National Assembly for Wales

You start with the most difficult question. It is a starting point. This budget is a starting point, and there is some limited flexibility to do other things across the whole piece of the Welsh Government budget, and that's important to understand, because it is across the whole piece. I don't think it would be—. You've given me a really difficult one to start with. There are many areas that I would like to prioritise more with funding; the challenge will be that this isn't simply one for my budget at the moment. It's a question of seeing if we can pass an overall Welsh Government budget, and then deciding what the priorities are in that, and, in that space, genuinely the offer is still there, the door is open for all Senedd Members, all parties, to engage with Welsh Government to decide what their priorities might be on the limited flexibility we still have remaining.

So, rather than me cherry-pick, because I think we'll get into some of the depth of where we've already prioritised, and it might be within that we'll flesh out where else we might want to go, it is probably worth saying, Chair, that, within the budget as we've set it, the headline bits within this are the inflationary increase of £11.7 million revenue funding and £5.1 million of capital funding, so 2.1 per cent, 2 per cent respectively, but also some ring fencing of revenue and capital funding as well. We've also allocated specifically funding in terms of things such as coal tip safety as well going forward, and also public sector decarbonisation, but those are priorities reflected in this budget. But this, like the wider Welsh Government budget, now, is a starting point for consideration.

Okay, fine. We'll pick up on some of those individual issues, I'm sure, as we go along. You mentioned the wider Government budget. Of course, tackling climate change is a wider Government impetus or effort as well. So, how have you worked across Government to make sure that that's prioritised throughout the wider budget? 

Thank you for that question. We've made it consistently clear that climate change is not just for me. This is not a siloed departmental issue. So, we expect this to be embedded across all Government departments, all portfolios. So, certainly the—. We do this in a number of ways: one is with the shared governance structure, so, behind the scenes, often unseen, there's the important work that's carried out by the climate change programme board. So, that's the heads of directors, portfolio heads, the officials, if you like, making sure that climate change is embedded across every decision that's being made. We have the integration of the climate objectives then within departmental allocations, so you can look at some specifics within that—so, for example, within public sector decarbonisation, within farming and land management decarbonisation, within transport decarbonisation. You can see it appearing embedded in different areas right across Government—in housing et cetera, et cetera. The other thing is, in terms of Cabinet oversight, it's the Net Zero Wales plan and the climate adaptation strategy, but the important overriding point is that you're not going to find it in one, single siloed budget, nor should you, frankly: it should be in every Minister's thinking, in every official's thinking, so that we have the governance structures in place behind the scenes, but we also have, at a ministerial level, the way that works as well. But you will see it reflected in some of those budget headings across those portfolios then.

Because I'm just wondering: is there a better way of pulling that out so that the Government could demonstrate that more prominently in the way that the budget is presented, maybe? I don't know whether that's appropriate, or whether you feel that's necessary. Obviously, we have a committee structure. We won't be scrutinising every other Minister. So, that overarching focus needs to be reflected in committee scrutiny of the budget as well, doesn't it?

I actually think the work that you do as a committee that holds us to account, that looks at things such as the Net Zero Wales plan, the climate adaptation strategy, really helps with that, because then that takes that cross-Government focus. That's where we can explore not just budget allocations, but what are the actions that are being delivered within each of them.

And outputs, yes.

So, I think you do it already. But, Claire.

I think there may be an opportunity with the next net-zero plan, which is obviously something that the next Government will make the final decisions on, to make that more explicit so that it would be easier to track the funding of the actions that contains across the budget. So, drawing out, I suppose, the detail of what funding allocation underpins those actions may be something to develop in the next plan.

Because there's this whole debate about marrying up outputs with budgetary investment, really, isn't there, and what you get, the bang you get for your buck, is important for us as a committee. Okay. Diolch yn fawr. We'll move on, then, to Janet.

Diolch, Chair.

Oh, I'm sorry, Janet. Sorry, Carolyn, you wanted just to come in shortly.

Just a brief comment. If we're having a 2 per cent uplift, if inflation is at, say, 4 per cent in real terms, regarding delivery of some services, say through Natural Resources Wales, is that a concern for you going forward?

Well, we work with the budget that we have. We work within the priorities that we focus on both in terms of NRW's core work, so its core services, its statutory responsibilities as well, which we've always focused on. And we've made sure, and the discussions that we've had, for example, with NRW on its core services and its statutory provision are, that, in all that it does, we protect those, we make sure that NRW can do that, and we have regular dialogue. So, for example, NRW, which you raise, we have regular dialogue with them to make sure that our budget allocations can ensure that they can deliver that, that they can manage their pressures as well. We have those assurances, even with some challenges that they've had.

But we do work, Carolyn, within the reality of the budget that we have available. But I come back again to the issue of the Chair's first question. This is a starting point. So, if the Senedd feels as a whole, if this committee feels, that there is some scope to go further, either in this budget area or in others—. But do bear in mind that one of the priorities, we think, going forward in overall budgets outside of this one is actually the protection not just with NRW, but actually in the wider public bodies, of core services, jobs, front-line services. So, it'll be interesting over the next few weeks to see what the engagement is on that, and whether we have the Senedd say to me, 'We'd like you to go further and uplift your budget by 4 per cent', but in which case there are impacts across the wider Welsh Government budget, Carolyn. These are the interesting weeks.

Yes. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Janet.

Diolch, Chair. Bore da. How will the small uplift in the resource budget for climate change action support the acceleration of Welsh Government delivery on climate adaptation?

It's an interesting question, because it does come back to what I was saying before, that (1) the actions that we're taking are not siloed, so we should have every Government action reflecting climate adaptation. The climate adaptation sits with each relevant policy team to lead within their sectors, funded within their budgets. So, climate adaptation will impact on transport, will impact on major infrastructure, not just within my budget, within land use and management and so on. So, we would expect, for example, as we've seen recently in relation to the response and the preparation in response to the storms that we've just had. One of the reasons that Transport for Wales and the rail network was able to rapidly respond and recover, even though there were impacts on it, was because of the work that's been done in climate adaptation to make that a more resilient network as well. So, it should be in every portfolio area. So, even though you've got that piece within our budget, that's not the entirety by far.

Can I ask you, though, on that? With the health budget now, we hear too often that there's not enough funding, and there are big problems in our health service in Wales. You never hear of any climate initiatives to do with the health portfolio.

That's interesting, because, from our perspective, the engagement we have with the Cabinet Secretary for health is significant. So, for example, the net-zero approach within the public sector, including within the NHS, is significant. The quantum of funding—I don't have it off the top of my head—that we've put into helping them achieve their decarbonisation approach, and the investment in their public estate, in new initiatives as well, is really significant. So, we wouldn't have any difficulty, actually, in highlighting the sheer extent to which the NHS, as an entirety, is on that net zero pathway and decarbonising, but is also doing it in a way that helps with the wider nature recovery as well. But, Claire.

And I think Public Health Wales is a really key partner in terms of climate adaptation and understanding the health impacts of extreme heat, for example, as well as the impacts of flood risk, which I know a number of Members discussed in the Chamber this week, on mental health. And so, they're a real key player in bringing the health impacts of climate impacts to the fore. And as well as the work the Minister has referred to on decarbonisation, there is also climate adaptation work going on in the health sector. And if that isn't visible to the committee, I'm sure we can ask colleagues to share some of that detail.

