from a recent Lancet report on pollution:

'The claim that pollution control stifles economic growth...has repeatedly been proven to be untrue.'

Pollution actually costs the economy in terms of lost productivity and spending on the consequences of it. Unfortunately, the industries responsible for pollution are also highly effective at public relations, lobbying and pressuring the media to create the impression that pollution control is bad for growth. But studies of the impact of clean air regulations in the US suggest otherwise.

We know, don't we, deep down, that we have to change? We know surely, Welsh Government, that action has to be taken and that we need an Act. Surely it's now time to quit our addiction to poor air.

Thank you. I have selected the five amendments to the motion. Can I call on the Minister for the Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to move amendments 1 and 3, formally tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans?

Amendment 1—Rebecca Evans

Delete point 2 and replace with:

Calls for a new national air pollution monitoring network that complements Wales’ existing monitoring capabilities.

Amendment 3—Rebecca Evans

In point 3, delete 'which would include measures to:' and replace with 'and for Welsh Government and UK Government to take decisive action to strengthen all measures, using legislation where necessary, to:'.

Amendments 1 and 3 moved.

Formally.

Thank you. I call on Andrew R.T. Davies to move amendments 2, 4 and 5, tabled in the name of Darren Millar.

Amendment 2—Darren Millar

Add as new point after point 2 and renumber accordingly:

Further notes that air pollution exacerbates existing lung conditions and is a cause of asthma and lung cancer, and that the long-term impacts of poor air quality are not yet fully understood.

Amendment 4—Darren Millar

In point 3, insert as new sub-points before sub-point (a) and renumber accordingly:

 'enshrine in law World Health Organisation air quality guidelines; 

mandate the Welsh Government to produce a statutory air quality strategy every five years;'

Amendment 5—Darren Millar

In point 3(a), insert ', and introduce a "right to breathe"' after 'hospitals'.

Amendments 2, 4 and 5 moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I formally move the amendments in the name of Darren Millar—amendment 2, amendment 4 and amendment 5 on the order paper this afternoon.

It's a little bit like groundhog day today. In September, we had a clean air debate from this side of the Chamber, and I fully endorse the sentiments of the opener of the debate who said, if this was any other type of problem, issue, there would be a national will to sort this out. We know for a fact that nearly 2,000 people are dying prematurely, and, in that debate, I made this very point: if someone came in and lobbied this Chamber, and the Members within this Chamber, to say that there are 2,000 people in Wales dying prematurely and there are the tools in the toolbox to solve this problem, or certainly radically reduce the number of people dying prematurely, then politicians of all hue would put their shoulder to the wheel and actually want those levers pulled to make sure that we addressed it.

It is disappointing that the First Minister's commitment in his leadership campaign to bring forward a clean air Bill has now dropped from the Government's legislative programme for this Assembly. I'm sure it will sit in manifestos for 2021, but, again, this is a piece of legislation, I would suggest, that would enjoy widespread support across the Chamber and wouldn't get bogged down into a trench warfare of maybe party politics or some of the obstacles that obviously delay legislation passing through this particular institution. And I do believe that, with the goodwill of Members on all sides of the Chamber, that legislation could be on the statute book by the time this Assembly went into dissolution by the end of March. So, again, I would urge the Minister to work with Cabinet colleagues and reach out across the Chamber to bring those legislative changes forward that, as I understand it from previous debates, and I'm sure this debate, will reiterate the consensus that exists around the Chamber.

And I do think it is a right for people to have clean air to breathe on a day-to-day basis. I well remember, in the debate in September, my colleague Nick Ramsay to the side here, highlighted his constituent—Mrs Barnard, I think the lady's name was—who basically suffocated to death because, obviously, she had a lung condition that was exacerbated by poor air quality. Can you imagine watching a loved one slowly but surely gasping for air, her last breaths, and ultimately slipping away, and you know that improvements could be made to improve the quality of life that that individual will lead? Those are the real human consequences that are going on in our society today, and it is for Government to bring forward the proposals that actually could make a big difference. So, that's why, in amendment 2, I do think that it is really important to highlight the conditions that are exacerbated by poor air quality, such as asthma, such as lung cancer, and other long-term impacts on health, and I do hope that the amendment will enjoy the support of the Chamber this afternoon.

It is also important, I would suggest, when we're setting standards, as we highlight in amendment 4, that, instead of just settling on the standards we have at the moment—as I understand it, the Welsh Government standards are based on European standards—we do go for the World Health Organization's standards in this particular area, because that sets the gold standard of where we need to be. Other Governments across the UK have agreed that that is the standard that they measure themselves by, and I would hope that the Welsh Government would want to be measured by the same standard as well. And the uniformity—as the opener of the debate highlighted, this isn't just a localised problem here in Wales—albeit we have some of the most chronic air condition problems here—but across the whole world, and, indeed, across the rest of the United Kingdom. And so, again, I would very much hope that the Government and other parties will support amendment 4 that is in the name of Darren Millar and calls for the World Health Organization air quality guidelines to be adopted by the Government.

And then amendment 5, talking about the right to breathe. It is a right to breathe clean air. I see Dai Lloyd over there in the Chamber and I see the lectern he has in front of him; he, no doubt, is going to contribute to this debate, and I pay tribute to the work he's done on the all-party group that he chairs on this particular subject. He highlighted how, 150 years ago, it was a given that it was all right for people to drink dirty water and the health consequences that came from that were tolerable in society, as such. When our predecessors got their act together and cleaned up the water systems in this country, so public health improved dramatically. Our ancestors recognised 150 years ago those were changes were needed to make. Well, today—sadly, we've had to wait 150 years—we can make the changes to air quality here in Wales that will see that seismic shift in the quality of life that many people will enjoy the length and breadth of Wales.

