Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee

Thank you, Chair. Bore da, everybody. The Bill builds on a very broad regulation power that we already have in section 87 of the Environment Act 1995, and that enables Welsh Ministers to make provision in relation to air quality, which could include setting long- or short-term targets in relation to air quality. So, this Bill builds on those provisions by providing specific rather than general powers to set long-term targets, and, very specifically, sets up a duty to set a target in relation to PM2.5, as it's called. And, Chair, if you want an explanation of some of those technical terms, I will be asking the officials to do that. It also introduces duties on us to monitor, review and report on these targets, so, if you like, it tightens and firms up the provisions in the overarching, more general Bill.

That's was what I was getting at, in effect—what more can you therefore do as a result of this Bill that you can't currently do within existing powers.

It complements, so it adds things to it, which I'm sure we'll come on to in a moment, it changes a few of the provisions to make them more useable, and then it puts much more specific duties on us to set particular targets, particularly for PM2.5, which is the one that most people are very concerned about indeed, and then to monitor and produce data, and so on, all of which put much more specific duties, effectively, on us than the more general powers in the environment Act.

Before we come to Huw, who will obviously want to delve a bit deeper into some of those points, can I just ask why the air quality targets will be set in regulations and not appear on the face of the Bill? Because that's obviously something that stakeholders have been keen to pursue.

It's very straightforward, Cadeirydd; it's because the targets are changing all the time. There's no real minimum level, and we want the Bill to be flexible into the future. We want the regulations to be as tight as possible—it's not a light option for us, this. It's to enable us to keep the regulations right up to date according to the latest guidelines on what is best for human and planetary health. And if they're on the face of the Bill, then obviously they're set in stone, pretty much, and you have to come back and do primary legislation to update them. So, it's with a view to futureproofing it, effectively.

Thank you for that initial explanation. I'm sure those points will be raised regularly throughout our scrutiny of this Bill. I'll transfer now to Huw.

Diolch, Llyr. Chair, you asked at the beginning whether or not we had any declarations. I'm not sure if I should, but I'm chair of the cross-party group on air quality. But then again, we've got so many members on this committee who are also members of that. Minister, it's great to see you and great to be at this stage. This is probably one of the rare occasions where I've got some sympathy; I'm open to the arguments about setting air quality targets in regulations, so that they can be updated, improved and strengthened as time goes by. But for targets other than PM2.5, why have you gone for an enabling power, rather than a requirement to set targets?

The very short answer to that, Huw, is because we just don't have the data for the other aspects of air quality. I'm very happily going to hand over to Olwen and Roger to talk you through some of this, I suspect. For PM2.5, we have both a standard target, if you like, and a way of producing the data to justify that target. For the rest of it, this Bill sets out a set of measures by which we will acquire the data to set the other targets, so that we know that they're both robust and helpful. If we don't know what's in the air at the moment, then setting a target that turns out, actually, to be higher than what we've already got, for example, would be pretty pointless. So, it's in that sort of area, but I'm sure Olwen and/or Roger can explain more of the data issues than I can.

That's brilliant. When they do answer, could I just add—? Because we're not asking you to set the target on the Bill; we've been through that already. What we're asking is the requirement to set the target once you've had the evidence, once you know what it is. So, over to your colleagues.

Who wants to come in on this, then? Roger.

We are working, as an evidence-based process, with independent expert advisers. So, there's the clean air advisory panel, and they have advised us that the first priority is to address PM2.5, as it's the pollutant of greatest harm to health, and the evidence links are strongest in terms of causal impacts on health. We are reviewing the evidence in developing the PM2.5 target, but looking at all the pollutants under the updated guidelines, and we will review the case for those during the course of that work.

I wonder whether I could ask you or the Minister what happens then when the evidence changes. Will you come back to the primary legislation then? Because if we are left with a statute book that sets on the face of primary legislation the requirement for some and not for others, would it be your intention as the evidence changes to come back to the primary legislation?

No, actually, Huw. What we’d be doing then is setting out in regulations the other targets. This is an enabling power for us to do that, and then the regulations can be kept up to date as we come up with the evidence. You can do it in the negative, if you like. This is how I think of it. Why aren’t we putting other targets than PM2.5? Well, what for? What would you like us to put the targets in for? What particular pollutants would you like to include? And as soon as you get to that level of detail, you start to see the difficulty of saying, ‘The Welsh Government must set a target for—' and fill in the blank. That’s part of the problem. We don’t know what the data will produce that tells us what we have to do.

What this does is enable us to set those targets, it puts a duty on us to tell the Senedd what we’re considering, and what the data looks like, and then come forward with the regulations. But I asked the same set of questions myself, and as soon as you do it the other way round, ‘Okay, let’s set those targets’—what are they for? What should they be? The next thing the committee would ask me is, ‘When will you set them?’ and there aren’t any answers to any of that, because we need to get the data to know what’s even in our air in some places at the moment, never mind what the healthy level of that might look like. It’s really important to get these targets right. It’s very important to make sure people still continue to feel safe, and that they have some input into this, and frankly that we get the right expert evidence. This isn’t a matter for generalist politicians; this is a matter for serious experts in what human health and planetary health need in order to thrive, and we’re not in that position yet. But we are for PM2.5, and that’s the one that most of us are really concerned about.

