National Assembly for Wales

Could I declare that I've been working on a project called It's For Them? It's about It's For Them nature, working with local nature partnerships on amenity grass and grass verges on that project.

There we are, okay.

Diolch, Cadeirydd, and it's worth reflecting, first of all, that some of the interventions that we make in order to achieve the approach within the global biodiversity framework take time to see meaningful outcomes. However, there is progress that we're making on the ground. There's a range of interventions that we're currently doing, following on from the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework. So, following the examples of actions, following the biodiversity deep-dive towards 30x30, we have the Nature Networks programme, we have the Local Places for Nature funding, we have the improvements to planning policy in Wales. I know that the committee has looked at it, and I think, Cadeirydd, you've referred before to some of the complexity of this piece, but the reality is it is complex, it is deep, it is granular and it needs intervention right across all areas of Government—so, 'Planning Policy Wales'; we've got the peatland investment, on which we've had good news in terms of our approach in there recently, so 3,000 ha of peatland; our local action through local nature partnerships; and moors.

We are committed to bringing forward, as you know, legislation within this Senedd term on governance, on targets as well, to drive action further. We want those targets to be measurable, we want those targets to be time bound as well, and with support, importantly, as you know, from experts. So, we've actually established that approach that we will have expert input into how we set those targets. Those targets might, even though we haven't got to the Bill yet, actually change over time and we might improve and enhance those targets as well. So, there's a number of actions that we're already involved with, including funding Natural Resources Wales LIFEquake, the Four Rivers for LIFE and Natur am Byth projects. We're also working on what's called the OECMs, which you'll be very familiar with, the other effective area-based nature conservation measures. So, we're making progress.

One thing that we do have to do is to make sure that we can report on that progress in a timely manner. Some of these things do take time to monitor their effectiveness and the impact, but our intention is to come forward in early 2026 with where we're making progress. At that point, we'll be able to test whether we've made meaningful progress, or whether we need to do more, and in what areas, as well.

So, you're not able to give us a percentage now, then, are you, because, obviously, it's a percentage target?

I can give you some indication.

Okay, yes.

But it's an indication of work in progress, and bearing in mind the context I put this in, some of these things will take time to see the meaningful progress. And the 30x30, of course, is not only the designation of land, but the meaningful interventions within them, so that they're managed with the interests of biodiversity, as well. So, in our marine waters, we are just short of 70 per cent of areas that are covered, but—I come back to the point—meaningfully managed, as well. In terrestrial, which would include the river environment as well as terrestrial, we're at 10.5 per cent, so you can see the progress that we need to make there. But that doesn't include, by the way, designated landscapes. Now, not all designated landscapes, necessarily, will be automatically lifted and dropped. We've got to make sure that it is right, but that doesn't include in that 10.5 per cent the designated landscapes. So, we know that we've got work to do, and there is not only an immense amount of funding on the right initiatives and the right things—so, I mentioned things like peatland, Local Places for Nature, all of those—but this is complex, this is a multiplicity of interventions, and, by early 2026, we should be able to get a better idea, then, of how we're progressing.

So, if not all designated landscapes are included, what criteria are you using, then, to decide which areas contribute to this?

Well, I'll bring in Alice in a moment. We will include areas that are designated landscape, including some of those OECMs, as well, but we're working through—

I see. The figure you were quoting wasn't—

Indeed.

Yes. Okay, sure.

Yes, not including. So, whilst that might say, 'Well, we're way off', that's not including those, and I'll bring in Alice. But, based on the target definition, the areas that could count towards 30x30 could include, for example, protected site networks or sites of special scientific interest, and there's a link with SSSIs, as well, in the work that we're doing with the SFS, the sustainable farming scheme. We were pleased, during the Royal Welsh Show this year, actually, to make an announcement that we'd reached a consensus on the way forward on that. This is the complexity and the multiple layers that we have to go through. Special areas of conservation, special protection area designations—. There is clearly going to be a role, as well, for other designated landscapes, like our national parks, so we're looking at that and how they can contribute within the current regulatory framework we have for national parks. Could they do more? Could it be enhanced? And, of course, there are the areas of outstanding natural beauty and others. But there's also that wider piece that we're looking at for designated landscapes that are captured within that term of OECMs, the other effective area-based conservation measures, which are very much, we see, a way to get into that biodiversity and pushing the 30x30. But, Alice, did you want to add?

Thank you, Deputy First Minister. So, just to add, we have a designated landscapes expert group, which is feeding into the biodiversity deep-dive core group, and, as part of that work, they're looking at which of the areas within the designated landscapes could count towards the 30x30. As the Deputy First Minister has said, we can't count them all, because we know that, within the areas, there are towns, there are villages, and so on, which wouldn't count. So, we're in the process at the moment of working through the expert group to look at what could count within the designated landscapes.

But if you wanted an idea of the potential contribution of something like the national parks, it's just shy of 19 per cent that could contribute, but it wouldn't be each one. And, of course, we also have, just going through consultation at this moment, so I can't express a view or opinion, but it's part of the programme for government, the national park in the Clwydian range and the Dee area of north Wales, as well. So, that could be part of it, as well, but don't take it as read because of that very point—that just shy of 19 per cent automatically goes into 30x30. When I took through, in a different eon, in a different life, the South Downs National Park, we had those interesting discussions: should Lewes actually be in the national park, lovely heritage town that it is, or not? Well, in terms of biodiversity, those things become quite crucial, so we want to get this right.

Yes, okay. Thank you. It was remiss of me at the start, I should've explained that Joyce Watson is apologising for her absence today and we're welcoming John Griffiths who is her deputy, or deputising on her behalf, I should say. And John is straight in with a question, I think. No messing [Laughter.]

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Thank you. Why not? I'm just wondering, in terms of protecting land for the purposes of biodiversity and the 30x30 target, Cabinet Secretary, whether what's proposed on that land in terms of development is significant. If we take the Gwent levels, for example, it's a unique area, it's got lots of SSSIs, it’s very important for biodiversity in many ways, and a lot of work has happened there, but now there are proposals for large-scale solar farms—there are some on there already, but proposals for a number more. I just wonder, if we’re going to protect these areas, then, obviously that has to address development and proposed development. There may be questions on the planning system on this, obviously, Cadeirydd, but, in terms of protecting land, then presumably you have to protect it against harmful development in terms of biodiversity.

Yes. Thanks, John. You’ll appreciate I don’t want to comment on individual ones, because there are often quite challenging decisions to be made within our planning process and our protection and promotion of biodiversity over things that often, for example, as you rightly say, abut onto renewable energy generation. So, there are examples of this in the Gwent levels, mid Wales, north Wales, and they’re all very tricky. But I think the type of framework that we already have in place and that we’re trying to promote is where you do have the rightful protection of the conservation imperatives but also those wider biodiversity imperatives as well within particularly our sensitive environments.

Now, we have much of that already in place, I have to say, but it’s how we take that forward now, including within the planning approach that we have, not simply in measures that emanate directly from me but within that planning process as well. So, you make a very valid point. Ultimately, what we have to do is work towards this 30x30 target, so that does mean making sure we are not impacting negatively on well established, very special, very sensitive nature and biodiversity areas—that applies equally to issues such as peatland or moorland and so on as it does to areas that are world renowned, like the Gwent levels or others—but getting the right mechanisms in place so these judgments can be made, and you can do it on the evidence there of what’s on the ground. Part of that, also, is to do with our mapping as well, which we’re very well advanced on in Wales. Alice, I don’t know if you want to touch on that as well.

Yes, just to say, in addition to ‘Planning Policy Wales’, as has been mentioned, for example, on the Gwent levels, as you’ll be aware, we’re doing that master planning of the Gwent levels using the strategic enhancement plan, which I know we’re going to be discussing at the meeting on Friday, to inform how we do that. We recognise that we need renewable energy, but it’s looking at the principles of sustainable management of natural resources. So, how do we do that as a balance, recognising that, in some areas we don’t want to have development, but in others we will? On the Gwent levels, that master plan is designed to do that, to map out where is appropriate for development and where we want to keep for biodiversity.

Okay. That's very useful. Thank you very much. Julie, did you want to come in?

Do you feel you usually get the balance right?

Well, it’s not for me to make that judgment, curiously. It is definitely for officials at a local level. For us at a strategic level in Wales, to make a—. We set the framework. Locally, there needs to be that implementation of these policies that are designed to actually have sustainable development as well. Part of that sustainable development, and what this committee will be very focused on as well, is sustainable development that creates green growth, green jobs, green energy and so on.

So, do we always get it right? I think we’ve always striven very hard to get in place the optimal way in which local communities can be involved, but there is a strategic overlay as well to get that balance right. On individual decisions, I think it’s for others to make their mind up, because I know for every application—the ones we’ve talked about, whether it’s in Gwent, whether it’s in Cardiff north, whether it’s in mid Wales, whether it’s off our shores in north-west Wales—everyone will have some element of a difference of opinion. What’s important is that we have the right framework and the right policy planning in place, both at a national level and the local implementation of it. Sometimes, these matters will be lifted up to Welsh Ministers, ultimately, through PEDW, through the Planning Inspectorate. So, we have the right structures in place to do it. It’s vitally important that local people are heard as well. It’s also vitally important we drive forward with sustainable development and truly sustainable development.

So, in terms of being on track to achieving the other global biodiversity framework targets, obviously, particularly, the 2030 targets, how are you going to measure success?