And so, moving these amendments, I hope they contribute to the overall motion that is before us this afternoon. And I do hope, like many motions before it, this motion does find favour with the Assembly and we can see real action from the Welsh Government in this particular area, which will enjoy support, I would suggest, across the Chamber. We cannot stand by and allow another 2,000 people every year to die prematurely. That's why we will be supporting the motion before us this afternoon.

I just want to pick up on the references that we've heard to the 2,000 people dying prematurely because of air pollution. Of course, that doesn't take into account as well the many thousands who are suffering illnesses as a result of pollution in the air. The scale of those experiences is not reflected in the scale of the response from the Welsh Government, which is a sentiment that's already been made that I want to support.

We saw, back in May 2017, how Plaid Cymru sought to amend the Welsh Government's public health Bill to recognise air pollution as a public health issue. Unfortunately, Labour voted down those amendments. Back in January 2018, the Welsh Government conceded in a High Court case brought by Client Earth that it had failed to meet EU targets to cut air pollution, and they were legally obliged to draft a clean air plan by the end of April and have a final plan in place by the end of July 2018. It had to seek an extension to do that.

I still feel that we haven't seen that step change in attitude from the Welsh Government, being willing to grapple with this and to get to grips with it and to sort it. Since then, we've still seen the Government—. It feels as if the Government is flip-flopping between whether it's going to be a clean air Act, or whether it's going to be a clean air plan. Certainly, I feel the Government has failed to create and introduce robust measures to take real action.

In December, there was a statement on clean air, and it seemed to reaffirm a commitment to a clean air Act. However, the statement committed only to a 12-week consultation and then publication of the findings before the end of this Assembly. Well, there's not much urgency there, and it very much feels like kicking the issue into the long grass.

Now, if you want a concrete example of why we need a clean air Act to protect communities and people's health, look no further than Chirk. It's an area I know that the Minister is familiar with. It's a small town near Wrexham, home to a large wood-chip manufacturer, Kronospan, that recently suffered a fire in its log yard. It's the seventeenth fire in 18 years, although anecdotally local people tell me that there are even more regular occurrences than that. Now, because of a lack of air pollution monitoring, it took 48 hours for residents living across the road from the burning plant to be advised to close their doors and their windows. It took 48 hours to advise children at the school across the road not to play in the yard. And it took 48 hours to get monitoring equipment there from Swansea to assess the air quality.

Now, this is a community that's had more than its share of such incidents and, frankly, they've had enough. They've had enough, and they're now mounting weekly pickets of the plant and they want to see action. But of course, they won't get it from this Government, because the Minister told me last week that she didn't think an independent inquiry was necessary; this despite evidence that there was formaldehyde present in the air, that was eventually monitored 48 hours after the worst of the fire had passed, and we know about the carcinogenic dangers as well of damp wood smoke. Just to be clear, this was no small fire. We were talking here about 7,000 tonnes of wood that were destroyed in the fire.

So, that's why we need a clean air Act: to force complacent Governments to act, rather than wash their hands of responsibility. A clean air Act such as that proposed by Plaid Cymru would enable the residents of Chirk and elsewhere to have permanent air quality monitoring near schools and hospitals. Chirk's hospitals and schools are within a stone's throw of the Kronospan plant. The clean air Act would also give councils added powers to refuse planning permission if it meant air quality was being compromised. Councillors have been hamstrung as planning application after planning application has come before them.

To the people of Chirk and the surrounding area, a clean air Act isn't an abstract idea, it's a must-have piece of legislation to protect their children and future generations. And if this Government wants to pay more than lip service to the well-being of future generations, it will ensure that this Senedd gets Plaid Cymru's clean air Act on to the statue book as soon as possible.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

I think there is increasing demand for a clean air Act as more people are aware of the damage they're doing to their lungs, and particularly to their children's lives. One of the nurseries in my constituency is, in every respect, an exemplary child-focused institution, except that it is an area of dangerously polluted air. Fully half of the children have respiratory problems, which is why I would find it ethically very difficult to recommend that nursery to anybody, simply because of my knowledge of what it is doing to those children's lungs. It's something that's beyond the power of the nursery providers, because they simply don't have the resources to move.

But it is ironic that, right next door to it, is a primary school where parents insist on picking up their children by car, because that is their right, and they are adding to an already unacceptable problem. I find that it's not only in that particular area. In other areas of very high pollution where there are schools, parents insist on taking their children right up to the school gate. They simply are in denial about the fact that you are exposing your child to more pollution by delivering them to school in a car than you are if you walk them along the road or scoot or bike. How many times do we have to repeat this? You are actually endangering your child's health by doing this.

I'm very pleased to see that the amendments proposed by the Government are actually strengthening the motion. It does, I think, indicate the level of commitment that the Government has to taking action on this, because we cannot go on like this. There's one particular ask that I have in relation to the school run, as it's called, which is that we really do need to create vehicle exclusion zones around our schools, (a) to force people to learn how to walk again, and (b) to ensure that vehicle pollution is not actually entering the playground where children are playing during their break times. I think that is something that we absolutely could be doing.

And in addition to that, as the motion suggests, we should have pollution monitoring equipment outside every school and hospital so that we know exactly how much pollution people are imbibing in the places where they are obliged to go. So, I support the motion and I very much support the sentiment.

Will the Member take an intervention? I'm grateful, Jenny, for you taking the intervention. You highlighted exclusion zones around schools. We focus on the combustion engine, but you and I have heard evidence on the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee about particulate matter from tyres and other substances, brake pads as well, that account for 40 per cent of the particles we inhale. So, it's not just focusing on the combustion engine, which can be overcome by electric cars; it's looking at the whole mobile movement of people around, as you're identifying today.

I absolutely agree with that, and that is one of the reservations I have about the electric vehicle charging focus, because electric vehicles are still going to have brakes and tyres, and they're still going to be emitting particulate matter.