I just never hear it—ever.

It doesn't get raised a lot. It's one of my frustrations, curiously, that a lot of the work that is going on—. So, I am constantly in the position, the gratifying position, of signing off on not insignificant amounts of allocations from my main expenditure group that go towards, for example, supporting either the university sector or the NHS or local authorities on their decarbonisation agenda. But it doesn't, it doesn't—. It rarely gets picked up within the Chamber. We tend to focus on other things. I'd love it if it were talked about more. But we do put out statements on it, and it is publicly available.

It's just worth saying, in terms of the allocation that we have within our budget for climate adaptation, that a lot of that is focused on this cross-cutting work, so the work that we do with others across departments, and also with other sectors as well, to actually promote the agenda of climate adaptation. So, some of those things you're talking about are a result of the work that we do with other Government departments to say, 'Right, how are you going to step up here and how can we help you?' So, it may be a relatively small uplift in the allocation, but that small uplift allows us to keep that work going across other areas, so that it's not siloed. One of our big themes, consistently for many years, is: break out of the silos. I sometimes get asked as climate Minister exactly that point: would it be easier if we had one climate budget? Well, actually, no, because we can shift this better by using some of our funding to get greater funding coming in from partners across different Government portfolios. So, what Ken, what the Cabinet Secretary for transport, is doing is informed by our work, is informed by our climate adaptation strategy, our net-zero strategy, our net-zero plan, all of that. So, our little—sorry, our 2 per cent—uplift enables that work to continue and keep pushing with other departments.

Okay. Thank you. In its 2024 report on flooding, and 2025 report on climate communications, the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales called for the creation of a climate change adaptation and resilience fund. How do you respond to this, and what consideration has been given to developing this dedicated fund?

Well, first of all, we really welcomed the report brought forward by NICW, the 'A Perfect Storm' report et cetera. We are considering all the findings and recommendations, and, to make it clear to the committee, we're really committed—and I've said this publicly before—to working with them to address all the issues they raise.

We absolutely recognise, in what they brought forward, the need for increased levels of funding to scale up the delivery of climate adaptation. But we also recognise—and I've been frank and honest in this—that public funding alone is not sufficient to meet this. It really isn't. All the issues that we're facing are far bigger than taxpayer money alone. So, I do accept the commission's view that one approach—and they've put forward this approach as their preferred one—is to set up a central climate change adaptation resilience fund. It's one approach. It's one possible approach. But as I've said in answer to my previous questions, actually this is a cross-cutting issue, so it needs to be embedded into all our work. One of the things that we need to do is, actually, for example, to think outside of the box a little bit, and I've been very frank and honest since I came into this role 18 months ago that we need to lever more private investment. Now, that could be philanthropic, altruistic, it could be set within our principles, a real rigorous framework of ethical investment, to progress climate adaptation. So, we're planning more work to explore that, which is going to build on the existing work. We're not starting from a blank sheet. There are some good examples out there already, but it's got to be really good and high integrity.

So, last October, actually—I think it was last October, last autumn—we consulted on the sustainable investment principles. That was pretty soon after I came in, and with Claire's help and others we went out and engaged on that, because it's very important, if we do want to lever additional investment that is outside the taxpayer funding, that it's set within clear guardrails, that it's good for Wales, and that it's designed for our situation in Wales. So, if we can then agree what good private investment looks like, based on that, then we can expand the box a little bit, and we can bring in more. So, I do agree with their finding, which is that we need more funding in this space. I think if we keep going looking for this out of existing budgets, even if those budgets grow overall, I think we'll be banging our heads against the wall. We need to think more creatively.

I've got Delyth and Joyce wanting to come in on this, and then I'll come back to Janet.

Diolch. When you talk about good private investment, I wanted to check that that wouldn't mean us straying into what a number of us have raised concerns about, which is—looking at coal tips, and we'll come back to the coal tips later—specifically on private investment here, private companies, like what is being proposed at Bedwas, coming in to remediate a site, but funding that by selling coal. I know that that is something that the government has indicated it isn't the most comfortable with. I just wanted to check that good private investment, in your opinion, wouldn't stray into anything like that.

No, let me park individual—

Of course.

—proposals that may come forward, like Bedwas, for a moment separately. I think, when we're talking about good private investments, it's within those sustainable investment principles that we've laid out, and that framework that we're now developing, a very coherent framework, that gives assurance that is not to do with things like disused coal tips and so on. It's actually to do with how we can make sure, for example, that part of our climate adaptation, building on the work that we currently do that we've had real success with, with peatland restoration, et cetera—or there might be other things; I don't know, there could be seagrass or whatever, and we're doing good work on that—if we're going to do it, let's just make sure that it works for Wales in the context we have, that it works for not only the climate adaptation pathways, but also for the communities within which some of these projects might work as well, and for the landowners, which will have to be part of this. So, I think we're at a point where, having consulted on those principles, bringing forward now the framework for it, we're starting to give confidence to environmental NGOs, potential private investors, altruistic investors, and there are many of them out there, and many who, by the way, want to do the right thing. They're not looking at—. One of the things we've been very keen to learn is learning the lessons from where, beyond Wales's borders, some of this investment has gone wrong in the past. It's been greenwashing. We're not interested.

Thank you.

Thank you. We just need to focus a bit more on the budget in front of us.

Yes, sorry.

Joyce.

If you're talking about using private funds or public funds in this space, one real opportunity—. Well, there are two real opportunities, but one really big one, in light of the floods that we've just experienced, is housing and future housing—so, sustainable drainage systems, and all of those things that a house in and of itself can produce and should be producing. So, they're preventative but an investment at the same time. And then, if we look at land management also, and there's a fair bit of public money that goes into these spaces as well as private money, so it's extracting, to quote, the biggest bang for your buck. So, are you going to revisit or enforce some of the planning applications that are in place to make sure that they're not creating a bigger problem, and also insist that land management plays its part—and I'm going to take Carolyn's here—in the riparian responsibility for ditches?

We are focusing on the budget here. 

But it's spend in those areas. 

Within the budget context, yes.

We give money to those people.

The question is useful, because it does flag up the cross-Government and cross-sectoral approach that we need to take to climate response and climate adaptation. So, whilst, for example, within my main expenditure group, I can say with confidence that, last year, we allocated record spending to flood resilience—£77 million—and this year we've upped it to £80 million, that can't be the be-all and end-all. We also need the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government to be working on SuDS development. We are at the forefront here in Wales. We're ahead of England in SuDS development—and I say that with great pride. I love saying this, because if you're here as a Minister, you want to do good things. So, we set the SuDS development off back in 2008-09, when I was a DEFRA Minister. Wales grabbed that and ran with it. We're ahead of the game here in Wales, and we're keen to share lessons on how we can expand this across Offa's Dyke and beyond as well. But it's also to do with planning policy: where do we put the next generation of houses; how do we deal with it when, sometimes, within for example the south Wales Valleys, we have limited areas of flat land that it's easy to build upon, but we also need to make them flood resilient? So, there are some real nuances within that, and it's also land management, So, what we do with the sustainable farming scheme, what we do in terms of upstream planning to hold water back, to slow water down, all of these play their part. You make the point very, very well that it is to do with my budget headings about climate resilience, climate adaptation, but it's actually every Minister's responsibility, and that's the approach that we're trying to take.

