National Assembly for Wales

Diolch yn fawr.

Samuel Kurtz.

I am an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association.

Good morning, everybody. Wendy Weber from Pembrokeshire College. I'm head of the built environment, one of the faculties in the college.

Thank you. Bore da, pawb. My name is David Jones. I'm a stakeholder director for Simply Blue Group, who are an Irish offshore wind developer, in a joint venture to develop Erebus, Wales's first floating offshore windfarm, Blue Gem Wind. I also sit on the board of the regional skills panel for the region, as well.

Thank you very much indeed for those introductions. Perhaps I can just kick off this session with a few questions. Can I first of all ask you both what is your assessment of the progress being made in developing the green economy in Pembrokeshire? And what are your key asks from the Welsh Government to support this, going forward? Who'd like to go first on that? David.

Shall I? Yes, okay. Overall, I believe there's positive progress being made. If you look at the Marine Energy Wales 'State of the Sector 2023' report, that states that there's been over £90 million invested into renewables in 2023 alone, just in Pembrokeshire. So, I believe that that's a positive step forward. I think things like Pembroke Dock marine, part of the Swansea bay city deal coming online and some of the infrastructure improvements there are really positive, and the free port announcement, again, is really positive. For us, as a developer, gaining all the necessary consents for Erebus was really, really positive. I think round 5 that's coming up, which suggests over £1.4 billion and 5,000 jobs for the region, again, is a generational opportunity. And whilst that one is very, very future focused, I think it's also just important to state that there are over 280 full-time equivalents working in renewables in Pembrokeshire right now. So, I think, overall, it's positive, and, as someone who's worked in the sector for over 15 years now, it does feel like we're making progress.

And then, in terms of key asks, I would say that political leadership is critical, and I would thank the previous First Minister for taking a role in this space. I would just say to the committee to not underestimate the impact of messaging at a ministerial level to particular international private investors—it's important. Other key asks: we can't overstate the importance of ports and grid; also supply chain; also a focus on training and skills just to make sure that we have a just transition for future generations as well; consents and leasing; and also the importance of inter-governmental relationships. I think they would be generally our key asks at a very high level. I'm sure we'll get to the detail, as we move forward. Thank you.

Yes. Thank you, David. Wendy.

Well, from my perspective, I'm looking at it from a training and skills focus, and, yes, I agree with David, we're very lucky to be working very closely with a lot of the investors and a lot of the businesses around Pembrokeshire, around the haven. Generally, there does tend to be still a lack of understanding generally as to what 'green', 'a green economy' and 'green skills' mean. The perception isn't clear. We are very, very keen to be able to ensure that there is a skilled workforce ready for the jobs when they do arrive, and it is quite a big ask when we have the general public, our parents, our stakeholders, our learners not quite understanding what the green economy is all about. So, for us, it would be about clearing those misconceptions or providing a very clear understanding of what the future holds for our local workforce, so that we can help train everybody, ready for the green revolution.

And, can you tell us, from your experiences, how organisations in Pembrokeshire and beyond work in partnership to help develop the green economy? Are there any lessons, in your view, from the approach taken in Pembrokeshire that you think other parts of Wales could actually learn from? David.

I'll perhaps leave the skills piece to Wendy, but just to say, as someone who works in the industry, we have a really good partnership with Pembrokeshire College. I'm sure Wendy can talk about Destination Renewables and SPARC as real examples. Then, if I think broader than that, I think the Marine Energy Wales organisation, which started out as Marine Energy Pembrokeshire, is a real positive example of private sector and public sector coming together to work towards a common vision. I think the Celtic Sea Developers Alliance, which is run by Marine Energy Wales, where all of the offshore wind developers who are interested in the Celtic sea again come together and again interact with the public sector, is a really positive example of industry working together in Pembrokeshire. Albeit a little bit broader, there's the Celtic Sea Cluster, there's the Milford Haven Waterway Future Energy Cluster as well, and then a bit broader you've got the South Wales Industrial Cluster, and Net Zero Industry Wales. Again, speaking from personal experience in the regional skills partnership as well, that's probably another example, albeit at a regional level. So, I do think we're good at that. There is a whole plethora of clusters, which is sometimes quite a confusing landscape, but at least it demonstrates the ambition to work together.

As David has alluded to, yes, we are very proud of our partnerships with local industry, one of which is the very recently launched SPARC initiative, which is a tri-partnership between industry, the local education authority and further education. It's intended to inspire young females into careers in sustainable power, renewables and construction, specifically. It is not exclusive to females, but this is the take that we're making. The alliance partners have been carefully selected to represent the renewable and low-carbon industry development in Pembrokeshire. Hopefully, this will ultimately transform the career landscape. These partners are Blue Gem Wind, Floventis, Ledwood Mechanical Engineering, Milford Haven Port Authority and RWE. We are launching the programme officially within schools in July, and then from September this will be part of the curriculum programme. It is a very exciting initiative and quite unique to the UK.

Destination Renewables is another programme that has been running now for two years, it's coming to the end of the second year, and that was a project supported by Swansea Bay city deal. Again, it brought together 12 or 14 different industries and they were trained to come into groups within our environment, within the college, and deliver a very specific destination programme for the renewables sector, which is quite a big task in itself. Every week, there would be different industries coming in and delivering an agreed programme. So, those are just two examples of where this is actually working really effectively at the moment.

You've mentioned there are a number of different Welsh and UK Government initiatives to support the development of the green economy. To what extent have these different policy interventions allowed stakeholders in Pembrokeshire to develop a coherent and joined-up approach, and what should be done to address any problems that have emerged?

Shall I go again? You're right, there are a number of them. We've probably just touched on one of them in terms of a good example of collaboration. I would say Marine Energy Wales, as someone who's worked in that organisation before, is a Welsh Government initiative that has allowed that cluster to come forward. I think Swansea Bay city deal, which has already been mentioned, and Pembroke Dock Marine were really good examples of Welsh and UK Governments working together, with local authorities as well, right across the region. We're just getting to the tail end of at least the infrastructure improvements at the port being delivered. Again, that's another practical, positive example of types of Government initiatives. The free ports, as well, are really quite exciting as a UK Government and Welsh Government initiative involving local authorities. It remains to be seen, I guess—we're very, very early in that process still. But I think that's another practical example of good initiatives that have been stimulated at a UK Government and Welsh Government level.

Wendy, do you have anything to add?

No, I don't have anything else to add. I think David's covered everything there. Thank you.

Thank you very much indeed. I'll now bring in Samuel Kurtz.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Good morning, both. I'm looking to ask a couple of questions around supporting renewable energy projects in Pembrokeshire. Actually, I've got a material interest in this as a representative of roughly half of the county. But based on your different roles specifically, and your experiences, I was just wondering what aspects of energy policy from a Welsh Government perspective are working well, and are not working well. Where are there improvements that can be made? I can see, David, you nodding there, so we'll start with you.

I'm not going to nod any more. [Laughter.] Thanks, Sam. There are a couple of things there, really. I guess we don't control all of the policy levers in Wales. When I talk about the contracts for difference scheme, which is very important, the leasing process, consenting larger projects, all of those are carried out at a UK Government level. But if we think about, perhaps, our devolved powers, the planning consents do fall to Wales, so that's important. Skills development is another one. I think that we really need to focus on those areas that we do have, and then seek to influence the UK Government to the benefit of Wales on what we do not control—about the leasing process and the contracts for difference, from that perspective.

But also, just from the private sector, I can't overstate the importance of supportive, stable and clear policy. I think that's really important. And again, most of the ports do come under the jurisdiction of the Welsh Government and its policy, and we can't overstate the importance of the ports, as well as gateways, to maximise at least the floating wind opportunity. So, any changes that speed up planning consenting would be welcome, anything that focuses more on skills development would be welcome, and anything we can do at Welsh Government level to support the ports I think would be really important. 

Education and training is a very small cog in that massive wheel, but, as David has said, without clear policy we can't plan, and to have a workforce is absolutely crucial. There's no point developing major projects if we haven't got the workforce to support them at the time they're needed. So, it is very important that the communication—. I've been at various events lately where employers and stakeholders probably shout the loudest about the lack of communication—whether it's the lack of communication, or the lack of communication that works for them, I don't know. But it's about communication, and timely communication. It is very much about a clear route plan, so that we can be there to support the projects and the employers when they are ready to rock and roll, as it were.

Thank you. Previously, RenewableUK Cymru said that Wales is being left behind on renewable energy when compared to other parts of the UK, and not enough work is being done to develop a consistent pipeline of projects. I was wondering if you shared this view of RenewableUK Cymru, and, if so, what can be done to improve that? Since I started with Dave last time, we'll start with Wendy this time. Wendy.

Oh, sorry, I misunderstood. I'm sort of carrying on from what I've just said, really. There is a lot of positive messaging around renewable energy. There is a lot of positive messaging about the Celtic free port and the potential there, and we're very lucky that Luciana is a patron of our SPARC Alliance, so we know that that input is going to be absolutely pivotal going forward. But it's the actions behind the words. We need to be telling people exactly what jobs, what these industries are going to look like. We need to know where the upskilling needs to be coming. We're all struggling. All our industries are currently struggling with recruitment for various reasons. So, it's how we are going to be making Pembrokeshire an attractive place to live and work, and that depends on the housing, on the transport, the infrastructure, the schooling. There's so much more that needs to be in place before this can be really, really successful. 

Just to add to Wendy's point about the criticality of the pipeline, I can understand where RUK Cymru are coming from, certainly in terms of renewables deployed in Wales over the recent times, particularly with onshore and offshore. So, yes, I completely understand that point of view. I also completely align with the 'pipeline is critical' piece, not just for developers. Wendy's just talked about the importance of the pipeline for skills development, so we can work out how many people do we need and when do we need them, and what does that look like. But also the pipeline is critical for developers, it's critical to attract global multinationals to the region. It's critical for port investment. We're developing Erebus, which is a very, very small project compared to what's coming. To ask the port to make the kind of investment they need to make on these smaller projects is very, very challenging. So, port and investment in the grid, all of those kinds of things, all depend on the pipeline.

Just a couple of comparisons: via the ScotWind process and INTOG, Scotland have leased around about 18 GW of floating wind, and we're just beginning on our 4.5 GW, so you can see the difference in scale of ambition there in terms of leasing. And, again, a practical example of what that means: Sumitomo Electric, a Japanese company, just this year announced a 350 million subsea cable factory. It's going to be based in Scotland, and that will be driven by the pipeline. They know that there's some significant pipeline of projects coming along. So, that's a practical example of where it can make a difference. We know the Crown Estate and UK Government have plans for the additional 12 GW beyond round 5, but I think investors need to have a timeline for that pipeline, just to add to Wendy's points around skills and the people development as well.

Thank you. And staying with you, David, and the answer to the earlier question around planning and consenting processes, I know with the Erebus project, it's a trailblazing project, the first of its kind, and there was that specific dialogue with the previous First Minister on getting the project green lit. From your experiences on that project, and pipeline of projects, what lessons can be learned from that around planning and consenting to speed up and ease the process? Is there anything specific that we as a committee should be looking at?

That's a good question, actually, Sam. Just for committee members, we received the consent without any public or community objections, I may add, in just over 12 months, from Welsh Ministers and Natural Resources Wales. That was really positive, and almost matched the timeline in Scotland, and should be applauded. I think that should be the benchmark for future projects, but that will need adequate resourcing, policy support and also an enabling approach from the consenting authorities as well.

To answer your question directly, we've literally just completed a lessons-learned workshop with NRW on the consenting process for Erebus, and we'll be absolutely happy to share the findings of that with the committee. We've just captured them in a two-pager, so they'll be pretty high level. We'll send those over to you after this meeting, if that's helpful. One of the challenges we found as a developer was the lack of statutory time frame. The reason that's really difficult is you're going to your investment boards to understand the risk of the consent, and we were saying, ‘Look, we feel like we will get consent, but we just cannot say when’, but that's really difficult for investment boards to get their heads around. We got there in 12 months or thereabouts, but it could have been two or three years. So again, that uncertainty around the timeline is, I think, something that we should work to. I think that that's really important.

I think also just one more important point, and probably just based on previous experience of working in offshore energy in Wales, is that I feel like we've had a cycle of recommendations as a sector that's probably been about 15 years in the making now. We’ve just fairly recently had the deep-dive into the consenting process. So, it's important not to let those recommendations become another set of recommendations in five years' time where we all end up saying the same thing. So that's just a point as well to add.

Thank you, David. Thank you, Wendy, as well. Back to you, Chair.

Diolch, Sam. I'll now bring in Hefin David. 

Can I ask where you think the Welsh Government should focus its limited spending power on green and renewable energy projects?

Shall I take that one? It's a good question. We talked briefly before about the policy support and the delivery of the current powers, which is around consenting and planning, and if we think about that at the moment, it's not just about the projects, but it's also about the port redevelopments, and developments of the grid, and all of those kind of things. So, that policy support and delivery of current powers within the planning system, I think, is really important. Again, we don't have all the policy levers in Wales, and where we don't have them, they're at a UK level. I think we should use our convening and lobbying powers to ensure those policy levers at a UK Government level benefit Wales, and that doesn't, in my opinion, cost money—that's just time and a willingness to do that. I think, from a private sector perspective, it's really important that there's a good relationship between the next UK Government and Welsh Government, whoever that may be. And again, in terms of—. With a limited budget, I still think we can make Wales attractive to inward investment, again by pushing that pipeline visibility, trying to get—. If there's going to be future subsidy, cable factories in the UK, 'Why aren't they in Wales?' would be my question. So, just, again, it's about making Wales really attractive to come and do business.  

Wendy, do you want to say anything to that? 

Just to comment on the fact that we are concerned about the reduction in personal learning accounts funding, which allows a lot of the current niche green skills training to happen across the FE sector. We are concerned as to how we are going to be able to do that going forward if the funding isn't there, and also the reduction in the number of apprenticeships, the apprenticeship funding. So, it's really, really important that we keep that on the agenda to make sure that we are able to fulfil this future workforce.  

Okay. I might come back to that in a second. Can I ask David about those UK Government schemes that you've mentioned? Are they going to need changing? We could see a change of Government. Are the schemes themselves going to need changing or refocusing to meet the needs of floating offshore wind?

Yes, good question. I think if you think about the last auction round—the contracts for difference rounds, the auction rounds that get renewables onto the grid and into the water—there were no bids at all in the last auction round, AR5, and I feel like, from a UK level, that was a significant step backwards. It was a real blow for us in terms of Erebus and, obviously, it delayed targets being delivered, but it also dented investor confidence, I think it's fair to say. So, I think what's really important is that, for future rounds, they understand the market forces and the challenges of the private sector and react to those appropriately. So, I think that's really important. And also just the appreciation that floating offshore wind is an emerging technology, and just to make sure there's enough budget to bring forward all of the early projects—perhaps you'd expect me to say that, as someone who's involved with developing an early project, but that's important, I think—versus the absolute focus on competition and price, which is what the current contracts for difference system is focused on; it's delivering the cheapest renewable electron, and not necessarily thinking about an industrial strategy that's considered to increase local content. So, I feel that that's important moving forward. 

And then, leasing round 5 is on the horizon and the process has begun, but again it's—and future rounds as well—just to appreciate the current risks that developers have in developing a new technology in a new region that doesn't necessarily have the necessary infrastructure in place yet, if you think about ports and those kinds of things, and just to consider it as a global market, with other countries looking to develop FLOW as well. So, just don't be complacent, I think, is the one thing, and just appreciate that need again for more information on what happens after round 5. Back to that pipeline—I think it's really important.  

Okay. And the Welsh Government has talked about clean growth hubs. Have you had discussions with the Welsh Government on that, and what should they do?

Good question. Not necessarily directly with the Welsh Government on clean growth hubs; that may have happened at a local authority level and with other stakeholders. But, yes, I'd be supportive in general, for sure, and I think, very quickly, anything that focuses on skills development would be really important just to make sure we've got the right people in the right place at the right time, which Wendy has been talking about. So, I think, yes, clean growth hubs and a focus on skills development would be really important, and also attracting international inward investment. 

Okay. Wendy, have you got a view on that? 