Will you take a brief intervention? I'd make a point that electric vehicles that use the power from the moving vehicle to charge the battery—and in so doing it slows the car down electrically, if you like—are much better than current vehicles in terms of the emissions from brake pads that we currently see.

I wouldn't disagree with that, but I still think that you have to take account of the fact that electric vehicles are not carbon neutral. They're part of the solution more than part of the problem.

But I really think that we absolutely have to keep on debating this issue in order to make it higher up on the agenda, because it simply isn't registering at the moment sufficiently in people's conscience that we absolutely have to change the way we are doing things. So, we certainly need to pay much greater attention to this matter, because if we had as many people dying on the roads as we do having their lives shortened by air pollution, we'd have a lot more people demanding change. 

What's more fundamental than the air that we breathe? It's something we should be able to take for granted as a human right, and the fact that we have to have this debate today, I'm afraid, is a damning indictment of the Government's record. We know that, in order to live healthily, everyone should have access to clean, unpolluted drinking water and nourishing food that isn't poisoned. Even then, human beings can live for weeks without food, and without water for days, but it's very difficult to go for more than a few minutes without breathing, and that air should be clean. So it's shocking—it's utterly shocking—that today, in the twenty-first century, as we've already heard, air pollution contributes to around 2,000 deaths a year in Wales, equating to around 6 per cent of all deaths. 

That an opposition party has to call a debate in our Parliament to implore our Government—a Government that prides itself and calls itself progressive and caring in many ways—to take action to grant this human right of providing clean air to our citizens is staggering. The terrible effect that air pollution has on the health of children in particular is heartbreaking, and we've heard some of this already. It just isn't right that some children are born already suffering from the effects of air pollution, essentially having been poisoned in the womb. According to Joseph Carter, the head of British Lung Foundation Wales, air pollution has a particularly harmful effect on the developing lungs of children being brought up in Wales. That isn't a legacy we should accept. I agree with Mr Carter when he said. 'We need action now', because the current system obviously isn't working or we wouldn't be having this debate.

The Welsh Government is reticent when it comes to taking a leading role, and that leaves local authorities in control, and patchy results. The most polluted road in the UK outside London is actually in my region, in Hafodyrynys. Now, the local authority, despite passing a clean air motion that was brought forward by Plaid Cymru with cross-party support, failed to act decisively, arguing that to do so would be too costly in the time of austerity. The situation, in the end, was so bad that the only thing that could be done was to buy up all the houses on that road in order to demolish them. 

Another recent example was seen last summer when Bridgend council approved a housing development next to an air quality management area, where the planning officers argued that their 2013 local development plan carried greater legal weight than the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Now, I'd ask the Minister what the point is of having world-leading legislation that can be ignored by local planning officers. Currently, a housing development is being considered by the same council that requires a new road to rip through local woodland; a development that officers sold to the relevant committee as a green project that meets active travel standards. So that's where we're at at the moment. The Welsh Government, as far as I'm aware, has only intervened once in order to impose central control over air pollution, and that was in Neath Port Talbot air quality management area. That has resulted in a reduction of harmful particulate matter pollutants. But clearly, one intervention is only one small step when what we need is a Wales-wide step change.

So what needs to happen? Clearly, the Welsh Government needs to take decisive action on this, rather than having yet more consultations. The Scottish Government published its clean air strategy five years ago, yet here in Wales the Labour Government is lagging behind. I read the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs's statement from December promising yet another consultation, and I'm afraid that the lack of ambition there is just palpable. The consultation talks of taking World Health Organization clean air guidelines into account, rather than simply implementing them. It couches environmental ambitions in deference to economic growth. Surely, building a successful economy and reducing air pollution are not mutually exclusive aims. As we've already heard, economists will tell us that pollution actually costs the economy by stifling growth and lost productivity, not to mention the consequences to public health. 

The Welsh Government should bring forward clean air legislation during this term, again, as the First Minister promised to do in his leadership manifesto. It's time we had actions not words, and we should use the legislation that already exists to greater effect. The well-being of future generations Act is an ideal vehicle, if you'll forgive the horrible pun, for setting ambitious national goals with a statutory footing.

We know that road transport is the primary pollutant, so let's see a comprehensive and ambitious national green transport plan that uses electric or hybrid vehicles so that we can see a fall in the level of pollutants in our air before the end of this Senedd term. I urge the Welsh Government today, don't just wave through this motion and continue with business as usual. Heed the words of the British Lung Foundation Wales: we need action now.

I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important issue, as poor air quality is one of the biggest public health challenges facing Wales. Last week, the media spoke about all-electric vehicles and not selling petrol cars after 2035. Whilst we all welcome this move, we must ensure that the infrastructure is right, that cars are affordable and that incentives such as scrappage schemes are to be offered to people in the hope that they will convert sooner, as people are 21 times more likely to die from road pollution deaths than road traffic accidents.

Parts of the region I represent, South Wales West, has some of the dirtiest air in the UK. PM10 is often well above the safe daily limit, and schools in my region have had many days when it was double the safe daily limit, and this is totally unacceptable. The Healthy Air Cymru group are calling for new World Health Organization guidelines to be enshrined in legislation as soon as possible. King's College London found that cutting air pollution by even one fifth in the UK's most polluted cities would reduce the number of lung cases by 5 to 7 per cent.

The cause of most poor air quality-related deaths is from legal levels of air pollution. We must, surely, provide a statutory duty on local authorities to appropriately monitor and assess air pollution. King's College London has also found that for children who live near a busy road, air pollution can stunt lung growth by as much as 14 per cent. And living near a busy road can increase the chances of developing lung cancer by as much as 10 per cent.

