National Assembly for Wales

Could I nominate Delyth Jewell, please?

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Cadeirydd. I'm going to turn first of all to Claire, and then I'll introduce Gian Marco. Claire.

I'm Claire Bennett, and I'm the director of climate change and environmental sustainability, Welsh Government.

And Gian Marco.

Bore da. Gian Marco Currado, rural affairs director, Welsh Government.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. You're all very welcome. I'll go straight into questions, if that's all right. We'll focus firstly on tree planting and woodland creation. Could I ask when you think we'll see a step change in tree-planting rates in Wales, please?

We will see a step change in tree planting; the question is the trajectory. Just to make clear, we've already got in place, we're keeping in place, our woodland creation grants for the small grant woodland creation scheme and the woodland creation grant. We've also made changes to these, so that they're more flexible and more attractive, easier to access, supporting a range of different tree planting as well, including, by the way, agroforestry. So, yes, it's the right tree in the right place, yes, it's trees for shading, for the benefit of livestock and so on, but it is also extending up to what we've recently announced within our timber industrial strategy, so agroforestry plays a role as well.

So, within the—. You'll have some interest as a committee in the work we're doing within the sustainable farming scheme on this. As you know, back in November, we said we would set an outline scheme target now, rather than an individual per farm target, but that work is being underpinned by a new group we've established, which is working really well. So, the tree—. It's got a long title, but essentially, we know it in shorthand as the trees and hedges group, which are tasked with setting out targets for both new trees, but also for new hedgerow creation as well, as well as strengthening the existing hedgerows and so on. But that group has a life within the sustainable farming scheme, but it goes beyond SFS—it's important to note that.

So, that group will continue its work because we're still committed to the ongoing target of 43,000 hectares by 2030. It's hugely ambitious; it's a high, high target, but we should set our aim at that, and, of course, beyond that, what we need to do in the decade beyond as well. So, we do need to have the step change; we're trying to work through that group now to say what the trajectory will be. Do we go very early and steep? Do we have a more level line towards doing it? That's the discussion we're currently in.

I'll bring in Carolyn and then Joyce. Carolyn.

May I ask who's on that group—what representation you have?

Yes, we can actually—. I think we can probably share the list with you; we don't have it to hand with us today. But within that group, there are landowners, land managers, farmers, but there are also environmental groups, the Woodland Trust—all of those organisations are on there as well. It's a really wide representative group, and it's informed by the advice that we have from the climate change commission, but it's also working with the practicalities. So, one of the things that that group is looking at is not only what the targets should be, but how we take away the barriers. We know we've got significant barriers in Wales, we're coming from a relatively low base, and culturally a low base of understanding of the benefits of woodland creation. So, part of this is to try and understand—well, it's not understanding; we know what the barriers are—how do we take down those barriers, both within the SFS, but also beyond that. So, what can we do—? For example, some of the discussions I have with Claire on a regular basis and with Natural Resources Wales—what more can we do on the managed Welsh Government woodland estate and beyond that? What role is there for private and commercial organisations like Tilhill and others, who are already out there planting and creating jobs in Wales, to go further? Where do they access the land to do this? Is it non-productive farmland? Is it somewhere else within the periphery of our Welsh Government woodland estate? But, yes—. So, the membership is very good, very diverse and should help us. They're going to be difficult conversations because people have different levels of ambition, but we are being guided by our climate change imperatives on this, and the CCC is, of course, still there, pushing us hard.

Okay. Thank you. This is a very popular first question because I've got Joyce and Julie, so I'll go to Joyce.

Have you also looked at—good morning, Cabinet Secretary—using trees to prevent flooding where we know we're having land slips? I know you're doing a really good job along the riverbanks, and that's really important. And my other question is using willow as a crop, where it can be used locally and sustainably. It's a really good source of cheap, readily available—.

Yes, entirely, and I'm so glad you said that because these are the things that we need to work with landowners to say, 'There is potential here.' Woodland—. It's not an 'either/or' for farm and landowners' viability; in fact, we are convinced that you can enhance the viability of some of our, particularly stretched, farm businesses by diversifying to this. And we know—this is why we launched the timber industrial strategy—the demand is immense for timber. Now, it could be willow for multiple uses, it could be high-grade timber to actually produce construction materials and so on. And it's not in terms of displacing good, prime agricultural land, it's looking for those right parts on farmland, or on—not impacting on the biodiversity of the ffridd and so on—actually those areas that are good for timber production, not for other things.