That's really good. Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Huw. Janet.

Why is there only a timescale for the introduction of the PM2.5 target and not for other air quality targets?

I think I just set that out, really, Janet. The reason for the timescale is that we don't know where the data will take us or what those targets should be.

And what timescale did you say you were working to?

We aren't working to a timescale on that. We're working to a timescale on the PM2.5. On the others, we will collect the data as fast as we can from the evidential base, and working with things like the World Health Organization guidelines, and then we will report back to the Senedd as we do that piece of work.

Do you have a rough idea on timescales for the other targets?

I haven't got one.

Okay. And then, is there a danger that the requirement on the Welsh Ministers in section 3(2) will lead to less ambitious targets?

I don't think so at all. What we’re saying here is that we should be satisfied when we set those targets that they can be met. We all know the danger of setting a target that then becomes just something that’s impossible to meet, and people just shrug their shoulders. I want these things to be meaningful. They need to be able to be things that we can actually get to with ambition, with stretch, but that we can actually get to. It’s important to get the level of target right. It’s also important to understand what is, frankly, practically possible. We all live in cities, we all drive cars, we all do all kinds of things; it has to be practical for people to live their daily lives and for these targets to be met. I am absolutely certain that, as the world changes rapidly in front of us, the targets will become achievable. But at the moment, they might not be. I’m afraid I would say to the whole committee that I’m very, very, very sceptical of setting targets that are ambitious but pretty much impossible. Everybody just goes, ‘Oh, well. That was very ambitious but, actually, it’s just not possible to do it.’ What we’ll do when we set them, Janet, is we’ll base them on realistic future pathways, robust science, a full economic analysis, and then a route-map for how to get there, so that we know that they’re both challenging and achievable.

What criteria will you use?

A credible scientific pathway, a full economic analysis of how to get there, an impact analysis on public health and environmental benefits, and then coming back through the committee with the regulations, obviously, and the scrutiny of the committee, to make sure we're both ambitious enough in that target and that we can actually achieve it.

Section 3(2) also provides that before making regulations in relation to air quality targets or amending those targets, the Welsh Ministers must be satisfied that the target or amended target can be met. How confident are you, Minister, that you can do this?

That's exactly what I'm setting out. What we want to do is make sure that the air quality modelling based on all of the emissions scenarios is used to assess future pollutant levels and ascertain what the target levels should be and what they could be at different points in time, supported by all of the socioeconomic assessments I've just set out for you. Bear in mind as well—I think the committee needs to hold this in their head; I've certainly had to do it as we've been getting the Bill to this stage—that this isn't a stand-alone Bill in the sense that everything we need to do about air quality is in this Bill. This is one of a set of things that we're doing in this space, so you do need to see it in the round, as well as just specifically for this Bill.

Thank you for that. Back to Huw.

Janet has explored this quite well already, but I just want to seek a little bit more reassurance from the Minister, because the people who've campaigned so long and hard for this legislation will probably have some, if not worries—. This balancing with the socioeconomic analysis and the opportunity-cost impacts of going for certain ways to improve air quality, so that the Minister is able to adjust targets, lower targets and revoke targets—that'll be a little bit of a cause of worry. So, what assurance can you give—you want to bring people with us, you've got to balance this against other issues—that we're not going to compromise here, and that this will be ambitious, rather than the opportunity, not for you, Minister, but for a future Minister to say, 'Well, frankly, I couldn't care less, because the economic objectives override any air quality outcomes'?

Absolutely, we understand the worry of that, but I can't emphasise enough how important it is for these targets to be realistic and achievable, in the sense of a ladder to where we need to get to. We're going to set these targets, but let's assume, I don't know, that something happens in the international community that completely means that Wales cannot get to—I'll make some numbers up—300, but we could get to 295. I'm just literally plucking numbers out of the air here. I wouldn't want us to just go, 'Oh gosh, we can't do it'. What we want is something to say, 'Well, actually, you guys should be saying to us, "Where could you get to and why aren't you trying to get to that? What is the realistic place to get to? What is the best that you could possibly do, given the current environmental and economic conditions" and not just throw up your hands in horror and say, "We can't solve world hunger so let's not bother"'. It's that kind of step that we want—what will keep this Government ambitious enough to do everything it can do in the prevailing circumstances, rather than just throw up your hands in horror and say that it just can't be done. We've all seen examples of that in other target setting over the years. So, this is genuinely about making it an achievable—stretched, absolutely, but achievable—goal so that we don't have that. At the risk of speaking against my own ministerial efforts, I'm sure the committee will want the regulations to be by the most stringent method of agreement. So, if we are lowering these targets, we'll have to come back through the Senedd, through a, dare I suggest, superaffirmative procedure, in order to make sure that any Government—this Government I serve in or any future Government—isn't doing what you just said, so that it is subject to full scrutiny and it's not just a ministerial whim on a Tuesday.