In Wales, 314,000 people—one in ten—are currently receiving treatment for asthma. Current pollution guidelines are insufficient, with 19 per cent of all cases of childhood asthma in the UK linked to air pollution. Air pollutants are to blame for the deaths of at least five people per day in Wales, with the biggest contributor being transport.

The UK Labour Government incentivised a switch to diesel cars. Due to this, the amount of particulates and nitrogen dioxide in our atmosphere has increased dramatically. Also due to this, many people purchased diesel cars in good faith, only to be later penalised by higher road taxes, with people unable to change due to the current expense of electric vehicles—this must be looked at. Therefore, there must be incentives for people to change, financially. The Welsh Government needs to take action to reduce road-traffic congestion, which, again, amplifies pollution. Our planning system must take into account the effect that new developments will have on traffic congestion, as well as being mindful of electric charging points on new developments.

The Welsh Government must develop a strategy to tackle poor air quality. There needs to be a reporting system to alert residents of poor air quality, and this must be done at a national level and not left to local health boards. New developments, such at the British-made Sentinel-5P satellite, which monitors air pollutants, can be utilised at national level to improve forecasting, and be used to warn the public about such events. The Welsh and UK Governments need to work together and act on this urgently.

I look forward to seeing the Welsh Government's clean air plans, and I hope we can all work together on this matter. Thank you.  

In preparation for this debate, I read the 'Clean Air Plan for Wales' consultation document, and I also had a meeting with Public Health Wales to talk through some of the issues that are in the motion. And having done that, framing Public Health Wales as independent experts, I don't share the pessimism of Plaid Cymru, but I do welcome some of the words that are in the motion. So, I support the thrust of the motion but I don't feel as pessimistic, and I reflect on Jenny Rathbone's optimism, actually, that the Welsh Government will engage and have a clean air Act before the end of this Assembly term. I think that's likely to happen. 

The 'Clean Air Plan for Wales' consultation document has public health running through it. It doesn't just talk about carbon reduction, it doesn't just talk about impact on environmental standards; it also talks about quality of life, and it talks about preventing life-limiting illness and death. So, there's certainly a thread in that plan that chimes with the motion, and the motion itself clearly recognises the impact on life and the need to address the issue, and I think the Minister herself is likely to tell us Welsh Government plans for a clean air Act. I am optimistic about that. 

The other issue is the 2,000 deaths a year quote. It isn't quite as stark as that according to Public Health Wales—or not quite as simple. The current Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants methods consider the pollutant mix in air that identifies reductions in life expectancy that can be aggregated then to a range of between 1,000 and 1,400 deaths a year in Wales. So, it isn't quite as simple as saying 2,000 people a year will die as a result of air pollution; it's an aggregated measure based on life expectancy, which itself demonstrates the difficulty in measuring the impacts of air quality and the fact that it is currently not entirely a science. 

That comes back to something Rhun ap Iorwerth said: we need to be better at monitoring the impacts of air quality. Monitoring is something that can and must be done more thoroughly. Whether it can be done continually outside schools—. I'll give you an example. When I was a councillor, in my council ward, we had air quality monitoring over a period of six months. The cost was enormous; there was a huge cost to air quality monitoring. I think what you need to consider is the best deployment of resources in areas of highest risk. So, Llyr, the area in your region that you mentioned, that is an area that is ripe for air quality monitoring, and we need to consider those areas and then model appropriately afterwards.

I think, actually, when you've monitored—it's not just about monitoring, it's what actions you're going to take, and I think that is where the debate is now: what actions are you going to take? And I don't think it's whether we have a clean air Act, but what the clean air Act is going to set out to do. I think that is the key question, and that is what the constructive part of this debate should be about: what is that clean air Act trying to achieve?

Well, the Environment Act 1995 puts a duty on local authorities to come up with a local air quality management plan. The problem with it is that it requires local authorities to identify problems working with others and it requires them to produce action plans, but that's it; it doesn't require, then, for the implementation of those actions to be monitored and scrutinised by politicians or anyone else. So, there are issues with that that a clean air Act can address.

The local context needs to be considered. If we are having strict thresholds, context is vital. If we're having strict thresholds, then those thresholds may be most effective in areas where there are more vulnerable people, but then if you are very strict across a huge geographical area, it raises issues of attainability. And there needs to be, I think, through Stages 1 and 2 of the Bill, discussion around that attainability.    

And finally, some of the practical issues that might be the shortcomings of current actions that are being proposed outwith an Act, and that an Act will need to very clearly get to grips with. Getting to work is very, very difficult if you live outside of Cardiff; getting to work is incredibly difficult. People currently don't trust public transport. We use public transport; it is very, very untrustworthy. I've already said in this Chamber about my missing committee two weeks ago and feeling the wrath of the Chair who's sitting in front of me for missing committee. I had to beg Stagecoach to put on a bus from Bargoed to the Royal Gwent Hospital—I had to beg them. I had to beg Stagecoach to temporarily reinstate a bus to the Heath hospital, and what of the Grange hospital? What will public transport to the Grange hospital look like? There are questions around this that require more than a clean air Act; they require a bus deregulation Bill and they require a local government Act and, fortunately, we're seeing the Government taking action on that.    

Finally, I want to mention Twyn School in my constituency. Aneira Luff is a pupil at Twyn School, and she has taken action by writing to the headteacher, Lee Thomas, who has then communicated her letter to parents to ask them not to keep their cars idling outside school. Aneira Luff has done that—a pupil in school. I think that is an incredibly powerful way to communicate the need to reduce air emissions from cars outside schools. Jenny Rathbone has said the rest, and I agree with it. And I think, with that—Llywydd, you're looking at me now—my time's up. So, I'm going to have to call it to a halt there.