So, we've done some great mapping already on the back of the Habitat Wales programme. Last year we said to farmers, 'Look, we've got really good mapping.' We had some pushback from farming unions saying, 'Well, it's not what we think when we walk the farms.' We said, 'Not a problem—without any fear or favour, just put your views in, on your farm basis, field by field, where you think our mapping is wrong on woodland.' So, we've enhanced it. So, we're in a really good position now to work with farmers to say, 'Where do you want to plant willow? Where do you want to do tree cover on rivers to cool down the temperature of the rivers? Where do you want to do it for livestock benefits and all of that as well?' But the challenge is huge because we're going from a relatively low base and, as is often said, a significant proportion of the land available for woodland creation in Wales is on farm land. Not farmed land—it's on farm land.

Thank you. And then Julie for the final supplementary on the first question.

Just very quickly, because you've touched on what I wanted to ask you about. You say we're on a low base. Is that relative to other countries? What is the low base? How do you describe it?

England and Wales are on a low base, and you can measure this in a number of ways. It's a lack of productive commercial woodland, but it's also the lack of tree cover overall. I'll turn to Claire in a moment, because the facts are quite compelling. It's also, I have to say, the significant amount that we import into the UK now, because we cannot produce our own timber. Claire.

I don't think there's too much to add from what you've already said, Deputy First Minister, but the scale of timber import that we make in the UK is very significant, and that has a really significant impact on global biodiversity and the exploitation of natural resources in that wider sense. So, the opportunity to substitute for that impact, but also to create good-quality, local jobs is really important, but it's finding the right locations for the right type of forestry or woodland activity. So, that's part of what the timber industrial strategy is trying to bring together, to get those multiple benefits.

Okay, thank you for that. 

Thank you. So, your target is to plant—

Janet, you're covering your camera.

Sorry. Your target is to plant 43,000 hectares of new trees by 2030, which works out at about 5,000 hectares per year, rising to 180,000 ha by 2050, which amounts to over 6,000 hectares per year, as recommended by the UK Climate Change Committee. Is this achievable or unachievable at current planting rates? And are you going to stick to that target?

I think it’s hugely stretching, but I think we are committed to working towards that target. The question is, Janet, whether we can not only put the incentives in place, but, as we mentioned earlier, it's breaking down the barriers to achieving that target. We cannot do this without the help of landowners and farmers, and it's not just going to fall on the Welsh Government forestry estate. So, are we committed to working towards those targets? Yes, we are—both the 2030 and 2050 targets. We're not walking away from that. Can we achieve them? It depends on working with others. This cannot just be Welsh Government alone. It will require landowners, the farming unions, and others to step up.

I can tell you, the demand is there for woodland. When I've been out at Maelor Forest Nurseries recently, one of the biggest nurseries in not just the UK, but probably in Europe, producing the seedlings for planting to develop not just fence posts, but construction-grade materials, they're crying out for land. They're absolutely crying out for land to plant trees within this country. They don't want us to be importing. But the question is, Janet: yes, we're committed to those targets, but can we achieve them? It's going to have to be a collective effort, but we're committed to working towards them.

Okay. And then the paper says the priority of the SFS trees and hedges stakeholder delivery group is tackling barriers to tree planting. What is the group looking at specifically, and when will it report?

They're working on it literally as we speak. It's been one of the asks of, not just the farming unions, but actually the environmental groups as well. It's not just a focus on the targets, but reducing the barriers. We've got a very good group of people—we touched on this earlier—who are part of this group, which goes above and beyond the SFS as well. Their minds are focused right now—they're working behind the scenes on the barriers. I don't know whether, Claire or Gian Marco, you want to touch on how they're looking at those barriers at the moment, because they’re lifted up, then, to the round-table as well, Janet.

I think they’re looking at everything from the funding rates, the way in which licensing or other regulation within the system operates, how you access expert support. There’s a whole range of topics they’re looking at. The group is guided by the lived experience of the people who are on the group, when they’ve been contemplating tree planting, there's commercial forestry also represented, and working through those issues collectively. So, there will be a mix of financial, regulatory and planning issues to work through.

Some things, as the Deputy First Minister has already referred to, we’ve taken action on, in terms of support for agroforestry, increasing the funding available for tree planting, et cetera, but no doubt there’ll be other things that will come out that we’ll need to reflect on. I think what they’re keen to do is not have some grand report at the end, but to be identifying issues, coming up with solutions, and seeing those implemented as soon as we practically can. I see it more as that action-orientated group, rather than someone who’s going to produce a report that we’ll then respond to. It’s not that kind of thing. It’s much more practical.