Thank you. The last question, then, Janet, and we'll move on to Delyth then.

Can you provide an update on work to develop the next emissions reduction plan for carbon budget 3, and how is this going to be provided for in the draft budget?

Yes. Thank you, Janet. The next Net Zero Wales plan, which will run from 2026 to 2030, will be published in late 2026, so late next year. And to make it clear, it's important to say that, because it will be for the next Government to make key decisions on that. However, let's be frank, it's going to be much more challenging. Every time we come back to these plans, they will be more and more challenging, but I have to say there will be also more and more opportunities within that as well, because of capturing the economic opportunities. So, many of the policies and the programmes that are required to meet our carbon budget targets are already in place and they're reflected in the 2026-27 budget. The advice that we've had from the Climate Change Committee and also, by the way, the Wales Net Zero 2035 Challenge Group, which was headed by Jane Davidson, clearly indicate that we will need additional, ambitious, challenging policy to meet the carbon budget, to meet the targets, going forward. So, it's worth flagging up to the committee here, as we meet on this budget, that whether it's me, or somebody else sitting in this seat next May, June or whenever, they will need to have their feet held to the fire in sticking to those carbon budgets, bringing forward the right policies to meet them, and it will be more challenging.

The next plan is currently under development. It'll reflect our legally binding commitments. We are not going to walk away from our legal commitments to future generations, and to meet carbon emissions, net zero, by 2050 in a way—and this is really important—that distributes the benefits fairly across society as well. So, I'm meeting regularly with Cabinet colleagues to make sure that we work on this collectively. It comes back to that theme again: it's not just in my main expenditure group and my department, it's right across. So, for example, in the budget for 2026-27, we're investing in the circular economy. We continue to be a nation of world-leading recycling and reuse as well. We're investing £7.5 million in the National Forest for Wales. We're providing an additional £4 million for the Welsh Government Energy Service. That, by the way, is the bit that provides that advice and support to public bodies towards decarbonisation and a net-zero Welsh public sector by 2030. We're providing additional funding for buses and trains. We're extending the green homes scheme by £3.1 million, and we're maintaining the funding for Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru and also Ynni Cymru as well. So, this is right across Government again. But, there are going to be some critical decisions that will fall to the next Government as well, and I would encourage the committee, whether it's me or somebody else, 'Don't take your eye off the ball with this; we need to step up to the plate.'

Thank you. We'll come to Julie next.

Well, following up on the theme that Janet has raised, do you think that we will get to a net-zero public sector by 2030?

We always knew it was going to be challenging, but we're still committed to it. And we still have, as we sit here now, time to actually do it. But it is challenging—I'll accept that. It's a top priority for us. I've got to say, having that level of ambition for net zero 2030 has really stimulated a lot of action across public bodies. It has driven not just individual projects going on, but systematic change, quantifiable benefits, and I can flag with you some of those, but we need to do more, and here's the challenge. So, we've generated to date now more than £367 million through the Welsh Government Energy Service, through savings and power generation in the public estate. The energy service has supported now over 400 projects, and those range from newly installed renewables—these are the things we were saying we don't hear a lot about on the floor of the Senedd—advances in energy efficiency across the public estate to zero-emissions vehicle replacements as well. The renewable energy projects alone have introduced 44.5 MW of new capacity. That, in homes terms, is 18,000 homes' power generation there. And we've invested £210 million in projects across public sector organisations—so, health boards, local authorities, national parks, colleges, universities. And this ranges from really practical stuff, such as from LED street lamp installations to carbon heat solutions. It's saving, on the current projects that we're doing, 857,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

However, there are challenges, and sometimes there'll be blips in challenges, because some of those partners we're working with will hit commissioning challenges, or can they get hold of the fleet that they want, the work that they want done within time? So, it does have blips in it, but it's right that we hold to this ambition because it is driving change.

And as to any of the challenges that Jane Davidson said that you should put forward, does any of that relate to extra money?

You can't draw a direct link from the Wales Net Zero 2035 Challenge Group to, 'This means that extra money'. What it has helped us do, alongside our overall work in this carbon trajectory, is actually push at areas where we think we can do more. So, where they've identified, helpfully—alongside work that we've done and alongside advice from the Climate Change Committee as well—that we need to do more in the transport space, we need to do more in the housing space, that's where we're putting the investment, but also in the public sector net zero as well. But, Claire, I don't know if there's anything you want to add on that specifically.

I think also part of the approach that that group took was around the concept of co-benefits, and, I suppose, positively describing a future that responded to climate challenges but also supported nature and better outcomes for people. So, I think that trying to make this about not just the target as such, but what this is creating in terms of improvements for society and those sorts of co-benefits is something that we're trying to reflect more in our work, and a really strong component of their work was on that climate justice, environmental justice and social equity. So, I think trying to keep that at the forefront of thinking about the choices is very much informing the work we're doing.

So, not linked directly to finance.

No, but the practical illustration of this is, about a month ago, I visited a school in Conwy and they were faced with a choice on upgrading their traditional boiler system. Now, traditionally, what would have happened there is they'd have looked for the local—they were very focused on local procurement—they'd have looked for the local gas installation procurement, whatever. They didn't; they've actually gone for heat exchange, the most modern. They've worked with their own local authority engineer, who is really up on this, to work with two or three local contractors to design a bespoke scheme for that school, really cost effectively and moving into new technology. So, what we're doing here with the support, it's driving on-the-ground change. Now, what we need to do is accelerate that, but we've got so many good examples. Yes, it is a high ambition, but we're really committed to it. We think it's right sometimes to set that target.

And do you think that—? I think you referred to the uplift in the allocation for the energy service. Do you think that's enough, in view of the fact that public sector emissions show a 13 per cent increase?

Yes, I think it's appropriate, but I keep coming back to the point as well, but bear it in mind, that this is a starting-point budget. So, I'd welcome the committee's thoughts, going forward, but we think it is sufficient, because the nature of what we're doing is providing that advice and support, and some financial support as well, to inspire a change of direction within public bodies and other bodies out there, and it is working, and it's also building on the momentum we've already got, which I've set out in some ways.

It's worth saying as well that one of the interesting things we've seen is that we've now got a significantly larger number of bodies who are reporting into this with their emissions. So, it's gone up by 32 organisations to 79 now. Now, that's good, but it does bring challenges, because when you have that additional reporting, you then go, 'Oh, right, okay, here's the greater challenge.' We've seen a reduction in total public sector emissions within things such as buildings and waste, scope 1 and 2 now. They've been decreasing year on year now since 2022, but, going forward, we're going to keep on working, based on the budget uplift that we have there, with the public sector to keep on reducing the carbon emissions. We think it's appropriate. It's still a starting-point budget.

Thank you.

Right, we'll move on to Delyth.

Thank you. Diolch, Cadeirydd. I mentioned coal tips earlier. Well, we're going to focus on that bit, in the context very much of the budget, I promise, Cadeirydd. Could you talk us through, please, how the budget supports the delivery of the Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Act 2025?