I'm very pleased to take part in this debate, actually, and congratulations all round on the quality of the discourse. Plainly, as chair of the cross-party group on a clean air Act for Wales, I want to see an Act, basically, because I think we need urgent action now. The time has come for urgent action because this rim of air on top of this earth, of this planet, this rim of air that we all breathe, is only 10 miles deep. We have to look after it. When we're talking about inter-planetary travel and stuff, we're talking millions and millions of miles, but we depend, to breathe, on a rim of air that's just 10 miles deep. Certainly, we have to look after it and respect it.

Now, of course, going back in history, we've had original clean air Acts before. They reflected the suffocating fatal smogs and pea soupers in London in 1952 and other large cities in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. Legislation then followed to produce smokeless fuels. Obviously, the air cleaned, i.e. the air became clear, but there's still pollution there; the difference now is that we can't see it. So, our foot has literally gone off the pedal, because we're no longer being blinded by those pea soupers and smogs of yore. And, obviously, the other anomaly was that producing the smokeless fuels for London meant that we managed to transfer solid particulate air pollution that was in London to Abercwmboi in the Cynon Valley, which was tasked with producing the smokeless coke fuels instead in that infamous coking plant, plastering that valley with particulates instead of London.

Now, we've declared a climate emergency, as we've all heard, and we have the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and we have serious levels of air pollution damaging health and killing people now, today. I accept Hefin's point: it's an inexact science. This has started in the environmental health field, it is slow to have got into the public health and health fields. Always, we have environment leading the charge, which is fine—somebody needs to lead the charge—but health should be involved as well. The figure is 2,000 deaths—2,000 premature deaths—per year in Wales. We have increasing asthma levels; we have increasing—[Interruption.]

That isn't—. As I said in my contribution, that wasn't the figure that Public Health Wales gave me. They said the 1,000 to 1,400 aggregated range was based on life expectancy. So, the 2,000 deaths isn't currently—it's not a set-in-stone figure; the public health advice is the one that I've proposed. 

I accept the point. That's why I said 'premature deaths'—earlier than anticipated because you have a chronic lung condition and you add particulates and whatever on top of that, and off we go. 

So, we have increasing chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; we have also the legacy of pneumoconiosis from the miners; silicosis from our quarry workers; asbestosis still around; we have increasing levels of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis—'idiopathic' is Latin for, 'We don't know the cause', I suspect it's going to turn out to be air pollution, largely caused by our cavalier attitude to air pollution over the generations; inhaled PM2.5 particles are killers; nitrogen dioxide is also a killer; and nanoparticles of plastics from rubber tyres can get absorbed into our blood system, into our circulatory system and heart. 

So, as I've said, I personally favour legislation. There's nothing like the back-up of the law to make sure that people act rather than having non-binding plans, however well-meaning. A clean air Act to enshrine in law World Health Organization air quality guidelines; a clean air Act to mandate Welsh Government to produce a statutory air quality strategy every five years; a clean air Act to provide a legal statutory duty on local authorities to monitor air pollution, to assess air pollution, to take air pollution seriously, to take action against it and to take seriously air pollution concerns in planning applications; and we need a clean air Act to introduce the right to breathe whereby local councils have to tell vulnerable groups when certain levels are breached, because you are likely to fall ill and you may die prematurely.

And so, finally, as everybody bleats that the health service costs are increasing amounts of money year on year, nobody believes in investing in changing behaviour to stop people getting ill in the first place. No, we just disparage the NHS for needing more money all of the time. We just slag off the NHS for hoovering up money when the health service has to tackle the problems that Governments should stop happening in the first place. The NHS has to pick up the pieces.

So, we have an obesity epidemic that causes increasing diabetes and increasing cancers; we don't legislate in schools for increased physical activity or ban advertising on junk foods. We could channel a Welsh sugar tax to this education agenda; we don't. But don't slag off health for having to deal with the consequences of inaction in other portfolio fields. And as regards air pollution, yes, legislate to form a clean air Act to tackle those increasing asthma rates, to tackle the suffering from COPD, those increasing levels of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis, the damage to growing children's lungs, and, yes, those thousands of premature deaths caused by particulates and nitrogen dioxide. As Andrew R.T. Davies said, we no longer tolerate dirty water, we should no longer tolerate dirty air.

So, in closing, the Welsh Government has been tasked with reducing emissions in the quickest way possible after being found in breach of EU regulations two years ago. Sort it out now. There's a plan, there's a White Paper, and perhaps legislation in 18 months. The challenge is stark. The time is now. Diolch, Llywydd.

I very much welcome this debate today, and I echo what Dai Lloyd said. I think it has been a very good and powerful debate, and rightly so, because we're talking about public health, and it's clear that air quality is a major factor in whether we enjoy the sort of good public health that we want to see in Wales or not. And, yes, Healthy Air Cymru have done a lot of research, I think, and put some of the facts and statistics before all of us, which clearly show the adverse health impacts that we are currently living with. And it is the biggest environmental risk to public health—air quality, or the lack of it—and there's also research that it affects our most deprived communities disproportionately. So, there's an adverse health impact on the people who are most vulnerable anyway.

So, we've moved, really, into a largely post-industrial society in Wales, Llywydd, and I think that does clearly make road traffic the biggest challenge when it comes to dealing with these matters. And primarily, it's a matter, I think, of Welsh Government working with our local authorities to take effective action and make sure that appropriate strategies and policies are in place. We've talked about some of the legislation, some of the plans, and the Act that will hopefully be forthcoming. But there's lots that can be done, of course, here and now, very practical measures to deal with these issues.

We heard about the school run earlier, and I think that is significant and important, and there are practical measures that are being taken in schools across Wales that could be taken right across the length and breadth of our country. So, the roads around schools could be closed off at picking up and dropping off times. There could be policies for walking buses, for scooting, walking and cycling to school, engaging the pupils, as Hefin David mentioned, in putting moral pressure on parents and schools. I think it's very effective and appropriate.