Minister, that's very helpful indeed, because it's not only this Government we're thinking about but future Governments, and holding some form of lock there that would challenge them to come back and justify if they were going to significantly reduce or even revoke some of the air quality aspirations. Thanks very much, Chair—diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. Delyth has indicated to come in on a supplementary specifically here, I think, and then we'll come to Jenny to take us on to the next question.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Good morning, Minister. It was actually, almost, to delve a little deeper into what Huw was asking about there—the balance of ensuring that the targets, as you say, are stretching but they are also achievable. What I want to ask about is that they are taking the public with them. You spoke in an earlier answer about—. I think that you said that it was important for people to feel safe, and that it's important for people to feel that these measures are there to protect them and that it's something that they want to be happening, rather than something that they see as something that is being imposed on them. Could you talk us through that a little bit more? I'm aware of time, Cadeirydd, but that would be really interesting, please.

That's a very good point, Delyth. When we come back with the targets for the other things that are not PM2.5, or in the unlikely event that we'd come back to try and change the target, then what we would do is we would have a full set of criteria in front of us. So, we'd have the expert panels, we'd have the clean air advisory panel, we'd have a whole series of consultations with stakeholders with the cross-party group, with a whole series of stakeholders across Wales, and very particularly with our local authorities, who are in charge of the local air quality management arrangements. So you would not be expecting, 'I just woke up on a Tuesday afternoon and decided to do this'. This would be as a result of a whole series of people probably coming the other way, actually, pushing the Government into saying 'Why aren't you doing this? We want you to do this' and that's how the Bill is set up, basically, in order to be able to do exactly that. So, that, as the data for Wales—because we don't have great data for Wales, that's the truth of it—becomes much more comprehensive, as we roll out the air quality monitoring arrangements, and as our way of life changes, frankly, in the face of climate change and everything else, then, the standards will vary, won't they? And I would very much hope, as we start towards the biodiversity goals and so on, that the standards will become effectively cleaner—that's not a scientific word, but you know what I mean by it.

Okay. Thank you, both. Jenny.

Good morning. I want to talk about the role of the air quality data in propelling both Government and the public into highlighting the importance of all this. Because it seems to me that the Environment Act 1995 was—local authorities undertook monitoring that was largely a private conversation between technical experts, and it really is only in the last decade or so that the public has some grasp of the dangers that we're all entering into, and particularly those who live on congested roads that they don't choose to live on. So, could you just tell us how the air quality data is currently monitored and reported, and the changes that may be needed to support the ambition for the Bill?

Yes, certainly, Jenny. And, again, Chair, I'll start this off, and some of the officials might want to add to it. At the moment, we have, alongside the rest of the UK, several statutory air quality monitoring networks in place for very specific purposes, and they help measure progress. We have to report back; we have obligations to report back from that—for example, the provision of public data to inform how air quality changes over time and the air quality forecast that you've become familiar with, we have reporting requirements for those. We also have a spatial coverage and an estimate of the contributing pollution sources that are all done from those networks at the moment. There's data quality and assessment criteria set out in the current legislation, so before this Bill goes through, and, then, local authorities mange air quality at the local level through the local air quality management process, which I've mentioned briefly already, and they specifically tackle local hotspots. So, pretty much all of us will have seen an air quality monitoring station at some point in our own patches, for example—certainly, I know where they are in my patch—and they identify risks, they tell us where there are hotspots, particularly on traffic networks, for example, and they're sort of hotspot monitoring. And some of those don't—. And, again, I'm going to defer to Olwen and Roger at this point, but my understanding is that some of the local authority monitoring stations don't meet the strict data quality for the national networks, and this Bill puts a new duty on us to make arrangements to obtain data about air quality that does meet the targets, and those targets are set out and will be published. But, at that point, Chair, I think it would be useful to get either Roger or Olwen to take you through a bit more of the technical detail, please.

Okay.

There we are. Any takers? Roger? Olwen? Roger, first of all, then.

I can comment. There's a whole host of different monitoring and sampling technologies available, and they all collect data for different purposes. Local authorities follow our policy and technical guidance in pursuit of local air quality objectives, and they're used to gather information on the potential risks of exceeding some of those objectives. Data can be gathered through [Inaudible.] sources and source apportionment, so there are all sorts of different technologies and approaches. Then, alongside that, there are the limit values and target values that Welsh Ministers have responsibility for compliance with, and, obviously, there are set rules in terms of where you assess, how you assess, and the quality of the data that's collected. That's a combination of air quality monitoring and modelling, and the quality assurance. So, there are set rules for those—

Okay, but would you agree that this is a pretty technical exercise? There is no air quality monitoring—you know, green, amber, red monitors in the two local schools in my constituency that have very high levels, or have had very high levels of poor-quality air. How do you think the way we report this needs to change to ensure that the public really understand why we've got to do things differently?

So, Jenny, I think that's a slightly different question—

Okay.

First off, what we'd really like to see is to get the quality to a point where you don't ever have an amber or a red warning, certainly by a school. So, part of it will be to make sure that we have targets in place that actually get the air quality to be good enough not to do that.