Yes, indeed. This is a really important area for us, and it's great to see the legislation has now gone through and we can now start implementing or building on what we've done already. So, the coal tip safety budget itself is going to see a significant uplift in funding, and this reflects the priority the Senedd has put on this, but also Welsh Government has. So, it's going to increase from £37 million to £40 million, including the £25 million capital investment in coal tips in 2026-27, and this reflects some of the investment we've also got now from UK Government as well.

The new public body, the Disused Tips Authority for Wales, of course, will now be taken forward, so the uplift in the draft budget has allowed us to allocate £2.6 million to the implementation programme. So, this is—. As we went through when the committee was exploring this, there are some real practical things to get through, such as setting up the digital services, the HR, the finance, the grant management systems, all of those sort of things. So, we can start taking that forward now with that £2.6 million, and also the preparation for the establishment of the authority's headquarters, which, as you know, will be in Merthyr Tydfil—no more fitting place in the heart of the Valleys—so we can deliver that successfully. With this investment that we're putting into the establishment of the new authority, we can have the confidence now that that'll be up and running from 1 April 2027.

So, yes, we've got some significant indication in here now of both the investment in the disused tips themselves, but also the establishment of the authority that will take the work forward as well.

That's really helpful, thank you so much. Focusing on the coal tip safety grant scheme, how content do you feel that the allocation for that is sufficient, taking into account the potential increased risk to coal tips and the fact that we are having more and more unpredictable weather, which could further destabilise tips in ways that we might not have predicted before? In terms of the volume of applications that you would anticipate being made to that, coupled with the unpredictability, how have you arrived at this, and do you think it's sufficient?

Yes, it's the right question to ask. The assurance I can give you is that we're working so closely with local authorities and NRW in assessing what we need right here, right now, and what we will need next year, and what we will need the year after. So, the allocation that we've put for the coal tip safety grant scheme's funding going forward is based on what they've said they need, what they've got ready to actually work on, those priority areas as well. It has expanded considerably over the last five years, and that reflects a growing level of knowledge, and we've done the work with local authority parties to know what we need to work on. It reflects the growing capacity within the sector to do this work as well. So, frankly, even if we had five times the amount right here, right now, you'd say, 'Well, have you got the schemes ready to roll and use it, and do you have the capacity to do it?' We're going to be growing this. The discussion we had as we took the legislation through was all about growing that capacity.

So, what we've got currently reflects exactly the applications and the work that we've done with local authorities to bring those applications forward. It has expanded considerably. The budget allocation we brought forward for 2026-27 reflects accurately what can be delivered feasibly by local authorities and NRW within a single financial year, but we do have to keep assessing this as the years go by, as the new schemes come forward, as the capacity grows, so we have a real, achievable, successful grant scheme programme of work going forward.

But it's worth saying that we've heard sometimes outside, 'Well, why don't you just get on and do all of them all at once?' Actually, it's neither desirable nor feasible. This is actually prioritise, identify—work with local authorities, work with NRW—how much funding is needed. We've not had to say 'no', we've actually—. It's interesting with Cwmtillery—and I'll be heading up there again tomorrow—after the Cwmtillery slip, we had work that was already in progress, but we had a subsequent application from that authority to say, 'We think we can do additional work in response to that.' We looked at it. We worked with them very closely, and, in very short order, we will sign off that budget. So, I think we're in a good position, and this reflects what we need for 2025-26 and then we'll keep reviewing it as each year goes by. Claire.

I just wanted to add one thing, which is that the other thing we've been able to do on this occasion is it's now a multi-year grant—

Yes. Sorry.

—and that flexibility is really important for local authorities and other tip owners, because it can be quite unpredictable when work can be undertaken. When you do the detailed investigations, sometimes issues arise that you may not have been aware of. So, being able to plan over multiple years is really key in this area. So, being able to give that multi-year programme investment, I think, will make quite a big difference. And obviously, the other thing is, once the new body is in place and has that dedicated capacity looking at what's required, I think we can expect to have probably a longer list with a larger price tag, but a much greater understanding of the risks and what needs to be done next. So, I think that date in 2027, and then as they go into their work, that's the point at which a much clearer picture of the future demand will become clear.

That's really useful. Thank you both for that. So, just to check that I've got it right in my head, you're confident that it reflects what can be delivered at the moment, but the fact that it's a multi-year grant allows flexibility if there were to be less predictable or fewer predicted demands on the budget. And that makes sense, what you're talking about that, after 2027, having that greater filled-in picture then will be helpful. Do you feel confident, then, that, leading up to that point, there's enough flexibility there so that, oh god, if we were to have the worst storms that you could imagine, that—? Or would that be something where you'd need to be looking for emergency extra provision?

If there was something that took us above and beyond what our allocations are, we'd always have to look internally at the budgets, and we'd have those discussions across the Welsh Government, if it was such a scale. But, actually, what we've got now is a clear prioritisation of the work that local authorities and NRW themselves have said, 'This is what we need to do for the next few years.'

The multi-annual thing is really helpful as well, because it should also give us the capacity to actually bring forward more efficient, more cost-effective schemes as well, because they'll be able to work in a better way, in a longer term way, with contractors to do that. So, we should get more value for money. But just to say that it's £180 million, now, over three years. This is a massive, massive investment, which, combined with the Welsh Government budget funding, means that we're able to allocate £33 million in capital funding and £5 million in revenue to the coal tip safety grant in the budget for 2026-27.

But, yes, the good thing is that this isn't finger-in-the-air stuff. This is really working very intimately, very closely, with the agencies on the ground to say what is needed, and then we will build this up as the years go by and we will need additional funding going forward. And that's the reassurance that we can give, in terms of budget and those communities, that we're committed to this investment. We will need to go back to the UK Government at some point as well to say, 'And now for the next stage in this partnership.'

Okay, thank you very much for that. To turn towards reservoir safety, and that programme, could you give us, please, any update on the progress of that, in terms of when you hope to introduce the new safety regime? Also, on the £4.9 million that's been allocated to reservoir safety, could you talk us through a little bit more what you hope that will be spent on?

Yes, indeed. So, we've been working since November 2024 with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Environment Agency on a joint programme—Welsh Government, NRW—the reservoir safety reform programme. We are intending to launch a joint public consultation on proposed reservoir safety reforms probably in early 2026. We said it would be sometime in 2025-26, and it's probably going to be early 2026.

The current funding arrangements that we have, by the way, on hazard classification are covered by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs floods research and development budget, so that covers England and Wales. But, for other work streams within the programme, we've agreed in principle to contribute towards programme costs, such as commissioning research or contracting out work externally. So, we're still working on that, regardless of going out to consultation early next year.

So, the future policy, as you rightly say, on on-site emergency flood plans, will be part of that reservoir safety reform programme, which we'll be consulting on early in the new year. We have put forward just under £3 million in capital funding for NRW on the reservoirs they're responsible for, including those on the Welsh Government’s woodland estate. NRW manage those on behalf of Welsh Ministers. We've allocated £1.9 million in capital funding to the new reservoir safety grant scheme, so that reservoir-owning public authorities have the means to carry out essential reservoir work, but it'll also fund NRW works on orphan reservoirs, where we don't know who the owner is. There is some scope within it for revenue funding allocations through the reservoir safety grant scheme as well. So, we've got work going forward, but we're also maintaining the current work that we have available as well.

Okay. That was very comprehensive, thank you very much.