Idling vehicles shouldn't be allowed at school gates and shouldn't be allowed in general in our urban areas. Taxis and buses are a major issue. There are many ways of converting taxis to more—[Interruption.] In just a minute. I was just going to say that converting taxis and buses, of course, that's happening, but that, again, could happen all across Wales, and that would make a significant contribution also. Hefin David.

I'm sorry to interrupt, but one of the things—he makes the point about idling vehicles—one of the points that I've heard as well, from public health officials, is it isn't just idling vehicles; the actual act of turning off your vehicle while outside a school could be just as polluting when you turn it back on again. So, you might as well leave it idling as turning it off and on in many cases; it depends how long you leave it idling for. So, actually, the more effective thing is, as Jenny Rathbone said, not to have those cars near the school in the first place.

I think that is the most effective thing, but I think you often see idling engines for minutes and minutes and minutes, and turning them off would be a very good idea. But I applaud the fact that you've met with Public Health Wales, Hefin, and, obviously, that's been very informative from your contributions and thoughts on these matters.

But, yes, we also spoke earlier, didn't we, about electric cars, and certainly I've heard from public health experts that they are very welcome, as we've heard, but, yes, there still are issues with particulate matter and brakes and tyres. So, we need to get people out of their cars, even with electric cars or hydrogen cars coming into being in far greater numbers. So, we must address the public transport issues. We've got to make the metro much more appealing much more quickly. We've got to get bus deregulation delivering better planned bus services that help people make that modal shift.

And, of course, we have the active travel Act now in being in Wales for some four years and the action plan. Yet, we've still not seen the shift to cycling and walking for short everyday journeys that we need to see, even though local authorities have been working up some of their network plans, Welsh Government has made an additional £20 million per annum available and local authorities can knit active travel into their wider transport strategies in addition to that.

So, I really would like to see, I think, Welsh Government looking very carefully at how it can take an overview and work with local authorities in Wales more effectively on the active travel front. The funding is available, but it's not always being used to best effect. Some of the money is still being used more for leisure purposes, rather than active travel and purposeful journeys. I think Welsh Government, in making that funding available, also has a responsibility to work very closely with local authorities to ensure that that funding is delivering the modal shift that we need to see.

Nobody can disagree with this motion, but the issue is that Labour Government policies are causing—and I say, present tense, are causing—air pollution. If we look at local development plans right across Wales, just take one, the Cardiff local development plan, for an example. That plan, passed by the council, nothing done about it here in this Senedd, is putting 10,000 extra cars on one single carriageway—one single road—Llantrisant Road in Cardiff West. There will be 10,000 extra cars every single day if that full development plan goes ahead.

Now, LDPs are Government policy. There has been no change. Unfortunately, when Plaid Cymru were in Government, they were responsible for signing off the most ridiculous—the most ridiculous—population figures, allowing the roll-out of LDPs right across Wales. So, both parties, neither of them have a clean pair of hands there.

This seems—[Interruption.] No, sorry. This seems to be a typical motion from the Labour-Plaid cartel in Welsh politics, because what we are talking about here—and it is a cartel. It is a cartel. Labour has run this country for the last 20 years, sometimes with the help—[Interruption.] It would not surprise me at all if the aim, next time around, would be to run it with you guys in coalition.

The main thing here is that we need Government policies that do not cause air pollution—that do not cause air pollution. If one of the AMs from Cardiff want to contribute, I'll give way through the Chair, if she allows, and maybe explain to the people of this country why they've not opposed the local development plans that have gone through in the most outrageous manner.

Ninety per cent of the people in this city did not want the Cardiff local development plan, but it went through. So, before we stand here and talk about air pollution and isn't it awful—of course it is—we really need to address the policies. Local development plans causing huge pollution should be dealt with, and they should be dealt with as a matter of emergency. You say there's a climate emergency—do something about it. Diolch yn fawr.

As the Assembly Member for Islwyn, I have from the very first day I was elected to the Senedd, as have others, campaigned to reduce air pollution in my constituency and across Wales. Improving air quality is a priority for the Welsh Labour Government, as the draft budget outlines. The Welsh Government's national strategy, 'Prosperity for All', commits the Welsh Government to reducing emissions and delivering vital improvements in air quality through planning, infrastructure, regulation and health communication measures. The Welsh Labour Government is currently consulting on the clean air plan for Wales, 'Healthy Air, Healthy Wales', which set out ambitious actions across all Government departments and sectors to reduce air pollution. The present consultation on this, the most important of plans, seeks to raise public awareness about air pollution and behaviour change communications, as well as mitigations to help everyone improve air quality and encourage others to do so. It is absolutely right that good policy is not rushed policy, and that it is optimum. The Government is right in its approach, and a knee-jerk methodology is not the way forward. 

As Members will know, and as has been mentioned, in Islwyn sits Woodside Terrace in the village of Hafodyrynys, one of our nation's most polluted streets. The truth is, as everyone who lives there will say, the answers are not simple. They're not connected into one single sphere. Nitrogen dioxide levels on this road have been recorded as the highest in the United Kingdom outside of central London, but there is an issue, and that is because they have been recorded. We do not know where the next Hafodyrynys is. With the positive partnership working between the Labour-run Caerphilly county council and local residents, and the Welsh Labour Government, a solution has been reached after complex and far-reaching negotiations in the public policy and governmental spheres.

The British Heart Foundation today have launched a fresh campaign to draw public attention to the vital issue of air pollution. And although we cannot see it with the naked eye, it is fine particulate matter, as has been stated previously, known as PM2.5, which offers that serious threat to public health. We know that this issue needs to be tackled at every level of Government and in every arena of public and civic life, from local councils to the Welsh Assembly to Westminster and the UK Government, as well as international inter-governmental organisations. This week, the UK was forced to announce plans to ban the sale of petrol, diesel and hybrid cars by 2035—a little earlier than originally planned. Yes, this is welcome news, but the devil is in the detail here. It is imperative that the UK Government must come forward with detailed plans on how this will be delivered, including publishing a concrete set of milestones to be achieved ahead of 2035, accelerating the transition to zero emission road transport in the UK. 