Then, secondly, actually, by 'bad air', what exactly do we mean? So, do we mean PM 2.5, do we actually mean other pollutants in the air, do we mean the whole range of things that that could mean? So, the broad thing you're talking about, like red, amber, green, that's really difficult to achieve, because it depends, as they say. Pollen counts, for example, can be very, very important for some people with particular conditions, and so on. So, we need to get this right and we need to get the reporting right so that we do give people the information to keep themselves safe, as I said earlier, but we also don't make people alarmed in circumstances where, actually, unless you have a very specific medical condition, it's perfectly fine.

It is a very difficult question to answer until we've got the data, and part of the thing that this Bill is doing is putting us in a position to get the data in order to be able to do that. And then, I think we would have to have a broader conversation alongside our local authorities about how best to manage that kind of messaging, because that's a very difficult and more of a policy question than a data question, I think.

All right, so, could you just talk about those monitoring stations that don't meet the standards? Are we talking about particular local authorities or particular places where it's difficult to capture the information?

No, it's because they're doing something slightly different than the current national standard asks them to do. So, they're particularly monitoring places that are hotspots, that we know are hotspots, so particular traffic areas, for example, or particular funnelling places or whatever. They're being asked to do a different task. So, what we'll be doing now is rolling out an air quality monitoring system right across Wales that actually is a higher quality and gives us a completely different set of data, basically, to enable us to come back to the Senedd with different targets to be set once we've got that data in place. I think you're going to come on in a minute to us wanting to change the review period, for example, and part of that is about lining it up with the reporting that we want to be able to do to the Senedd on that.

Okay, but should this information be comprehensible to policy makers like local councillors, who have to make decisions about where they clean up the air, or is it something that needs to be easily accessible to the general public?

It's aimed at policy makers, not the general public, and it's aimed towards making sure that local and national legislative regimes can support the proper action to be taken. So, these are things like speed limits, one-way systems, no-traffic zones and low-traffic areas and all that kind of stuff that goes on all the time that the local authority will be best placed to do, but in conjunction with the national Government here in Wales and with Transport for Wales, for example. Sorry, this is a suite of measures, as I keep saying, Chair. So, you'll see that there's a bus Bill coming. When we re-regulate the buses, then we would expect that to be part of what the local authority takes into account in setting what its air quality standards are for particular areas. So, this is a very complex jigsaw of things that we're putting together here.

But this isn't about the general public, this is about making sure that the policy makers have the right information, and the technical people who advise the policy makers have the right technical and scientific information to inform that policy.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jenny. Joyce, you've been very patient, fair play.

Just on having the right technical information, are we talking about a standardised monitoring system? Because, if we use different monitors, potentially, we could have different readings of different outputs, or pollution in the air. So, my question is: are we measuring the same thing with the same equipment? There's a lot of innovation in this area as well, which might make things more sensitive or less sensitive. How are we going to deal with that, in terms of understanding what those readings are, and will they be the same readings for everybody, so that we can get a comprehensive answer to this question?

Yes. That's a very good question, Joyce, and I'm afraid that it is slightly driven by economics. So, we can't afford to put an air-quality monitoring station on every junction of every road right across Wales—let's just be clear. So, to some extent, we will be listening to our experts about where the hotspots are, alongside our local authorities, and monitoring air in particular locations. Near schools, for example, but not necessarily all schools, it depends on where the school is, what kind of road it's by, and all that kind of thing. So, it will be assessed on a pollutant and target-specific basis. We will take a lot of expert advice on where to start and how to build up the data. And then, I expect that, as the data builds up, then that will change; the evidence base that we then build up will change what we start to monitor for.

So, we're starting from a very low base of the right kind of data—let's just be clear—so we'll be building it up. But, again, Chair, if you want some more technical information about particular pollutants and stuff, I am not the person you want; you want one of the officials.

I don't think we'll necessarily pursue too much of the technical aspects today, although I do get the feeling that it really calls into question, then, the monitoring that's been happening in the past, doesn't it? And I suppose you might acknowledge that it isn't what it should have been, hence the need for this Bill, I suppose.

Yes. And so, this is not a criticism of what's happened in local authorities, but we know that it's not consistent, and it's not helping us towards this; it is helping us towards making some decisions on local roads, for example, so, please don't take it as a criticism of local government partners. But what we clearly need to do, as you say, Chair, is up our game, if you like, and this is what this Bill is designed to do.

Okay, there we are. Thank you so much. We'll move on now, then. Joyce.

Okay. I'm on page—

My mistake, sorry. Janet, yes. Sorry, Janet, over to you. [Interruption.] Sorry, Joyce, I startled you there.

Okay, do you want me to just go? You've talked about how necessary it is for you as a Minister to have the power to change the review period for the national air quality strategy, why do you believe it is necessary for you?

Well, I just think it's out of sync, basically; that's what we're saying. So, what we want is for each Senedd term to have a set of reports coming to it that are meaningful, and at the moment, it's just out of sync, because of where the Act started, it just isn't synced up. So, all we're trying to do is sync it back up again.

