The following post is part of the Mason Institute student blog series, which publishes the excellent work undertaken by Edinburgh postgraduate students on the Contemporary Issues in Medical Jurisprudence course, a component of our Master’s in Medical Law and Ethics degree programme.
________________
Air pollution affecting children disproportionately became evident after the death of Ella Roberta Kissi-Debrah, leading to the outcry for clean air to be recognised as a human right in the United Kingdom (UK). However, confidence in the existing air quality legislation being sufficient led to the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill being rejected in the UK. I argue that the adoption and implementation of the Bill would have strengthened protections against poor air quality, with a focus on children who are highly vulnerable to air pollutants. I will explore whether current national air pollution measures have sufficient force and scope to protect children.
Introduction
Children breathing contaminated air with harmful pollutants face serious threats to their health, denying them the right to grow up in a clean and healthy environment. Exposure to air pollution may lead to health issues including stunted lung growth, asthma, pneumonia, cardiovascular disease, and even early death.
Air pollution linked to asthma and death had never been addressed legally in the UK before the death of Ella Roberta Kissi-Debrah, a seven-year-old girl who died from a fatal asthma attack. An inquest into her death concluded that air pollution was a contributory cause, marking the first time air pollution was officially recorded as a cause of death. Ella’s death prompted the introduction of the Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill.
The Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill
The Clean Air (Human Rights) Bill seeks to establish a legal right to clean air, creating a pathway to enshrine robust air quality protections in English law and explicitly recognises clean air as a core component of environmental and public health policy across the UK. The Bill would bring the UK into closer alignment with Article 24 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which affirms children’s right to the highest attainable standard of health.
Under the Bill, the UK Health Security Agency would set pollutant limits and conduct annual reviews based on advice from the Climate Change Committee, aligned with World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines. The Secretary of State would be required to achieve the prescribed limits within five years or defer compliance for an additional five years per pollutant, subject to strict conditions and an obligation to achieve clean air.
Provisions introduced under Awaab’s Law, following the death of Ishak Awaab, have highlighted indoor air pollution and strengthened legal protection against hazardous living conditions. However, existing legislation does not sufficiently address air pollution outside the home. The Bill sought to bridge this gap by mandating health and safety air quality standards both outdoors and indoors.
The Bill also proposed the establishment of a Citizens’ Commission for Clean Air to conduct annual reviews of the Secretary of State’s compliance. The Commission would have the power to initiate or intervene in legal proceedings, ensuring independent scrutiny and continuous improvement.
The UK Government’s Response?
The Bill incorporated principles reflected in the 2022 United Nations General Assembly Resolution recognising the human right to a clean, healthy, and sustainable environment, and it was anticipated that the UK government would respond accordingly. However, as of 30 May 2024, the Bill has not progressed further in the UK Parliament, despite garnering support. In response, the government maintained that the existing legal framework was more than sufficient to reduce air pollution. I strongly agree with the consensus that rejecting the Bill was in no way beneficial to the people in the UK.
Is the Current System Working? Addressing Legislative Issues
The UK government’s reliance on the Environmental Act 2021 lacks the ambition required to curb air pollution. The PM2.5 target set out in the Act is 10µg/m³, which differs from the WHO Guidelines of 5µg/m³. As a result, current legislation falls short of international health standards, indicating that significant gaps need to be addressed. Before Brexit, the UK often failed to meet the limits set by EU directives, making continued non-compliance unsurprising. Further, the UK’s domestic air quality regulations continue to struggle to bring pollutant levels within safe limits and are widely criticised for being insufficiently ambitious. For example, the Department for Environment, Food & Rural Affairs’ (DEFRA) objective to halve the number of people living in highly polluted areas does not explicitly consider children, meaning many may continue to live in unsafe environments. Existing regulations also fail to provide targeted measures to protect children from the disproportionate health impacts of air pollution.
Currently, UK local authorities lack the capacity to enforce air quality standards effectively, as they are not adequately empowered to act when pollution exceeds the limit. Nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) levels, for instance, frequently exceed statutory limits in London and remain persistently high despite existing enforcement mechanisms.
Conclusion
Poor coordination between government and local authorities reflects an ineffective and fragmented approach to air quality management, resulting in regional inconsistencies across the UK. There are currently no mandatory or national legal requirements to monitor air quality inside or around schools, despite the well-documented health risks. This suggests insufficient funding and resources for local authorities. This is combined with reliance on voluntary compliance rather than enforceable standards which is unlikely to be effective.
Moreover, since there is no legal right to clean air under UK law, individuals have limited legal recourse to hold the government accountable for failing to maintain safe air quality levels, as they lack a direct means to force changes or demand action. Significant gaps therefore remain in addressing the complexity of air pollution challenges in the UK.
Clean air should not be treated as a luxury but as a fundamental human right. The general public hopes that the harmful impacts of air pollution on children’s health will be taken seriously. Greater funding, clearer guidance, and stronger coordination involving DEFRA and the UK government are required to create a coherent and child-focused approach to mitigating air pollution.
About the Author
This blog post was written by Shasha Muniesweran, LLM student in Medical Law & Ethics, in March 2025 for the Contemporary Issues in Medical Jurisprudence course.
Photo by Matthias Heyde on Unsplash