I think David has taken the words out of my mouth there, really. Yes, anything that we can do. It's the upskilling part, isn't it? Clean growth is about utilising what we already have and the transition into green energy. So, anything that we can do there can only be a good thing.  

Okay. Wendy, can I ask about—? You've mentioned skills. How do you gain a degree of vertical integration across the skills, training and education you need to deliver the kinds of skills we need for the future? If you're going to be in school—you're nine and you decide you want a career in the renewable sector—what kind of education pathway should be available to you right up to Master's level? What should the pathway look like? 

That's a really good question, because it's about reality and the future. Young people, you'd like to think, are forward thinking, but, in reality, the parents are very influential, at a very young age, as to which pathway and what their young offspring then do study. So, it is quite hard to encourage young people to think about the jobs that may be available in five years' time, because they can't see them, they can't think—you know, there's nothing tangible there at this point in time. So, at the end of the day, the qualifications that are currently on offer, whether that's your mechanical engineer, whether that's your plumber, or your electrician, those skills are still going to be needed, and they're still very valuable. So, we need to be encouraging young people to understand the jobs that involve the skills that are on the table now, and that there are opportunities to upskill and provide additionalities.

But that's where I think we need to go, is to look at the development of green skills within all our qualifications, because they don't exist at this point in time; we don't have these additionalities. And we should be offering them across a wide range of skills, not just engineering and maybe the construction sector—leadership and management in particular, finance. This is something that we've got to be able to do. But, until people can see a reality, that it's going to be something that they can actually take part in, it's going to be very, very hard to upskill. At the moment, we have no renewable qualification as such; it would be really important to be able to develop a renewable apprenticeship, leading on to higher education. There are very limited degree apprenticeships at this point in time, and that's something we definitely need to focus on, going forward.

Yes, and I think the fragmentation of the sector doesn't help—so, you've got Qualifications Wales, the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research, or Medr as it's going to be called, schools. And the landscape is so fragmented, getting that integration—. It's almost as if the landscape is working against that.

Yes, very much so. And it's very slow; it's very slow to get qualifications moving. In the last year, I've spent a lot of time in Europe, looking at the apprenticeship programmes there, and recently in Canada. And it is so wonderful to see, where the industry partners are so heavily involved, that these qualifications can be designed, developed and delivered in less than 12 months. And that's something I'd really like us to be able to aim for.

That's really helpful. I think that that's something that is really important for Welsh Government to get to grips with. Perhaps, David, I can ask you: my daughter's seven years old; in five years' time, when she's thinking about her educational future, do you think it's realistic to expect her to have a pathway into a career in renewables, and will the education pathway be able to deliver for her? How would you make that happen for her?

I would like to say 'yes', I really would. But, just back to your previous point, actually, about the landscape being quite confusing, I guess we feel that as developers; we're not educational delivery experts at all. And, as a developer, you want to have a positive impact and you want to inspire future generations, but you do think, 'Okay, how do I best spend my resources?', be they human resources or cash. So, it's quite a confusing landscape of where you go and what you do, so I think anything that can, I guess, clear that will be really, really helpful.

I think Wendy touched on it, really: it's the importance of just visibility, getting young people to appreciate the whole range of careers. As Wendy said, it's not just engineers; it's almost, whatever you're interested in, you can, almost, have a career in offshore wind. And also I would just make the point, actually, that, albeit we're talking about quite a lot of future jobs, particularly when you think about the larger numbers, if you just think about offshore wind on a UK level, it's about 30,000 people working in offshore wind at the moment, but we'd need 104,000 by 2030, which is mind blowing. Where do these 10,000 new people come from every year to deliver the current UK Government target? So, there is also that appreciation that our young people, if they're ready right now, could go and work in this sector, just in another part of the UK, if you like, and have that ability to come back and learn those skills. So, I would love that, for your daughter to have a clear pathway of how we get there—we're just not there yet.

And I suppose—. Just finally, Cadeirydd, I think you would need people perhaps from the industry, with that industry experience, to be moving into education to deliver the education programmes. Is that happening? Is that desirable, given the limited number of people available already in this area? It's a bit of a catch-22 there, isn't it?

It is. It is. And, again, as a developer, you want to, obviously, have a positive impact, particularly as someone who lives in the region. Also, I'm really conscious of the fact that we can't, sometimes—. We don't have all of these policy levers—and we've talked about that already—in Wales, but one of the policy levers we do have is education and skills and training, and all of those kinds of things. So, if we can't—and I just feel this, I guess, as a person living in Wales as well—if we can't say that the ports are going to be developed to the right level so we can bring all of the kit in, and we can't control the contracts for difference rounds and auction rounds and all of those kinds of things, we can, in Wales, at least control the upskilling of our people. So, I think it's such an important piece.

Okay. Unless Wendy wants to come in, I'm done with my questions.

No, I'm good, thank you.

Diolch, Paul. Bore da, David and Wendy. So, I represent Mid and West Wales, so obviously I have a keen interest in the south-west part of that region. I'm very excited about the possibility of growing the economy around Pembrokeshire and even further than that. So, clearly, Welsh Government has a role to play in supporting Welsh-based supply chains, and we know as well that our coastal areas have some of the highest levels of poverty and deprivation in Wales, so, clearly, there's a big opportunity here. So, what specifically do you think Welsh Government can do to support indigenous, local-based businesses in Pembrokeshire and further afield?

Shall I go first?

David, yes.

David to start, maybe.

Yes, okay. It's a good question. I think—. We've talked about the pipeline so much now I hope that one's landed. But I think Welsh Government, in terms of its convening powers, and also influencing, could lobby the Crown Estate to define this pipeline and the timing of it. That's really important, and we've talked about that: it's important for skills development, it's important for investor confidence, but it's also really important for the supply chain companies as well. They need to know what do we need, when do we need it and how many people we need. So, the defining of the pipeline and the timing of it, I think, is really critical, and I think that's something that the Welsh Government could have a role to play in, which won't, actually—. If we're talking about constricted budgets, there's not really a budget requirement for that; it's just that convening power.

But also, then, if we have a bit more detail about the pipeline—so, it's the how many and when—I think then we need to define the capacity and the capability of our current Welsh supply chain. And in particular, if we think about our region, we have really, really high-skilled engineering services and things like that that have supported traditional energy, I think it's fair to say that. But we haven't had the skills yet and also the experience of working in offshore wind, because it's brand new to our part of the world. So, we need to identify the gaps and also produce some kind of delivery action plan, if you like, that identifies the pipeline, makes it clear and consistent: what skills we have, what capability we have, what capacity we have, where are the gaps in that and then how do we fill those gaps—I think that's really, really important. And also—I think I've mentioned it before, actually; it's quite policy related—push the UK Government for a focus on an industrial strategy, if you like, at a UK level that helps developers to use local suppliers and local content to deliver their project versus just delivering it at the cheapest cost. Hopefully, that's helpful.

Okay. Wendy.

Yes. For me, it would be very much about—. Well, a point I've already mentioned in terms of the communication and the collaboration. At the moment, this isn't a tangible concept. Anything that's going to be happening, our local, indigenous population might not to be able to relate to. And this is something I saw working very well in the Canada trip, where they're planning to introduce onshore windfarms; they're probably four or five years away from it, but the collaboration is ongoing. It's a constant, and that seems to be bringing the indigenous population on board to understand that, actually, without them, these plans and these projects are unlikely to be successful, and it's just breaking down those barriers bit by bit. And I think communication is something we all think we're very good at but we very often get very wrong, and that's where things thrive and fall. If we get this right, I think that can have huge, huge benefits, going forward: bringing the information to the people on a regular basis and not just one-off meetings in town halls that some people may attend and others not, but just some sort of constant presence. I'm not quite sure what that would look like, but I think that collaboration and communication is absolutely key.

Clearly, communication is important, I agree, but also, maybe, local procurement policies as well. So, just following on from that, what's your view on introducing local content requirements to ensure that the domestic supply chains are fully utilised to support the transition to a greener economy? David to start.

Good question. Perhaps I began to answer that in the last response, actually. Look, I think positive, as someone again who lives in the area and has worked in this industry for a while, but, again, it's very UK policy driven, and it has to be linked to the CFD. And just to be very, very clear again, the current model is that the lowest cost wins. So, from a UK Government level, we have to deliver the renewable energy at the lowest cost, and if that means using non-local supply chains, then, at the moment, 'so be it' is the very, very simple policy ask, if you like. So, again, that's really important: influencing those future CFD rounds and whatever that looks like that does actually value local domestic supply chains, I think, is really, really critical.

And then I would also say that our supply chains, if they are really skilled up and if they are experienced in this sector and they become cost competitive, actually, in an ideal world, you perhaps wouldn't even need a local content policy, because our domestic local supply chains would just be the most cost-effective.

Okay. Wendy, any views on that?

Just a very small point to make: it’s about the policing and the monitoring of that local content requirement as well. An example is where local building contractors come into the area and they're required to take on a number of apprentices. It's not actually monitored and policed in a way that we would welcome. So, I think it has to be a realistic proposition. That's it, really. That's the point I wanted to make.

Okay. You've said many times this morning about the importance of getting people skilled to take advantage of these huge opportunities that will come on board. But also companies, we are told, and local businesses need to know in advance about the pipeline of projects that may be coming on board as well. So, what's your view on that? Is that a good idea, and how far in advance do you think they should be told about the pipeline of projects?

Yes, I think it's critically important. I think we've talked about it from a skills development perspective and we've talked about the importance for ports and investment in port redevelopment. They need to know when these projects are happening, how big the projects are going to be and when they're going to happen. All of that is so critically important. So, yes, I would say the same applies to supply-chain companies as well: they need to know the when and the how much, and then they can have the confidence in that pipeline to invest. So, hopefully, we can't overstate the importance of that visibility of the pipeline of projects.

We have been hearing that the Crown Estate are close to an announcement on life after 4.5 GW, so, round 5, and what the 12 GW may look like. I don't know whether the current election will perhaps halt those plans for a public announcement, I'm not sure, but we believe, we're hearing at least, that they're very close, and that's really, really important.

And also, back to that point about the importance of ports, and them being a gateway to maximising this opportunity, again, that's really relevant to Pembrokeshire supply chain companies as well. If the port of Milford Haven is not geared up to support the sector in the most impactful way, then it's difficult for all the supply chain companies around to capitalise on it.

Anything to add, Wendy?

Well, in terms of a skills drain from Pembrokeshire, we all know that that's been a problem for some time, and we have employers who are becoming more reluctant to take on young apprentices quite simply because they cannot guarantee that they will be able to have that work within Pembrokeshire over the period of the apprenticeship, which can be up to four years. So, yes, if you're looking at timeline, five years in advance, four to five years is realistic, from a skills perspective. It would be sad to think that our young people haven't got those opportunities quite simply because we can't tell them when the jobs are going to be available.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you.

Diolch, Cefin. I'll now bring back Samuel Kurtz. Sam.

Thank you very much, Chair. I'm just looking now at community benefit, and Ynys Môn stakeholders have said that more strategic thinking is required on delivering a more effective community benefit scheme. Do you agree with this viewpoint, and, in designing a scheme for projects off the Pembrokeshire coast, for example, what would you see the requirements for a successful community benefit scheme being? David.

So, yes, I would agree with that high-level response from Ynys Môn that more strategic thinking is required to deliver that. If I talk a little bit about Erebus first, and then perhaps what comes next. So, the plans for Erebus that lead us to follow best practice guidelines in terms of the community benefit fund, we were always very conscious of the precedent we could set as one of the early projects. So, even at the test and demonstration-scale project, we were committed to having a community benefit fund, and what's really important as well is that we were committed to building that with the community. So, the question there then, I think, for future projects is, 'Who is the host community?', if you like. The projects are so far offshore, who is the host community that would stand to benefit from the community benefit fund? So, I think that's where your strategic thinking and a strategic plan needs to come into place. 

For us at Erebus, it was, I guess, quite simple in the fact that we have a host community that will host a sub-station, and we have a host community along the cable route and where landfall is. So, conversations with that community have been around what a community benefit could look like, what's important to them. We also discussed a little bit more broadly that you may be able to see the windfarm from certain parts of Pembrokeshire on really clear days—that's definitely not today—so we could consider a wider Pembrokeshire focus on things like skills development and things like net zero. So, we talked about those. And, also, we talked about the fact that the project is offshore and it would be good to have a focus also on marine conservation and similar projects like that. 

So, from an Erebus level perspective, I think we've made some good progress on what all of that could look like, with the community, which is really, really important, rather than us as a developer coming in and telling the community what the community benefit fund should look like, and when it should start and all those kinds of things. 

Just to come back on your point there, David, who is the strategic partner delivering on that community benefit then? Is it the project lead? Should the local authority take a role in this? Should there be some separate body that just delivers the community benefit? I'm thinking of all the potential projects on the production line. Is there a need for something specific to deliver community benefit, that does look at a high-level strategic element, rather than just funding for a village football team or something? As good as that is, how about the broader, more impactful community benefit? How is that going to be—? What mechanism delivers that?

Yes, so, at the moment, for round 5, there is a section of that where developers have to deliver a social value model. Within that, there are targets for skills development, there are targets for those not in education, employment or training, and there are targets for community benefit. They're quite high-level targets at the moment, and whether the Crown Estate leaves that to developers to put the meat on the bones, so to speak, that may be the case. But I do agree—and I don't believe there's a model for it yet, certainly—that perhaps a more strategic view of the community around the Celtic sea, and what the community of the Celtic sea needs, I think, is not there yet and it is important to have. 

Okay. Thank you, David. Wendy, your thoughts on community benefits.

Well, I've nothing to add, I think David's covered most of it off, but I do very much like the idea of an overarching strategic group to deliver the community benefits. That's all I'd like to add. 

Okay. So, from your perspective, then, Wendy, in the community benefit—and David made the point around skills development potentially being seen as that—would you see the college, or the local authority, or the local education model—? What delivers that from your perspective in looking at skills?

Yes, this has to be a joint approach. We are very well aware that the skills needed cannot be delivered by one individual alone. So, it's very much about the partnership working. And that is the reason why we have the SPARC Alliance, and that is the beginning of, hopefully, a much wider range of projects based around the renewable sector. We've got all the schools in Pembrokeshire involved in that alliance, and that is the way forward. It has to be a joint initiative. 

Okay, thank you. And just one final point on this then, and it might be more for David, knowing your experience with other projects dotted around, or your relationship with other projects. Would it be a Wales-wide body delivering on community benefit or would it be localised to specific areas? I'm thinking, would a Wales-wide body exist and community benefit from Pembrokeshire projects go towards that, or would it be county specific or area specific, in your mind?

Yes, that's a really good question, Sam, and I don't know the answer, if I'm honest, because if you—. I'm thinking to myself, the communities around Gwynt y Môr, if you like, on the north Wales coast, are quite reasonably well defined, because you could argue that they are the host community for that offshore windfarm, and if you went to ask that community around Llandudno whether they could share that community benefits fund with communities in the south-west, they won't have an answer to that response. So, I feel like it needs to be a mixture of a number of different approaches. There is that local where—. We, certainly from our perspective, we have a host community for the sub-station; we have a host community that will have temporary impacts from the cable route and the landfall. Less clear is the host community for a project that's 50 km offshore. And again, Sam, maybe that's something that the Welsh Government can do in terms of conversations with the Crown Estate to actually influence the social value model and ask about or suggest some scenarios to that at the moment, because it's not really that well defined.

Okay. That's a really helpful point there, David, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Any other questions at all? No. Our session has therefore come to an end. Thank you both for being with us this morning. Your evidence will be very important to our inquiry. A copy of today's transcript will be sent to you in due course. So, if there are any issues with that, then please let us know. But once again, thank you for being with us today. 

Thank you.

Thank you. Thanks for the opportunity to contribute and also for your and the committee's support for renewables as well—it's really appreciated.

Thank you very much. We'll now take a short break to prepare for the next session.

Jane Lancastle, assistant secretary, Prospect trade union.

And I'm Nisreen Mansour, policy officer at Wales TUC.

Thank you very much indeed for those introductions and perhaps I can just kick-off the session with a few questions. Now, the First Minister has pledged to prioritise supporting the green economy in his manifesto. Taking into account the budget constraints the Welsh Government is facing, what, in your view, should be his top investment priorities to start this work off, and why do you think that? Jane.