And how did you decide on the list of public bodies to be consulted on the clean air/soundscapes plan/strategy? Because that I notice it's going to be every local authority in Wales, NRW, Public Health Wales, national health service trusts, every local health board and the public. Will they all be consulted in exactly the same way?

Yes, Janet, and also, we have a duty to consult the public as a whole, so effectively, anyone who wants to make a contribution at that point can. Otherwise, who would we be listing out? Would we be listing the National Library of Wales, or, I mean, which public bodies did you have in mind? So, what we've done is—[Interruption.]

No, no. I was more concerned about the public, because I have to be honest, those of us who work doing this are fully aware of what's happening down here. Sometimes, Bills then go into Acts and they go over the heads of people, so it would be nice, on something like this—well, on any law, really—if it doesn't go over their heads, and they're involved.

Yes, yes. So, we are required—the Bill is requiring us to consult the public as a whole, and I know that a large number of you are members of the cross-party group; you'll know that there are very active members of the public, some who are far more knowledgeable than I am on this subject, who are very actively involved, and frankly, people whose health is more affected by this sort of thing—

Yes, yes.

—than if you're lucky enough to be not affected by it. So, we have interest groups right across Wales who are very keenly involved in this, and whom we're very, very keen to keep involved and to use their expertise. And I know the cross-party group has a list of enthusiastic members of the public who are very keen on doing this as well.

Thank you. I think I had another—. No. Sorry, it's me and my pages. Sorry. No, no, I've done mine.

Well, yes, the only other question, really, is whether you'd consider just mirroring the list of public bodies in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 for consistency.

Well, I'm not against it, Chair, as such. I suppose what we've done is pick out the environmental ones that are more likely to have an upfront contribution to make, and then, as I said, there's a wide consultation duty anyway, so frankly anyone who did want to contribute, whether they're a body or not, is very welcome to. But, if the committee would prefer we had the same list, then it's not the end of the world, in my view.

Well, if it comes to that and that we're stuck on that point, I think you're doing pretty well, Minister. So, there's no need to panic about that. Okay, thank you. Huw—no, where are we going next? Delyth. Sorry, Delyth.

Diolch am hwnna. Gweinidog, rydych chi wedi cyffwrdd ar hyn yn barod wrth ymateb i nifer o'r cwestiynau. Roeddwn i'n mynd i ofyn os ydych chi'n gallu siarad ni trwy'r rhesymeg o ran pam rydych chi'n meddwl bod angen gosod dyletswydd ar awdurdodau lleol a'r awdurdodau eraill rydych chi wedi sôn amdanyn nhw i roi sylw i'r cynllun a'r strategaeth aer glân wrth arfer eu swyddogaethau. Rydych chi wedi dweud yn barod ba mor bwysig y mae hi i gael y cyhoedd on board, fel petai, gyda hyn, ond os oes yna unrhyw beth arall rydych chi eisiau ychwanegu ar hwnna, byddai hwnna'n ddefnyddiol. Ond hefyd, ydych chi'n gallu dweud sut y bydd cydymffurfiaeth yr awdurdodau hynny â'r ddyletswydd hon yn cael ei monitro?

Yes, thank you, Delyth. So, what we're trying to do here is make sure that the local authority in its wider sense, its wider corporate sense, takes account of the guidance, and not just the environmental health team. So, we're making sure that all policy makers in the local authority have due regard to this guidance. And it's in line with the prevention way of working in the well-being of future generations Act—that, basically, we're pulling it into line with the Bill. And the idea is that the local authority has a clear understanding of their responsibilities at corporate level.

For some reason, Chair, my lights have gone out and this room has been suddenly plunged into darkness, but never mind. I don't know whether I'm not moving around enough.

We can see you, Minister. That's fine.

So, the idea is, Delyth, that it's taken into account at a corporate level, so that the policy-making function of the local authority in its entirety takes account of the clean air Act, as we hope it will be by then, and not just the environmental health department, and so that it's not seen as a narrow, geeky thing that the local authority has to do, but part of its broad duty to the public. I think that's really important.

And in terms of compliance, we'll obviously review the national strategy and the local authorities' part in that, and as part of that we'll be able to see whether they're compliant or not and take appropriate actions.

Thank you. That's clear, Minister. Could you also please tell us—and, again, I think that this is something that you've touched on a little already, but if there's anything you wanted to add on this—what arrangements are in place for Welsh Ministers to report on progress for the delivery of the plan and strategy? And could you tell us what consideration you gave to including a requirement for Welsh Ministers to report on progress, please?

Yes, so, again—thank you, Delyth—this is, as I said, part of a suite of measures that are going on, and almost like a road map, if you like, of what we have to do. We've recently undertaken a review of the national air quality strategy, and we'll be publishing that shortly, in line with our duty under section 80 of the Environment Act 1995, which is the underpinning Act that I mentioned right at the beginning of this evidence session. As part of that, we'll produce an update report on actions within the clean air plan, which is also already in existence and not reliant on this Bill, of course. And then, each five-year review of the strategy—we've just talked about lining up with the Senedd, and this is why it's important—for each five-year review, we'll do a progress report against that as well, as part of the suite of measures, if you like.