Have any discussions been held on the fact that, last year, we lost over 1,000 trees with the storms? I haven’t even looked at previous years, but this is happening on an annual basis now, where we’re losing ancient woodland; we’re also just losing trees, full stop. Is there a plan in place, at the end of the year, say, when you know that you’ve lost a significant amount? It’s all going to have an impact. What plan have you got in place for that?

Also, your predecessor said a woodland finance working group was looking at models to attract private investment that avoid disadvantaging our rural communities and disrupting existing patterns of land ownership. Is this work ongoing, or has it been completed? And if completed, what were the outcomes?

Thank you very much, Janet. There are two issues there. One is, yes, there was great damage, but it wasn’t just on NRW forestry estates; it was also on commercial forestry estates as well. This is why restocking and having a stability and a certainty with our woodland creation plans is important, which is why I’m stressing to you this morning as a committee our commitment to work towards those CCC targets, and also to put in place things like the timber industrial strategy, which gives those signals of, 'We are creating the market for this’, because that incentivises the commercial operators and NRW to replant.

This has real-time job implications and economic implications in Wales. This is not just we’re planting trees. The Maelor nurseries I mentioned need to know that all those people out there are going to be replanting to make up for the losses that we’ve had in the recent storms. And if we have more storms, we need to have that replanting going on continually, because you’re talking about the five, 10, 20 years of developing some of this woodland, particularly the commercial woodland. So, that’s the thinking that we need to do.

So, that structure is in place. What we need to do as Government is actually give the certainty and the confidence that we are aiming towards high targets and ambitious targets, and also that we’re working with the sector to encourage them to get on with replanting, on a regular basis, as well as when we’re impacted by storms.

You mentioned my predecessor’s comments on the woodland finance working group. I will say to the committee that my thinking, and our thinking, has moved on apace on this, and has probably gone a little bit beyond what that was. We’ve mentioned previously coming in front of the group that we consulted back in the autumn last year on sustainable investment principles. That also ties into work that we’ve been doing with the UK Government on the same piece of thinking as well, which can be in terms of woodland creation, but also in terms of wider nature investment as well. So, we’ve got good work going on on both sides of the border, and cross-border working as well.

We’re also working with the British Standards Institute. I don’t know if you've picked up on this, and maybe we can share some additional information with you, because we’ve been working with the BSI on, again, a piece on nature investment standards, which could encompass woodland creation as well, to make sure that, if we can lever in ethical investment into this space—. And I know there’s other draws on this, other interested areas that Claire and I have been talking about, things like Celtic rainforests, and so on and so forth. But in the wider woodland-creation space, then the BSI standards work can really help us to set that guidance for what we should expect of maintaining the benefits within local communities, not the old greenwashing stuff and the imposing on. So, getting that right. So, I think that our thinking has gone on beyond the woodland finance working group, which was looking at incentivising private investment coming into this space. I think we're in that line of thinking. 

The other thing I would come back to is that we know that the commercial investors out there that are already within Wales, of which there are quite a number, are desperately keen to invest more. What they need is land to do it. They're ready to invest, they're ready to plant, they're ready to grow timber, they just need willing partners. They are doing some interesting work, by the way, with landowners. They're trying to demonstrate to other farmers how this can work in practice. They're out there doing it. 

Thank you so much. If I could make an appeal to Members—well, to everyone. I'm afraid that we are more than a quarter of the way through our session and we've only covered one section on tree planting. All of this detail is incredibly useful, but if I could make a slight appeal for brevity, that would be incredibly useful, please. Janet, because of time, do you want to go straight to your next question, question 6?

Okay. Can you give us an update on your discussions with NRW around managing its timber income more effectively in the future, and what options are on the table? I ask this question simply because of the fact that I've had concerns raised with me that, when trees fall during a storm or whenever, they are often left for quite some considerable time and some of them end up rotting. There doesn't seem to be the ability there to get them up quickly and marketed. 

I'm just checking, could you hear that question?

Yes, I could. I can pick that up. Thanks, Janet. It leads on from the last question and, Chair, taking your dictum there for brevity, we have a new model in place, which helps to underwrite some of that volatility for NRW, recognising that different years will have fluctuations and volatility in prices, then we get impacted by storms. So, we've given a different funding model, which gives NRW a dedicated annual underwritten budget. It helps to smooth out some of those volatilities in the timber market. So, that will continue to remain in place now, going into the financial year ahead as well. Claire.