I think, in measuring success, it will be on our progress towards the 30x30 targets, but it will also be to do with the formal mechanisms that arise out of COP16, which is right upon us at the moment. It'll be against national indicator templates, which produce those summaries of how each country is achieving against each target—those were produced back at the beginning of August. And also, of course, as part of the deep-dive, we are developing monitoring and evidence frameworks for 30x30, and for our wider nature recovery targets as well. So, I think we're putting in place now a very effective suite of ways in which we can actually evaluate are we being successful or not, or whether we need to accelerate along our trajectory towards wider nature recovery.

And so far, do you feel you are being successful?

Well, I mentioned earlier on that one of the key points of this will actually be when we review, in early 2026, exactly where we are. I feel that we are doing—working with, by the way, partners right across Wales, both within the third sector, some very expert and well-organised, passionate and driven organisations out there that are working with us on this, but also with our local authorities and others, on that granular basis—. I think we're doing the right interventions, and, those interventions, some of them will take a little bit longer than others to see whether they're having an impact. 

There is also, of course—and we may come on to this—a wider array of things that we're often asked to do that will push us even further. Some of those, of course, will be subject to public funding availability; some of them might well be ones that could be brought forward and help us on that trajectory by levering in other forms of funding to help on that path as well. But are we doing the right things at the moment? Yes, I think we are, without a doubt. Are we going to get there? Are we on good progress? We're making good progress, but it's probably too early right at this moment to measure quite where we are on that trajectory. But the commitment stands very strong—30x30 is where we're heading.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Carolyn.

Over 90 per cent of our land in Wales is managed for agriculture, and then we've also got the land managed by local authorities, the Ministry of Defence and the Church in Wales. We've heard from stakeholders here, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Welsh Local Government Association, the Marine Conservation Society and WWF that the implementation of the biodiversity deep-dive lacks urgency. They're really concerned, going forward, that we're going to reach those targets, and they were very aware of resource constraints. I missed out Natural Resources Wales in that as well, because they do a lot, don't they, as well.

I know that a lot of the funding is being reviewed at the moment, with the Nature Networks fund, the local nature partnerships—you know, all those ones you mentioned earlier are under review. And the stakeholders have said about a plan for a whole team Wales approach, so that clear ownership, going forward, would help. There's always this balance as well, isn't there, the fight, between the economy and biodiversity, and trying to get stakeholder buy-in as well. We heard about trying to get communities and residents bought in as to why we're doing these things, and the importance of biodiversity and nature as well. And loads of these groups work with volunteers in their community doing this. So, just your thoughts, really, regarding resource constraints, and this team Wales approach going forward, to get that buy-in from everybody.

Absolutely. Listen, they're valid points and we hear the views of stakeholders on this, but just to say that the stakeholder involvement that flows from the biodiversity deep-dive is integral to the success that we will have. There will always be resource constraints, and one of the big priorities for my poor colleagues here, under my direction directly, is to focus the resources very heavily in recent times on bringing forward the environmental governance targets, et cetera, principles legislation. That is a significant undertaking, which I think will come to your committee at some point, and it will be a significant undertaking for you as well. So, we do have to make decisions on how we deploy effort within Government at any one moment in time.

But, actually, the work we're doing on the biodiversity deep-dive remains core to us. The key expert group that we have has been meeting on a regular basis. They’ve produced recommendations and next steps. I'm very, very keen that the work of these groups, Cadeirydd, continues to move at pace and is focused on delivery of that 30x30 target. The membership of our expert groups—the OECMs part of it is included within that and we have monitoring evidence, including local nature partnerships, local authorities, ENGOs, industry specialists, academia as well; they're all involved in this.

So, I recently published, Chair and Carolyn, a written statement updating on deep-dive progress on the Welsh Government website. I know that the biodiversity partnership shares updates as well with local nature partnerships and other key stakeholders as well. And we are regularly engaging with the WLGA through our work with the section 6 group, the Wales biodiversity partnership as well. The WLGA are of course on the membership of the Wales coast and seas partnership, which I met with only recently myself. That’s got a range of stakeholders in the marine environment. So, we recognise the urgency and we share the desire to act at all levels of government and all levels of society to make the transformative change that we need. But there is a reality with the effort at this moment in time, internally with Government as well, that I have a—. I hope the committee will understand this desire to bring forward also this piece of legislation, which is itself a step change in that transformative journey. So, I'm asking my colleagues and their teams to focus on that as well.

So, do you not recognise, therefore, what stakeholders who are sat where you are now were telling us—that they felt that the implementation of the deep-dive stuff is lacking urgency?

I wouldn't agree that it's lacking urgency because of the range—and I could go through them ad nauseum—of interventions we're currently making in order to get to that 30x30. 

In fairness, you've listed a lot of committees, a lot of groups, a lot of meetings; are you confident that we're seeing the difference being made where it matters?

Yes, I am confident because the groups—. Sorry, the interventions I was citing earlier on were not just groups and organisations in terms of the biodiversity deep-dive, but in response to my earlier questions, the range of interventions we're currently doing and have been doing. So, we recognise the urgency. We're actually doing it on the ground right here, right now. So, could we do more? Yes, we could always do more. I accept that.

And resource is a barrier in that respect then, or lack of resource.

Prioritisation of resource is the language of government. I'm not going to say the language of socialism. It is the language of government. And if we're also bringing forward, at the same time, one of the most significant pieces of environmental legislation this place has seen, then we also have to decide whether that's an important piece as well. But that doesn't mean 30x30 is any less important. We're doing those. And that includes, as I say, the Nature Networks programme, the Welsh Government property infrastructure scheme, the end-of-life fishing gear recycling scheme—I could go on and on. They're happening now right on the ground, and not without significant investment of Welsh Government to allow partners to get on with these. The national peatland action programme. It's not that we don't sense the urgency—we're doing it, and some things we're achieving ahead of timescale as well.

Okay, thank you very much. Delyth.

Diolch. Bore da. Forgive me that I was a few minutes late joining. Now, a lot of what I'm going to be asking about touches on what's already been covered, but with specific reference to the environmental governance Bill and the targets set within it. What is your latest thinking, please, on replacing the headline target in that Bill with a nature-positive purpose or mission statement? And specifically, do you recognise the concern and understand the concern that's been expressed by some stakeholders that moving away from that headline target will potentially undermine the pace of delivery?

Yes. Listen, we've heard those concerns and we're keen to engage with those organisations that have expressed concerns on going at a different approach, away from the headline target. I would say as well, Cadeirydd—I hope you've heard as well—there are different views on this. So, there are environmental organisations out there who are saying that, actually, one headline target is not the most appropriate way forward, but could be a constraining way forward, that there might be a better way, which is why our consideration at the moment is replacing a headline target with a nature-positive purpose—now, that's a significant undertaking, that we have a nature-positive purpose—but then we bring forward the targets in the regulations, which can change, improve and adjust over time. 

But what we do want to do, Delyth, is actually to work with those organisations, such as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, WWF and the Green Alliance to understand their concerns, to see if we can work together to find a constructive way forward on this. We're trying to achieve the same ends; it's whether you bang, on the face of it, that headline target, or you find a better way to bring that granular detail of the right targets through, with proper consideration in a proper timeline, but you actually put that nature-positive approach right on the head of the Bill, right on the face of the Bill.

Thank you for that. In order to assuage some of those concerns, then, are there any particular measures that you would consider taking? For example, I know that, when RSPB gave evidence to us, they had suggested maybe having a clear requirement to bring forward regulations within a short period of time specified, maybe within six months of the Bill passing. I think that they'd also suggested it could mean a slightly later date than 2030 as well, but just something, some measures like that, that could help to reflect the urgency so that stepping away from having the headline target doesn't mean taking your foot off the pedal.  

Absolutely. No, no, entirely agree with that, and it's worth saying, Delyth, we've committed publicly to engaging stakeholders in the development of the targets in secondary legislation. We are keen to put a backstop timeline on this so that it doesn't go on forever and ever, but there is a necessity to work through with those stakeholders the detail of what those targets would be. We think that a six-months idea is not realistic whatsoever. We think, more likely—. Our current proposal is to work through the necessary detail, grounded in the evidence, work with stakeholders' views, to bring them forward within 36 months of the signing off of the primary legislation. We think that's the right time to get the targets right. I know that predecessors of mine have come in front of this committee, when, curiously, I was on that side, and have made the point that we really need to work to make sure that we don't replicate existing targets, we get the targets right, based on what flows out of COP15 and COP16, and that might take a little bit of time to get it right. It's better to get them right.  

Okay.

Do you mind me just interjecting there, because you did say 36 months, did you? 

Yes, indeed. 

So, that's very, very close to 2030, isn't it? 

Yes, it is, but the setting of the targets doesn't put us away, in developing those targets and working with stakeholders, from actually working on 30x30 at the same time. The legislation being passed, the primary legislation, will be a significant moment. The development of the precise targets then that will drive, that doesn't stop us from getting on with actions as well. 

So, it's a twin-track thing, effectively: 30x30 is, you'd like to say, moving ahead whilst all this is happening towards a wider, broader aspiration.  

Absolutely, and I think that's shown by the evidence on the ground of what we're doing already, but also the working towards some of our existing targets that are in place, because one of the key things is not replicating those things we've already bolted down. 

So, 30x30 won't be a target, then, will it—30x30 won't be a target because it will only 18 months away by the time you—

We could still reference 30x30, actually, in the development of those targets. There are ways to do this, we think; even within the bringing forward of the detailed targets in regulations, those could actually reference 2030 as well. But, if we have that timescale, of, as I've outlined, 36 months after, in the process of going through that, with the expertise that we have externally as well, and driven as well by those people on the biodiversity deep-dive and the expert panel and so on, I don't think we'll be waiting until that point to get on with the actions that we need. But I think bolting those down really intelligently in key targets will be of significant assistance.