There will be a public consultation on progress; we're not marking our own homework. So, we're actually going to go out to the Welsh public and say, 'What do you think of the progress towards the clean air plans?', and what do all of these engaged people and what does the cross-party group think of our progress towards it. So, this is a genuine public consultation. I anticipate as well that, as we get more data, we will then start to get responses back saying, 'Why don't you start thinking about setting a target for whatever it is that is being revealed from the data?' And that's part of the reason for the review. But, as I say, it's important to think that the review is one of the things that we'll be doing, because we're already doing a number of things in the existing set of legislation.

Diolch.

There we are. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Okay. Janet.

Thank you. Just about the requirement for local authorities to undertake air quality reviews annually, I know, about three years ago, there was an application in my constituency for an incinerator-type thing, and as part of that application suddenly we were getting feedback that the local authority were actually undertaking reviews of air quality. But how frequently do local authorities currently undertake reviews of air quality, and I assume all 22 local authorities do?

Yes. So, at the moment the legislation requires local authorities to review their air quality plans 'from time to time', is what the legislation actually says, but actually we have statutory guidance in place that requires them to submit annual progress reports, so the 'time to time' is made clear in the statutory guidance, and we're just basically formalising that so it's very clear to the local authorities. I think it's really important that the local authority has a clear duty and that there's a strong framework to drive and underpin this. And also, actually, in all of the conversations so far in this evidence session, we've been talking about the involvement of our communities and our public, haven't we? It needs to be clear to them when they can expect to see progress reports on the local air quality management plans, and then it will build up as a pyramid, obviously, to the rest of it. So, I think this allows us an opportunity to state clearly what we expect of our local authorities in carrying out the action plan process, and what the action plan should contain, and what the framework is. So, it's just a very clear set of provisions as opposed to the slightly vague 'from time to time' type of thing that we've got at the moment. Although, I have to say, just before the committee asks me how the local authority is possibly going to resource that, we're actually doing it anyway because we've given them statutory guidance that they have to do it annually already, so it's just clarifying it.

Yes. I know my own local authority—. From what I understand—. Just now and again I get people believing that they live in a polluted area with regard to the quality of air, and it's just off the A55. So, I know those kinds of areas are monitored, shall we say, but I would guess that you'd expect the local authority to have a balance on the area, not just on the sides of busy dual carriageways.

The local air quality management plan, Janet—

I haven't seen one, I must confess.

—is the mechanism by which the local authority decides where to do its hotspot monitoring, just to be clear, so there's a whole process by which they come to that. They don't just randomly decide to put it on a particular junction. There's a process that they go through in pulling together their local air quality management plan, and then the deploying of the various devices in particular areas is as a result of that. You'll know, obviously—and again I'm going on about the 'suite' and the 'jigsaw' aren't I?—that one of the things that the local authority is being asked to do, and I know it's controversial, is to look at the 20 mph speed limits. Obviously, one of the things the local authorities will be able to do is revise that speed limit upwards. Well, one of the things we would expect them to do is to do air quality data monitoring before they make that decision. This isn't just about the speed of the journey; it's about what the emissions of a vehicle do when they get faster, basically. And it's about road safety, of course, as well. So, we would expect the monitoring to inform those kinds of decisions, going forward. I just can't emphasise that enough. And then, what we want is to be able to ensure that the local authorities are able to do this as this Bill becomes law, so we will be proposing to support fixed-term staff posts through the local air quality management support fund, and that will allow local authorities to apply for support based on need and the particular air quality challenges of their area. So, we're just working through it with the local authorities. We do this very much in partnership with them. We're working through with local authorities and the WLGA how that support will be deployed, and that will be available from the start of 2024 onwards, assuming that this Bill does become an Act and has gone through all of its various processes, because we very much want to make sure that the local authorities with the biggest problem in this regard have the best support. We know that environmental health teams have been stretched through COVID and all of the things that they've done through that period.

Okay. Huw wants to come in with a supplementary, and then we'll come to Delyth. Huw.

I'm just wondering, Minister, if this is the moment, through this Bill, where we get truly serious about decongesting school runs. You mentioned there 20 mph issues, but, actually, the best solution to tackling air quality is to genuinely get serious about walking, cycling, other ways of getting to school other than the normal school run. I'm just wondering what your thoughts are on this, because you've talked about, 'This is not the only game in town, this Bill', but the sort of support you're talking about giving to local authorities could be designed to say to them, 'Well, the support we'll give you will be to re-engineer the way that, at peak congestion times, parents choose to drop off their children.'

Yes, for sure. I don't know if you want me to address it now, but there are some provisions about idling. We're changing the regime for enforcement of that. But that will be an educational piece as well. I can't emphasise enough that, all the way through this, what we're trying to do is educate people as to the consequences of the way that they currently behave. I mean, there are penalties associated with this, but we would very much be in the position of trying to make sure that only people who are repeat offenders who really are taking no notice of any of the advice coming out from schools, care homes, hospitals and all the rest of it about the effect of, for example, idling outside, are then fined, and there's a process in the Bill for that.