Really briefly, we've also been talking to NRW about the contractual arrangements they have for harvesting timber and how we can build in, I guess, more flexibility that can respond to storms and wind-blow, and just making sure that the contracts provide for that, recognising that this is likely to be something moving forward. So, we're in active discussions around that commercial aspect of how they undertake the work. 

Thank you for that. 

Just one more thing about the tree planting: I'm a bit concerned regarding the management of some of the NRW estates when they do clear felling. I'd rather if they could look at continuous cover forestry when they're doing clear felling of larch. It's causing issues with flooding. So, I just wanted you take that back to them because I wasn't able to raise it in the session with them. 

Yes.

Although I ran after them to try to. 

NRW told us that it was in discussion with Welsh Government officials around building a case for investment in NRW to inform the next spending review. They've been building their case for change, haven't they, and are concerned, going forward, regarding the spending review. What discussions have you had with the UK Government in relation to this?

We are anticipating that we will be able to see coming forward from the UK Government the ability to do multi-year settlements. We're not in discussion with the UK Government on that. Clearly, we're having official-to-official talks, but our understanding is that we may be in that more beneficial situation where we can actually talk about multi-year settlements. What that is doing—it's not a question of engaging with the UK Government on that, it's anticipating that, and I think that we have a reasonable anticipation of it. That can help to inform our internal discussions within the Welsh Government about how we handle that. So, that would make it a deal easier, I have to say, for us in Welsh Government and for NRW as well, if we could deliver multi-annual settlements.

We've had correspondence regarding the outdoor leisure centres, and some of our question was regarding that and the handling of it with NRW, and as Chair of the Petitions Committee as well we've had lots of correspondence. I feel like it's not been handled very well—there was very little communication and empathy with the people involved, the communities involved. If you want to take them over, there needs to be, I feel, better engagement. I was concerned about the understanding as well for Ynyslas—they're saying they're closing the retail side of it, the food and retail offer, but it is actually a nature reserve. They felt they struggled to get that across to NRW, and when we questioned them, they felt like there was very little empathy and understanding of that. So, I wanted to raise that here.

Thank you for that. I’m sure NRW will be hearing this as well. Just to give you that reassurance, I have regular discussions with NRW, and we’ve raised this matter of effective communication on what is and what is not happening.

In terms of Ynyslas, just to tell you that I think there is an understanding that the staff who are there at Ynyslas have probably gone above and beyond actually what they’re contracted to do. They’ve also offered advice and signposting and nature advice and so on. But there is no intention whatsoever to withdraw from the nature conservancy aspects, the biodiversity aspects, the role that they have out there in the landscape around Ynyslas.

What they have found necessary to do in the consultation, on which they’ve engaged with the unions and presented to the board, is step back, as you know, from the food and catering and retail side, simply in order to focus on their statutory duties. But I think your point is well made around the communication and the openness with local people who are really concerned about, ‘Well, what’s the future then for the nature side and the members of staff there as well?’ NRW will be hearing this, as we are, and we do engage with them on this when we hear it from committee members and others.

Thank you. Julie.

I just want to support what Carolyn has said about this, because I’ve been approached by Ynyslas and there was a feeling that there was no recognition of the actual work that they were doing. I have heard what you’ve said, and NRW will have heard, but it does seem to be an unsatisfactory situation.

I think they’re going to need to keep on that level of communication with local people, because they have a real intention to do what is right, particularly for the nature conservancy around Ynyslas. It is the catering and retail stuff that they’re stepping back from. And I have to say that, with the financial constraints that they’re under, that’s probably the right thing to do—to focus on NRW’s core roles. But in doing so, the sensitivity of dealing with the local community and the sensitivity of dealing with existing staff members is what they have to navigate.

I don’t envy the role that they've gone through, neither do I envy the staff who have been in the midst of this, but I would just encourage them—I'm saying this publicly in front of the committee, as I’ve said to NRW directly—to keep engaging with local communities and staff as they transition here. I’m hopeful as well, by the way, as NRW are, that on the catering and retail side of things, there will be the opportunity for others to step in and provide that, because I know that is one of the added-value pieces for visitors and for local people within it. But their focus on the conservation and the biodiversity and the natural processes will continue regardless.

That's useful to have that on the record. I'm afraid we're going to have to move on.

They want to outsource the car parking to possibly NCP or another private provider. I'm not sure whether you can have an influence over that, but if whoever's taking over can manage the car park for the sustainability of that centre, it's really important. I did make that point and I hope they're taking it forward. Thank you. 