Diolch. I'd like to move on to Natural Resources Wales, if I may, which accounts for a big chunk of your budget. Now, the main sort of financial shadow that's been hanging over it, of course, is the £19 million loan and the tax liability, of course, which the Government helped cover. But there are now arrangements being put or that are in place to repay that. So, could you, maybe, confirm to us what that looks like, what the arrangements are?

Yes, indeed. We've worked very closely with NRW, as this has gone forward, to ensure that any—. The basic approach we've taken is that NRW has agreed budget reduction arrangements to recoup the residual cash on the budget cover provided by Welsh Government. We thought it was the right thing to step in and provide this cover, but now we've worked with them on how we will manage this. So, what we've done is my officials have worked with NRW to make sure that this budget reduction is affordable for NRW, and we have received assurance that the reduction will not have impacts on their core functions or their statutory duties. Claire, I don't know if you want to add anything to that, but we're spreading this across a number of areas as well.

I was going to ask about how it's structured, really. Is it over a number of years, or is it front-loaded? How does it look?

I suppose it wasn't intentionally front-loaded, but at the end of the last financial year, NRW had some underspend, which it was able to put towards this cost. So, from the £14.6 million, £4.4 million was paid at that point, so that left us—I can't do the maths—a remainder of under £10 million, we'll put it that way. Then the annual payment is £1.6 million, and we're expecting that to take another five or six years to complete. Should there be a position where NRW again has an underspend at the end of the year, obviously that is a dialogue they can have with the Minister as to whether that's the most appropriate use of that funding, to further reduce the liability, or if that money would be better directed to other priorities within the Minister's portfolio, or the Government more broadly. We will no doubt have that discussion over the next couple of months with NRW for this financial year, and probably going forward. My expectation would be that it's likely to be paid off earlier than that payment plan, but that's obviously subject to decisions and depending on where they are at the end of each financial year.

And does that money come back into your budget, Cabinet Secretary, or does it go back into the wider Government pot?

That is a really good question.

That's a really good question. Both of us are scratching our heads there. I'd like it to come back into my budget. We can let you know.

Yes, please do. The question that lingers then is: if they can afford to pay back £1.6 million a year, which I presume will not impact on its statutory duties and core services, then why do they get it in the first place? 

We see this as separate from the normal budget-setting process, so we're not going to hold this against NRW in the sense of, when all the payments come back, we then say, 'Well, you managed fine without it, you can do without it.' I think you as a committee and others will be saying, 'No, we want them to do more investment.' So, we're seeing this as very separate. It's a thing we have to manage—NRW has to manage, but with our support—but it's separate from their normal budget. I think they'll be looking forward to the point at which this can be dealt with and be off the books entirely, and so will we as well, and then we get back to normal work there. But, no, this will not lead to any reduction. We're not anticipating this will lead to any reduction in the core budget. 

No, quite. Yes, Joyce.

If they have unexpected costs because of climate change, is there flexibility within that plan to expand it—in other words, to reduce the annual amount, but expand the number of years? 

We can always look at this. We're not anticipating that, I have to say. Within what we can see as foreseeable eventualities in terms of climate impacts, floods, et cetera, those are already factored into our thinking within the budget. But, of course, if there was anything above and beyond that, again, we would always have to come back and consider that, not just within our MEGs, but as a Government as a whole. At this moment, it's a manageable process. The important thing is that we've had those assurances from them that they can manage this without affecting their core functions.

Okay, thanks for that. We'll move on to Janet.

Diolch. Could you clarify whether funding has been allocated specifically to the coastal risk management programme in this budget? If so, what is the allocation? What analysis have you undertaken to determine how much funding to allocate to the programme? And how have you balanced this against demand for funding from other flood risk management programmes?

Thanks, Janet. We've allocated £16 million to local authorities via the revenue support grant within the local government MEG. This is a question of straddling different MEGs. Under the coastal risk management programme, the CRMP as we affectionately call it, local authorities are expected to raise the capital and fund 15 per cent of the project cost for construction; Welsh Government then provides an 85 per cent contribution via the RSG over a 25-year period.

Originally, we were estimating Welsh Government investment for CRMP, contribution for CRMP, at around £150 million of revenue funding. What we have done again, the important thing on all of these, because these are major investments—it's a bit like the disused coal tips investment as well, such major investments—the secret to this is really close working with local authorities throughout the business case development, so that we've got fully costed proposals prior to us agreeing funding, and that is an important point to make. I just want to make that clear. They know, we know, what the business case is, and we have some assurance around that before we actually both commit to it there.

So, based on what is widely known out in the public domain, rising costs, design complexities, external factors, that £150 million of revenue funding, the cost of the full programme now has increased to £291 million. They're the well-known public factors out there: complexities, cost of construction et cetera. But, yes, this specific allocation is within the revenue support grant within the local government MEG, and our contribution of course is funded through that to the CRMP. And the CRMP programme has been a heck of a success, I have to say. It's really put a step change into investment.

How have you undertaken to determine how much funding to allocate? Where's the analysis, if you know what I mean?

It has been on that business case analysis with local authorities. Every pound of investment that we're putting in has been based on local authorities saying, ‘Here, with the work that we're doing with you, this is the investment that we need, this is how much it'll cost.’ And also the business case on that sort of value for money: is this going to actually do the job, the outcomes it's intended to achieve? But, Claire. 

And because of the way the scheme rules work, our contribution is capped at that 85 per cent, so it's 85 per cent of whatever the project costs. That's why it wasn't the sort of thing that was, 'You've got £100 million, that's what you're going spend', because it depended on what projects came forward, but also because a lot of these are very large-scale projects. I know a number of you have them in your areas. It was a finite programme, so we're now moving into the evaluation of its impact and effectiveness and considering the ‘what next?’ But we need to reflect on the delivery and some of the experiences, like the significant increase in costs that was experienced over the lifetime of the project because of things happening wider in the world.

Thank you. And then, how have you been evaluating the impact and value for money of the coastal risk management programme? Why is it coming to an end? Will there be an end-of-programme review and will the conclusions be made public? 

'Yes' to reviewing how this has succeeded. As Claire just touched on, I think this was a really innovative programme, because it has definitely accelerated investment in this space. It's been very successful in that way and it has genuinely led to a proper partnership approach to it. Every time that we've opened another one of these major schemes, it has always been the local authorities with Welsh Government and other partners, contractors, local jobs created, standing together and saying—. But we do need to review it overall before we decide where we go next. By the way, we can still take schemes forward, it's just that this was a real, ‘Into the space, let's really drive forward the investment.’

All the schemes that we've taken forward through the CRMP scheme were developed using the Welsh Government's flood coastal erosion risk management business case guidance. That's a mouthful, but essentially this guidance runs alongside Welsh Government and Treasury approaches, what's familiarly known as the Green Book approach, the HM Treasury better business cases approach for public sector business cases. That's another mouthful.

So, that's the way we've done the assessment of them as they've all gone on, but we will, of course, as CRMP comes to conclusion, review now how effective it has been, why it has ended up in a situation that is not uncommon, I have to say, in terms of some public building projects at the moment, that we've seen sometimes more complexity, more costs without a doubt, and to review, 'Well, what does that mean for what we do next?' But it is undoubtedly the case, I have to say, that this shouldn't be the end of investment in this type of area, but it's worth doing that overall review to say, ‘Right, where do we go next? What lessons have we learned?’ But it has been a massive success in terms of developing these schemes.