I realise there won't be time for this this morning, but, after the session, would you mind sending us in writing, maybe, the rationale for how you've come up with the 36 months, why you think that would be the correct baseline? That would be useful for us to see—but I appreciate that there's not time to go into that kind of detail this morning—if that would be all right. 

Then moving on to scoping the biodiversity targets, I know that this has been touched on already: will they be available in draft, do you think, when the Bill is introduced, and will the Bill include time frames for making regulations? Again, I think that the concerns about this have been about how to make sure that there is a sense of accountability from the Government that is embedded in the Bill itself—. Actually, no, I'll let you answer that bit first, because I've got some more specifics, but—.

Yes, I think we can indicate timelines in terms of regulations and so on, as we’ve started to lay out this morning. In terms of bringing forward—. I’m familiar with that sometimes, Ministers, if they can, are able to bring forward the full and final drafts of regulations as well. I don’t think we’ll be in that position, but I think what we will be able to do, and what we intend to do, is bring forward clear indications of what these will look like, so that it will help the committee deliberations, but also examples as well of work in progress that will also give a clearer indication as well, but different from bringing forward the full draft—I don’t think we’ll be in that position.

Okay. Thank you for clarifying that.

And then, when it comes to how the targets will be framed, are you looking at including outcome-based targets specifically for species, habitats and sites? So, for example, comparing what’s happened in England, under the Environment Act 2021, I think that they are statutory targets, including when to halt species decline, by 2030, and to increase species abundance by at least 10 per cent, relative to 2030, by 2042. Forgive me, I know that’s quite a lot of specificity there, but will there be an ambition for there to be similar types of targets, in terms of how they’re framed, in Wales? Because I understand that the Welsh Government might be looking at using sustainable management of natural resources to frame the targets, but I know that there’s a concern that, if SMNR is used, that doesn’t always well reflect biodiversity, particularly species issues. So, in terms of looking at how the accountability can be captured in how the targets are framed, would you recognise the importance of having outcome-based targets for species, for sites and for habitats, please? And I know that that’s a really technical thing to be asking—

No, no, no, it’s good and I’ve got somebody who’s great on the technical side here in a moment. But, just to say, we will use the SMNR goals as the overall framing mechanisms to make sure that the targets are set in a way that reflects, again coming back to this point, the complexity of the drivers of biodiversity loss. But we’ll also be taking a systems approach to this as well. And you rightly say that the focus that we’ve had, and certainly that we consulted on, was looking at targets within the areas of species and habitat and ecosystem health and resilience. We think that that’s the right way to approach it.

But, in terms of what England have done, and Scotland as well, England—. First of all, it’s fair to acknowledge that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has a significant quantum beyond us of technical and policy resource, just to make that point, as a former DEFRA Minister, walking into rooms where people said, ‘Here’s your team of 60 people, and there are others outside, if you'd like.' Our teams are not quite that large. So, we will be keen to draw on lessons, good and bad, from what’s happened in England, and also from Scotland as well, but that will be our overall approach.

But do you want to touch, Alice, on the outcome-based approach and so on?

Yes, certainly. So, we'll be looking at a range of targets, both outcome- and action-focused, looking at what's most appropriate to deliver what we need to see, as the Deputy First Minister has said, learning from what DEFRA have done and what worked well, and actually maybe what some of the unintended consequences were of some of their targets, so that we can learn from that.

There will be, of course, habitats and species targets, but we also need to look at targets that will address the drivers of biodiversity loss. So, we know, for example, that nutrients, for example, are a significant driver of biodiversity loss—so, looking at what targets we might need there, targets in what other areas. The Deputy First Minister referred to needing a systems approach. So, we know, for example, that our consumption is not sustainable, so how do we encourage more sustainable consumption so that we draw less on the natural resources to stop biodiversity loss? So, it will be a range, but both action and outcome.

Thank you. Diolch.

So, if it's a three-year process of establishing those targets and bringing forward the regulations et cetera, that's left to the next Senedd to deal with, then, really, isn't it? Is that something that you're a little bit nervous about?

So, we're bringing them forward in early 2026.

So, you'll bring the regulations, or the draft—. The regulations will be in place by the end of this Senedd.

Sorry, sorry. So, the development of the specific targets will be three years from—. Our proposal would be that it'll be, working with stakeholders, three years from the signing-off of the legislation. So, yes, there will be a piece of work that does take us into the next Senedd as well.

Okay. Are you—? Does that not make you nervous, a little bit, that you're not able to get it over the line before then, or—?

Well, one of the good things that we do have in Wales is not only bringing forward this Bill, but the other legislative underpinning that we have, including the well-being of future generations. So, this is not a slim hope that the work being done with stakeholders over that period will turn into those concrete targets that will flow from the Bill, but that there would be a cross-party will to make this happen as well. But, once we pass the legislation, that is in process.

Sure. And I'm not questioning the consensus in the current Senedd, but who knows? Yes. Okay. Thank you. Carolyn.

That's a bit of a bombshell there, really, because we're all very keen to get behind this. Just regarding SSSIs, so the 2020 assessment showed the condition of half of them is unknown, and, where conditions have been assessed, 60 per cent are showing an unfavourable condition. So, what are you doing to try and improve that? It used to be the Countryside Council for Wales, I think, and now NRW try and look after the SSSIs, but there is an issue there regarding resources.

Yes, in terms of the marine environment, I think the first thing is to acknowledge that we do not have a full evidence baseline analysis—we don't—but we're never going to have complete perfection in this. And the same applies, by the way—. There's a lot of stuff that we do know, by the way, but it's never going to be completely perfect. So, some of the work that we can do to improve our baseline knowledge in protected areas, including marine, are things such as—in fact, they were here the other day—the sort of initiatives we're doing with the Curlew Connections Wales project, funded through the Nature Networks fund. So, that's using technology such as the earth observation technology. There is also action through other initiatives, where we are trying to improve that analysis, that will contribute to that baseline analysis. That's key to actually improving the current condition of these sites, and to ensure that we can then put in place appropriate management to improve their condition and their connectivity too, but it's probably fair to say we're not going to have perfect analysis of this, and that shouldn't hold us back from actually putting in place the right protections for nature restoration.

Okay. I have some evidence of some local SSSIs, where we've alerted NRW to it, but they won't come out and visit, because they haven't got the resources, the funding, or they just can't do it. So, it's a case of writing to the landowner to make sure that they're managed in a good way, so I just wanted to highlight that as an example and a concern.

Thank you. Okay, Janet.

Thank you. Environmental NGOs are calling for the national seagrass action plan to be endorsed and resourced. Why have you not formally adopted the plan? It was in the programme for government, and there it says that the commitment is to:

'Establish a targeted scheme to support restoration of seagrass and saltmarsh habitats along our coastline.'

Why have you not formally adopted it, when are you going to do so, and do you not realise that, like Carolyn has just said now, with the bombshell that we've just heard, that this could even move on to a Senedd where we don't know what the make-up of that is? Cross-party, we're all committed to the same agenda as you are, so that would be a good sign to people out there that you are taking this very seriously indeed. When will that happen?

So, first of all, we've already given support to the development of the initiatives around seagrass and salt marsh habitat restoration in Wales, and we remain very committed to working with the partnership to take this work forward, because we recognise the contribution of seagrass and salt marsh to the climate and nature emergencies. So, we're very committed to seeing how we can better support these restoration projects—

When will you formally adopt the plan?

So, the plan is one thing. The other aspect is actually developing the business case that will take this forward in a way that can lever in the quantum of funding that they've expressed is necessary to do the scale of what they want to do. Now, bear in mind there is always a role for the public realm within this, and, in fact, we've already contributed something like £248,000 from Welsh Government—sorry, from the taxpayer, through Welsh Government—to round 3 of the Nature Networks fund, to support the facilitating accelerated nature networks for seagrass—FANNS is easier to say. This is a significant boost for the long-term recovery of seagrass in south Wales, and there was also £50,000 funding through the coastal capacity building scheme.

But developing the business case to put in place the very ambitious, the extremely high level of ambition—which we would share, by the way—will require identifying additional funding mechanisms, not simply the taxpayer. So, my officials are working very, very closely with the Seagrass Network Cymru to help them, to support them in working to identify those additional sources of funding. The quantum of funding is immense, and it's beyond the draw on the public purse that I—

So, you're not formally going to adopt that plan?

Well, what I'm saying to you is that there's a plan, and then there's making the plan reality—

We understand, though, that with a plan, goes a business case.

Absolutely, yes.

But there is a promise of that plan, and so I just want a straightforward answer, really.

Okay. Yes, there we are. Okay. Let's give the Cabinet Secretary a chance.

So, formally, our intention is, if we simply sign off on a plan, then the question becomes, Janet: well, how do we resource that? Now, the programme for government makes clear and makes explicit our intention to develop this area of seagrass and salt marsh restoration. That is slightly different from signing off on a plan and saying that the taxpayer will fund the entirety of it. But what we are committed to is helping to make that a reality by supporting the Seagrass Network Cymru to build that business case—and this is a significant quantum of funding. So, rather than arbitrarily, is what I'm saying, sign off on a plan, and say, 'Done. Sorted', what we need to do is turn that into the reality of how you achieve that quantum of funding. And that may mean different partnership funding coming in to it, so—

Such as? Which partnerships?