That's useful. That's on the record.

I'm sorry, but my hearing's not great today. Moving on to the sustainable farming scheme, I think you already mentioned the UK Climate Change Committee and the new approaches that you've got, but have they given you any assessment of whether the proposals are sufficient to meet recommended tree planting targets?

No, because we haven't finished the design of the scheme yet—it's as simple as that. We've made very clear that nothing is finished on this until we sign off the entirety of it. So, we’ve still got the economic modelling that underpins it, the individual element of financing as well, so they don’t have anything to comment on yet. We’ve only got the outline. But I’m sure they will, and we’ll welcome their feedback when they do. But I come back to my starting position: the trees and hedgerows group—shorthand—that we’ve established, which is working on this above and beyond the SFS, we expect—. Their starting point is that we know where the CCC advice is.

I’m going to throw you a curve ball now. In terms of the hedgerows, are you linking in with planning when it comes to housing? Because all too often, we see some rather wonderful hedgerows being removed—I would argue unnecessarily so—to build houses, and then one or two trees of some description being put in their stead, and the reason is, quite frankly, just to clear a site to maximise profit. So, are you having any discussions with planning, influencing the destruction of really well-established ancient hedgerows? I’m just asking the question.

Listen, we’re happy to take that away from you, Joyce, and engage with the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government, but the SFS does have an impact on that where it’s on farmland, because within the design of the scheme, within the universal actions, which are the entry level for all farmers, that has the maintenance and improvement of existing hedgerows; in the optional level, it’s the extension of those by a massive amount of kilometres that we have ambition for, which the trees and hedgerows group is working through. So, the SFS does have an impact on that, because where it’s on farmland, condition of entry to the scheme is actually that you maintain your existing hedgerows, and there are options to go even further. But, Gian Marco.

I don't think there's anything more I can add to that.

Okay, I’m going to ask about your confidence that farmers will sign up to the optional actions to plant trees, when we know that there’s been significant opposition to tree planting requirements, and we felt them here particularly last year.

Yes, and I’ve got to say, the opposition isn’t from every farmer. There are farmers out there who really want to get into planting more trees. Some of them want to do it because they absolutely get the climate resilience piece here that they can see. We’ve said it before in front of this committee: there is a clear win of 10 per cent increased productivity on your livestock, sheep and cattle, by actually using natural shelter from the right tree in the right place within your pastureland. It doesn’t make worse your productivity; it improves the productivity of your livestock rearing. Some want to get into it because they can see it as a way to diversify their business, so in years when the beef price goes down or the exports aren’t as good and so on, actually, the timber provides a part of the stability of it. So, it’s not that every farmer is opposed; it certainly isn’t, far from it.

Do we have confidence? I have confidence that what we will bring forward will provide not only an accessible scheme for farmers, but also something that will meet the ambition of many farmers to go further, to do more.

But to come back to the earlier point we had, this isn’t just to do with targets; it’s taking down the barriers, and some of those barriers are perceptual, cultural barriers: 'We're farmers, not tree growers.' Now, a lot of farmers get the fact that they also grow trees, but we’ve got to demonstrate, show by mentor to mentor, show by schemes that are on the ground where you’ve got tree-planting organisations working with farmers in Monmouth, whether they’re commercial or charitable organisations and so on, that this works, and then we can ramp up.

So, am I confident? Yes, because I think we’ve got a willing audience, but we need to do our bit through Farming Connect, through the support that we’re doing, the financial support, but also demonstrating to people that this is part and parcel of land management, not either/or, food or woodland. This is not unusual in other European countries, but it’s not been our convention here.

But it sounds to me as if that approach is going to take forever. If you're talking about a one-by-one approach, there are only so many staff that can go around each farm, so that just raises concern, I'm sure, by others—

Not forever. I mentioned earlier on that one of the things that the trees and hedgerows group is looking at, which is—. And I keep stressing this: this is integral to the SFS and landing it, but the trees and hedgerows group will go above and beyond it, and has a lifespan that will keep on going. One of the things that they're looking at is the trajectory that we embark upon, recognising the CCC ambitions and the barriers that we've got, including those cultural barriers. Do we head in a direct line for that? Do we invest early with a high level of ambition for the next three or four years, which will be more stretching in terms of those cultural barriers, and then even out a bit? Do we go a bit lower and then ramp up? Now, I don't know the answer to that yet, but that's what they're working through, but it won't be forever, because we have to actually get to those targets. The question is how we get there: a straight line, early investment, or slightly slower and ramp up?