Thank you. And then, during the lifetime of the programme, has the Welsh Government turned down any bids from local authorities for schemes that met the programme criteria because of a lack of funding?

No, not to do with a lack of funding—categorically, not to do with a lack of funding. As we've mentioned, the CRMP scheme was time limited, so that we could actually concentrate delivery. This was a thing of saying to local authorities, 'Right, here we have an opportunity to really accelerate investment in this space.' So, schemes that didn't materialise, they didn't materialise either because they didn't meet the eligibility criteria, or they couldn't commence construction by the time that we'd set to say, 'Let's get on with it', which was March 2024.

How long is that timescale? 

We're coming to the conclusion of it now, but we had a March 2024 deadline for submission of schemes, so some—. Every local authority had the opportunity to put cases forward. Some were not able to meet that deadline, or just didn't meet the criteria of the scheme as well there. However, they could continue those through normal business case planning, through, for example, the wider capital programme we have. So, there are still ways forward and, as I say, where we go next, well, that'll be up to us looking at the scheme and what we and what a next Government will bring forward. But none were turned down for lack of funding. It was eligibility criteria or whether they could bring the business case forward on time. Sorry, Claire.

Just really briefly, there was one local authority, for example, that had a scheme where they were not able to meet the 15 per cent component that they needed to pay for. So, they didn't proceed with their scheme. You could argue that was lack of funding, but it wasn't within the scheme; it was the local authority's contribution. But they've put that scheme forward into the normal capital programme to be progressed in that manner. Obviously, some of the schemes are very large, so that isn't necessarily appropriate for them, but in that particular example, that's how that one's being progressed.

Okay, thanks. 

Diolch yn fawr. We've got about half an hour left, and I think we're only just about halfway through the areas we wanted to cover. So, we might need to keep that in mind as we ask our questions and as the Minister responds. So, Julie.

My questions are about the circular economy. We know that there's a decrease in the circular economy capital allocation, and I think you've said that that is because of lack of demand from the local authorities. Does this mean that you will actually achieve your goals because of that lack of demand?

I don't think it should knock us off track. We've had some real practical issues that have come up. For example, Neath Port Talbot and Rhondda Cynon Taf wanted to invest in a supply of new vehicles. They've hit some delays with that, so it's knocked their investment profile off on that. There are other projects, quite complex projects. So, for example, there's one in Carmarthenshire that requires an upgrade related to the road network next to a facility that needs upgrading. It's hit complexities there that have delayed that.

So, what we've got in the budget reflects what we've currently got in the pipeline, and what we're anticipating. But I have no concerns whatsoever about either the commitment of local authorities to this, or driving this overall agenda forwards. It's just the complexity of this, and the pipeline of things coming forward. We've got real opportunities in this space—we really do. So, I'm quietly confident that we can achieve the ambitions we have in the circular economy space, and we can bring these projects through. But, sometimes, you get slightly knocked ajar by those unforeseen things about delivering the projects.

So, you're not concerned about the ambition.

No, absolutely, and I think we need to maintain that ambition as well because we are, again, probably more advanced in this policy space than our colleagues in England. It's great that they're focusing now on the circular economy, but we've been in the space for a while. So, we need to keep on working with local authority partners and others to drive forward on this; we keep that ambition.

Right—

Can I just—? I'm sorry, I thought you'd finished. 

No, I'm going on to another subject. 

Okay. That circular economy, you mentioned Carmarthen, and I've been in that space—I think I wrote to you about it. It offers a real opportunity, not just for Carmarthenshire, but also Ceredigion and Pembrokeshire, because it's a very wide scheme. Are you keeping them appraised of the work that's being done? I know it's complicated, I know exactly where it is, but I also see the massive investment that could be made back into that circular economy.

Yes, entirely. We keep really close engagement with local authorities on this, through my officials, on all the projects that are being brought forward. Because what we want to do is support them in bringing these projects forward, even if they do sometimes have complications at a local level, because it is so integral to our ambitions as a nation within the circular economy space. But we can't do this as Welsh Government alone; it's with those partners. So, we keep very closely involved with them. 

What assessment have you made of the impact of extended producer responsibility payments? What effect is that going to have on the Welsh Government funding required for local authorities for waste management?

There are a couple of important things to say on this. First, the EPR will bring additional funding in. I wouldn't want to see that impact on Welsh Government funding into this space. The EPR brings real potential for additionality in getting funding to local authorities.

The second thing I want to say on that is that we're laser-focused as the Welsh Government on making sure that the funding that is drawn from EPR and the polluter-pays principle goes to rewarding and incentivising the right behaviour—so, those authorities that are investing in efficient waste management, et cetera. Those payments go to drive forward performance. They're not just handouts of cash, they're going to authorities who are set on doing more within improving their performance, or to those authorities who want to drive up where they're not succeeding already.

Within the Welsh Government, what comes through EPR, and in our discussions with local authorities and with the UK Government, is getting those payments designed rightly so that they go to the right space and the right local authorities, not just a more random doling out of additional funds.

So, each is analysed on that basis.

It's very much on that basis. It's important that this fully recognises both the excellence that many of our local authorities are currently doing, but also that it goes towards efficient, effective management of packaging by local authorities. That's what it needs to be focused on. And it is an interesting discussion, because we know we've got some really well-performing local authorities, we've also got local authorities in Wales who want to do more.

We want to make sure that, working with them, EPR funding that comes down on top of Welsh Government funding is designed to keep on driving up their performance, and we can see how that actually, tangibly, is demonstrated in what it's being used for within those local authorities. And I'm not saying anything out of turn here; every local authority knows, from every discussion I've had with them, that this is the joint mission we're on. It's about driving up performance.

You could look at this funding as, 'Well, isn't this nice that we've got some cash coming down to local authorities—hey, that's great'. No. We are second in the world on recycling; we need to now do more with this money to actually drive up standards in that overall resource efficiency.

Thank you. And then finally from me, the deposit-return scheme. What are the financial implications of your decision to align implementation with the rest of the UK, and will it still be happening in October 2027?

Yes. We're on track for the October 2027 launch. As you know, we've accelerated our implementation to align timescales with the rest of the UK so that, with the UK, we can jointly move forward, but we move forward still in that space with DRS with reuse. The funding of this for the DRS is from our existing programme budget, so we've factored that in. And yes, we're looking forward to the opportunities that will arise from this—once again, Wales leading in this space.

So no additional financial implications.

No. It's factored in within our existing budget. And yes, that October 2027, we're looking forward to launching at that point.

Thank you.

Okay. We'll move on to Carolyn.

[Inaudible.]—regarding biodiversity. The biodiversity and evidence budget expenditure line allocations have decreased in resource by 3.9 per cent and capital by 8 per cent. Where exactly within the BEL are these reductions happening, and why, and what impact do you think this will have on tackling the nature emergency?