Would you like me to start?

Yes, please. Thank you.

Thank you, Paul. I think it would be easy for me to provide examples of priority investments, such as the consent we've already got from Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales to Morlais, the Menter Môn tidal energy project. That's an example that I think could probably encourage more examples, perhaps in the Swansea bay area, but I feel, at this stage, it is a trap to our long-term joined-up success for the green economy. What I think the priority is and should be is to identify a Wales transition strategy and what represents a green economy for Wales; the focus on a strategy to give confidence for the business community to invest in the long term. The geopolitical issues that we see make business cautious at this time. I think we do need to prioritise strategic leadership and decision making about how we will achieve net zero, rather than a market-led model. Once we have that—the retraining, research and development, infrastructure—decisions become easier and clearer.

We also need political will from all parties to co-operate beyond the four to five-year cycle and get behind a strategy similar to the US and the EU; I'll make some references to them as we go through. But if I can continue, in Prospect we have a high membership in the energy sector, so, obviously, I would be looking to push in that direction, and we've undertaken considerable work in looking at the future of green energy. The UK Government has failed to respond to the pivot to active industrial strategy that we've seen in the US and EU and elsewhere. In this country, we need a plan to create clean energy jobs. Prospect would seek that this includes ensuring the clean energy economy provides opportunities for those presently in high-carbon jobs, and we think it would make sense to accelerate public and private investment in renewables.

Prospect recommends a public energy generation company should directly invest in renewable projects, prioritising technologies struggling to attract private investment—whether newer or riskier technologies, like floating offshore wind and tidal, or more established ones; clear road maps for deployment of each technology; and a review of low-carbon investment incentives can help unlock private capital alongside this. I identify this as a project, because Wales's natural resources—wind and tidal range, as well as its existing nuclear sites—lends itself to being preferred choices for future investment.

But in summary, too little has been done to ensure clean energies are accessible to a diverse workforce. Industry data shows that one in five offshore wind workers are women, and fewer than one in 10 are people of colour. But I'll circle back round to us having a strategy that clearly identifies all these issues and a road map and a way forward to encourage confidence and investment going forward. Thank you.

Thank you. Nisreen.

Thank you. So, my priority would be to take stock of what work is actually happening now in this space. I think quite a lot of work is taking place in different parts of Government and also in different parts of the wider public sector, particularly local authorities, but to some extent, that part of the public sector that's a grey area, almost—housing associations are leading a lot of this work. And I'd want to understand, if we're trying to create a green economy that is driven by a notion of fair work, what are the labour outcomes of the investment that's happening now, and make sure that we've got one coherent set of policies and priorities that are driving those labour outcomes from the green investment.

I would also want to bring as much of that work into the public sector as possible. I think there would be a real long-term benefit of creating a skilled public sector workforce that can deliver on this agenda in the longer term, and I think that links to some of the work that we put out a few years ago now in terms of a green recovery, and the sorts of projects that can feed into long-term job creation.

I think Wales also needs an industrial strategy—that's something that came through very strongly from our congress that we held last month. So, that's a cross-union priority. We need investment in manufacturing, as Jane has mentioned, investment in the energy sector. Sectors like that provide well-paid jobs for communities, where well-paid work is often missing. And then I think I would want to come up with that wish list for if we do see a turn-up in our budget. So, what can we do if the budget improves and what can we do, particularly working with local authorities, as a national Government, to harness opportunities to actually really create that green economy that I think we envision when we see that headline term that has very much been out of reach given the extremely pressured budget situation?

Nisreen, in 2020 TUC Cymru commissioned a report from Transition Economics that called for green infrastructure investment across a range of sectors to actually be prioritised. Now, four years on, how much progress do you think has been made towards delivering this particular investment, and are there any particular areas the Welsh Government needs to focus on?

Thank you, Paul. It's a very good question, and it's a nice challenge for policy officers that should probably have been keeping very detailed track of what was happening in relation to those asks. We know that some work is happening in the nature of that work that was recommended, so things like the optimised retrofit programme have seen quite considerable investment in terms of decarbonising and retrofitting large parts of public and housing association stock, for example. So, I think the last round saw around 5,000 homes being retrofitted. What we don't have a good sense of, though, and what that work was really trying to get at, was about the job creation resulting from that spend, and I think that's very much our priority in this area. What are the work outcomes from any investment in the green economy?

So, obviously, I think, we were talking about very considerable spend, and at no point did Welsh Government ever get that funding capability in the time period since that report was published to invest at the scale that report was talking about. But it has had some ability to invest in areas related to that report, we're just not clear on whether the job creation figures look like what was in the report, and, particularly, whether they created full-time, long-term employment for people, or whether it has been a more casualised employment relationship relating from that spend.

In your view, which green economy sectors do you think Wales has a competitive advantage in, and to what extent are we making the most of potential opportunities in these particular sectors?

I think, as Jane has already mentioned, our energy sector, and you'll probably want to talk more about that. Also, I think, our manufacturing skills base. What we're seeing happening at Port Talbot is something I'm sure we'll touch on, but that manufacturing base to support a green economy is something that we should always have at the forefront of our mind in terms of trying to protect, because that is a unique skills base that can be transitioned. I think unions have been very passionate about trying to transition that, and we need to make sure that that is protected, to make sure that we are in that best position to take advantage of opportunities in the future. 

Jane, anything to add?

Long term, yes, I'm in agreement with Nisreen. Obviously, our natural resources with regard to energy are there, but I think that's long term, as well as the nuclear opportunities we have. I think science-based manufacturing—I was at QuidelOrtho in Pencoed yesterday, and they're looking at further expansion, and you can see that's happening already. There are great opportunities there that we could encourage.

I think there's also consideration of early adoption. Wales has recently been named the second in the world for recycling. Green Economy Wales has quoted AWD Group this week as an example of the work they do. They recycle 300 tonnes of mixed rigid plastic a week, and it's good to see they're soon to introduce a second shift, in particular, because that's located next to Tata, or near to Tata. What are we looking at here? Are we looking at short term or long term in order to answer that question in more detail?

Okay. Thank you very much. I'll now bring in Hefin David. Hefin.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. You've already touched on it, but can you give us more information about how the Welsh Government will need to work with other levels of government and other partners in the sector to create a consistent approach to transition?

Jane.

Morning, Hefin. Hi. I don't know if I have the answer ready to give today. We've had a long period of two very different political policy approaches from Westminster and Welsh Government, and there are structural obstacles when it comes to progress, because the funding stream may sit in a department that doesn't align with the interests and aims of a devolved Government in Wales. What I would like to see is, and pose the question: can Wales be a one-stop shop and have a single point of contact to journey through the opportunities to attract and retain investment in Wales? How we get there is a very meaty subject and I don't have any simple answers, I'm afraid. 

Okay.

Definitely stronger trust-based working with the UK Government for a Welsh Government I think is very important. I think, as a union side, but this might extend further than that into levels of devolved government, what's happened with Port Talbot has very much broken trust between different levels of government—that sense that a deal can be made that affects thousands of workers here in Wales and brokered, excluding both the voices of those workers and the Welsh Government and the local authorities that are going to have to deal with the consequences of that decision, is the opposite of any idea of subsidiarity, let alone the idea of social partnership working. So, I think rebuilding that confidence in that way of working that all levels of government are trying to seek the best interests for their citizens, let alone classing them as workers, I think is really essential at this point on this agenda.

I think, also, a vision of a just transition that goes beyond ways of working now, but with a clear sense of what the expectations are for communities that are affected by it. We're looking at the risks facing Port Talbot now, and potentially other steel communities in Wales, as potentially akin to deindustrialisation and trying to understand, 'Well, what can you do, then? What interventions can you make to mitigate that?', but at the same time having a sense of ambition for those communities that doesn't just accept that we're trying to, sort of, maybe even like level them down to Wales averages, but sustain them as high-paid areas. And I think that has to become this cross-cutting theme of any inter-governmental working, as well as the idea that you should never, ever strike a deal that will massively affect workers and not have those workers represented around the table.

So, with that in mind, how would a social partnership approach need to be developed and changed from where it is now, both in order to provide a just transition, but also to have the voices of social partners included in government at all levels?

At the moment, we don't have any dedicated space for social partnership working on this agenda. it's something we've been talking about, because the Social Partnership Council has had only its second meeting last week, but we are looking at the idea of a sub-group on a just transition for that. I think there are perhaps links with other challenges and opportunities facing the Welsh labour market that are cross-cutting areas, so artificial intelligence is perhaps a similar challenge facing the Welsh workforce. So, I think we do need some centralised social partnership approach that particularly brings together public sector leadership and private sector leadership on that, to think about how investment and business investment is playing out. 

I think, perhaps, there needs to be a different approach in terms of how information is gathered, though. There are regular calls for evidence from Government, but I think that doesn't necessarily capture a general picture of private sector investment and the direction that that's heading in. And I think what's particularly of interest to the union side can be, 'Well, how will jobs transition as a result of that? What skills do those workers need? How can we maximise the sustainability of work and the quality of that work?', and if we don't have that general sense of the direction that investment is going in, particularly private sector investment, which is very much out of—. It's not publicly supported private sector investment. Basically, we need to understand where businesses are putting their money to know how Government should be responding and how unions need to be responding. So, I think that Wales-wide survey work, rather than those call-for-evidence approaches, would be perhaps more informative and could help inform social partnership working on this agenda more.

Okay, and to think about transition specifically, are there, perhaps, international examples or examples in other sectors of how a just transition could be modelled, or best practice? Are there opportunities for the Welsh Government and the sector and the UK Government to learn from good practice?

I think any example whereby workers and employers are determining it together and negotiating that future is good practice. I'm always reluctant to say, 'Can we borrow from a particular model?', because I think that misses the point of social partnership and trade unionism, in a way, because it's not the case that you can pick from somewhere else and say, 'That will work for that particular group of workers.' It has to work for the group of workers we're talking about, and that can only happen if their voice is around the table. So, I think it's that principle. Something that we've talked about quite a bit is the role the transition agreement should play, where there is public investment, to make sure that, if the Government is investing in a particular employer, there is also a co-signed agreement when it comes to the skills, the training offer for the workforce and the sustainability of those jobs, to make sure that public money at least is driving forward that change. But, again, it's about the model rather than a particular outcome that we've seen somewhere else that can be adopted and put in.

I'm thinking about the Scottish Government's just transition—. Sorry, did—.

Yes, Jane just wanted to come in.

Yes. Hefin, that's okay, thank you. I think good practice is really helpful. We're not in a place of maturity at the moment to be able to provide that. What I think is that looking at good practice is useful to explain and show that it can work and the benefits of working in that way. What we do tend to fall into then is, if you lift and shift that model, it becomes an add-on then, it becomes rather clunky, and it can almost be a tick-box exercise and it's not fit for purpose in the organisation. So, I'm reticent as well of picking up good practice, but good practice is there and useful to encourage the way forward. I think we need to build in stronger accountability for social partnership working. Hopefully, we will get to that stage and potentially look to perhaps have an evaluation process or an annual report of completing it jointly. But, recognition in workplaces that bargaining agreements specify negotiation on green economy matters would be very helpful for us as negotiators out in the field.

Okay. I've been spending a bit of time today just looking around the Scottish Government's Just Transition Commission website. They've set up this commission. For example, there's Richard Hardy on that body, and he's the national secretary for Scotland and Ireland at Prospect, but there are also people from the private sector, from energy companies, and the public sector on that commission. Do you think something like that would be useful to be mirrored, or do you think that there's an alternative for Wales in the approach it wants to take?

You've name checked my colleague Richard there, and he'll be very pleased that he's got his name in Wales now, being a Yorkshireman, actually. I think the potential is more limited than they have in Scotland. Scotland has many levers to assist their industrial change. They've got the reserved areas such as energy and employment law, which are different to our devolved matters. So, it's a little bit of comparing apples and pears here. In Scotland, they have a Cabinet Secretary for Well-being, Economy, Fair Work and Energy. Obviously, that brings together everything we're talking about under one portfolio and the core policy areas for planning and delivery of just transition. It does work. Richard is a strong advocate for it. All the areas that you're looking for answers for are examined by Just Transition Scotland. I think they have a good web page there. As you mentioned, Hefin, they have a really broad membership that takes in the needs across all the stakeholders to develop it for their country as an independent advisory body providing scrutiny and advice on how to deliver a just transition to low carbon in Scotland. Because it is made up of a broad representation of stakeholders' interests, I think it is a very good model that we should use, even if our scope would be more limited.

Okay. Nisreen, do you want to say anything about that?

Yes. I think we would be very keen to see something like the commission model adopted here, but it's absolutely crucial that there is clarity on what levers that commission can influence. So, I think that one outcome could be further contribution to policy work, but if that policy work is not then driving the direction of something like the Development Bank of Wales, for example, and the Development Bank of Wales continues to operate in a way where, from our point of view, we're not clear if it does take into account the quality of work outcomes, the notion of fair work, in what it does, then we're just operating within too narrow a space. It's absolutely essential that, if social partners are being brought together, that we have that full ability to influence all levers that are driving this agenda. And so I think 'yes', but with the right levers attached to it and the right purpose attached to it, because I think it's only at that level that we can start to shape this agenda in that idea of it being a just transition. But I think that it would need quite a considerable commitment to bring together all those levers.

Just one last question, Cadeirydd. We've got in Wales—I don't know if they've got anything similar in Scotland—a future generations commissioner, and I'm always surprised that more reference isn't made to the office of the future generations commissioner in this kind of area. So, I just wonder, perhaps we don't need a commission. We've already got the future generations commissioner who could bring together a group who could run this more effectively in the policy that we've already got in Wales. Do you think that's fair? Are you equally surprised that the future generations commissioner isn't mentioned more often in this area?

I hadn't thought about it before in that context, I'll be honest with you, Hefin. But, no, it's a good call that you make, and I think it is something that we should look to progress.

I think we would view that in terms of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and the Social Partnership Council's role in advising on the well-being objectives, as, in a way, having that role, but I think there is a challenge for unions to engage with the kind of policy depths of the future generations Act, and it's a very live one, because the social partnership duty has just come into effect in public bodies, and it's something that public sector unions are obviously having to really get to grips with now, and it is a challenge. I think that limitations in the private sector are difficult, but also, in terms of the future generations Act, there is an open-endedness to some extent, and it's refining that into very clear policy outcomes that you do need, I think, that social partnership structure to inform. We don't work with the future generations commissioner in that way, but I'm sure that's something that I think all sides would be really open to doing. 

Also, I think—this sounds a strange way to put it—it's not just a future generations challenge in a way; it's almost the current generation in five to 10 years that we're thinking about. If I think about the workforce at Tata and Llanwern, it's what's going to happen in that next decade that I think is also driving the panic, and that's where I think we look very much to the Welsh Government and the UK Government, and their responsibility there.

Diolch, Cadeirydd.

Diolch, Hefin. I'll now bring in Cefin Campbell. Cefin.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. I'm going to be asking my question in Welsh, so you'll need your headsets.

Diolch. I can briefly answer. 

The Welsh Government cannot leave communities behind. We saw this in an unjust transition from the coal industry, and we can see, in areas like Ebbw Vale, they are still left behind, generations following. So, we have got to learn from the past and think about the future. We know too well the effects this has had.

Communication, I think, and engagement are the cornerstone. We need to consult and listen to these communities and not try and attempt to have any sort of one-size-fits-all. We talk about going from Port Talbot to Llanwern to others in north Wales, and each community will be different. Llanwern and Port Talbot would have, probably, better access to the M4 and transport links. So, we need to be a bit more joined up, a 360-degree approach to how we help those transition and bring in those opportunities.

As the UK, we are moving towards a low-carbon economy. We’re still yet to have—and I'm sorry I keep repeating this, but we don't have it—a coherent plan that puts workers and communities at the heart of the future policy. And whether that comes to energy in the future, which is my area, I cannot state strongly enough the urgency to have a plan that lays out the investment in skills and infrastructure for employment opportunities. Communities and industry need to know that jobs can be protected, and what new jobs will be created. So, we need to be able to identify those jobs that we are able to protect, and be honest and straight, and as soon as possible, with people, and then also about the creation of new jobs, but to have that engagement with each community to move forward.