Alice, I don't know if you want to add to that.

Yes. So far, funding has been received through the Nature Networks fund. We're talking to the Crown Estate, and other organisations as well, about that funding. As the Deputy First Minister has said, we continue to work with the Seagrass Network to support the development of the action plan; I'm meeting again with them this afternoon. The action plan that they've submitted is a great starting point, but we need to develop it further in partnership with them. In comparison, the national peatlands action programme took two years to develop, and included stakeholder consultation and engagement as part of that. And we need to do that with the seagrass action plan as well. As the Deputy First Minister has said, we're committed to working with them and supporting the development. We recognise the value of seagrass and salt marsh to both the nature and climate emergencies—

Sure. Before we come on a bit more to issues around marine, what I'm hearing from the environmental NGOs is, 'This is a commitment in their programme for government, but they're inviting us to apply to a competitive fund to try and fund something that they're committed to doing in their manifesto'. It just sounds a bit odd.

Well, actually, I would say that it's not odd at all. The commitment that's there is on seagrass and salt mash restoration—that is a programme for government commitment. It's not a programme for government commitment, when we are in massive asks for different areas of biodiversity restoration, simply to say, 'Well, here is this scheme we will fund, and we will cut these other ones'. What we've got to be doing is thinking cleverer—and maybe we'll come on to some of this—about how we actually lever in additional sources of funding. It cannot be left entirely—. There will always, always be a primary role for Government, taxpayer, to actually push these initiatives forward.

A very good example is what we've done in peat restoration. The success we've had on that has been predicated on levering additional funding into that space. That's why we've achieved ahead of our timescales, Janet, on peat restoration. Now, if we can actually apply the same thinking, maybe slightly different solutions, but to lever in the quantum of funding—. This is why the business case is actually critical to taking forward that seagrass and salt marsh restoration.

Just to say, on the funding that the SNC have applied for, as part of the Nature Networks fund—and they've been successful in their expression of interest—they'll be producing, now, a full bid for the next round, we understand. Now, that is real progress and it's being done with our support. But it's different from simply saying, 'Let's sign off a report and say the job is done'. The job will be done when we find the quantum of funding to actually go into this, and we're keen to support the network in doing that.

I suppose, for me, the difficulty is that—

Thank you. No, we need to move on now.

—that programme for government is nearly three and a half years old now, so you'd think, what's been happening from then to now?

Yes, okay. We'll move on.

It needs to be put on the record.

Thank you, Janet.

Can you tell us your planned timeline for marine conservation zone designation? Are you still on track to designate before the end of the sixth Senedd? And, of course, I was here in the term when we had the fiasco of marine conservation areas and then it all went badly wrong. So, this, again, is long overdue.

First of all, yes, we remain committed to driving forward the MPA network completion programme, including the designations of the marine conservation zones in Wales. So far, Welsh Government have, with the statutory nature conservation bodies, identified six areas of search: four in the offshore, two in the inshore; the specific locations we've actually put online already, if the committee wants to view them. I can also confirm to the committee that we've received more detailed conservation advice from both NRW and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in relation to those proposed sites, and this will be shared. It's come to my officials, and that'll be shared with me in due course, as well.

You're probably aware that—Janet as well—Welsh Government were not able to appoint a contractor. It's not through faults of our own; we simply weren't able to appoint a contractor to undertake the regulatory impact assessment, earlier in 2024. Now, this is a crucial element to the process. We have to have that person in play; without them, we're not able to do the proper consultation. So, I've agreed, on the back of that, to delay the consultation until we're able to appoint a contractor, because that is critical to completing the work. But we remain committed, Janet, to the MPA network, including the MCZs in Wales.

Thank you. And can—

Thank you very much. No. We'll move on to John now. John is going to take us through the next set of questions.

I'm on No. 10, stakeholder—

Yes. John's taking us through that. Thank you.

Oh, yes. Of course.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. Yes, some questions on the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, Cabinet Secretary. Firstly, on the natural resources policy, there's a commitment in the Act, isn't there, that that policy will be reviewed and an updated policy published after a Senedd selection, but we haven't yet had that publication during this Senedd term. So, is it imminent, Cabinet Secretary, as we're well into the term at this stage?

Listen, John, we are committed to reviewing this, as part of the commitments that flow from the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. Reflecting on some of our earlier discussions, what's central to the Act is developing a new more integrated approach to managing natural resources, to achieve that long-term sustainability. Now, this is very much work in progress already. So, I think our focus is very much on what is that review that looks in the way that we can see the much more integrated, a much clearer line of sight, on how we manage our natural resources. So, yes, we're committed to that review; it's a statutory requirement. The way we take it forward, though, I think, is important, because that is to do with looking, 'Have we got that properly integrated approach to managing our natural resources to achieve that long-term sustainability?'

So, you couldn't give us an indication of when publication is likely to take place at this stage, Cabinet Secretary, could you?

No. We're considering that at the moment. But, just to be absolutely crystal clear, it may not be simply a new document, a new strategy, Chair, or whatever. What it will be is, we need to bring forward that review of the piece that we are doing in terms of delivery of the targets that flow from the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, which already, of course, contains the section 6 duty on public authorities towards the delivery of the targets. But, in that review, if we can avoid hanging everything—very often, we hang everything on the need to produce a strategy, a report of 500 pages, or whatever. I think, actually, there's a need for Government to be more focused on the delivery of this. So, the review could take a different format.

There are certainly plentiful strategies, action plans, acronyms and policies, that's for sure.

Indeed. Exactly.

Just coming on to the section 6 duty for public authorities to enhance biodiversity and restore biodiversity, we have heard criticism from some stakeholders that the implementation of that duty is a little lacking, and that natural resources policy is, I guess, questionable in that context. So, perhaps that touches on some of the points you've just made. But we'd be interested to know why you've proposed using elements of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, such as the NRP and the section 6 duty for the new biodiversity framework. Because, obviously, quite a lot of thinking, from what you've said, is taking place around the legislation—what it would produce, how it can best be taken forward.

Yes, indeed. Firstly, it's worth reflecting that, whilst we're not proposing amending the section 6 duty itself, what we are proposing is bringing forward a duty for specified public authorities to contribute towards the delivery of those targets, and we'll set out the details on that, then, within statutory guidance.

But in terms of the nature recovery action plan, John, as you know, we've worked across the UK, collaboratively, on a UK-wide set of targets, responding to the international challenge that was agreed by 196 countries at the nature COP. So, underneath that, we need then to have a robust set of commitments and policies to put us back on track there. So, we need to have examples under each target, but each nation, including Wales—we'll update ours as we introduce new policies. But, by submitting our national nature targets by 1 August, we have made sure that the commitments across the UK, including ours, are in that global analysis to be carried out at COP16 now within the next few weeks, so we're right at the front of global action and nature. So, we'll be publishing the full UK national biodiversity strategy and action plan in due course, detailing further delivery plans, further ambitions. We are revising the nature recovery action plan in line with the process for Wales's approach to delivering the GBF targets and our own resilient Wales goals. We're also, of course, as we've mentioned already, developing those legally binding nature targets, with a suite of indicators to drive action progress. So, a significant amount of work going forward in this piece now, but again working, I have to say, on a collaborative basis across the UK to try and show not only leadership here in Wales, but leadership internationally. Sorry, go on, Claire.

The reason that we've chosen to build on the existing legislation, I guess, is to try and not make it further complicated. So, that sense of, even if the existing provisions in the legislation aren't fully delivering what we might want, it's how do we build on that and enhance it and improve it, rather than create a parallel system. I think committee's heard evidence about complexity, and you've referred to it. So, I think we've looked really hard at how we can use the existing mechanisms and build the legislation on it, but, as the Deputy First Minister said, then focus on how do you support implementation. Because the words in the law are important, obviously—it’s a really key part of the framework—but what actually is done is what matters.

I think it’s trying to kind of get that balance as the Bill is scrutinised, when it eventually comes before the Senedd. The framework needs to be right, but then we need to be thinking about how we’re actually going to make implementation happen. And the same applies to the targets—the targets are critical in setting the ambition and what needs to happen, but, actually, the much more significant piece of work is what are the actions required to deliver those targets. As the Deputy First Minister said, it’s a systems approach. So, there’s a really complex set of interactions, and that’s actually where we want our focus to be and to be working with partners on. And there’s no getting away from the fact that it’s a big challenge.

Yes, it is indeed. 

But I think in terms of simplicity, Cadeirydd, and understandability, it would be very welcome if that was increased. 

Very welcome. Diolch. Thank you for that. Carolyn.

I’m pleased your working across Governments, and with the UK Government as well, because a lot of decisions made by the UK Government impact us here in Wales as well. So, it’s great that there’s that input.

How can we work across Government departments as well regarding the nature recovery action plan, getting buy-in from economy, education—? Because, in some ways, I feel like the climate change department is at odds with the economy department over certain things, and education and health as well. It’s really important to make sure it’s embedded in everything that they do. 

It is, absolutely. And it shows once again, Carolyn, the granular nature of this, that you need multiple interventions in multiple areas, and that does add, unfortunately, to the complexity. But we have significant work, as you know, going on across different departments, so with local authorities and the levers they have, but with some Welsh Government funding to actually drive local initiatives within nature. There's the space that we have, similarly, with Welsh Government funding that is driving educational impacts, not just through the eco-councils and so on, but through, actually, on the ground, practical development of patches of local biodiversity within schools, and so on.