In terms of the BEL allocations on biodiversity and evidence, it's important to say that this isn't a reduction overall. We've got £0.5 million revenue and £1 million capital that's been moved to—. This is the BELs within the MEGs, so I have to get my head around this, Chair. Bear with me. So, £0.5 million revenue, £1 million capital has been moved to BEL 2802, alongside soil policy and plant health functions, just reflecting internally the team structures. This also funds the national peatland action programme, which has continued into 2026-27, which also moves to BEL 2802. The point I'm trying to make is, in the complexity of BEL allocations, there's no budget reduction for biodiversity. These are internal transfers within BEL allocations within the overall MEG. So, there's no budget reduction for biodiversity, but I can understand why it looks like it within that one allocation. It's just it's in different places.

Okay. We might need a note just to help us out with that, please. A recent 30x30 progress report suggests that Wales is projected to miss the global target by some way. Wales Environment Link has called for an investment of £438 million a year to restore nature in line with global targets, highlighting that this would be less than 2 per cent of the Welsh Government's budget, and entirely possible. How would you respond to that?

First of all, I think it's worth saying that we do acknowledge that Wales—we're not alone in this—like other UK nations, is still short of that target. We need to accelerate the work that we're doing on this. We do welcome the 30x30 progress report. The figures in the report are not official figures, but we do recognise the challenge within what they're saying. We're working with NRW to develop a robust baseline of what counts towards 30x30, so that we can really bottom this out.

It is worth saying that to achieve that 30x30 we're continuing to invest. For example, there's the Nature Networks programme investment that we're doing, which is significant, the sustainable farming scheme—let's be under no misapprehensions, that's going to be key in delivering 30x30. Just to remind the committee, 10 per cent of each farm will be managed as habitat, which wasn't there before, every farm that's in this. We've put a lot of effort into designing a scheme that is accessible to all, provides choice, but also allows those farmers to do those things—10 per cent of habitat, just within the universal layer. Those farmers are going to play a crucial role.

But also, under the SFS, of course, there can be targeted and landscape-scale action to enhance habitats with those optional and collaborative layers as well. We're also, as we touched on earlier, very much in the space now of increasing the scale and pace of action with diversifying funding. That could be funding that are community-led initiatives, philanthropic giving, private sector funding, but within the guardrails I've described.

Finally on this, it's worth reflecting back on the report that you brought forward last year as a committee on halting and reversing the loss of biodiversity. You set out clearly the scale of investment needed. We will keep on investing within the Welsh Government in this space, including in the design of schemes like the SFS as well. But we agree with your recommendation: we need to do more with getting more money into this, and I think that is helping to shape the nature finance framework, which I talked about earlier on.

You mentioned the Nature Networks fund. I know it's been heavily oversubscribed, and environmental groups are asking for an uplift for it to increase what they can do. They've also asked if delivery of it could be extended to over five years as well.

The Local Places for Nature funding as well has been really well received, and without that money, local authorities would not be able to do the work they do. It's helped employ biodiversity officers, ecologists and other people, bringing in community volunteers as well. If we don't engage with people and communities, they won't understand the benefits of nature, and I think that's really important going forward. So, I just want to make sure that that is there and protected going forward.

I agree with you, and we've tried to do that within this budget. The Nature Networks fund we do see as a key component of the Nature Networks programme and the work that we're doing towards the 30x30 commitments as well.

I do note some of the calls out there for things such as larger grants, or longer timescales, and so on, but I am working within the constraints of a budget where we've got lots of priorities. If we did, within this particular aspect, go for larger grants, of a longer timescale, it would mean that we had fewer of those grants going out to fewer organisations out there, in fewer places. So, I do get that tension. And if I had more funding, we could do even more.

But, saying that, we will continue to put that investment in the Nature Networks fund, and the national peatland action programme as well, which is related to this. And alongside the SFS, we need to see these as all of a piece in trying to drive forward on our biodiversity commitments and 30x30. 

Just to say, the Nature Networks fund is actually oversubscribed. That could be seen as a negative. I see it as a positive. We've got a real demand out there. What we do need to do, though, within the budget constraints that we have, is maximise the number of projects that receive funding. So, I don't want to narrow that down and say, 'Let's put larger dollops out to fewer'. Let's make sure that we get a real big impact here, widely across Wales. But that alignment with SFS and other programmes, I think, is going to be critical as well—not seeing them all in silos, but what are they jointly doing to lift us towards 30x30.

I agree with you. That's why I want to make sure that the Local Places for Nature funding is also protected. It has created 4,000 places for nature—allotments, community orchards, therapeutic gardens, in cities, in communities. And it's drawing down so many volunteers as well. So, I agree that we also need to have funding for those smaller schemes as well, going forward, under the Local Places for Nature fund. 

It's a constant discussion Claire and I have. I think, probably, it's often our biggest postbag. One of the things that gets most spoken about in this space tends to be Local Places for Nature, with MSs very often, and community groups as well. 

I don't think it's communicated so well with the greater non-governmental organisations, about all that work that's going on. And my concern as well is if they don't see biodiversity improving—. It's not because of a lack of trying either; there are other impacts such as climate change as well. But I just feel, going forward—and we're going to have a new Government as well—we need to make sure that money keeps going into biodiversity, and to the nature emergency as well. So, we need to keep that going and keep that there. 

How does the draft budget reflect the costs anticipated to develop domestic biodiversity targets, which are conditional on the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill passing? We need to make sure that gets passed. So, your views on that, please.

This is built into the budget. The work is supported by a research fellow and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. We've got costs included to support the biodiversity targets advisory panel, which includes that independent expert advice as well. Those targets we come up with—and I've made this point repeatedly—need to be robust, aligned with global commitments, and practically implementable as well. 

The draft budget sets out the work required for the development of those targets, and that includes scenario modelling, the development of indicators, evaluation and monitoring as well. All of that is reflected within the budget. It's worth pointing out, though, Carolyn, that there will need be an additional impact assessment, alongside the secondary legislation, when the targets are set, so this will probably be in a future budget.

The environment sector says that the UK Government's reprofiling of the levelling-up fund and shared prosperity fund is an opportunity to create a replacement for the EU LIFE fund. What are your views on that, and are you making representations to the UK Government to reinstate a UK nature restoration fund to replace EU LIFE?

We're always very keen to explore additional funding through any mechanisms, and we have that regular dialogue with the UK Government on these matters. Those representations were made to the previous UK Government in terms of the EU LIFE programme, which is a great programme, but there was no positive response to that. So, what we're doing now is making those representations on the wider settlements to Wales and the wider investment in Wales. And then we make our decisions then based on the uplifts and the allocations we have. So, I genuinely can't say to you that we're going to have a successor to the EU LIFE programme suddenly appearing on a UK basis. That isn't going to happen. I'd be entirely surprised. What we can do is keep arguing for greater uplifts in the overall budget, and then you and I and the committee can have these discussions on where does that go within the different MEGs within Government and how much of it comes within this particular MEG. So, we'll keep on having those discussions. We had that £1.6 billion uplift in the last budget. We need to keep on asking for this and more, going forward.

Thank you. I think question 25 has been covered already, Chair.

Okay, well, we'll move on to Joyce then, shall we? Joyce, do you want to come in at this point?

Yes, thank you. I want to ask you if you can give an update on the Welsh Government investing in ecological skills, including nature service Wales.