Yes, I think that the Welsh Government needs to assess the risk of other Tata-style crises. You mentioned Trostre, Llanwern and other communities where energy-intensive industries are providing above-average paid work, which should, I think, get some additional attention from the Welsh Government so that they have the relationships with both the employers and the unions in that space to make sure that they are aware of what investment asks might be coming down the road, what those industries need to remain sustainable, and providing that investment in the communities they're based in.

I think, as we can see from what's happening now in industry in Wales, it depends at what point the Welsh Government is able to intervene and the scale of intervention they're capable of making. The Port Talbot situation has really shone a light on the scale of intervention some energy-intensive industries need and where those levers sit. So, I think the ideal position is for the Welsh Government, industry and the unions to be on the same page when they're going to the UK Government with an ask.

But then, of course, where we are seeing job losses, closures, there does need to be that approach that looks at business survival, and the sort of interventions we saw during the pandemic in terms of business survival support. That kind of thing is vital in retaining jobs and it really showed its value over that period—so, that kind of crisis funding as well as the very responsive approach the Welsh Government takes to periods of mass redundancy. ReAct funding is something that we've used multiple times to support the workforce, as well as other types of training packages and that type of thing. And I think, like with what's happening in south Wales at the moment, bringing in agencies like Public Health Wales to think about that wider impact of these sorts of issues I think is really crucial as well. So, a whole-government approach, really, to manage transition, even when the Welsh Government doesn't have any significant influence over the direction that transition is taking, is important.

You mentioned the coal-mining communities earlier on. I grew up in a coal-mining community and I experienced the devastating effect that that had on my community, because there was no just transition. It's taken years, generations, for that community to recover, and I don't think it's fully recovered even today.

But just moving on from that, there was an equal and just transition report published by Cardiff University, and it showed that there was an energy diversity gap in new and existing renewable jobs. So, again, what should the Welsh Government do to address this diversity gap in the renewable energy sector?

I haven't been able to access the reference that's been made there, but I think we should look deeper and identify the key factors that contribute to the gap. An example would be do women have the equal opportunity to access upskilling and training opportunities that can provide a pathway to renewable jobs, such as are there digital classroom opportunities to be more accessible to a range of people. We could look at opportunities to improve transport links as well, as I referenced in answer to an earlier question, about being able to access and think ahead of how they would get from one place to another. 

Some of the other areas that we would look at as a trade union are around forward looking in terms of whether somebody's going to make a conscious decision of a career going forward, but to think about what are the working conditions in that career, and can the Welsh Government put together some required standards that we want going forward. For example, perhaps in the energy sector there's some requirement to be on standby. That can lead to a long-hours culture. That might be something that wouldn't be attractive for somebody making those conscious choices. 

Many of the jobs that have shift working have unsocial hours, so they're not attracting the roles and there are barriers to work. They need to have access to a vehicle and relying on transport isn't possible. You mentioned the ReAct funding as well. If we've identified those jobs, we need to engage now with those education providers to make sure that that training is available, it's accessible and can be delivered on time.

I'm going to skip through to some of my notes, because I know the WJEC have a new course that they're starting to roll out, and I believe it's the first of its kind in the UK. If you can bear with me just one moment, I'm just going to find my reference to that course, because when I saw that I thought that was a really good staging point for people, because there are different stages to it. What we've learnt from our surveys in some of our groups is that people don't understand what green jobs are. They don't recognise what it would mean and they don't see how they could fit into that, what are the skills available. The course that I would love to be able to—

If you can't find it, Jane, then perhaps you can send it on to us. 

I've got it. It's a sustainability in action qualification that they've unveiled, and it's designed to support net-zero jobs, in which the next generation of workers at many levels can gain qualifications. So, whilst net-zero jobs is still a novel concept for some people, as I said—they don't understand it—qualifications such as these can be a lever for moving towards encouraging interest and understanding of those opportunities, and perhaps other nations then would follow us.

I think this does come down to what I've mentioned in terms of having that sense of what are the labour outcomes. At the moment, I can't see any obvious intervention that we could make as social partners around the equality, diversity and inclusion outcomes of public investment to increase the diversity, because we just don't have that influence over public spend yet. Even though that's something that we're really passionate about as a union side, we're not seeing public investment shaping labour outcomes yet in that way, and we need that to address issues of diversity, but also, like Jane's mentioned, issues that relate to the barriers to diversity—so, the nature of shift work, for example. 

I think that also is where it becomes desirable to try to take some of this work into the public sector. We can obviously have far more influence over recruitment practices if the construction work being done under this remit were being done by people directly employed by the public sector, because they have negotiated recruitment practices through the unions that organise in that sector. So, I think there are lots of benefits to try to bring as much of this type of work into the public sector as possible. 

But something I do want to touch on is this: we've talked about energy-intensive industries, you've mentioned coal mining, we've talked about steel, and they are relatively high-paid jobs, and were relatively high-paid jobs, because they were unionised sectors. Something that I am worried about is that that transition will happen in low-paid, precarious work too. They might be mass employment sites, it could be small microbusinesses. I'm thinking of sectors like food processing. And that just isn't anywhere near as prominent in this kind of agenda as it should be, because they don't have that same level of collective voice yet. And so I think that's something that I would like to see the Welsh Government paying extra attention to—so, trying to find out more about what is happening in those industries that aren't so organised. Because I think that's where we might see some extreme vulnerability of the workforce, who we already know are in a relatively more precarious state, at greater risk of things like low pay.

This is my absolute favourite subject to talk about. I think that it should be about a mixture of setting red lines—. And I think that's something that we haven't talked much about. We've had the economic contract model in Wales for quite a while, and I think that talks about that you've got a business in one place, and you want to take them a little bit further along progressive employment, and other criteria, but I think we do need some very clear red lines around ideas of if you're not allowing trade union access, for example, you absolutely should not get public funding. And that just has to be a commitment to saying, 'If a union wants to organise my workforce, I won't be a barrier to that'—it's not a burden, it's not anything hostile. I think red lines like that are crucial to then saying our stretching criteria has to go that bit further. I know there's been work to support companies to pay the real living wage, for example. But again, we'd like to see it go much further than that. So, it's thinking about the fact that we've got a statutory minimum when it comes to things like maternity, paternity, and other forms of parental leave; how do we stretch that much further, so that we've got conditions far closer to the public sector playing out in publicly invested private sector work?

I think there is also a case for, when you've got something like, say—. Something we tried to get involved in unsuccessfully was the optimised retrofit programme, for example—so, quite a big pot of funding, looking at retrofitting social housing. At the moment, we have no sense of what the job outcomes of that are like at all. We know it's construction, so there are lots of risks associated with construction, from low pay, precarity. I had a quick Google this morning; there was a company advertising that they work for local authorities, and it said, 'full-time work', but it was being paid at a day rate, so that made me very suspicious. So, we have no control, when it goes out like that, in terms of a Welsh Government pot of funding, which then goes to maybe a local authority or a housing association; it just fritters away, and you have no sense of what the job outcomes of that are.

My dream outcome is that it becomes much more like if you look at what we see in the nuclear construction industry, where we've got sector agreements. So, you've got a pot of funding, and then you've got a union-negotiated sector agreement, so you know the jobs that are going to result from that spend, you know the pay rates for those jobs, the other terms and conditions. I would want to see public spend like that, where it's a pot of investment aligned to particular negotiated employment outcomes. We are very far away from that, but that's the dream I've got for that.

Diolch. Jane, do you have anything to add?

No. I think you've covered this, Nisreen.

My last question is particularly to Prospect: last year, you published a report on delivering good clean energy jobs. How could the Welsh Government contribute to achieving the five goals you set out in that report?

Some of what Nisreen has just mentioned, actually, goes to some of those pillars in there. What we've already talked about is social partnership and having that engagement, and knowing what good work looks like, and there being a required standard. I'll move away from a minimum standard—that there is a required standard for that. Many of these roles will be in the private sector, but I think you have a central role to play in shaping the quantity and quality of those roles.

For several years, Prospect, and I know other unions, have been raising concerns about health and safety, pay, staffing levels and other issues, and that goes across the emerging clean energy industries as well. But in the paper you've referenced, we've looked, in those recommendations, to address those challenges. I'll stick with the energy market for a moment, and looking at the contribution to that in the skills, because the Welsh Government have a clear opportunity to improve our position in energy markets now in relation to skills. We've been engaging with industry and learning from them. We've spoken to a company called Ørsted, and they're the world leader in offshore wind. In the UK, which is their biggest market, they have 14 operational windfarms, including the world's largest. They also have, in their pipeline projects, the floating project in the Celtic sea.

If you think of an organisation like Ørsted, who've invested £14 billion so far in the UK, we should be looking to these sorts of organisations and think, 'How can we make sure that, as a nation, we've got those skills that would attract that organisation to us?' They're looking to do another £16 billion in the next five to six years, which, I think, makes it one of the largest investors in infrastructure in the UK—that's not including the supply chains in their investments. But what Ørsted are calling for, in recognising the challenges that we've identified—there are also real opportunities, and that's key—is skills programmes that are tailored to workers and local communities, so going back round to talking about local communities. Ørsted have experience of doing this, but there's only so much one company can do. It's something touched upon by a different report, which I'll share with the committee, and that's on the delivery of clean power and what's being done.

In August, we commissioned some research by More in Common on public attitudes to green jobs. Participants had a clear view of what makes good jobs, highlighting good pay, stability, decent working hours, enjoyment and a sense of purpose. And most participants were familiar with green jobs, but many had concerns that those green jobs wouldn't be accessible and would be poorly paid. These discussions reinforced our view that we must deliver these high-quality jobs, but we must do them from an opportunity of having those skills in place—and I've already mentioned some of the softer level of skills that are available. But we've got to be engaging with our education providers, and they need to be alive to the opportunities that are available to them. So, that's what I would call on the Welsh Government to do now, as a first start: to make sure that we have a workforce that's fit for the future, for these jobs that would be available, because there are huge opportunities here that we could miss out on.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you.

Diolch, Cefin. I'll now bring in Samuel Kurtz. 

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. Good morning to you both. Thanks for joining. My questions are around skills and the supply chain. One set of questions that I've raised with the Minister, and the previous Minister before, is around the auditing of what skills currently exist in the workforce and, when we're looking to transition toward a net-zero economy, what needs to be done to ensure we're forward planning and knowing how many skills we currently have, and where investment is needed in skills development, to maximise the opportunities that are available for us. So, Jane, your thoughts on that, please.

I think we've both already touched on some of our thoughts on this. There is a skills shortage. It's not just what we probably would tag as green skills, but software skills are in high demand; employers are paying a premium to recruit and retain those.

I'll switch away from the energy sector for a short while and I'll pick up on industries such as the aircraft industry, which we know is a major contributor to carbon emissions. This industry isn't going to diminish, it's not going to go away, but what we have to do is think about the fact that aircraft may change, so what will we need as a long-term focus for this type of industry. Because we do have these industries in Wales already, so how do we help them transition? Again, are we teaching what is required and fit for the future?

So, how do we find that out?

Talk to industry.

So, for Prospect and the TUC, is that discussion being had where we are—and I use the term auditing, but other terms are available—fully understanding where the trajectory is going in terms of workforce skills, from developers, from industry, from educational establishments as well, saying, 'Look, this is what we're seeing in terms of demand as well'? Is anybody collating that information? Is there a policy formulating, somewhere from the centre or from the periphery, of saying, 'This is where we need to go with skills development', and numbers, bare numbers? It could be, 'We need 10,000 welders', or is it more generalised, as saying, 'We need to develop those with skills in a certain area'? How does that look?

Speaking from Prospect, and I know Nisreen has already mentioned the nuclear industry as well, we have identified that sort of granular detail in those industries. Similarly to the energy industry, we've got a number of reports on what is required in our conversations and forward looking. What we don't do is we don't have that direct conversation with those education providers, but we have conversations between industry and the Government.

So, it should be up to the Government then to be able to determine, 'Look, this is where we need to be going, in terms of numbers on skills development', and then for the policy to follow subsequently from those discussions that you have with developers, et cetera?

I think it would be useful if we were all in the room at the same time having these conversations, a bit like when we talked about the Scotland model. That's something that, potentially, we're missing out on. Nisreen, I don't know whether you've got experience of this.

Okay. Thank you, Jane.

It's a tricky question. So, I think we're aware—. We've seen bits of work that have been done by industry bodies. Work the Construction Industry Training Board did a few years ago was very much in this nature of identifying what skills were available. But there isn't that space. As a union side, we don't meet with Industry Wales, for example, in that collective way. I think part of the challenge is, when we don't have that leverage over all that scale of public investment, there isn't the appetite to work together in the same way, because we're not shaping the outcomes of a huge pot of funding, for example. So, the budget situation is overhanging.

But I think that when we were contributing to the call for evidence that the Welsh Government did—I think it was last year—we asked these questions, and we know that, in a lot of unionised workplaces, these conversations are happening, and there is a sense of, 'This is where the jobs are going, this is where the investment's going, these are the skills that are needed.' But it's not happening in that general economy sense, from what we can gather. And it might be happening between the Government and industry bodies, but it's not happening in that social partnership way, which is very much why we want that just-transition-commission-type approach or something through the Social Partnership Council.

Some industries are probably doing this already themselves. I'm thinking of the Royal Mint in Llantrisant. I know they've partnered with the University of South Wales on things like national cyber security technical apprenticeships to be able to have that pipeline coming through, because they know what they need in the future, so they're already doing it themselves. So, there is practice there. Where do we need the Government to intervene?

That's where I'm coming at it. That Llantrisant model there seems to be private sector or a sector with higher education developing that link, and the Government is somewhat excluded from that discussion. So, is it up to those private businesses—I'm thinking of those on the Haven waterway cluster in Pembrokeshire—having a meeting with them and saying, 'Look, we need more skills. Let's not put a finite figure on it—we need 1,001—let's just focus on getting 1,000', because there will always be jobs in those spheres because of where, naturally, skills are going and where industry is going. So, where the Government sits in this discussion is where I'm trying to pinpoint this. Should they be the overarching one in saying, 'Right, we have audited the skills that are required, and it is now a centralised policy that we are rolling out'? Or is it more businesses picking up that discussion with local education providers, like the Llantrisant model?

I think also, the Government has a role to play in thinking about the finite use of the budget. We talked about ReAct, Student Finance Wales, and those sorts of things. Actually, if we are giving money out, are we targeting the right skills, going forward, and can we use those as levers to help target? But in that, it does require that conversation of what is required for the future.

Okay. Thank you. Moving on that then, in terms of reskilling and retraining, and the Wales union learning fund, supporting workers to reskill and upskill to adapt, any additional steps that could be taken to deliver further on the Wales union learning fund?

Do you want me to start on this?

Yes, okay.

There is lots of investment in general decarbonisation training through the Wales union learning fund. It's worker driven, so the topics, the subjects, the type of training they're doing, the appetite has come from workers to do that, and decarbonisation and other areas related to the just transition agenda have been something there's been a real appetite for. So, it's really encouraging. There are also pockets of work happening within workplaces that are far more advanced on that. So, not just thinking about how we transition this person's skills and role to fit where investment has gone, but how it can be maximised. So, there is an example from Swansea Council, for example, of workers learning how to repair electric vehicles. So, I think that's the kind of ideal just transition model, isn't it? It's not just a case of 'no worker left behind', but, actually, it's a case of a worker really benefiting from the transition. I think we would be interested in having discussions about how that type of model can be quickly scaled up, whether that's across local authorities or other transport providers. And I think, also, it would be good to have that longer term information that you're talking about, and also a sense of—and I think this is where the Government, and, perhaps, the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research should be playing a role; I know it's very much in its infancy—how one particular, more traditional skill set can be transitioned for the green economy would be really helpful to kind of guide both sides of WULF projects—so, the employer side and the union side—in the workplace.

Okay, that's helpful. Thank you. 

Yes, and I'd just like to add to it, because we have a WULF project in Wales, but that's in our creative industry sector. In England, we don't have union learning funding, so Prospect have organised bespoke training sessions themselves. In the carbon-heavy industries, we know that we do have an ageing workforce, and I think that's something that we haven't mentioned here today, which we need to consider as well as future generations. But the sorts of training sessions that we've had were on the soft skills, which I think really lend themselves to the WULF.