But also, Huw, this is part of—. We're going to be reviewing the Learner Travel (Wales) Measure 2008, and I'm sure my colleague Jeremy Miles will be able to talk to you about some of that. We've got a bus Bill coming forward, which we hope will re-regulate the buses. We have to go through the Senedd process to do that. The aim of the Bill will be to re-regulate the buses and make more sense of public transport, and also, of course, we've got the Safe Routes to School work and the active travel measures. All of those are designed to try and stop people taking their children to school in a car unless there absolutely isn't any other option, and, even if they do that, to park far enough away from the school and not sit with the engine running outside it, for obvious reasons. So, this is part of a whole suite of things that the Government is doing towards clean air; it's just a very specific bit of it.

Okay, thank you. Before I come to Joyce, I'm not going to let you get away so easily with the resourcing of local authorities thing as I think you tried to pre-empt earlier. So, just to be clear, clearly the Bill does increase responsibilities and duties and formalises them, and there will be, if not in a formal sense, greater expectation at least, although there will be in a formal sense as well greater weight or burden on the shoulders of local authorities. Now, some of this will require capital investment in terms of monitoring and other things, as well as revenue. You mentioned a fund that could contribute towards the cost of officers et cetera. Are you saying that you're increasing the resource, or are you saying that you're using existing resources in a different way?

So, we're doing a bit of both of those, Chair. So, we are increasing the resource, but we're increasing the resource over a fixed-term period, and that's because—and you've heard me say this on other provisions that we've put in place—we think there is an educational piece here. So, when the Bill first comes in and the new plans come into place, there will be a piece to do in terms of educating the public, businesses, people idling in their cars, et cetera, et cetera. But, we do think—and we have a lot of evidence from other regulations going through now—that once the public becomes accustomed to that, and so on, there's much less need for that resource. So, effectively, we'll be providing a support fund for local authorities. They will be able to bid in for that, but I don't want that to make it sound like it's a competition. The bid in is for us to just make sure that what they're looking for support on matches the air quality plans, and that we're able to target it to those local authorities that have larger hotspots than others. All of them have some; some of them have many. So, it's that kind of process. We are very much working alongside the Welsh Local Government Association and the local authorities in doing this. This is very much a partnership arrangement. We can't do it without them; they're the delivery mechanism for this, largely.

And then, because the local authority will have a wider duty to look at both airborne pollution and sound pollution, we think that that might ease some of the pressure on a specific team in the local authority, which is the environmental health team. And then, actually, in a completely separate piece of work, I know my colleague Rebecca Evans has been working with the local authorities, and certainly I have, with my waste management hat on and so on, to look at hard-to-recruit professions and help them to do something along those lines as well. There is a whole series of opportunities there around apprenticeships and professions in local authorities that are hard to recruit, which, I'm afraid, I can talk for about two hours on, so I'll spare you that. But, just to be clear, we absolutely will be working with them to make sure that they have the resource available for this. But we do think that there will be a spike in that resource, as the Bill becomes law and goes into force, and then it will tail off, as people become used to the new way of behaving.

And I can absolutely understand the rationale there, but no doubt they will have a view that they will present to us as well as part of our deliberations. Joyce.

Minister, you're asking local authorities to set projected compliance dates for their air quality action plans. Is that reasonable, because they don't hold all the required levers to address air quality? And I conflate this, then, with, if that gives rise to disputes, how are you going to resolve them?

Thank you, Joyce. So, this is a bit of a complicated scenario as well. There are currently 44 air quality management areas in place across Wales. So, obviously, each local authority has a plan, but then they have management areas as well. So, some of them have more than one, as I was just alluding to, and then that's led to some criticisms from local authorities and us about that. It's a bit of a mishmash and it's not as effective as it could be. So, what we want is—. We want a system that, where air quality standards are exceeded, there's a swift action plan put in place to do something about it, rather than an interesting set of monitoring that people have a look at. We want this to be effective, and that the communities affected are aware that there's a plan in place and what the timescale for dealing with the breach, if you like, is.

At the moment, local authorities are required to develop actions and give timescales for implementation. So, we're building on that process to require local authorities to provide a projected compliance date, based on the actions and implementation timescales they've already developed. So, we've got two authorities currently developing action plans to test the compliance date proposals, and then we'll get some feedback from that, as the Bill goes through, to make sure that it's a practical solution. And then, as I said before, local authorities can bid in for revenue funding to support the work, and the sort of thing that the funding can be used for is to commission detailed modelling assessments, for example, of some of the plans coming forward.