But it’s also the planning piece. It is also the transport piece and what we do on edges and verges. It is also to do with the way that we develop housing and accommodation infrastructure and the road network. It’s all of those, it’s every aspect. And that’s why it does sometimes seem complex to people, but it’s why we need a complex response to a complex problem, but with that overarching framework of what we’re trying to do on nature restoration, and then keep driving it.

You referred to the future generations and well-being Act. We have it in place, but making sure that people always refer to it, always think about it in all the decisions being made, is really tricky, and, I think, for transport officers, highway officers, to think about biodiversity rather than just putting topsoil back and everything, about nature. It's education as well, I think. So, it's just making sure that that’s there all the time. 

Entirely. The education piece is key, but I always stress this—it’s education in two ways. It’s what we do in the formal educational space, through some of the great initiatives that we’re now doing in schools, in the new curriculum, but also in eco-councils. I was at a school the other day that has been a platinum eco-council in west Wales for a decade, and some of the stuff they’re doing there is phenomenal, and that’s embedding it within a generation of young people coming through. But it’s also to do with the education piece in a less formal setting around us—adults, grown-ups—in every walk of life, and what we can do for biodiversity by our own individual actions and what we do in our workplace, what we do if we have policy levers. 

I’m conscious that funding is an area you touched on earlier, Cabinet Secretary, and I know it’s an area that we’re particularly keen to scrutinise you on, so maybe we’ll move on to that now, if we may. Janet, do you want to lead us into that?

What assessment has the Welsh Government made of the investment needed to deliver global biodiversity commitments? And if you haven’t made an assessment, how on earth do you know how much you should be investing?

We’re aware that there are good organisations outside who have made their own assessments, and we are interested in the assessments that they’ve made. Some of them run into the multibillion pounds shortfall, and we note and acknowledge there’s a degree of expertise within these organisations. What I will say to you is that I’ve been very frank since I’ve come into this post. We recognise that there is a significant shortfall in the quantum of funding that’s needed to go into nature restoration in Wales. By the way, the same applies, I would argue, across the UK, across western Europe, probably across the world as well.

However, there are ways in which we can actually fill that gap as well, and some of it is on public funding. There will always be—and I repeat this—a role for the public realm in stepping into the space and driving the change. I mentioned earlier on the curlew project. It's a £1 million investment in the project through the Nature Networks fund, based on the recovery of curlew. It's what we do in the sustainable farming scheme, in terms of how we align that to make thriving farm businesses, ones that produce good, affordable, sustainable, high-animal-welfare food, but also deal with the nature and climate emergency. It's the £17 million we're putting in the nature and climate emergency capital programme to deliver, for example, on the Teifi catchment, what we're doing there with metal mines restoration and the impact on stretches of those rivers. So, there are many ways in which we're already ramping up the investment from the public sphere, but as well it's how do we fill that gap, whatever that gap may be.

You're probably aware that we're consulting at the moment on sustainable investment principles, and the basis of that would be—. And we're working, by the way, with environmental non-governmental organisations on this, drawing on their best practice; we've had people like the RSPB, Wildlife Trusts Wales, WWF, the Marine Conservation Society, Dŵr Cymru, Natural Resources Wales, who have got experience in driving this forward. But it's based on can we get to a way in which we can identify additional funding that could come in that would support integrated land use and an equitable sharing of the benefits, deliver public, private community and cultural well-being benefits, demonstrate best practice engagement and collaboration, but also demonstrate values-led high integrity investment. So, how do we fill that gap? I think it's by the Welsh Government being in that space, with taxpayers' money. It's through the wide read-across across Government, including SFS and so on, but it's also working with groups out there, including the ENGOs, who want to say, 'Let's get into the space where we can have more ethical, community-based funding coming into the space', recognising that there is a shortfall. I can't tell you exactly what that shortfall is, but you'll be aware that some have painted a picture of a £5 billion, £6 billion, £7 billion shortfall.  

How are we going to get that private investment? Public funding is well audited as well. There is concern that it's clean money and where it's coming from. So, how can we get that private investment in?

It's a really good question. Before we start going down this line, we need to establish the principles. There are some really good examples in the OECD, there are some really good examples amongst other nations of the UK. We're very keen, by the way, to explore this space as well because—. I know we keep saying this, but genuinely, it's heartwarming to know that we're actually having not just good official engagement but ministerial engagement now. So, we're really interested in this space with the UK Government and other devolved nations and parts of the UK as well who are also interested in how we get this principle-led investment going in. But we're not coming at this from a blank sheet. If you look at some of the stuff that we've done within the peat restoration space, that's a real signal of real steps forward there in investment, but based on ethical, sustainable principles as well.

But we can also look at what we're currently doing, for example, with the marine fund Cymru. I was delighted recently to provide funding to support a development manager for this project, which will test and evaluate some new approaches to blended finance in the marine environment, based on nature restoration. So, I think there is an appetite. It's changed, Carolyn, from where we were a decade ago on this, which was almost a sense of worry about any additional funding coming into this, how would it be captured, held hostage by vested interests. So, the first point is to get the ethical principles in place on which we want to do it and then say, if people want to come in then and can do this on the basis of community gain, equitable benefits—. By 'community gain', by the way, what I'm saying there and signalling within those words is to make sure that it's not stuff that comes in and is done to communities or takes out from communities, but engages with those communities and delivers nature restoration. 

We know there's an appetite outside from people who are really minded to help on nature restoration. There's definitely an appetite from ENGOs. It's changed remarkably over the last few years because we've seen some really good practice going on, driven by those ENGOs. We're keen to help, as the Welsh Government, to get into that space, which is why we're consulting now on those sustainable principles.

Have you got a time frame for it?

No, because there won't be one piece. It won't be done and dusted and we fill a multibillion pound gap. I think what we need to do is build on what we've done with, for example, peat restoration. Mention was made earlier on actually about seagrass and saltmarsh—is that one of the areas potentially where there could be something? But certainly, the marine fund might well be helpful in that area.

So, I think it’ll be not a leap at this in one tranche, but actually develop the principles, best practice and build and build and work with the stakeholders externally to get this right. Because there is a fair degree of expertise in them about what they’ve done already, but also what they would want to see coming out of any blended investment, any additionality that came into it.

Long-term funding has been requested as well. I don't know, going forward, if we're getting a three-year plan coming from the UK Government, a three-year budget hopefully, but at least three years—. Because they're using some of the grant funding up, which you talked about earlier, to employ staff, purchase machinery. And nature takes a while to recover, to react to management, doesn't it? So, they need that long-term plan; it's no good just having it for one year, because it takes maybe five years to see that difference on the ground with nature.

I absolutely agree with you in principle. My only constraint is knowing that we've got the certainty of long-term funding as well. So, when we get to that—. It's an argument we consistently make, not just on behalf of stakeholders out there, who do such good work, and partnerships out there, who do such good work, but also from a Welsh Government perspective. This certainty of multi-annual funding would really help, but we have to play with the deck of cards that we're given. If we get that certainty, we can do a lot more longer term.

The good thing, however, is the way that we are bound by our legislative and statutory commitments in order to drive this forward. So, even if we don't have that long-term certainty, what we do have is the long-term certainty of we have to deliver biodiversity restoration—we have those 30x30 targets. But, yes, I agree with you on the principle of long-term funding, absolutely. And there are so many people out there in organisations, whether we look at LPN funding or others, who live and die—. They do exceptional work, but they live and die by annual contracts. I'd love to get away from that—I would love to.

I think we all would.

I just want to congratulate you on the peatland restoration project, achieving it one year ahead of target. So, we're quick to criticise and challenge, but I just want to say to you well done on that.

I can testify to the work at Hafod Elwy. I visited a few weeks ago and it was quite inspirational, to be honest. 

Yes, it shows what we can do.

You're right: let's refer to the positives as well, absolutely. Julie.

Thank you. I was going to ask you about funding for Natural Resources Wales. We've heard repeated concerns that NRW doesn't have enough funding to carry out its biodiversity function. So, I wondered how you responded to those concerns that we've had.

I think, with some honesty, Julie—. NRW has just gone through a consultation, which has just closed, and its engagement with the unions, and the process of that has been for them, in those consultations, to look at some really difficult decisions, as we know—it has featured on the floor of the Senedd here. But the focus is, in tight financial times, on their key regulatory, legal and statutory functions. There are a range of other things that NRW, I'm sure, would love to do, but it's having to focus on that. 

And let me be quite frank: I'm not being political here. I've sat on this committee. We've seen, over the last decade, the stretch that there's been, not just here in Wales on some of our environmental regulatory structures, but also in England as well. NRW is not the only environmental body going through this stretch, but they are doing the right thing of engaging with the unions, going through some really difficult decisions. I understand that whatever they bring forward from that will be going to their next board meeting so that they can look at what they've heard, take the right decisions. They're very focused, I have to say, on that work with the unions and on trying to avoid unnecessary job losses as well, but focusing on their key environmental regulatory, statutory and legal requirements. At this moment in time, I think it's the right approach to take.

And can I just say as well, in terms of NRW, I commend them for working with their workforce in order to take that through? This is not easy for them either. And meanwhile, they are doing all the jobs that we've asked them to do. They're getting on with the work on the massive flood investment that we're doing. They're getting on with making sure that we try and tackle river pollution, et cetera, et cetera; all of these things they're still doing. So, as I say this in response to you on the committee, Julie, I just want to say—we often say in the Senedd, applauding those individuals—I just want to say that NRW as an organisation is our key regulatory body and we should support them in getting on with doing this, even when they're faced with difficult decisions.