We also organised information and question sessions in the energy sector, with RWE and EDF. What we identified is three key themes in that. People wanted to understand more about employment terms, as to what happens to their pension or pay equivalency if they moved into renewables—job security, relocation, working from home opportunities. They wanted to know about skills, transferrable skills, developing new skills and accessing training. And they also wanted to understand about the culture as well. Members wanted to know if they would be fit for a job and how ways of working differ and what happens. So, there's the soft skills side of it, which our members are telling us is required.

Okay, thank you. And just a final point, then, on the reskilling stuff. Tata has been mentioned, and this committee has done a fair amount of work around Tata following their announcement. On reskilling, there's concern around the licences only being valid on Tata property and not being transferrable between other industries, organisations or employers. And, obviously, an example is fork-lift training, which has specifically received funding from the Welsh Government. So, should the Welsh Government be putting greater caveats on funding support around skills and retraining to ensure transferability of skills?

Yes, but skills should be portable, shouldn't they? Having a training qualification or certification should be portable.

Yes, fine. Agreed?

Yes. 

Yes, fab. Thank you. That's really helpful. Thank you, Chair. 

Diolch, Sam. I'm afraid time has beaten us, so our session has come to an end. Thank you, both, for being with us today. Your evidence will be very important to our inquiry. A copy of today's transcript will be sent to you in due course, so if there are any issues with that, then please let us know. But, once again, thank you for being with us.

Thank you. 

Diolch yn fawr. 

Diolch. We'll now take a short break to prepare for the next session. 

Would you like to introduce yourselves, just for the record?

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Yes. Huw Irranca-Davies, Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs, and this large portfolio that I have that has been put together after the reshuffle. Gian Marco, if you'd like to introduce yourself.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Bore da. Gian Marco Currado. I'm the rural affairs director at the Welsh Government.

And Richard.

Bore da. Richard Irvine, Chief Veterinary Officer for Wales.

Thank you for those introductions. Cabinet Secretary, you've been in your role now for a few months, but if there was one thing you would want to achieve in your first 12 months as the Cabinet Secretary for rural affairs, what would that be?

There's no single one thing, Chair. Unfortunately, I can't give you one thing, because the portfolio I have is so vast, and so many are of key, critical importance not just for the future of our rural economy and of farming, but also for facing those climate change and nature emergencies that we collectively face as well. I could pick more than one.

So, what do you see as your main priority?

So, I think the main areas that I'm hoping to land and trying to work very hard to land are first of all the future of farming and the economy, and that is, yes, the sustainable farming scheme, without a doubt, but it's the wider landscape of that. Beyond the SFS, if you like, as well, how do we create a thriving rural economy, of which farming is an integral part, and the diversity of farming that we have in Wales?

The second aspect—and it's related to that, but this shows how it's very much a cross-cutting agenda within my new portfolio—it's how we do deal with those issues of good soil, clean rivers, good air quality, all of those aspects that actually do come together in the rural piece as well. And that means probably—if I could close on this in response to your opening statement—there is no one thing, but there is one way, and that way is actually collaborative working. It's what I've repeatedly described with no apology for as a Welsh way of doing things. We face the challenges together; we identify the opportunities together and then we bring forward the solutions to these big challenges. And I'm convinced, by the way, as well, Cadeirydd, that there are real opportunities here for the rural economy, for the rural society, and for farming, and to deal with those wider nature imperatives as well. So, not one simple answer; it's actually a basket of things that we need to move forward at pace together on.

Okay, thank you for that. I'll now bring in Cefin Campbell. Cefin.

Diolch. I suppose I should declare an interest because, in my previous role as a designated member, I worked closely with Huw's predecessor, and very briefly with Huw, on two aspects of this report, which are agricultural pollution, and I'm hoping to achieve a more targeted approach to the issue, and also the development of the sustainable farming scheme. Although we didn't always agree on what was in the sustainable farming scheme, it certainly was an opportunity for the sector to respond and, by gosh, they did respond. In terms of the agricultural pollution aspect in particular, Huw, you've agreed to a review of the regulations and you have identified specific areas, the SSC areas, as being priority areas, I guess, because that's where the river quality is poorer than in other parts of Wales. Does that suggest a more geographically targeted approach? I don't want you to commit, obviously, to what the group will propose, but is that the way that you're thinking at the moment?

I genuinely, Cefin, don't want to pre-empt what might be the outcomes of this opportunity we have for a four-yearly review, and as I've mentioned before on the floor of the Senedd, we're hoping to shortly make the appointment of the independent chair of that, who will take forward this review. It should be what I would encourage the chair to do, although not direct them, which is to make full use of this review opportunity to see what has succeeded and what has failed. Just to be clear as well, because, often, we have a slight schizophrenia about our rivers, in some respects, we are doing well, although you wouldn't always understand that from what you hear out there. So, it is worth reflecting on the fact, Chair, that, overall, 44 per cent of our rivers in Wales, in terms of ecological status, have been ranked as 'good' or better. That, by the way—and this isn't a ranking table or whatever, but just of interest to the committee—compares with 14 per cent on the other side of Offa's Dyke. However, and it's a big 'however', we know the extent of pollution effects, including on some of our special areas of conservation rivers, but also wider in the landscape of Wales as well. We know that it's not only agricultural pollution, that there is house building and development pollution, there is the old Victorian, antiquated CSO infrastructure that we have, combined sewage and water overflows. All of that is part of the piece as well.

But we do know that agriculture will have to play its part in this as well. Now, you and I—thank you for recognising the fact that we had a previous, brief relationship as the designated Member and so on within the co-operation agreement. But even before that, you and I engaged on this issue, as I did with other members of this committee on the challenges ahead, and we took a visit out to parts of west Wales and we looked at where it goes badly wrong. We looked at where it goes badly wrong. When we drove down there into an area to see the despoliation of our rivers and the soil—soil that wasn't soil, it was mud. So, we know what we have to do, but we have to also work with farmers to do it.

So, this four-yearly review with an independent chair gives us a real opportunity, actually, now, to say, 'Well, what is working in areas? What is not working in others?' It's not only to do with where we put public support, it's also to do with regulatory baselines, as well, of how we look at farms, as well. It's not all to do with penalties and so on, it's also to do with working with farmers to get best practice happening out there, but it needs to be a proper portfolio of ways forward.

I don't know, Gian Marco, whether you want to touch on some of the areas that we'd be interested in taking forward, both with the SFS, but also outside of that, in order to deal with it, because it's undoubtedly the case that we have a significant issue to deal with with agricultural pollution. We cannot shy away from it, and before I bring Gian Marco in, the reason we can't is because, everywhere I go in this role, and previously, people have told me in the food and drink industry the reason we are doing so well, for example, on exports, as well as domestically, of Welsh produce is based on that this is a green and pleasant land, that our animal welfare standards are the highest and that the way that we look after the environment is the best. So, every headline that suggests that we're not doing that is to the detriment of it. Our export markets in places like the middle east and the far east are based on that, that's what people are asking us for and asking of our food supply chain, so we need to get this right. Gian Marco.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Just to add, really, obviously, the purpose of the review in terms of the legislation is to look at the effectiveness of the regulation, so how well are the regulations doing in delivering those objectives that we want to deliver. I think, clearly, the chair, once appointed, will have a view as to how to take that forward. But we've started initial discussions with our stakeholder group, with the Wales land management forum, on the kinds of issues we need to look at. One of the key things, really, is how—. One of the difficulties, I think, is because the regulations have had a staggered implementation, so the different measures within the regulations have been coming into force over time. We've got the enhanced nutrient management approach that was agreed as part of the co-operation agreement that's in force at the moment in relation to the 170 kg of nitrogen per hectare limit. There is some difficulty, I think, in looking at the regulations as a whole and their effectiveness when some of the measures haven't had time to bed in, but that is what the purpose of the review is. We're hoping that that will—. You know, in the end, what that will need to do is gather the evidence and then make proposals for the Cabinet Secretary to consider as to whether any changes are needed.

Another point, just finally, to say is that I know there's been a lot of conversation around the impact of the regulations, and as part of that review, we'd want to do a revised impact assessment to make sure that we fully understand. But as the Cabinet Secretary said, there are clear objectives that the regulations need to deliver, and we'd want that review to assess how effective the current sets of regulations are in delivering those objectives.

And to be clear, Cefin, as well, any decisions that come forward as a result of that review will be based on the evidence, and part of that will include that assessment of whether the 170 kg nitrogen per hectare limit previously committed to is right, or is right overall et cetera, et cetera. So, let's let them—. But meanwhile, I have to say, we don't have to wait for that review, either; we need to get on with things. So, we have already announced previously—I know it's very recently—the £20 million of funding to support farms in taking forward measures on farm, which is very important itself, and even prior to that, we'd offered over £31 million of direct support towards on-farm infrastructure to help farmers meet the investment. And we know that that's part of it as well, because farmers will rightly challenge us and say, 'Well, how are you going to work with us to help us to make the right interventions?'

By the way, this afternoon, there are several points that I'll be raising in a meeting this afternoon—we're meeting with the agricultural banking sector. It's something that came out of the recent extreme weather summit that we held, and one of the things, amongst many issues that I'll be raising with them, is also how they can actually help the farming community in a number of ways, including the right type of investment so that the business models of farms are lined up to do the right thing in terms of agricultural pollution as well. This is not simply an enforcement, it's not simply a regulation; every player within this needs to be trying to do the right thing, including the supply chain with retailers. We've seen some great innovations now with retailers who want corporately to be seen to be doing the right thing, but I think they're genuine about it, so I'm also looking forward, in fairly short order, to meeting with the big retailers, the supply chain as well, to say, 'Right, now, what can you do, as well, to help the farming community do the right thing for the environment?' No farmer wants to do something bad for rivers. Sometimes, they end up in that situation, either through accident or because, sometimes, the business models are taking them in a direction that doesn't allow them to look at, 'Well, we need to change a lot of things in the system', and I know you and I have discussed this before. 

Diolch.

Diolch. Now, I'll bring in Samuel Kurtz. Sam.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Just picking up a point there that you mentioned around what you called the recently announced £20 million—that was announced initially back in 2022, and then the technical advisory group around TB was also announced back in 2022, but appointments were only made at the beginning of this year. There's a long time, there's a lag time between an announcement and this Government actually delivering something within agricultural policy. And I used to enjoy my back-and-forths with your predecessor on this point, as someone who is just passionate about this, and for me it's not political, it's for the industry, it's representative of the industry and wanting the best for that. How are you building those bridges that were burnt, previously? Those protests that took place on the steps of the Senedd, Carmarthen mart, Welshpool mart—there was a breakdown in the relationship between the policy makers and those who enact the policy, the farmers themselves, the industry. How is that relationship being rebuilt?

Two things to pull out of your question, and the question is the right question, because sometimes it can certainly appear that the wheels of Government, particularly, move very slowly. Sometimes, there are good reasons. So, if you're doing, for example, issues to do with appointments of members to the TB advisory board, the programme board et cetera, there has to be a process that you go through and sometimes that takes quite a bit of time. I'm pleased that I've come in just at the time when I can say, 'Right, we can move ahead now. Is there any reason we can't move ahead? Let's go. Let's do it', and on we go. I think that sometimes there's a lesson in that in the speed of saying, 'Let's just get on with this now. Has everything been done correctly? Now, let's proceed.' And whether that's in terms of the TB advisory board, or the putting in place of funding—we've had issues, I have to say, over the squaring off of funding decisions. The challenges that we've had over the last 18 months, two years particularly, in endless reconfigurations of budget decisions, some of which we've been involved with—in what was then the co-operation agreement; partners with—in order to crunch through, 'Well, where do we make really difficult decisions?' Sometimes, the sign-off means that's been delayed on small items, because they've all been in the mix.

So, why are they announced, then, if they're not ready? If that £20 million is announced in October 2022, for me, that should be available money. That shouldn't be money and then saying, 'Yes, we've announced it, but you won't be able to access it until 18 months later in 2024, when there's a change of Minister.'

I think the hard reality of the last 18 months has been—. My predecessor in this post has had no easy time of making budgetary decisions, not just on the grand scale of the hundreds of millions of pounds within their budget, main expenditure groups and so on, but actually on the small individual ones, because they've all been in the mix. So, when this was originally announced, I think there was a genuine intention to move ahead very rapidly with it, but then it became caught up in that maelstrom of cutbacks in overall budget, lack of budget availability into Wales generally—decisions across portfolios. However, I think the—. I genuinely now pay tribute to the predecessors and the work that officials had done on this, because when I came in, I was in the fortunate position and was able to say, 'Can we now go on this? Let's do it. Let's get ahead with it.'

But you raise the other issue of what you described as burning bridges. The only way we take this forward, what I described, Cadeirydd, in my opening response to yours, is the Welsh way of doing things. There are major challenges here, right across the piece, whether it's with agricultural pollution, whether it's with SFS and so on, and I don't underestimate the challenge with that for individual farm businesses. Part of this is to do with saying, 'Can we be frank and honest and agree with each other that those are the challenges, and the right challenges?', but then can we also agree that we're going to, in transitioning to where we need to be, have to take some really interesting decisions here, challenging decisions, which will make a difference to the way that you farm, the way that you have a livelihood—not that it will make it worse, by the way, but it'll be change, and that change is always difficult. So, part of my role now is that rebuilding of confidence and trust. I signalled very early on on some of these things, and not only have I moved ahead quickly with some decisions, but also it's the question of saying not just the flippant comment of, 'We are listening', but genuinely and meaningfully engaging both with the farming unions, but being out there on farms as well. And this is not new to me, Sam, as you know.

I appreciate that.

I believe in having those farm-based conversations, because that's the way you rebuild the trust and the confidence going forward, without shying away from the challenges that we have. 

Okay. One thing—. And not to dwell on your predecessor, but in her final couple of scrutiny sessions here, we talked around the rural development programme and the delivery of that. Are you planning any sort of review of how the RDP was done? Are you looking at replacing it with anything? Or is the RDP gone with our membership of the European Union?

Well, we've certainly faced—. I talk about challenges—that's been one of the biggest ones of all. Sam, this is not a criticism of you or a party political point—it genuinely isn't—but one of my deep sadnesses from the aftermath of withdrawing from the EU is where it left us in terms of funding overall particularly. Even with all the criticisms that were there previously about rural development programmes, and the criticisms around bureaucracy, complexity and so on, and so forth, which were there to drive the accountability and so on, at least there was a programme of activity, and there was a quantum of funding that was within it. You and I will remember the promises and the pledges that were made—and I realise this is not you—by those who said, 'Don't you worry, when we come out, that'll still be there' and so on. Actually, when we came out, we are significantly worse off, and it's to the tune of £243 million. Now, there's the context—

How long is that going to be an excuse? How long? Eight years—

So, there's the reality—

I understand the reality here, and there are differing arguments from His Majesty's Treasury as to the quantum of money being sent down the M4 for delivery of projects, and everything like that. You've spent two minutes there now explaining something that was discussed in 2016. We're in 2024. RDP had successes, but, under previous Welsh Government Ministers, there were some failures in it as well in terms of its delivery. Are you looking at replicating it, or are you looking at saying, 'Right, actually there is no replication of that. Our funding or our priority will be in other areas of delivery of funding'?

So, rather than seeing that as an excuse, it's a general reflection of the reality we are currently in. We've been at pains to make sure that the rural development programmes that we've put in place as a result, pressured by the budget situation that we have, have actually delivered in some significant areas. So, we've, for example, made the decision to actually continue with the basic payment scheme, unlike over the border, at the rate of £238 million, so keeping it at that level. Now, that's significant, because when we have farmers pressured with uncertainty about where we go forward generally, and the pressures of what's been done with international trade agreements, and the pressures of Ukraine, and the pressures that are inherent within farming day by day, I think that decision there to actually give certainty on that was key.