And then we've asked them to put steering groups together to support the development and delivery of the action plans and then agree a compliance date with Welsh Ministers, effectively. So, again, it's part of a theme I'm sure the committee can see developing here, that this is very much in partnership with the local authorities. They want to do this, we can't do it without them, and so it's very much a single piece running through. So, what will happen is that they'll agree the compliance date with us, and then we can ensure that they've got the support they need to be able to comply by the date. And this goes back to the original thing I was talking about, about making sure the plans are both robust and achievable, so that the community in question can actually see that something is being done. And I think that's actually really important; it's really important to make sure that we're just not going, 'Oh, well, then. It's terrible, but what can we do?' I really do want to get away from that kind of feeling. So, this is very much a part of the piece and, again, forgive me, Chair, but both Roger and Olwen know far more about the inner workings of all of these partnership arrangements than I do, so, if the committee wants more detail, I'm sure they can provide it.

The dispute resolution hasn't been touched on, and I can think of an example in my area, where you've got a school right next door to an industrial estate. I certainly wouldn't have given planning myself, but there it is. So, you can see there how tricky it might be in terms of dispute resolution. What we don't want to see, of course, is one blaming the other, neither taking action. So, how would you—? What mechanisms have you got in place or are going to have in place for that particular type of scenario to ensure what you want to ensure, which is good air quality for those pupils?

Thank you, Joyce. So, the way this would work, as I have been trying to outline, is that this is a set of partnership working with the local authority. They will be under a duty to produce this compliance date. The only way we're going to dispute that is if, for some reason, they've chosen an arbitrary date for which there's no evidence. I suppose we've got to go through all possible scenarios, but we think that's extremely unlikely, because they'll have been working with us to produce the data for that. Why would they come up with a compliance date that didn't match the data? I suppose they could. We don't think that they will. We're very unlikely to dispute the compliance date if it's been worked on with us. I suppose we could dispute it if they did do that. As a backstop, we do have a power of direction under the Environment Act 1995, so we could direct them to do something, but I'd be really reluctant to do that. We work much better in partnership than we do with that kind of stick approach. But I suppose, Joyce, to be reassured, we could direct a local authority if it was being arbitrary in that way, but I honestly don't think that we would ever get into that position. I would regard us as having failed if we hadn't managed to do it in partnership at that point.

I see that you've set a date for local authorities to come up with their plans, and that's laudable. But you haven't come up with a timescale for the Welsh Government to approve those plans.

I suppose that's because we just want to do it as soon as possible, and I would struggle to say what the timescale would be for that. Again, just to give an example, what would you say? Within a year? Within two years? We are very keen to do this as soon as possible, so we struggled to come up with a timescale that wasn't, I thought, actually likely to be longer than the one we'd actually want to go for, but, on the other hand, I think, if the committee wanted to tell me that I had to do it within three months, we'd be duty bound to say that it's very unlikely we could agree to that, because unforeseen circumstances might mean that we couldn't. So, I wanted to—. And I have to say this without—. I don't want to put a timescale in that makes us all relax and think we've got a year if we could do it in three months. But, at the same time, I couldn't agree to the committee saying three months, in case some unforeseen circumstances meant that we wouldn't be able to do it. So, you see, it's a bit of a dilemma. So, I think we've gone for 'as soon as possible'.

Okay.

Jenny.

I understand what you're saying, but that's a slightly unsatisfactory situation, Minister, simply because you might no longer be in post, and somebody else who took a much more relaxed view on this really important matter might be in post. So, how can we resolve this? I understand what you're saying, but we need to see action as soon as possible.

Well, if the committee wants to take evidence about what kind of timescale they think is appropriate, I'm certainly prepared to look at it, but I do genuinely worry that if the committee comes up with something that—. It's just in the nature of the way that our resources are, isn't it, that, if I haven't got to do it for two years, then it will slow down. I genuinely mean that.

Yes, on the other hand—

So, I would say as soon as possible in the circumstances, but if the committee has evidence—. Part of the point of the scrutiny process, isn't it, is if the committee has evidence that means that a timescale could be put in place that we can all agree then I'd be very happy to have a look at that. As I say, there's no benefit to us delaying our agreement. We'd want to get it under way as soon as possible.

Okay. All right. Well, I think we'll come back to that.

Huw wants to come in. Last word to Huw, and then we'll take a break, I think.

Just as an option, Minister, I wonder whether it would be an appropriate way to proceed to put a reasonable date within the legislation, but one that also gave you the power to slip that date and to bring it back with justification to the Senedd, because then that gives a stronger imperative to introducing this, but it gives you the power to come back and say, 'Well, actually, we're not quite ready for very good reasons.' Are you open to that sort of idea?

I'm not not open to it, Huw, I guess. It's just the more things you get us to do before we do the actual thing, the less likely we are to achieve the thing, if you see what I mean. So, if we were going to slip it by three weeks, and I had to go through a process to do that, then it would probably slip by three months. It is a genuine dilemma. I do understand why the committee wants us to have a date in there, but you can see it is a genuine dilemma.

And there are other time-bound targets on the face of the Bill as well—

Yes, there are. Indeed, there are.

—so that's something that, maybe, as a committee we'll need to reflect on. So, we'll pause there. We'll take a 10-minute break, and, if everybody's happy, we'll reconvene a minute or so before 10:40, and then we'll go back into public session. So, we'll take a break there. Diolch yn fawr.