And do you think after these difficult decisions that they will be able to effectively carry out their biodiversity function?

Yes, and we keep in close engagement with the chair and the chief executive regularly, and this is one of the things that we stress: amongst those functions that they have is the necessity as well, within the legislative structure, to actually promote that biodiversity restoration. So, I think they are very clear—I am very clear—that that is one of their core purposes as well.

Thank you. I'm going to ask you about farm support needs now, and the recent scale of need, 2024, reported that Welsh investment in farm support needs to be almost doubled in order to tackle the nature and climate crisis and provide sustainable food. So, what are your comments on that, to begin with?

Yes, I've read and seen that analysis, and I think it reflects, Julie, the fact that what we're trying to do with the SFS is not only produce that sustainable future for farming and those farm businesses, but also tackle the nature and climate emergencies. So, the analysis that's been done by external groups reflects that they think, coming back to our earlier line of questioning, that there is additional funding that needs to be in that space. I think in principle I agree with them, as I made clear earlier on, so the SFS cannot be the only game in town, but it's a very important part of that.

The work on the SFS is progressing well. Without breaking the confidences of the ministerial round-table, the level of engagement and the level of progress that we've made is significant, and we will shortly bring updates, once the ministerial round-table is ready to release further information on it. And if we get that right, it will do that thing of making sure that we can restore habitats, we can restore nature and biodiversity with a range of clever interventions with the design of that scheme, but it cannot be on its own. I recognise that there is a shortfall, as I mentioned before, and I think that brings into the space, 'Well, what can we do to bring that additional funding into that space?'

So, I guess my pushback to those who've made that observation and that analysis, the quantum of funding that they've identified that we're short of, is to say, 'Well, how do we find that additional funding outwith the taxpayer's contribution to it?' Because there will never be enough money in the taxpayer's pocket to allow us to do everything we want to do. Let's look at how we can add to that above and beyond the SFS. Bear in mind, SFS touches on SSSIs; what else can we do in SSSIs? On farmlands, there is peat, sometimes deep peat, sometimes restored peat. What more can we do outwith the SFS with peat? We can do stuff within it, what can we do outwith that within peat restoration? Within the SFS, there will be measures within that about soil improvement and so on that will improve river quality in many areas. But the question arises: what else can we do outside of that space to improve river quality as well? So, SFS is going to be critically important, I think, but it shouldn't be the only game in town, either in terms of funding or in terms of intervention. But it's a critical one, bearing in mind that substantial proportion of Wales that is covered by farming, land managers and so on. That has to be a contribution to this, a significant contribution.

Yes. And have you had any chance to discuss this with the new Government in Westminster, additional funding for farming?

We've made very clear in our representations, both myself and the finance Secretary, that in terms of the farming, agricultural, post-EU, post-basic-payment-scheme budget—whichever way we want to frame it—what we are seeking, quite explicitly, is where we are now plus an inflationary uplift. We recognise the constraints that the Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, and others are currently under. We recognise the imperative for them to find funds for a range of competing priorities when faced with what they've identified as a significant black hole in funding, but our basic approach to them is that we need to be where we are now with an inflationary uplift. Now, if there was more, I'd be more than happy to accept more, and then, in Wales, to make our decisions on how we actually use that, by the way. But we will see in the coming days where those overtures land.

I know, by the way, that we've had very good engagement with my UK counterpart in DEFRA, who is very aware of this as well, and he and his farming Minister, Dan Zeichner, are arguing the same case, I believe. So, we're all on the same hymn sheet here, but we've got to see what the Treasury and the Chancellor come up with.

Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you. We'll move on, then, to our next area of questioning and, Janet, you're going to lead us.

Thank you. We have heard there is a lack of biodiversity monitoring taking place. How will this be addressed, given the forthcoming targets?

The first thing I would say, Janet and Chair, is just a little bit of pushback on what's going on at the moment, because there is an enormous amount going on in terms of monitoring biodiversity. For example, the deep-dive monitoring group is looking at how we can have more effective monitoring approaches, including new and innovative approaches, such as remote sensing and citizen science. We've got the fact that strengthened monitoring reporting is a key part of the new targets legislation that we touched on earlier on. We're proposing a role for the state of nature report as well, in monitoring with strength in data-sharing arrangements as well.

The local environment record centres, I don't know if they've been raised with the committee. The LERCs are a key source of data for us to enable effective decision making on benefiting biodiversity. We're going to be undertaking an evaluation of the local environment record centres in 2025, so they can keep on providing this invaluable service and the data it provides.

We also have, of course, led by the UK Centre for Ecology & Hydrology and supported by Welsh Government, agri-environmental support through the environment and rural affairs monitoring and modelling programme, the ERAMMP, which I don't know if you've come across. They are a significant player in terms of the evidence of what we have in monitoring biodiversity.

We also work with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee in monitoring stocks and key indicator species, including, by the way, citizen-led surveillance programmes. Much of the data through these programmes is reported at a Welsh level, so things like 'The State of Natural Resources Report (SoNaRR)', which you'll be familiar with, the National Biodiversity Network Atlas and the Global Biodiversity Information Facility. We also have the GB non-native species information portal, providing access to mapping and information—

Okay. So there's lots—

So, there's actually a lot going on already.

There's obviously lots of good work going on, but how do you then use that in your decision making? How on top of what they're doing are you, if you know what I mean?

It's absolutely integral to what we're doing. I only gave you a sample, there, by the way.

Believe me, I know there's loads and loads—

It's a sample, but sometimes we do get told there's not enough going on, we can always do more. But, actually, the extent of what we're doing is huge already, including what NRW's contributing, by the way, as well. But how do we actually act on that? Well, that is integral now to all Government and public body decision making. We're subject to the section 6 duty on biodiversity and resilience of ecosystems, so that means there has to be an impact assessment process that all policies go through, taking into account what we know from the evidence and the monitoring of biodiversity. But it's also how we work that through Government, in the way that we inform budget decisions as well. So, integrating biodiversity with all the actions and policy decisions of local authorities at high level and lower level public authorities. But also what we do within working within budgetary processes is key to working on that data. But there's a lot of monitoring surveillance that we already do. We have some of the best expertise here in Wales, including things like ERAMMP, and I just want to say that, because it gets done in the background, and then, sometimes, we share this with people and they go, 'Wow! We didn't know you were doing that', and we say, 'Yes, yes, we've been doing that for years. We've invested in that for years.' We probably need to talk about it a bit louder.

Could I add, Deputy First Minister? So, as he has set out, there is a huge amount of monitoring that goes on. What I think we need to make a better job of is integrating all of the data that's collected from these different monitoring schemes to give us that more holistic picture of where we're at. And that will then shows us where the gaps are in the monitoring, where the gaps are in the data, so that we can be clear about how we fill those, and then how we make better use of the monitoring that's done, for example, offshore wind developers, quite often, as part of their licensing conditions, will have to do monitoring around the infrastructure, so how we can encourage greater sharing of data and evidence in that sphere. So, the Crown Estate has something called the marine data exchange, which developers are encouraged to share their data on and their evidence. We recognise that some of it is commercially sensitive, but when it's, you know, monitoring of the marine environment, that's evidence that should be able to be shared. So, there is absolutely new technology and other things that we could be doing, and gaps that we need to fill, but I think, first of all, it's looking at what we've got and how we integrate it and what picture that's already telling us and how we access that data better.

Thank you.

Just one other comment, as well—

Very briefly, then, if you will.

One of the things I've stressed is the role of Government within this space, but there are also others. There is, indeed, the monitoring and surveillance that goes on in the marine environment now and those aspects of sharing; what comes out of the peatland project, and so on—all of those, pulling those all together. There's also the role of the non-governmental organisations and what they do. Now, some of that can be assisted by Welsh Government, through our grant funding process. A good example of this, for example, is the work that's going on with the RSPB at the moment on Grassholm island with drone monitoring, so a little bit of funding from us enabled them to do that. Then it comes back to—and that's the advantage of a good, in-depth committee session like this—how could we do more on that by bringing additional resource into that space. Because some of those non-governmental actors are able to use some Welsh Government funding and then draw in other funding to do even more monitoring. The more we can put in this space, the better, but there's some great stuff going on. It might be helpful, Chair, if we just write to you with a short paper with an overview of what we are doing.

Yes, definitely.

We're always amenable to any further information, yes. That'll be great, thank you. Okay. John.

Cabinet Secretary, if we're going to make the sort of progress we need to make in restoring, renewing and, hopefully, increasing biodiversity, it has to be mainstreamed across Welsh Government and I guess more widely, beyond Welsh Government as well. But there is a programme for government commitment, isn't there, and it's in line with the global biodiversity framework to embed biodiversity across the public realm. We heard, during budget scrutiny, from your predecessor that it's quite difficult, actually, to identify spend on biodiversity in the Welsh Government budget, and that a group that's working to improve Welsh Government's budget in terms of identifying impact and improving the process were looking at that. So, I wonder if you could just update committee with regard to that budget process. Will it be possible for us as a committee, and other committees and stakeholders, to clearly identify what Welsh Government is spending on biodiversity and how it is being embedded across Welsh Government?

Yes, thanks, John. You're referring, I think, to the budget improvement plan work that we've got under way.

Yes.