We've also, within that, said that we've made sure that the organic part of that is made available in 2024. The existing commitments that we had through the rural schemes were honoured, although we had to make reductions, some reductions, to Farming Connect and the sustainable innovation scheme. They were unavoidable and inevitable. And we protected the animal health and welfare budget. People often say to us, ‘Well, why is that important? Surely that's something that you can shave a little bit off.’ But if we compromise on biosecurity and phytosanitary issues and so on, then we expose ourselves to those risks, and our trade issues then are exposed to it as well.

So, we've actually done our very best. I'm not trying to cite where we are as an excuse. I'm trying to say where we are is a reflection of the reality. Now, we'll keep on making those arguments and, hopefully, the committee will join us in this in saying that—. We've failed to succeed in those arguments over successive years to the UK Government to say, ‘Can you just make good on that promise you did? Because we could do so much more.’ But what we have done—

HM Treasury would say that they have.

Well, they haven't.

HM Treasury would say that the accounting would show that the Welsh Government has received what was a manifesto commitment in 2019.

Except they haven't. And everybody in the farming community and everybody in the farming unions recognises this. We're just shy of £0.25 billion short of what we should have, and that's a lot of money in the Welsh budget. Overall we're shy, when you look at other structural funds and so on, of in excess of £1 billion. Now that's significant in Wales, but from the point of this committee it's especially significant in terms of what we can do in rural development as well.

Now, where we go forward, well, that becomes quite interesting. Because if we can—if we can—get to a situation where we know we have greater certainty going forward, not simply in terms of quantum of budget, but also in terms of the ability to move to multi-annual settlements rather than year by year, we're in a different ball game. And that's critical to us as we take forward the sustainable farming scheme as well. Because at the moment we've been able to say, going forward with the SFS, we're guaranteeing the BPS for the year ahead. We're committed to doing that so we can get into this preparatory phase. But we also need certainty going forward so that we can move ahead with a good, well-crafted, well-funded SFS scheme, and everything else we want to do as well.

Okay. Just one final point on the RDP. The previous commitment for an RDP advisory board to advise on future delivery of funding; is that still a commitment?

It is still a commitment, and I just wonder, Gian Marco, if you want to add anything to that on that commitment. But, yes, we're still committed to doing that.

So, obviously, as you said, the rural development programme has closed. We've spent all the money that we have over that seven-year period, which is really positive. We have learned lessons from that programme. So, to give you one example, one of the things we've talked about during the consultation on the sustainable farming scheme was around how we want to change the relationship with farmers from what has been one that has been guided by, in effect, us having to be very strict in compliance with EU rules so that we wouldn't risk losing budget into one where we want to work more collaboratively with farmers. And one of the things we talked about during the roadshows that we held earlier in the year was around things like data, data confirmation, which might come up later if we talk about the Habitat Wales scheme, but those sorts of things around how do we validate the information, the data, that we have, with farmers, and give a bit more flexibility for farmers to come back to us.

In terms of the current programme, we've had the three-year settlement, which ends this year. We've got the rural investment schemes. That is a constant feedback loop. Part of the challenge we have—and this comes back a little bit to your earlier question as well—part of the challenge we have is that a lot of these schemes are demand led. So, there's an element of this that is us working with the farming community to make sure we understand what the needs are, so that we can spend that money fully. The other challenge we have is that a lot of these schemes, particularly the capital investment ones, run over many years. So, some of the commitments, or some of the schemes that we open, let's say, this year, will have funding commitments that will last beyond the budget that we currently have. So, managing all of that isn't straightforward. So, in terms of what we're doing, we're trying to pull all that together, into a feedback loop, that then moves us into the sustainable farming scheme.

So, I take from your answer—just forgive me, Chair—and Huw's answer, that, yes, the RDP advisory board is to be set up.

Well, we need—

So, the Cabinet Secretary just confirmed it—

He did.

—and now, Gian, you're saying you're not confirming it. Is an RDP advisory board going to be set up? It was a commitment.

It's a conversation that we need to have with the Cabinet Secretary. But, if the Cabinet Secretary has confirmed it, then, yes, absolutely.

Okay. I'll take that then. Thanks, Chair.

Before you go on then, Sam, Cefin would like to come in on this point.

Yes. My apologies, Chair. Just going back to agricultural pollution, I had in mind to ask you, when you were talking about appointing a chair for this group that would review the regulations, when are we expecting an announcement on the chair and the composition of that group?

Ideally, what we're looking at is before the summer recess. So, it's not going to be too long now; we're not that far away.

Okay. Diolch. Sorry.

Diolch, Cefin.

No, diolch yn fawr. Diolch, Cadeirydd. Just one other point, and it was mentioned there, about capital investment. Mona Dairy has just gone into administration, having had, in 2021, £3 million of capital funding from Welsh Government. Are the checks and balances for funding from Welsh Government secure enough when giving money to projects such as Mona Dairy?

Yes. The answer is 'yes'. I've had close engagement, as we've heard the recent announcements, with my colleague the economy Minister as well on this issue, because it both has economic issues around this, but also the wider farming and supply chain issues. I think the checks and balances are in place. And it is worth saying at this moment, because this is clearly concerning news, the announcement that we've had, that the purpose of the position in moving into administration is actually to seek opportunities, to see if there's a viable way forward, and to see if there are investors who want to come in and help take that forward. We all know the importance of trying to sustain this sort of infrastructure within Wales as well. So, there are good reasons why investment decisions like this are made. There are good reasons why it's seen within the farming community as important as well to retain these in Wales. So, I really hope that there's a positive outcome, I have to say. But, yes, checks and balances are definitely in place for every decision that is made on this type of investment.

Okay. And before I come in to the questions around bovine TB, obviously, this committee's received a letter from another Member around Hybu Cig Cymru and potential issues there. I was just wondering if you could provide us with an update on Hybu Cig Cymru, if you're able to.

Yes. In respect of Hybu Cig Cymru, I've met very recently with Hybu Cig Cymru to seek the assurances that I need as the Cabinet Secretary that the performance of Hybu Cig Cymru is on track and that they're doing what they need to do for the wider supply chain and the stakeholders there. And I've had those assurances. What you're probably referring to, I suspect, is the issues of internal governance. Now, it's difficult for me to comment too much on those, and I hope you'll understand why. Those are matters that Hybu Cig Cymru are taking forward internally. There is a process that they are going through, which I am aware of. But also, as I say, I've had those clear reassurances in meetings recently that the performance of Hybu Cig Cymru is in no way impaired by those discussions on internal governance.

Okay. Thank you. Bovine TB, something that I've been incredibly passionate about, for obvious reasons. I've seen first-hand the pain and distress this disease has caused on farms across Wales. And then the NFU survey showed that the impact of bovine TB on farmers found a lack of confidence in the Welsh Government's approach to its eradication. How are you restoring that confidence?

I think in a number of ways. Some of the earliest visits I did as Cabinet Secretary were to visit with farmers who'd been directly affected, either with, as you say, the very traumatic experience of things such as on-farm slaughter or, indeed, to examples where I think we are genuinely pioneering, such as the Pembrokeshire pathway. I've also spent time with Professor Glyn Hewinson, the Sêr Cymru chair at Aberystwyth University, and, obviously, with our chief veterinarian, but also with vets on the ground on farms as well to try and understand the challenges and also work with the science, but also to try and highlight some of the strides forward that we are actually having in Wales. We often underestimate what we are doing in some of those—

What are we doing? What are those strides forward?

Well, when we look at where the data is taking us at the moment, that reveals several things. One is that over—. Every year of data can be quite different, as you know, individual variations and so on, but what we are seeing consistently is that the herd incidence is being driven down. But there's an interesting corollary to this, and I can go through the stats and the data on it with you, which is that herd prevalence is really sticky. So, there's something within that about the—. We're managing with the interventions that we are doing in a range of areas on biosecurity, on cattle movements, on testing, on better testing, on things like the Pembrokeshire pathway, where we have a real, proper partnership, where it's not—with all respect, for a moment—the man from the ministry saying, 'You need to do this'; it's actually the man from the ministry, it's the chief veterinary officer, with the expertise they have, together with, for example, the expertise from Aberystwyth University, but, most importantly, with the on-farm vet and the farmer having autonomy over the decisions. Now, all of that is meaning that we're driving down—. Every part of Wales is different. We've got different areas with hotspots and so on, but we are driving down consistently, year after year, the herd incidence. But the prevalence is there. We've got something stuck within it. Now, that means we need to use the data that we have, in the way that they use it within the Pembrokeshire pathway, actually, to give the ability to farmers to say, 'Well, I need to make decisions based on that.' And that might be looking at the animal health of individual cattle on their farms to say, 'Well, this might well be the one, because we've got two or three characteristic factors that are saying, this might be the vulnerable one; that might be the vulnerable one', but then not being told, but actually having the autonomy to make decisions. So, we are doing some good stuff, Sam, here in Wales on that, and I think there's more to come.

The other thing, by the way, is, of course, as we discussed briefly earlier on—. The establishment of the TB advisory group, I think, is a significant moment, and the programme board that's above it. The TB advisory group is an expert-led group, and it's got real depth of experience across the piece, including with that relevant experience to the farming environment in Wales. We've got people on there, including vets, who've had live experience on the farms in Wales, but there's a wide range of other experience. But them uplifting where they think we are, where we need to go next and so on, to the programme board—and the programme board, by the way, just to reiterate, because there's been some criticism over it, that's where actually the farming representation is, either directly or in ex-officio members, as well as veterinarians and so on—I think that will be a very helpful guide for the work that I'm doing, but also in what they flush out that will come to this committee as well, to say, 'Well, where do we go next?' But we do have a positive trend in driving down herd incidence. But I understand the frustration out there, because our programme clearly says, 'We aim to eradicate this by 2041.' Now, that is a big ambition, but we're committed to it.

Okay. And just on the technical advisory group and the advice that they give, how concrete is it that you're going to accept that advice, if, for example, it goes against a manifesto commitment of yours, which says that you forbid the cull of badgers to help eradicate TB? If the technical advisory group comes forward and says, 'In a specific case, incident, wildlife is a factor', will you go against your manifesto commitment?

Well, let me not do a hypothetical for a moment, but we do have a programme of government, which is that we do not use culling of badgers. But that doesn't preclude, I have to say, things such as vaccination of badgers, and, in fact, at this very moment, we are using vaccination of badgers here within Wales. We've previously had small grant schemes and so on, but it is within the gift of the chief veterinary officer to actually sanction the use of badger vaccination, where he sees it being used and so on. But your more fundamental question is: do I automatically jump and say, 'I'll follow every piece of advice’? As Cabinet Secretary, and as an elected official, I'm somebody who is committed, and always has been—. I come from a long pedigree of liking to follow the evidence and where the evidence takes us. But I'm also, in this appointment that I have, in this position that I have, able to look at that evidence, and sometimes there will be decisions to make and judgments to be made as well, I have to say. So, I'm very keen to see what the TB advisory group do and where they'll head as well.

So, those judgments, are they political judgments? As in, if something's politically unpalatable, you're going to be more cautious of accepting the evidence and the advice from the technical advisory group.

I think I'd frame it in a different way. I think they are judgments that are based on what works, what is effective, and they will also be reflective of, at any moment in time, a programme of government as well. As would be the same, the equivalent of a Conservative Party or a Liberal Democrat Party, that would be reflected in the way we see tackling certain issues. So, we have a very clear programme of government, right here, right now, that we are operating to. But there is a reason why we've set up the TB advisory group: it's so that it can look hard at the evidence, see where we are actually making inroads, and see where else we may want to go as well. I don't know, Richard, whether you want to add anything to that, in terms of the work that they are doing, because I think this is an important area of work now.

Yes, diolch, Cabinet Secretary. I agree, it's fundamental that we have a technical advisory group, in my role as chief veterinary officer, because, as I say, it's providing me with advice also. The work programme will now start to unfold, partly driven by the technical advisory group themselves. Naturally, their first priority was to look at the important issue of on-farm slaughter, and we all know why. From the point of view of, as, Cabinet Secretary, you referred to, the impact that bovine TB has on farms, farm families, livelihoods, and on-farm slaughter clearly being a highly emotive and notable topic within that. So, the technical advisory group have provided advice, and the Cabinet Secretary’s taken decisions with regard to the on-farm slaughter.

The Animal and Plant Health Agency have put in interim procedural instructions to enable farmers to have the choice, with regard to cattle that are in calf that have to be removed because of TB. And very soon we'll have their final instructions on on-farm slaughter, by the end of the month, so that we have the provision for cattle that are in calf and also subject to the end of a medicine withdrawal period, for limited flexibility. So, that's all in hand. I'm grateful to all colleagues who have worked with the TAG. Also, we had evidence papers from both of the unions, we had evidence from the Animal and Plant Health Agency, and it will be ongoing in that vein.

So, the next set of work that the technical advisory group will be looking at is probably where we would have started if we had not wanted to directly address the on-farm slaughter piece. So, we'll be looking at the whole picture of TB in Wales. So, scene setting, ensuring that the TAG have the full understanding of the context, bringing their independent expertise, that, as the Cabinet Secretary alluded to, is vast. We have veterinarians, we have academics, we have social science, we have a real, strong mix of experts who will provide that advice and, in due course, work not only with the programme board, but also with myself and the Cabinet Secretary.

Okay, I'm very conscious of time. I know, Cefin, you just want to come in, very, very briefly on this.

Just very, very quickly. I'm just interested in the question that Sam asked about the role of the technical advisory group. They are eminent people and they will look at the science. They will be driven by the evidence that science provides. Now, this is an echo of COVID as well—driven by the science. If that science collides with your programme of work, who wins?

They could come forward with a range of different proposals about how we proceed to achieve that target of eradication by 2041, and I appreciate that the focus that you've raised today is around the issue of culling, but they might come forward with a range of other different proposals. Now, in that scenario, that goes forward for consideration, not only by the programme board, which has oversight of what they're doing, but it will also rise up to Richard, as the chief veterinary officer, and it will also come to me. And that's where the consideration and deliberation goes.

And it is interesting what you're saying as well about reflecting on COVID, because one of the things that we have learnt, both from the period that we lived through as MSs making decisions and voting on the floor there with COVID, but also the analysis of this with the inquiry currently going on, is that sometimes there are not perfect decisions. The science doesn't always lead you to say, 'It is absolutely black and white.' It may lead you to say, 'There are several ways to unpack, to give a solution to the way forward to deal with pressing urgent issues.'

So, again, ultimately, the role and the responsibility rests with me. That's what I'm paid for. But it won't only be me looking at it. The programme board will be looking at it, our chief veterinary officer will be looking at it, before we come to considered views on where their recommendations, based on the evidence that they are looking at, take us to. But I genuinely don't want to pre-empt where they might go, or what they might come forward with. But, I think, actually, setting them off on this journey is a signal moment.

Okay, thank you. I'll now bring in Hefin David. Hefin. 

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'm going to curtail some of my questions because of the amount of time that we've spent already, and we've still got others wanting to come in. So, first of all, Cabinet Secretary, you will be aware of the fatal dog attacks that took place in the Caerphilly constituency, with two lives lost—one a 10-year-old boy. Would you commit to meeting with his mother, the campaigner, Emma Whitfield, who has met with your predecessor? Your predecessor held a summit on dangerous dogs, and, with that in mind, can you tell us more about how you're going to develop and deliver a strategy for promoting responsible dog breeding and ownership in the time you have ahead?

Hefin, yes, thank you for that question. And, over so many years, the incidents that we've seen with attacks by dogs on individuals that have led to tragic circumstances, and also, on other dogs, including companion dogs, or even on guide dogs and support animals, has just been horrendous. And we do need to tackle this, and it's been a real focus, as you know. So, I'm more than willing to make that undertaking, Hefin, to come and meet with you, with those affected, and I genuinely pass my heartfelt thoughts to them, because the impact we can only begin to feel what that must be. 

But you know that we've very much focused on the issue of responsible dog ownership. This isn't as simple as saying that there are bad dogs and good dogs. There is a real focus that needs to be on how the owners behave and look after their dogs. So, we held a multi-agency summit—action on dangerous dogs—held by the chief veterinary officer and the agencies on 18 October last year, to try and promote that agenda. And the officials in our animal welfare team are also working with third sector organisations, and with police forces and local authorities, and those campaigners who are working on this, to promote responsible dog ownership and dog breeding within Wales. And just to add, Hefin, the latest responsible dog breeding and ownership workshop was held as recently as 30 April. It followed on from the responsible dog ownership summit on action on dangerous dogs in the previous October.