We are not an island in this regard. We need to remember that the UK will not be in the vanguard of change in these matters. Norway has a phase-out target of 2025 while the Netherlands, the Irish Republic, Sweden and Denmark have all set a 2030 deadline. In truth, the UK Tory Government proposal will only cover wholly new cars. How many of your constituents can afford a brand-new car?

A recent study by the Institute of Mechanical Engineers forecast that 37.1 million petrol and diesel cars would still be on the road in 2020 and 22.6 million by 2040. That's not good enough. So there is much that the UK Tory Government needs to do if the UK is to hit—I've nearly finished—its target of net-zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. They would do well to follow the enthusiastic, energetic and imaginative leadership on this vital issue by the Labour Government here in Cardiff. The £140 million alone in the draft budget this year is just the start of an ambitious sea change in Welsh cultural attitude and policy shift in Wales. I hope that it does gain the consistent cross-party support that seems to be relevant in this Chamber today, but there are those in this Chamber who do not believe in climate change and I would urge them very much to open their eyes and see what's in front of them. Thank you, Llywydd. 

I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths. 

Diolch, Llywydd. I'm very pleased to be responding to this debate on behalf of the Government. We do need both decisive Government action as well as legislation in order to achieve clean air across Wales, and Welsh Government is committed to bringing forward a clean air Act for Wales. The current consultation on our clean air plan is a major step towards that new legislation. 

I welcome the fact there is a clear recognition across this Senedd of the need for decisive action by both the Welsh Government and the UK Government. We all recognise the health impacts and the significant improvements we can make to Wales's well-being by reducing air pollution. This is reflected both in point 1 of the Plaid Cymru motion and the Welsh Conservatives' amendment 2, which refers to the long-term health effects of air pollution. And the Government will support both amendments. 

The claim made at point 2 of the Plaid Cymru motion is not correct. There are not large areas of Wales in which air quality is not monitored. However, we do agree with the need to increase monitoring, and the Government amendment calls for a new monitoring network to complement our existing capabilities. Over the next two years, we will be increasing the number of monitors, particularly focusing on monitoring air quality in those places where we know people are more vulnerable to pollution, including schools and health facilities. 

To drive decisive action, we have to be clear on the responsibilities and the action needed. We need new legislation, but we also need to act now to use the legislation we already have in place and all the other levers available. This is why the Government amendment's point 3 calls on both Welsh Government and UK Government to strengthen all measures described in the original motion and to use legislation where necessary. 

Will you take an intervention?

Yes. 

I just wondered if you've thought of having any conversation with the UK Government about removing VAT from electric vehicles, because that's not something that we have the powers to do, and that would enable them to be promoted by making them cheaper.

I think the Member makes a very good point and certainly I, or my colleague Ken Skates, would be very interested in having that conversation. 

The Government will not support the Conservatives' amendments 4 and 5, but this is on the basis they are confusing key issues and would dilute, rather than strengthen, the measures we need to take. We support the sentiment that new legislation should apply World Health Organization guidelines. To do this, we will translate the principles of the guidance into the Act, rather than inserting the guidelines themselves on the face of the Bill. That will ensure the targets we set in Wales are designed according to the highest global standards.

Similarly, we support the right to breathe, but our responsibility is to translate this into legislation that is specific and can be actioned. So, as I said, we'll oppose those amendments, but we would encourage Members to look at the measures we have already proposed in our clean air plan—and several Members referred to the document—which are more strict and tightly focused. The consultation does run, Presiding Officer, until 10 March, and it describes actions related to each point in the original motion and more. And I'd like to take this opportunity to provide detail of just some of the steps we are taking in these areas in the coming months, as we work towards the creation of a clean air Act for Wales.

Members will be aware that Welsh Government has introduced measures to reduce air pollution from traffic on Wales's trunk road network. Early indications are these are having a positive impact, but, in the coming weeks, we will publish our report, which will contain the evidence of effectiveness and recommendations of any further steps we need to take to reduce pollution created and the impact on people's health. In parallel, I will shortly publish a clean air zone framework for Wales to set out how we believe clean air zones should be implemented in Wales. Later in the year, my colleague the Minister for Economy and Transport will also publish a separate report on the costs and benefits of introducing road-user charging on a regional basis to ensure we take a fair and consistent approach to reducing people's exposure to air pollution from road traffic. And, in addition, we intend to publish a charging strategy for Wales in 2020, which sets out the steps we will take to increase the provision of electric vehicle charging infrastructure. 

These plans will feed into a new transport strategy for Wales, also due for publication this year. The strategy will explain how we intend to realise our ambition for a low-carbon transport system, including the achievement of a low-carbon bus and taxi fleet by 2028. As well as providing benefits in reducing our carbon emissions, this will also lead directly to a significant reduction in air pollution.

In addition to our efforts to address air pollution from road traffic, we are taking a wide range of other measures to reduce emissions and give meaning to Welsh citizens' right to breathe. This year, we'll update the Air Quality in Wales website to make it more interactive and user-friendly, to encourage more Welsh citizens to access information about air quality in their area. We're also looking to build on the Young Dragons citizens science initiative in which we've engaged children and young people in making a serious contribution to the evidence base on air pollution, at the same time as giving them a hands-on opportunity to learn more about the science. 

We're currently in the process of strengthening our air quality emergency response capability, working with NRW, the fire service and the Met Office, so we are able to respond to more incidents more quickly, providing more accurate information to citizens in the event of serious air pollution events. 