Yes, absolutely. There's a wide piece of investment that we do in what could be termed ecological skills. And we already do it. So, for example, if you look at the most recent nature workforce survey that was carried out, there were just short of 1,200 people who reported that they were engaged in nature recovery across Wales. Seven hundred said they were employed by a range of organisations—that myriad of organisations that are out there in Wales—each responsible for staff training and development. Welsh Government supports skill development in quite a wide range of ways—so, we provide annual funding to bodies such as national parks, local authorities, NRW. We can't individually identify spending specifically on something called 'ecological skills staff'—there isn't a budget line that says that—but all the funding that we put into these organisations goes also towards skills development.

So, for example, within Welsh Government we have nature wise training. That provides staff with knowledge and tools to address biodiversity programmes, taking them through to development and delivery in programmes in Government. The numerous Welsh Government grant-funded projects in the third sector actually support paid staff and unpaid staff and volunteers. One example of this has just been referred to, curiously. So, the £10 million Nature Networks fund supports the creation of a countryside skills hub within that space as well. We also support the Natur am Byth programme. That's £200,000 annually, led by NRW, in partnership with environmental charities in Wales—nine environmental charities. That's created, I think, in excess of 20 jobs and trainee schemes and also promoted citizen science within this space as well.

Local Places for Nature—that's around 150 jobs. That also includes, of course, professionalisation through networks, skills training in local communities. Beyond that 150 jobs, we're talking about something like 14,000 volunteers through that Local Places for Nature as well, and that has definitely increased, if you like, ecological literacy and skills within it.

We also, in another space within my portfolio, have allocated £11 million a year for what's called the knowledge exchange Farming Connect programme. So, it's part of the Farming Connect family, if you like, but it's specifically on ecology-based training for farmers on sustainable land management practices. So, there are over 12,000 farm businesses registered with the programme.

Now the nature service doesn't have a formal link to Welsh Government. It's interesting what they're doing, and it could be quite exciting, but that's been brought forward by the Food, Farming and Countryside Commission. So, that will no doubt add to this as well there. But, in the Welsh Government budget space, we've got lines that definitely enhance skills and training within what you described as this approach of ecological skills. But there isn't a budget line that says 'ecological skills'; it's just a lot of things that we do.

And also in hard infrastructure too, which we never capture. And I think that Aberaeron is a good example of that building, and it's now finished. 

Yes, very much.

I look forward to seeing you there in the future. 

Yes. And you're absolutely right, because some of those—. Whether it's hard engineering or it's the £2 million that we've put in to natural processes, all of that, that flood-management piece—this is the integrated piece—means that we are developing skills on the ground for things like re-engineering watercourses and rivers. I would define those as ecological skills. 

Yes, so would I. I have to move on, because I'm getting the eye from the Chair—the evil eye. [Laughter.]

Can I just come in for a minute, very quickly?

Sorry, Joyce. Carolyn wants to come in.

Yes, can I come in quickly?

Very briefly.

Can I just say—? Okay. The Deputy First Minister then just listed loads of jobs there, thousands of jobs that are in green skills that don't seem to be registered anywhere, it sounded like. So, we talk about industry, jobs et cetera, but these are green jobs, so we need to make sure that they're recorded, so that, when we quote what jobs we have in Wales, people know. So, I just wanted to make sure we noted that.

Yes, we'll note it. Thank you, Carolyn. That's an important point to make. Joyce. 

It is an important point, as is the next one. We've had huge investment, significant investment, in seagrass restoration, and we'd like to know where that is in this budget, but also where money is being provided to support the development of the salt marsh action plan and when we expect that to be published.

Thank you, Joyce. On the seagrass space, we've allocated within the 2024-25 budget an additional £100,000, as you know, for funding for Seagrass Network Cymru to take forward their action plan. That funding was for 2024 to 2026. Now, part of that funding has been used to recruit a dedicated programme manager who's now leading the delivery of the plan, and it's great to see that under way. We had a massive event down here—a national UK event, including with international visitors—in Techniquest recently, hosting work that's going on there. So, all those structures and work streams now for the national action plan are fully in place, and activity is already under way.

We're also working on an ongoing basis now with Seagrass Network Cymru, so we're identifying now funding opportunities and requirements for 2026-27. We haven't agreed the funding yet, but we're considering it, and we're considering it within the available 2026-27 draft budget for the marine delivery plan as well. Now, part of the funding that we've already got in place has commissioned a consultant to assess the possibilities of long-term financing as well, because one of the things, working with the national Seagrass Cymru Network, is trying to get it on that footing, where we're also planning for where is the next bit of funding and how can we expand the funding as well, and that could include to come back to that issue of green, really ethical green private investment as well.

On the salt marsh one, this is really quite exciting, what's emerging in this space. We have, in the budget, allocated—. We allocated, in 2025-26, £30,000 to the development of the salt marsh Cymru action plan. So, this means that it's established the foundations now for a proper—a bit like the seagrass piece—co-ordinated strategic approach to salt marsh restoration across Wales. So, there'll be a report on that, on progress from the initial funding, in the spring of next year—I think it'll be in March of next year—including a timeline and then the next steps for progressing that plan. That plan is, if you like, almost emerging in the same way that the seagrass plan did, and it's at that step, a couple of steps behind, but quite exciting. That project will identify and initiate funding pathways to sustain that momentum going forward. And there are other funding opportunities through other Welsh Government grant schemes. So, the marine protected area network management grant scheme could support some of the actions within that as well. So, yes, the salt marsh one is quite an exciting one, and it's moving ahead in development because of the money that we've put into it in 2025-26, and we're looking forward to the next stages now as well.

Okay. And that's good news, because those two—the seagrass and the salt marsh—have such ability for carbon capture, for sustaining our waterways, and, quite frankly, we wouldn't exist if we didn't have that seagrass, because the seas would warm up so much. I just can't overstate it. And I hope those young people are being inspired to look at seagrass when they go back to school and see what it means for them, because it's their future.

So, finally, on environmental governance, the regulatory impact assessment for the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill—just a small title—estimates additional costs for the establishment of the new environmental governance body of £2.81 million in 2026 and £2.42 million in 2027. Could you say how that's been incorporated into the draft budget?

Yes, indeed. So, this is ongoing work. So, as the legislation comes forward, we're also anticipating where the costs will lie. So, the implementation of the Office of Environmental Governance Wales—I know, Chair, that you had a different, more catchy phrase, for this—the OEGW, is currently under way and the timelines and the cost estimates are being developed beyond that which we published already within the existing regulatory impact assessment. So, the 2025-26 costs for this work are being met from the environment legislation and implementation, governance and communications budget expenditure line, no. 2812 within the climate change and rural affairs part of it. So, that's in place. We've also established a central team now, focused on implementation within the directorate, so they're putting in place the systems and the processes for the new bodies that we're creating.

Just to say, as well, it may be of interest to the committee at this stage that that central implementation team is looking at what we take forward from the environment et cetera legislation, but also how we take forward the work that we've touched on before with the disused tips body and the office of environmental governance. But also, the proposal for a new national park in north Wales also reports into the programme board, but that's at a much earlier stage as well. So, yes, work is ongoing within the OEGW, but other interesting work is going on as well.

Yes. We were inspired by one of your earlier questions, and if it's of help to the committee—

Yes, please, yes.

—we can confirm that the NRW repayment goes into my MEG. 

I appreciate the dramatic pause. [Laughter.]

There we are, good. Okay, well, thank you for that clarity.