We published an update on this on 13 March 2024, but we look forward to continuing to work, both with members of this committee, but also with those campaigners out there to see what more we can do. This has to be—. We have to work so hard on this, because there are so many tragedies, and they really do tot up as the years go by, and we can't have this.

Yes, I did actually attend that summit you mentioned, in October, at Cathays Park. I think I would welcome some more dialogue with you on this and certainly Wayne David, former MP for Caerphilly, worked with The Mirror on their dangerous dogs campaign, so, any dialogue you might want with him as well would be very welcome.

I'd like to move on—

I think, Hefin, Richard would like to add something there, if that's okay.

Yes, of course.

Just very, very briefly.

Yes, understood. So, thanks for raising the question, Hefin. I think one of the key points that you rightly allude to is that there is the important issue of public safety with regard to dangerous dogs and, clearly, the Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 is reserved legislation that we've seen going through over recent months for all the reasons that you outline. Emma Whitfield spoke powerfully at that summit and her continued involvement will be very welcome. Crucially, what we have here in Wales is the responsible dog breeding and ownership strategy in the round and dangerous dogs are a part of that. But as the Cabinet Secretary alluded to, it's not the only part: we have to look at the whole picture and we have to look at what we can do in Wales for Wales, that not only protects public safety, but also ensures animal health and welfare. And this is a multi-agency effort. It's being driven through those workshops, as the Cabinet Secretary alluded to. We have evidence through the successes of that, for example, working with local authorities, bringing local authorities closer with the police forces, and this is also part of what we have linked as part of the animal welfare plan for Wales. So, there is lots to do here. It's an important topic for many, many reasons, but that's why this multi-agency action, bringing people together to work out what can be done, how it can be done, and how it can be done effectively, is absolutely fundamental and we'll continue that work.

I think the concerns that community members have is that this issue comes on the agenda when there are dog attacks and then quietens down again, so, we do need to keep our eye on it and I'm making that point to the Cabinet Secretary. That's where the dialogue needs to continue. So, I welcome those comments.

Can I move on to food policy? We scrutinised Peter Fox's Food (Wales) Bill last year, and, ultimately, it wasn't adopted, but one of the things in it was the need for a national food strategy. Your predecessor said that a national food strategy is not necessary. Do you continue with that view and if you do continue with that view, why do you feel that that is the case?

Yes, I think, Hefin, we're bringing forward some significant items within the food agenda, and we recognise, by the way, the work that the new or the recently appointed—not 'new' any more—Future Generations Commissioner for Wales is doing in this area. I'm very pleased that he's had a focus on food as well in his strategy for 2023 to 2030, in the 'Cymru Can' approach. In fact, I attended and spoke at the recent event that he had in the Pierhead on this as well.

We will be publishing very soon Food Matters Wales. That's one of the interventions. This will bring together all of the major policies and activities relevant to food happening across Government. It is a commitment that was made by my predecessor and the importance of this is that it's not rewriting a new plan, a new strategy, a new document to put on our shelves, but it's actually bringing together with coherence what we are currently doing and trying to get a very joined-up approach. But that's not the only item. And by the way, with all of that, having sustainable development principles and the five ways of working underpinning it, which will reflect where the future generations commissioner is as well. And that's being driven by a cross-portfolio food forum, just to mention, where we've got key officials from all departments working on it. 

But the second key aspect, and I pay tribute to Peter and the momentum that he developed behind his Bill, because the second aspect is the community food strategy. And you are right, I continue the commitment of my predecessor on this. We're looking to delivering this because it is part of our programme for government commitments. We intend to deliver it by the end of this year—by the end of 2024. In order to do this, we're already undertaking extensive research, including surveys with the public and community food stakeholders. We're doing individual and group meetings with stakeholders, we're doing site visits, we're doing systems mapping, and we're doing focus groups in order to co-design, in line with the principles of the well-being of future generations aspects, this new strategy.

We're keeping updated, by the way, Hefin, the information on this on the Food and Drink Wales website. And this will reflect, by the way, some of the things that you and others have talked about before, which will be things such as this strategy will be about supporting, enlivening grass-roots food-related initiatives—the energy and enthusiasm we see in that as well as other aspects. So, yes, I’m committed to that, and it’s within our programme for government.

So, very quickly—short answer—when will that strategy be published, and when will the Food Matters Wales be published? 

So, Food Matters Wales will be very soon. I can’t give you a precise date at the moment, off the top of my head, but it’s going to be very soon. The food strategy we’re hoping to bring forward—although there are updates on the website of the progress we’re doing—by the end of this year, by the end of 2024.

Thank you.

Diolch, Hefin. I’m afraid time has beaten us as far as this particular session is concerned. There were some other areas we obviously wanted to cover, but I’ll write you with regard to those particular areas.

So, we will take a very short break to prepare for the next session, but can I this time take the opportunity to thank you, Cabinet Secretary, and your officials for your evidence, which of course will be important to us in scrutinising the Welsh Government’s policies going forward? A copy of this session’s transcript will be sent to you in due course. If there are any issues with that, then please let us know. But as I said, we’ll just take a very short break and then we’ll come back to discuss the sustainable farming scheme. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Huw Irranca-Davies, Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs. And Gian Marco.

Gian Marco Currado, rural affairs director.

Richard Irvine, Chief Veterinary Officer for Wales.

Thank you very much indeed and perhaps, again, I can just kick off this session with a few questions. Can you just set out a timeline for the preparatory work ahead of 2026, including economic analysis, publication of payment scales and the final proposals as far as the sustainable farming scheme is concerned?

Yes, I can, Chair. So, we've had already the first meeting of the ministerial round-table, they'll be meeting again very shortly. We have said consistently that the work now is to proceed at pace, not to try and reinvent the wheel here. So, the early part of the ministerial round-table will be focused on finding those areas where we agree, so on the broad framework, the universal actions, the collaborative optional actions as a framework and the overall imperatives of it. That'll be part of the early work, but part of the early work following on from the first ministerial round-table will also be, then, to work at speed on those areas where we think there is more work. So, one of those, for example, is some pacy work on a sub-stream on carbon sequestration, not simply the issue over trees and woodland cover, but some of the arguments that have been put forward that there may be alternative areas that we want to look at. For the committee's benefit, what I said to the ministerial round-table is that we need to make sure that the work that they are doing is grounded on the evidence of actually what works, as opposed to something that may work some time down the line in the future and so on. But we are interested in exploring that, so that can feed up into it.

We've made clear, as well, that in this preparatory phase in 2025, there will be work that we will need to do on updating, for example, the economic analysis that was published alongside, and there were reasons why we should do that in full transparency and openness. It was, actually, two years out of date and didn't reflect the consultation itself, but it was the most up to date. What we need to do is bring forward that economic analysis when we know the finer details of what the programme will look like. So, that will, in agreement with the unions and other stakeholders, be a piece of work that we will do towards the end of the 2025 preparatory period.

But what we're looking to do is test, prove this over the next year, work with farmers so that we can deal with any areas where there needs to be greater clarification, greater guidance about what we're trying to do, and then, beyond the preparatory phase, as we move into 2026, we actually transition into the SFS. And that SFS will need to be something that's not there for a year or five years but that is fit for the future of our farming going forward. But, Gian Marco, on the timetable, is there anything else we can add to—? What I don't want to do is pre-empt, in some ways, the ministerial round-table itself and some decisions they are going to have to take, because they were doing this collectively. But we can say a little bit more.

Cabinet Secretary, I think you've covered a lot of the bases. The only other thing I would add, or two things—one, part of the intention for the preparatory phase, which will lead to some further announcements on the detail in due course, is around how do we continue to support farmers to take some of the activities that will help them to prepare for SFS. One of the things that the Cabinet Secretary mentioned in his oral statement on 14 May was an intention to have a Habitat Wales scheme in 2025, again, as one of the activities that will be needed, the data-confirmation exercise that I alluded to in the earlier session. So, there will be further announcements on some of that detail.

The only other point I just wanted to make was, obviously, there is a lot of work that needs to be done, and there's a lot of work that needs to be done quickly, because what we want to try and do is give as much time for farmers between the Cabinet Secretary taking a decision on the final scheme and that being announced publicly, and the time that they then have to take a business decision as to whether they want to be part of the scheme or not, so to try and give as much time as possible to do that.

And how are you funding this preparatory work? Will the current budget need to be increased as a result of all this?

If I may come in, part of the difficulty, and, again, it links to an answer I gave earlier, is that some of this work is obviously going to be in the next financial settlement, which the Welsh Government doesn't yet have. So, there will be some decisions that we will advise the Minister on that, to a certain extent, will be taken with an element of risk, because we don't know the final settlement.

One of those has actually been guaranteeing the BPS for the year ahead, but we're willing to take that risk in order to deliver the certainty for farmers. But, Chair, you asked about the timescale, I can give you a little bit more detail. By the time we get to the summer, the ministerial round-table will have met three times by the time we get to July. There's also, underpinning that, an officials group that is working through the nuts and bolts; this is not all going to be done at a high level, there's a lot of engagement at the officials group level. They're meeting next week, and again—so, they follow on straight after our ministerial round-table and they'll be meeting again in early July as well. The carbon sequestration evidence review panel is meeting for the first time next week—

Yes.

—next week as well. So, when I described that we work at pace, we are working at pace, and the reason we're doing that is because we need to give certainty to the farming community as well that there is an end point to this as well.

Okay, thanks. I'll now bring in Samuel Kurtz. Sam.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. On the ministerial round-table, not looking to pre-empt, as you mentioned, but can you confirm who is on the round-table?

Yes. I think we've got the list out already, haven't we?

We've confirmed the organisations.

You've confirmed the organisations, but not the individuals from the organisations.

That's right, yes.

Fab. And you've ensured that there's a cross-section of voices there from agricultural and environmental backgrounds and everything in between.

Very much. They're a wide group of stakeholders, including those with direct farming experience, but also environmental organisations and others. We're pretty confident—we're very confident that the right organisations are on there, and also, by the way, on the work underpinning that with the carbon sequestration group as well. One of the asks we made of the round-table was, 'Can you, yourselves, bring forward the nominations for the membership of that important piece of work?' and they have done.

There we are. And have you confirmed, publicly, the membership of the carbon sequestration panel?

I'm not sure we have, because that flowed after the event. We didn't do it at the meeting, it was—

Okay. Are we awaiting a written statement from you on that, just to confirm? Because I think that's a really interesting panel, and I'll come on to it, but that panel will, for me, underpin the delivery of the sustainable farming scheme.

Yes. Let me bring Gian Marco in on this.

So, just to be clear, what the Cabinet Secretary asked the round-table members was for nominations from the round-table to be part of that panel. That panel would then decide which expert will be asked to come to present. That's how we've structured it.

So, they're members of the ministerial round-table, then they'll sit on a sub-group, per se, and then bring people in—

Exactly, yes. So, a subset of the members of the round-table will form the panel and those decisions are not yet taken, and then they will decide which experts they ask to come and present to them.

Okay. That's helpful, thank you.

Richard, did you want to come in?

Yes, very, very briefly. It's just linked to both of your questions. We also have representatives on the animal health and welfare side, recognising that animal health and welfare is also a cornerstone of the sustainable farming scheme, for reasons that we know very well. As part of that preparation that we've heard about, we have the animal health improvement cycle pilot project at the moment, which is vets and farmers working together to identify where there may be opportunities for herd and flock production improvement, where animal health and welfare standards will only benefit from being further strengthened, and this will all support productivity and sustainability, the path to net zero, but also on a farm-level income basis, we hope. So, that preparatory work is also relevant. Equally in the animal health and welfare space, we have that animal health improvement cycle pilot project live at the moment. And, again, it's very much about vets and farmers working together.

If I can just take a moment, because this is a key principle, in my mind—it goes back to questions in the earlier session as well about this notion of partnership, not just warm words, but action on the ground. And the triangle that exists in my world, so to speak, of animal health and welfare and as chief veterinary officer, of the relationship between farmers and their vet—crucial, and we see this as part of the cornerstone of the SFS as well, but tackling infectious diseases, TB, bovine viral diarrhoea et cetera, and the triangle, then, of farmer and vet working with Government, whether that's Welsh Government or through our delivery Animal and Plant Health Agency. And it's crucial that we have that triangle being fully effective to enable that tailored advice that a vet and farmer working together can offer at that farm, herd and flock level, because no two farms are the same, so no two animal health and welfare situations will be the same, so that vet-farmer bond, that relationship to be able to provide that tailored advice is crucial. Whether its infectious disease management—my maxim: prevention is better than cure; keep it out—and then, as I say, as we move into the SFS, the preparatory phase, building on the animal health improvement cycle, that also ensures that we're looking at animal health and welfare standards and, crucially, as I mentioned, biosecurity. There are corollaries here also with antibiotic use. If we can continue to further strengthen animal health and welfare standards, one would hope, through other actions as well as preventing disease, we can help combat the global challenge of antimicrobial resistance, alongside the sustainability and net-zero, climate emergency crises. So, there are multiple factors here that are all complementary.

Thank you, Richard.

And Sam, the other piece of the preparatory phase that we haven't mentioned is, on this side now of the Habitat Wales scheme and the lessons that we've learnt of it, one of the things that we can do usefully is, with the data that we've had, which—. Some farmers have said, 'Well, that's not quite accurate data on habitat and tree cover and so on', but it does give us the opportunity—

I think it was a little bit more serious than that, Huw. It was a bit bigger issue on data than just—

It does give us the opportunity now, actually, to go back to farmers and work with farmers and say, 'Well, look, here's what we've got, help us make it more accurate.' From here into the summer, we'll be working with farmers to say, 'Help us with that data confirmation exercise' as well, because that'll stand us in good stead, then, for going forward with the SFS.

Fab. When are we expecting the consultation analysis and Welsh Government's response?

It is imminent. I know we've said the sheer scale of the consultation we've had. We've seen and we've shared with the ministerial round-table some of the interim analysis, but it's still interim. But we're within weeks of it being completed, and also bringing forward, then, any response to it. So, we're not far off, and it will be this side of the summer.

Okay, that's helpful. And then, the scheme itself, I know you're not wanting to prejudice or preempt anything in talking about whether there'll be wholesale changes, or some—. I think the way that you phrased it in the Chamber is sign-off what's already agreed, and then continue to work on those areas that aren't agreed. You've got to have some level of understanding, though, of where in the policy needs changes though, don't you?

Yes, and I think, from the interim response to the consultation, and from what we've heard from farmers—all of us have heard—and what we've heard from environmental groups and others, I think we're pretty clear where, as I've described before, some of those knotty areas are. I don't think there are going to be any great surprises here, and the ministerial round-table are already—. Having seen some of the interim analysis of where we are, I don't think there were any great shocks or surprises. So, it is around things such as that issue of carbon sequestration. It is around the issues such as tree cover. It is around issues such as making sure this is right for tenant farmers, common land. It is also, by the way, the issue to do with something we've debated a lot in the Senedd Chamber, which is to do with social value—so, above and beyond the income forgone and so on, actually recognising that social value. And I think we've got a deal of work to do in the preparatory phase, through the ministerial round-table, to try and explain better that, within not only the universal actions, but the collaborative and optional, we can build that in as well, that we recognise that social value of farming to the rural economy.

So, you've brought optional and collaborative layers there into it, a delay to its implementation. Are you expecting, from 2026, all three tiers of the SFS to be live at the same time, or is there going to be an introductory—? It's going to be universal, followed by optional and collaborative at a later date?

So, the first principle is to say that need to make sure that those universal actions are genuinely available to every type of farmer that wants to be part of this—not every farmer will. But whether it's upland, lowland, intensive, extensive, whether it's cattle, whether it's dairy or beef or whatever, that those are genuinely—. In terms of the collaborative and optional, that is going to be part of the work that we're doing as the ministerial round-table, to look at that issue of where the priorities lay from the word 'go' on it there. Gian Marco, from what we've heard, what would be your thoughts at the moment?