This year, we will publish new planning guidance with an updated technical advice note on air quality and soundscape to replace TAN 11 on noise. This will ensure that new development design addresses exposure to air pollution before issues arise. 

In March, Natural Resources Wales will publish area statements, a key milestone in the implementation of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. By defining the key opportunities and challenges for strengthening the resilience of ecosystems in different parts of Wales, the area statements will allow us to maximise the positive benefits for nature at the same time as making a positive impact on air quality and other aspects of our well-being.

So, these are just a few examples of the action we are taking now to improve air quality in Wales. In all cases, there may be opportunities to strengthen the effectiveness of these measures through our clean air Act, and I hope all parties will support the Government amendment today to show our combined determination on a cross-party basis to take decisive action to drive down air pollution in Wales, and give real meaning to Wales's citizens right to breathe.  

I call on Rhun ap Iorwerth to respond to the debate. 

Thank you very much, Llywydd, and I thank everyone who has taken part in a debate that has genuinely been a constructive one this afternoon. I thank Andrew R.T. Davies first. I'm pleased to hear him echo the view I aired about the contrast between the lack of urgency towards tackling the problem of air pollution—the contrast between that and the expectation for urgent action if it was something else that claimed so many lives. And you are right as well to say that dirty water at one time had been considered acceptable, in a previous age. And the solution now, in moving forward, is a clean air Act, in order to ensure that we move to thinking about the air that we breathe in the same way.

Llyr Gruffydd also made the point that the severity of the problem isn't reflected in the severity and the urgency of the Government's response. I'm grateful to Llyr for referring to that situation in Chirk, and the realisation there has been in the community there that we have to tackle the severe pollution that they live with, and the need for much more detailed monitoring. And the solution is a clean air Act.

From Jenny Rathbone, urban pollution was chiefly referred to by the Cardiff Central Member. Our children in our cities and towns are in danger—it's as simple as that—because of pollution, pollution from vehicles mainly, in the examples we heard about. John Griffiths also spoke specifically about traffic from the school run and the danger emanating from that. We have to monitor in detail on order to measure far better what is happening outside our schools, and the solution once again is a clean air Act.

And Dai Lloyd—

Will the Member take an intervention? 

Certainly. 

Thanks for giving way, Rhun. I quite agree with you and other Members that a clean air Act is certainly a positive way to go, but would you agree with me that we've had Acts such as the active travel Act before, and, of course, the future generations Act, all of which are well meaning and have a good basis for the future, but, if you don't actually have those practical measures on the ground and those proper monitoring devices and mechanisms in place to feed back when things aren't working, then, actually, progress is terribly slow and you have to revisit these Acts over and over again? So, would you agree that we need some teeth to this on the ground? 

I agree with you, and there are other legislative tools that we have that can help take us to where we want to go, and the well-being of future generations Act is one of those. What we would have through this clean air Act is a real focus on a particular job that we need to do in cleaning up the air that we breathe, and it has to be legislation that certainly would have teeth and would demand action on the ground.

Dai Lloyd mentioned in more detail the impact that pollution has on our bodies, and why this is such an urgent issue. Delyth Jewell was right to think of breathing clean air as a basic human right, and Caroline Jones was right to say that this is one of the biggest challenges that face us in terms of public health. I listened very carefully to the comments made by Hefin David. We are not being pessimistic, I don't think, but ready to realise the severity of the situation as it stands today. That's what I heard from the debate here in the Chamber. In terms of the figure, and the dispute about the figures of 2,000 early deaths per year, and then between 1,000 and 1,400, I think, which is the figure that you mentioned, I will quote from a paper that was presented to the Cabinet of the Welsh Government in January 2018. So, here are the most recent figures that the Welsh Government have been using:

'Public Health Wales estimates that the equivalent of around 1,600 deaths are attributable to fine particulate matter...exposure and around 1,100 deaths to nitrogen dioxide...exposure each year in Wales.'

So, actually, the Government figures that we are given from that paper given to Cabinet are actually higher than quoted originally by us and by yourself.

That was based on individual particulates, and the estimate of individual particulates. What the Committee on the Medical Effects of Air Pollutants analysis does is combine those particulates into what is a more realistic estimate of the kind of particulates that will exist in the air at any one time, which is where the figures for 1,000 to 1,400 come from.

I appreciate the detail into which you have gone to evidence yourself where we believe the harm is and what effect it's having.

Yes, there's no dispute—there's no dispute about that.

The point I would make—. You know, at the heart of this is that hundreds of people, probably thousands of people—in excess of a million people in a country like China—are dying every year as a direct result of air pollution, and, if that isn't something that is urgent enough to spur us into action, what could possibly be enough to drive us on? A clean air Act, certainly in our opinion, forms a core part of what we need as a set of tools to take us forward.

We can always rely, fair play, on the consistent tone expressed by the independent Member for South Wales Central, and the Member for Islwyn. Rhianon Passmore made a completely uncritical contribution on the Labour Government's actions. No-one else in this Chamber, including the Minister, thinks that everything is being done as well as it could be.

I will go back now to the comments that we heard from the Minister. I do welcome the commitment to legislate, and I welcome the fact that the commitment has been made today in response to a motion that we've put before the Senedd today. That's why we do these motions—in order to push the Government to make these commitments. I welcome commitments that aren't legislative too—to increase the monitoring over the next few years, to create clean air zones and so forth, and I do agree with what was said clearly by the Minister:

We need to act now, using the powers we already have.

Of course, you are entirely right about that. But frustration that there's not enough action is what's behind the fact that we have put this motion before the Assembly today. Without doubt, even though there are other levers that can be used now and in the future, we believe that a clean air Act must be at the core of what we do to clean the air that our children breathe in Wales, and, in that sense, I urge you to support our motion today.

The proposal is to agree the motion unamended. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.