Yes, absolutely. So, that budget improvement plan includes a prevention agenda and it's shaped by a precursor to that, the budget improvement impact advisory group, which made some proposals. So, a sub-group of that continues to examine the ways in which we can better embed prevention into budget-setting processes and with the consideration of using biodiversity as an area to pilot their ideas within this. Now, that is quite neat and we'd thoroughly support that. Now, subject to the findings of this work from the sub-group, focusing specifically on how biodiversity is used on that preventative agenda, a whole-budget approach, then, to preventative activity can be explored, using biodiversity as the 'in' to that area. And this very much falls in line with the well-being of future generations approach. So, that focus on biodiversity first, looking how much further it can then go into that preventative space there, and how we identify how we can do this effectively across the whole area.

But you are right in saying as well that that section 6 duty, of course, on public bodies, is also key. That has a direct influence—so, for example, with the way we take forward things like planning policy, this whole issue of embedding means we need to embed this way beyond my small area into all other areas. So, taking that forward into 'Planning Policy Wales', with a net benefit for biodiversity approach, so that any developments are going to leave biodiversity and resilience of ecosystems in a significantly better state. Budgeting, planning, other aspects—all of these are to do with actually embedding it wider across. And, I think, the section 6 duty, which is not a finished piece of work, by the way; I think we’ve still got to do more work—. We are working with councils, public bodies and others, even down to community council level, to try and give them the guidance, the best practice, on how they can make it.

And, sorry, just to say, on this—because I did take this home and read it last night as well, and I realised one of the committee members is involved in this—these are the sorts of things that can flow from that sort of work, the embedding. It’s down to the granular detail. So, at the risk of embarrassing one of your committee members, Carolyn, the It’s for Them campaign—changing mowing to save wildlife—when people say, ‘Well, what do these things like section 6 actually do?’, they drive that granular process across all our public bodies. We haven’t got everybody doing this yet, Carolyn, but there's the blueprint.

It says that it’s not just a one-year plan, it takes a while. So, we’re keeping at it, working with town and community councils, to engage them and fight the challenges that they’re facing as well regarding contractors who want to cut the grass to within an inch of its life. And bringing communities with us as well is really important, so that they understand why grass is being left a bit longer.

Cadeirydd, just finally, if I may—

Go on, yes. 

—in terms of the work that you’ve described in terms of the preventative approach and the focus on biodiversity, in this budget round now, then, Cabinet Secretary, can we expect to be able to look at the fruits of that work and be able to identify Welsh Government spend on biodiversity?

I wonder if I can turn to my colleagues on how soon we’ll see this, because this is a work in progress at the moment with the sub-groups, to focus on biodiversity as the first pilot, if you like, in the preventative space. Are we likely to see it right now?

So, I think we’ll probably need to write back, having spoken with our colleagues in the Treasury on the timing. And I think we’re always going to have a challenge that there’ll be specific programmes we can point to—the Deputy First Minister’s referred to a number of them—but some of this is in the mainstreaming, and that means it’s part of the normal spend in different areas. And I think one of the many challenges with preventative investment is that it’s quite difficult to see, even though it is affecting the choices and decisions on how that kind of more mainstream money is spent. And I don’t think we’ve got a solution to being able to paint that full picture at the moment, unfortunately. But we’ll get in touch with our Treasury colleagues, and we can update you on the timings.

Excellent, okay. That concludes our initial session on biodiversity and the work that we're doing in that sphere. I was hoping to ask you one other question, which is somewhat unrelated. But, with your permission, we considered your response as a committee regarding revoking retained EU law, specifically regulations 9 and 10 of the National Emission Ceilings Regulations 2018. Now, you said you prefer a UK-wide approach to meet targets on reducing five key air pollutants rather than introducing equivalent duties on Welsh Ministers. We were just wondering, as a committee, where you were in terms of having potential discussions around that with other Governments.  

Yes, we’re involved in those discussions, and we can happily come back to you as those discussions evolve. But we are, on balance and on judgment, wedded to that approach that would say it's better to do this on a UK basis if we can, but we need to also reflect the Wales interests within that as well.

And can you confirm that the new UK Government intends not to restate the revoked legislation? Or would you like to write to us on that, maybe?

Deputy First Minister, you've had a letter on it, but I don't think it's—    

Yes, I would have to go back and revisit that, so that I can give you an accurate response. So, I can look at the correspondence we’ve had and I’ll come back to you then in writing.     

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you. We appreciate that, and sorry for throwing that one at you at the end.    

No, it's fine. 

We’ll now break for 15 minutes. Can I thank your officials for being with us for the last session? I understand you’ll be joined by another set of officials for our next session. When we come back at 11:15, we’ll be considering legislative consent around the UK Government Water (Special Measures) Bill, when we’ll have a 30-minute session with you to discuss that. So, we’ll break for 15 minutes. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. 

—yes, it is. It builds on the work that we've already got in place, but it provides an opportunity on a UK basis, recognising that, indeed, some of our iconic rivers in Wales as well don't respect national boundaries—they wind back and forth. This is a good opportunity now for some collaborative work, and the measures that are within the Bill, which we're currently working on with the UK Government and we're currently considering around the impact on Wales as well, clearly have benefits here in Wales as well. So, sometimes there's a good reason to identify a good opportunity to bring forward legislation together, and yes, it does fall in line, building on what we've already been doing.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you. Okay. Janet.

Thank you, Chair. Hello again.

Hello.

What consideration has been given to the appropriate water industry offences, and penalty level, carrying an automatic fixed penalty under the Water (Special Measures) Bill? The reason I ask this question is because my residents are constantly pointing out where they believe there are pollution incidents, and it takes so long to get Dŵr Cymru and NRW to actually come back and respond to me. Sometimes it's through no fault of their own, but on occasion—. People are really becoming quite annoyed about this. It's affecting our seas and those wild swimmers. It's affecting our rivers and pollution. Do you actually believe we've got the right enforcement procedure in Wales, and what will be the consultation requirements before setting the offences, and also the penalty level?

Really good questions and, first of all, just to say we're fully supportive of this proposal on the matter of automatic penalties for certain offences, because again it strengthens our arm in England and Wales. We do recognise, by the way, Janet, in some of the measures being brought forward, we do have a unique operating model with one of our two water companies in Wales, so some of these measures we need to make sure fit within Welsh circumstances, but we're doing that. But in terms of the automatic penalties, we're supportive. The offences to which the duty will apply, of interest to the committee, will be set out in secondary legislation made by Welsh Ministers under the Bill. So, there will be full opportunity for proper scrutiny then in detail. NRW are considering the offences that could fall under the clause as part of the implementation plan of the Bill, again giving the opportunity for proper scrutiny, but, to be clear, it will be Welsh Ministers/the Senedd that will make the final decisions on what offences the duty will apply to. So, it will be fully subject to public consultation and Senedd scrutiny.

Right. An add-on to that for me is that, over the years, and I've raised it here, some of the pollution incident fines now end up going back to His Majesty's Treasury, and I've always thought that if a pollution incident happens in Wales, the penalties for that should come back to Wales. Will you be working with the UK Government to ensure that, when pollution incidents occur, that money comes back into Wales to ensure that the environment is cleaned up, or there is some sort of recompense for that, if you understand what I mean? It's going to the wrong place, as I see it now.

Yes. Our default position is that we'd want them, whether penalty charges or funds that accrue through this legislation, to be here within Wales, so that NRW or the Drinking Water Inspectorate can make full use of them. So, that's the nature of the engagement we currently have with the UK Government. It's probably fair to say that those discussions are going well, but I would say that this Bill is progressing at pace. It's a real imperative of the UK Government, going forward. So, we're working intensely with them at the moment on the basis of that principle, that we want to see the powers for Welsh Ministers residing here, but also, where funds are accrued, then they can be delivered here in Wales.

Fantastic. 

Thank you. Okay. Julie. 

Thank you, Chair. What work is under way to introduce civil sanctions for water industry offences in Wales, and can these be introduced through this Bill?

Yes, indeed, they can, Julie. In respect of civil sanctions, we're supportive of the measures in the Bill that will actually provide more effective enforcement options to NRW. Adriana, I wonder if I can turn to you to add something to that, please.

So, NRW already has powers to utilise civil sanctions under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, the RESA. And there is an Order that was made in 2010, and that specifies types of legislation or specific legislation that NRW can utilise for civil sanctions—the various fixed monetary penalties or variable monetary penalties. But, this Bill will provide an opportunity to review what powers NRW has currently and possibly extend them—for example, amending the 2010 Order to allow NRW to have more civil sanction powers.

And one of the aspects of this, Julie, is, looking at the issue under civil sanctions and civil penalties, where, currently, under the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, the regulator must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that a company or an individual has committed an offence before applying the sanction. The proposals within this Bill, and this clause, in fact—clause 5—looks at the required standard of proof to be modified in terms of the balance of probabilities. Now, the objective of this is to make it, then, easier for regulators to bring enforcement action against water companies who have committed certain environmental offences, with the power being limited to those circumstances. But, it is sitting alongside and complementing the existing raft of sanctions that we have available.

Right. So, is NRW now looking at what they've got as this Bill comes forward?

Yes.

So, it would be done in time to be part of this Bill, maybe. 

Yes. Yes, but bear in mind what I've said as well, that much of what we bring forward in this—. This is something of the overused frame of a framework Bill. So, we'll be able then, under some of the regulations and the guidance that we bring forward, to go through full scrutiny of that as well. But, yes, NRW are fully engaged and assisting us as this Bill progresses through the UK Parliament. 

And this is something that you want to see happening in terms of NRW's extended civil sanctions powers.

Yes, we would welcome it, because I think NRW recognise as well that this would be of assistance to them. 

They want it, yes.

Right. Thank you.

Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Delyth.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. In terms of the provisions relating to cost recovery, do you have any concerns about how that could affect how NRW can enforce water industry activity? I'm thinking specifically about the fact that NRW have highlighted to us that fines resulting from prosecution would return to the UK Treasury instead of going back into tackling environmental issues on the ground. So, is that something that would concern you? Is that something that you could take up with UK Government?

We're very cognisant of that, and this particularly relates to clause 8 in terms of NRW, where the functions of NRW are tied to cost recovery for putting in place environmental permitting licensing charges, and to recover costs for enforcement as well. That's where this is significant. If we have cost recovery on this, then it allows NRW—bear in mind our earlier conversation this morning—to actually fulfil their regulatory duties more effectively and without a loss. This has been our trajectory for a number of years. So, this approach here fits very well. But, we're in discussion with the UK Government exactly on that point of making sure that the funds realised through this would actually be returned here so that NRW could get on with that. 

We do have a degree of optimism on this because we’ve had similar discussions in respect of clause 11—recovering losses in terms of the special administration regime—and making those return to Wales, and we’ve had progress on that already. So, I don’t know if you want to add anything to that.

[Inaudible.]

Yes. So, that's our intention and we're in very active, good, constructive dialogue with those who instigated this Bill at the UK level to try and ensure that that happens, but NRW would welcome this as well—full cost recovery.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Cabinet Secretary, the UK Government legislation proposes statutory pollution incident reduction plans to hold the industry to account and obviously to hopefully reduce pollution. We know that there are significant problems in Wales. The recent Ofwat report, for example, showed that Dŵr Cymru is one water company that needs to improve its performance. It was classified as lagging on a range of indicators, which include pollution incidents. And the reports they currently produce in terms of reducing pollution incidents obviously are non-statutory and apparently vary in terms of their content, the standard and indeed the timescales they’re produced to. So, with that overall picture, why have you decided then not to include Wales in those requirements for those statutory plans?

Thanks, John. Am I allowed to give you an exclusive for today at committee?

Please. You're positively encouraged to.

Okay, righto. We did an initial analysis of this, based on the fact, and in discussion with NRW, that we already have the obligation in Wales—sorry, on a voluntary basis, as you say—to produce pollution incident reduction plans, and on the basis of whether this measure would add additional burden in terms of producing those. But, you know, sometimes as a Minister, you do actually reflect and you look at—. Because bear in mind, as I was saying, that this Bill is progressing at speed, so we're also having to react at speed. So, I'm happy to say that, on reflection, we've come to a different conclusion on this, and I think NRW would support this as well, that this provision under clause 2 of pollution incident reduction plans—to prepare and publish them on an annual basis, setting out how the undertaker intends to reduce the occurrence of pollution incidents attributable to its sewerage system—we and NRW have concluded that this could, together with the other measures in the Bill, indeed have a positive overall impact. So, we will be seeking, Cadeirydd, an amendment to the Bill, as it's making its progress. This is proper collaboration. An amendment to the Bill to extend the statutory requirement to water companies operating only or mainly in Wales. So, this is your exclusive for today.

You heard it here first.

Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Okay, that's very interesting. Carolyn.

Could I ask you what assessment has been made of the number of emergency overflows in Wales that will require monitoring? And I just want to raise a concern as well that the Bill is for emergency overflows. Unlike in England, there is no current reporting requirement for storm overflows in Wales. So, unlike England, where they're including storm overflows. So, I'm raising some concern that storm overflows are not being included, as well as emergency overflows. So, your response to that, please.

Yes, well, the provision that is coming forward in the Bill sets a new requirement on water companies to publish near-real-time data on discharges by emergency flows by April 2035. Just to say where we are in Wales on that already: event duration monitors are already in place across Wales for combined sewer overflows, but not for all the emergency overflows. So, installation of EDMs on the emergency overflows in Wales is well under way. We expect this programme of work that is now under way in Wales, prior to this Bill—it's ongoing at the moment—to be completed ahead of the 2035 deadline. So, in respect of this clause, the Welsh Ministers have responsibility under this clause in relation to those sewerage undertakers—the two of them that are wholly or mainly in Wales. If the proposals go forward, we can make by regulations provision for exceptions from the duty under the clause, but, as I say, the EDMs are in place in Wales for all CSOs now, but it's the emergency overflows piece that needs to be completed. We're well on the way to it, and we anticipate doing it before the 2035 deadline that is specified.

Okay.

Sorry, just to double-check, then, so the EDM information from storm overflows in near real-time, I mean, that's a requirement in England, but not in Wales, I thought.

Seeing as it's already in place in Wales.

It's in place in Wales.

It's been done on a voluntary basis, so we don't need to set it in—

Yes, on a voluntary basis. That's the point, isn't it?

Yes.

So, it's not a requirement; it's if they fancy doing it, they can do it.

But they are doing it.

They've done it. 

It's done.

They're doing it.

Okay, so what we're getting at is there's no discrepancy between storm overflows and emergency overflows once we get to the, you know—

Indeed.

They'll all be covered in Wales—

Indeed.

You can confirm—

Indeed. And we haven't waited—

But not on a statutory basis. On a part-statutory basis for emergency, but on a voluntary for storm.

So, the thing is that, in Wales, we are ahead of England, so the EDMs are all ready, they've been in place for all CSOs for a while in Wales, so there is no requirement; we don't have to ask; we don't need to put it in legislation to make sure that water companies in Wales comply with that, because they're already complying.

Yes, but the point I'm making is: it's not a statutory requirement. The fact that they've done it is all well and good, so if there's a malfunction, if they break down and they choose not to replace them, you will not be able to force them to replace them.

We're not proposing to opt out of the clause. We're just saying that the only part of the clause that's relevant for Wales is the emergency overflows, because the CSOs are already in place. But the clause will apply to Wales as well.

On emergency.

Yes, on all—

On all—

Right. Okay, that's right. Okay.

Yes.

The point we're making is that we didn't have to wait for this Bill to get on with it.

No, no, I appreciate that.

We're well in advance.

But they'll be the same requirements, then, in both England and Wales.

Indeed. So, it'll shift now from—

And there won't be an anomaly between storm and emergency overflows.

Yes. It'll shift onto a statutory basis, but I think our water companies and the work they've done will go—

Indeed, and that's my understanding as well. Yes, okay. Sorry, Carolyn.

Okay. That's fine. No, that was good. Backup. [Laughter.]

Can I ask another question? So, when we had Dŵr Cymru in the other day, we were talking about water capture and trying to ensure that surface water doesn't go into their drainage system, as that's a big issue. How can we force landowners, under riparian ownership, to ensure that the culverts on their land and their ditches and drains are properly managed? Because I think that in the past we've expected NRW or councils to do the work. And they might have done 20 years ago, when they had the money, but not any more, so that water goes onto the highway, goes into the sewage system, the gullies, the highway gullies, and washes into people's houses, so we need somebody to be able to do that. I know that councils are the flood authority, but they're saying they need backup because they haven't got the resources on the ground to do that. So, what can we do as a Government to ensure that that is happening and that landowners know their responsibilities?

Carolyn, it's such a good point. It probably goes beyond the scope of this Bill, what's within this, although, curiously, exactly what you're describing will wash up in some of our environment, or it will lead to costs for councils in having to unclog drains and so on, because there's run-off from the land of silt and debris and whatever other muck. I know we've raised this before. We have those clear obligations on riparian owners for clearing their watercourses, drainage ditches and so on. The question is not simply the enforcement, but reminding those individuals that they have to do it. And I know this is a big ask for local authorities, whether it's in Carmarthen in west Wales, where you see incidents at certain times of the year, when you have run-off from the land, and the cost is picked up by the local council and by the local taxpayer as well. I think where we can play a part is actually strengthening and reinforcing to those local players the statutory basis of this, but also the guidance around good practice in this as well. Any decent landowner surely would want to help us in this overall objective of making sure that their waterways are properly clear, so it doesn't impact further downstream.

NRW have done a lot of good work recently—just like public announcements, radio—about home owners being more resilient, about them making sure they're resilient, signing up to flood alerts, et cetera, but if included in that could also be a little bit, saying, through that same person who's in charge of flooding, 'Landowners be responsible as well.' Just keep getting that message across; that would be really useful. Sorry, Chair, for adding this, I know we have time, so it was a bit cheeky.

There may be different ways we can do that beyond the flood alerts. But the other aspect that you touched on was aspects of street design and development design, and that is a pertinent point. It's fair to say that in terms of the sustainable drainage systems work—. I'm an absolute SuDS anorak, I genuinely am, I love this sustainable drainage stuff. I was there at the birth of it in Westminster—

You'll need an anorak when it's wet, as well. [Laughter.]

Absolutely. But we're ahead of the game here in Wales, we genuinely are. So, the SuDS piece is part of this, so we don't have that surface water just running down roads, running through streets, creating flooding in people's houses and then taking the debris and so on into our rivers. We need to be using nature to actually do this. So, we're ahead of the game in that.

The other thing is, again, with planning authorities and local authorities, the street design. It's the street design, so that we can work with nature and watercourses, beyond SuDS now, so that we don't have simply run-off discharge coming down hills onto streets, through people's houses and into that river below. There is something about street-level design. There is some good work going on in this area, but we also deal with the inherited backlog of streets that were designed 50 years ago and more.

That's the problem.

Yes.

Yes.

Okay, unless Members have any further questions, I think we've covered the bases that we were hoping to with the LCM. There we are, then.

Thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

We'll continue with our meeting whilst you leave us. So, thank you again for your presence.

There are papers to note.