So, our hope would be that we can bring online as many of the optional and collaborative from day 1, given that we are having a longer period to have that discussion. Realistically, I think—. When we consulted, we consulted about a transition period from 2025 to 2029; realistically, I think there will still be a transition period. So, I don't think all of the optional and collaborative will be ready on day 1, but we hope that perhaps more will be ready than might otherwise have been the case.

That was, obviously, a concern of the more environmental element of stakeholders, of wanting where they saw the additional gains being made.

Absolutely. And we've had a lot of really good feedback through the consultation on what are those actions that stakeholders want us to see develop. So, as the Cabinet Secretary said, part of the discussion with the stakeholder group will also be that, to say, 'Okay, well, what are the priority areas for optional and collaborative?' We know areas like common land, for instance—whilst there's a big discussion about how that's treated in the scheme, we know that collaborative action on common land is absolutely going to be a priority. That's just one example, but there are various others.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. 

Okay. Thank you, Sam. I'll now bring in Hefin David. Hefin. 

Yes, I think my question, which I was going to ask about common land and tenant farmers and accessibility has just been addressed, but can you just clarify that the scheme will be accessible to common land and tenant farmers?

Yes, we're committed to making sure that happens and working through that with the ministerial round-table. It's no surprise that this is one of the issues that has emerged. One of the ways forward, for example, possibly could be if graziers were to participate in a commons agreement, which would give access to equivalent funding to the universal and habitat payment categories through combined grazing, for example. So, there are interesting and creative ways in which we could choose to unpack this, but there could also be other opportunities, so, for example, through wider improvement activities—so, for example, access, tree planting, habitat restoration, the role of commons within things such as antisocial behaviour and so on and so forth. So, I think we've got the opportunity now in this preparatory phase to make sure it works for the commons, and for farmers who farm on the commons, and for biodiversity on the commons, and for access. We've got a bit of space to do this now, but still at pace, Hefin.

Okay. And young farmers and new entrants—are they represented on the ministerial round-table?

Yes, certainly their views are represented on the—. This is not a Camelot-style round-table that has rings and rings and rings beyond it, although we've also got wider stakeholder engagement going on as well. But their views are being represented very keenly. We're adamant that the final design of the SFS has to provide that level of certainty that those who want to come into farming can do. But I've got to say that the most significant barriers—and this will be part of my discussions this afternoon with the banking sector as well, and giving that certainty—the most significant barriers to entry are access to land and the financial wherewithal to actually get into farming as well. So, the SFS isn't going to fix that in its entirety, but what we do need to do is make sure the SFS does not put up additional barriers to new entrants coming into farming. We want everybody to be able to do that. Many of those new entrants to farming will come in through tenant farming approaches. So, we need to make sure this works for tenant farmers as well, Hefin.

Okay.

Thank you, Cefin. Well, first of all, I would say we're not delaying indefinitely. When we say there's a preparatory phase, we genuinely mean that. There is work to do. I've described already the pace at which we're doing this and the intensity, and I should just take the opportunity to say 'thank you' to those people who are engaged in this, both on the round-table and other pieces of work involved, and my officials. And that includes, by the way, environmental organisations as well, who are represented. We don't want to delay forever, because we know the scale of the climate and nature emergencies we face, alongside the need to deliver certainty for the farming community, and also their role in the farming community in delivering against good quality food, nutritious food, affordable food, growing our export markets and helping us deliver biodiversity restoration, helping us to deliver clean rivers, good soil quality and so much more as well. So, this is not a 'pause, twiddle your thumbs, think again'; it is not a 'back to the drawing board'.

One of the things that I took real optimism from was the very first meeting we had with the farming union leaders, which was, I think, in the first week I came into post, with the First Minister then, where one of the things we discussed with this—. And, without breaking confidences, what struck me was the level of agreement, both on the framework that we have and the high-line objectives we're trying to achieve. So, my reassurance to those environmental organisations out there is that this is not kicking it into the long grass. What this is is an opportunity to get it right, get it right for all of the objectives and get it right as well for those people who are going to have to deliver it for us on the ground as well, all those organisations out there who'll bring their expertise, but also the farmers themselves. And as I've repeatedly said, let's get this right from the moment we introduce it. And if that means just taking a bit of time in this preparatory phase to work through some of these issues and get it right, let's do that. And then we get on with it. Because what we're looking at—. I don't underestimate the scale of this transition. We're not doing a bit-by-bit scheme, we're not doing a piecemeal approach, as other areas might have chosen to do, in different areas of the UK—without any criticism of this. This is a bringing it all together, that deals with all of those imperatives we have, including good food on the table and livelihoods in Wales, in rural Wales, and keeping jobs in rural Wales, on the land, and people in the schools in rural Wales. This is trying to do all of that, so I think it's worth taking just a little bit more time to get it right. But I can give those environmental groups the assurances that we're not taking steps back here, we're actually trying, together, to step forward together.

Yes. So, we've—. I'll bring Gian Marco in in a moment. We've continued the support of the BPS, and we've continued the support of things such as some of the small grant schemes. We were talking earlier on about nitrate pollution—so, some of the on-farm measures that can be taken. We continue to have in place things such as, for those farmers who want to do it, woodland grant scheme support as well. I was up in mid Wales the other day, at a tremendous timber producer, family-owned timber production, lots of jobs in the local community, doing exactly—alongside farmers, creating that rural economy, thriving rural economy, sourcing all his timber locally. He wants more timber; he wants more local timber. He doesn't want to import it and have all the carbon miles and that; he wants more of it. So, we're keeping those sorts of grants available as well. But, Gian Marco, we're not stopping all work here, we're carrying on going.

I think that's absolutely right. As the Cabinet Secretary has said, for this financial year, 2024-25, we've got, in total, about £100 million for the rural investment schemes. So, it's things like Habitat Wales, it's things like the organic support, it's things like woodland creation, some of the small grant schemes. So, that funding continues for this financial year and sits alongside the commitment the previous Minister made to maintain BPS for 2024. As we were discussing earlier, the preparatory phase—. In a way, the way to look at it is probably that it's a dual track. So, on the one hand, it's the work around SFS design and development, which we've talked about, through the round table et cetera. The other track is what are those activities that we will continue to support farmers in doing to getting them ready for the sustainable farming scheme. So, we've indicated a desire to have Habitat Wales in 2025. We've indicated in the oral statement a desire to have an integrated natural resources scheme, which is, basically, a precursor to elements of collaboration. We've indicated a desire to have organic support in 2025. So, the preparatory phase isn't just looking at how we design and develop SFS, it's also how do we do things on the ground, through those schemes, through support like Farming Connect, to actually help farmers get into a better place, so that, when the scheme starts, hopefully those universal actions don't look so daunting, because maybe they're doing some, most of those, already. So, that's, I guess, the two-pronged attack, not just for this financial year, but for the next one, for 2025.

Yes, definitely, Cefin. As we mentioned earlier, with the challenges of taking forward the HWS, one of the benefits we have from it is we have a set of mapping and data. It's imperfect, but that does give us the opportunity now to go out from here and into the summer to actually bolt down where is the habitat, where is the tree cover, et cetera, because that will give us a much more accurate baseline. Again, it's a common theme in terms of the approach. We actually need to be working with farmers now to do this, but we can do this from now and through the summer. I think there's a real willingness with stakeholders and with the unions as well to try and encourage farmers to be part of this. That accurate baseline data mapping is critical, going forward. We don't have to wait for next October, November; we can do it now, get on with it.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. On tree planting, we've obviously seen examples of total afforestation, with agricultural land purchased by outside agencies looking to offset their carbon emissions through tree planting—Llanboidy is a locality that Cefin and I have both worked together on, on an issue there. But have you had any discussions with your officials to see how the sustainable farming scheme can stop that, or with other Cabinet Secretaries, to see if there are any rules around changes to land use planning applications to prevent this from happening? Because that is an issue that is destroying and hollowing out rural communities, the total afforestation, which doesn't see these businesses change their business model, they just offset their carbon emissions and their conscience in a little rural area in Wales, thinking that everything's fine, destroying these communities.

For such a small question, that carries a massive answer. I'll try and short-circuit it. The first thing we need to be doing, of course, is dealing with what we can do within our land management generally—not on farms, land management—and actually reductions in carbon emissions. Then we get on to how we do those active interventions in carbon sequestration, of which trees is an important part. But it is trees in the right place, and trees also where, as I just described, the benefits of the planting actually return to the local communities—they're owned and managed. I'm very fixed on this. That's not to say that I have every control over—. You mention things like land and planning; well, I don't have control over the decision every landowner will make on who they invite onto the land—

You can make it more difficult.

What we can do is we can make it easier, through the SFS and otherwise—and these are active discussions that we regularly have, and with other colleagues within Government—to say how do we help schemes in Wales that actually deliver the woodland, which is going to be an important part of our way forward in terms of dealing with decarbonisation and carbon sequestration, but also that the woodland that's created is built in to the DNA of what we're doing in Wales, rather than benefiting investors that come in from here, there and everywhere.

There might be a role for investment with integrity that assists communities to do woodland creation that they want, but that's very different from the idea that you'll have some strange, anonymous beast that lives far away from here that has no interest in the social fabric, let alone the economic fabric of those communities. I think there is a piece of work that has multiple layers to this about how we, not just within the SFS, but generally, promote community ownership, management, local ownership management of that—not just afforestation in terms of commercial forestry, but also community woodlands that we want to see; we need that diversity.

It also, by the way, does need to be in the right place, because we know the role that trees have, that trees can provide here, and we have a commitment in the programme for government, for example, with that national forest that reaches right up and that you can move through from part to part of it all the way, and we'll keep on announcing things on that. But your point is well made: this has got to be in the interests of Wales and Welsh communities, not of speculative investors. I think we need to learn lessons from some of the relatively rare but significant examples that we've seen that you alluded to. We need to do better than that.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Just to finish my line of questioning around the payment methodology, you alluded to the fact that the income forgone and costs incurred methodology was maybe a little too narrow, which was the initial proposal in the SFS, and I welcome the fact that you've now expanded that to include social value. Social value was something we all felt that was important to put into the agriculture Bill, and it is there. It's in recognition of the added value that farming communities give to local communities—the Welsh language, culture, and all of that, and a way of life and so on. But it's complex to measure or define what exactly that is and how it relates to a payment methodology. What kind of expertise are you drawing on to enable us to have a sound understanding of that correlation?

Go ahead, Gian Marco.

We always intended to have social value as part of the payment methodology. The consultation sets out those three things: costs incurred, income forgone, and social value. It talks a lot more about costs incurred and income forgone than it does about social value, for the very reason the Member has just raised: costs incurred and income forgone is relatively straightforward to come up with a methodology, but social value is much harder. We are looking at it from the different angles—from the economic perspective, how do you measure societal value of actions that may be taken in one area but actually may benefit other areas more. A classic example is air quality. If you're taking measures in one area, you may actually deliver those benefits in more populated areas, for instance. So, getting to the bottom of all of that isn't straightforward. There's quite a lot of work that my team and others are doing behind the scenes to try and get to a point where we can have a discussion with the round-table around some proposals.

I think it is only fair and honest to emphasise the point you made that it isn't straightforward, but we do need to find an answer to it, because I think we've always recognised, and the Cabinet Secretary has said several times, that if the payment methodology doesn't recognise that social value that farmers are taking, it will not provide a true reflection of the value of those actions, but I guess, more importantly for farmers, it will not provide a true reflection of the costs associated or the benefits associated with their actions, and that creates a problem. So, we do need to find an answer to it, but it isn't straightforward. And in fact, we asked in the consultation if there was any information available that we weren't aware of, and some things have come through. It will be a difficult conversation, but it's one we absolutely have to take forward and we have to get right.

From my position, not as one of the experts trying to crunch through this, how we reflect this within the scheme, I think my observation is, at this moment, in the universal actions and the other levels, that social value needs to be reflected in the piece. Because if we have the uptake of various elements of these by, let's say, an upland hill farmer, he needs to be assured that somewhere within that package it is reflective of the fact that we want to see viable, sustainable farms that do all those wider benefits beyond food production that keep those rural communities alive and thriving. But it isn't an easy one. I don't think we're going to come to a point, unless Gian Marco and colleagues are going to tell me at some point that we've got a magic analysis that shows this is precisely—.

But I think one of the things we are interested in doing is—. When the consultation was out, a lot of farmers understandably looked and said, 'Look at all these different options, look at the complexity of it' or whatever. One thing we do need to do, going forward, is explain to farmers, as we go through the transition, here's what it looks like for different farms. And in explaining that, here’s what it looks like for different farms, we start to encompass as well, 'This is how we protect the social value that you're delivering. This is the sort of package that it would look like for an upland hill farm or for a dairy farm or for whatever.' I doubt I'm going to get given a page that says, 'Here’s the precise economic analysis'. I suspect it's going to be more to do with, 'We've now built this within there. So, it will reflect, for all those different types of farms, the type of farming we want to see, the social value above and beyond those costs incurred and income forgone.' That's quite a challenge. I'm looking forward to bringing that forward.

I'm looking forward to the analysis as well, because it will have to be more qualitative than quantitative, and that is always more complex. 

This is my final question, if I may, Cadeirydd. Again, one of the criticisms of the consultation paper was that it didn't include any payment methodology. So, we were inviting farmers to join a scheme blind, because they really didn't know how much they were going to get paid for various universal actions and so on. Now that you've got this extra year, if you have an indicative budget, are you prepared to put some figures around some of the approaches within the scheme, so that farmers can fully understand what's in it for them, and is it worth them joining the scheme?

There will be a point where we absolutely have to do that, but I think that point comes when we crunch through—with the help of the ministerial round-table—the details of what that scheme will look like, because we're not quite there yet, and that's what the preparatory phase is about. But I think it's not the methodology of the payment; I think we've got ways of doing the methodology of the payment. It's actually what those rates of payment will be that will reflect the very things that we've been talking about. That really does come when we've crunched through some of the details of where that balance is that we've talked about between bringing forward the universal and those collaborative and optional actions, again so we can reflect those additional measures being taken—where is that balance in terms of tenants and commoners, et cetera, et cetera, all of that. But we will have to do that, and we will try and do our analysis as well about where that balance is right. Because this has to be to do with bringing the great majority of farmers with us who want to be part of this, and getting those payments accurate is going to be an interesting one.

I do realise as well, Cefin, that I suspect when we get to that point, and we produce what we think is the right way forward, there will be some farmers who go, 'Oh, that's not what I was expecting, I'd want more in this, or in that or the other'. And, then, there will be other farmers saying, 'Actually, that works really well for me'. And that's what the preparatory phase is about. I'm under no misapprehension: this will not please everybody in one go. But it has to actually have the support of the vast majority of farmers to bring them with us. So, getting those rates right is clear. We cannot do it until we've crunched through what the scheme should look like, and we've discussed some of the areas of detail that we're working through. We need to do it before we introduce the scheme, clearly, because we need to actually signal to them so that they can make those business decisions. So, realistically, broadly speaking, the timing on saying to farmers, 'Here we are' in order that we can, in 2026, march into that transition, roughly working back—. Don't hold us entirely to this, Cadeirydd, now, but—. 

Roughly working back, I would say, at the latest, it would have to be the middle of next year—at the very latest. 

So we do have to work at pace. 

Diolch yn fawr iawn. 

Diolch, Cefin. Sam, did you have one final question you'd like to pursue?

Just one final question. Given that we're in the middle of a general election, I'm just wondering if, on funding, you'd had any commitments from a potential incoming UK Labour Government on what you would be requesting to fund the sustainable farming scheme.

There's been no direct engagement on that, Sam, and it's simply because we've been thrown unexpectedly into the hurly-burly of an election. We thought it was going to be a little bit longer. We simply haven't had those discussions, and I suspect all parties are currently out on the election trail, rather than sitting down going through those sorts of discussions with our Government at the moment. But I am looking forward to those discussions, because I think those will be quite crucial going forward, and as we look at multi-annual settlements and so on.

It's just that there's no commitment on farm funding in the Labour manifesto announced today, that's all. Thank you, Chair. 

Diolch, Sam. Our session has come to an end. Your evidence will be important to us in scrutinising this matter going forward. A copy of this session's transcript will be sent to you in due course, so if there are any issues with that, then please let us know. Once again, thank you for giving up your time to be with us here today.