Okay—

Can I add something, perhaps, to that as well? The Deputy First Minister is spot on. The things we're going to sit around it as well are some farm-level controls, so we will have an obligation for all farmers to create their opportunity plan, and that is very much a farmer-led process that will allow them to look at their farm and see where they can plant more trees, or where they can extend their hedgerows. They will have to make progress on that plan within the first scheme period, and if they don't, there is a potential that payments will be at risk.

We'll then have some scheme-level controls, which the Deputy First Minister has touched on, which will sit alongside that governance mechanism to be able to review, at scheme level, what progress has been made. Are there some obvious things, some systemic things, that we need to look at, et cetera? So, a lot of this is about encouraging farmers to look at trees as a positive contribution to their farm business, but there will also be some controls and some processes to make sure that there is progress, because, as the Deputy First Minister said, the overarching context are targets and ambitions that we have that we need to meet.

That's useful. I'm going to bring Janet in, before I come back to Joyce. Janet.

You say in your paper—[Inaudible.]

Janet, I think that there might be a problem with your sound. Can you get closer to the microphone? Do you want to try again?

Can you hear me?

Yes, we can hear you if you're there. Yes, that's good.

So, you're saying in your paper that the universal actions will be familiar to farmers in Wales, as they are actions many of them actually do take on a daily basis. To what extent, then, is the SFS going beyond the basic payment scheme in terms of environmental management, and can you provide us with some examples?

Did you get that?

Yes.

Yes, okay.

Are you struggling to hear me?

Yes, we're struggling, Janet.

Yes, a little bit. To what extent is it going beyond—?

The basic payment scheme in terms of environmental management.

We are trying to design the scheme so that it is familiar, and some of that is to do with the administrative approaches we're taking as well, so basing it on existing things like Rural Payments Wales, which farmers will be familiar with. So, rather than creating wholly new structures and saying, 'Here's a whole lot of new hoops you have to leap through', they'll be familiar with the systems that underpin it.

However, it goes beyond where we currently are with the BPS. I can give you some examples, although I might turn to Gian Marco as well there. So, for example, there's no requirement in the basic payment scheme to drive on-farm business efficiency. What we're doing within this is there is benchmarking to monitor and improve performance and efficiencies. So, we've got benchmarking within it.

We've got, for example, the universal layer, which brings all farmers up—all farmers—so not just, as we've previously had, farmers who go into Habitat Wales, for example, or higher level agri-environment schemes, but everybody will be required to be brought up to a certain level who enters this scheme, and then with the optional collaborative layers taking them further as well. The habitat management aspects within this, maintaining and managing habitat in good condition to create habitat to meet the proposed 10 per cent minimum, go far beyond the habitat requirement that's currently in BPS. Alongside those habitat actions, we've got requirements, for example, for those farmers who have overlap with SSSIs, sites of special scientific interest, to have a management plan with Natural Resources Wales. That's a huge step forward in terms of going beyond BPS.

So, actually, this will be very familiar to farmers in terms of the systems and the admin and the approach, but actually it goes beyond BPS in terms of biodiversity and nature, even at that universal level. What it also gives then is a pathway for those who want to go further, into the optional and collaborative.

Thank you for that, we'll go back— 

Thank you.

Okay. Diolch, Janet. We'll go back to Joyce.

Going on to—. You've moved several universal actions to the optional tier, which you've just mentioned. So, what assessment have you made of the impact of not mandating the following on biodiversity and the climate—so, we're talking about multispecies cover crop, managing heavily modified peatland, and ponds and scrapes?

Right. Now, for these really technical ones, I'm going to turn to Gian Marco. But it is worth saying that the ongoing discussions we're having on both the universal actions and the optional and collaborative layers are really being worked through with intensive work within the officials group. So, I've described before that the ministerial round-table is there, things get lifted up to us and we discuss and so on, but actually the engine room is there in the officials group, where there's a lot of not only farm and land management stakeholders, but environmental groups, woodland groups, et cetera, et cetera, and they're the ones who are looking at where we get the added value—is it best in the universal layer or is it enticing and making the offer into those, if you like, higher level options? But, Gian Marco, multispecies cover crops, ponds and scrapes.

Yes. I'm happy to add a bit of detail. I'll be brief, if it helps. So, as the Deputy First Minister said, those three changes that we've made to the universal actions are very much based on stakeholder feedback. So, to give you an example of the multispecies cover crop, our intention is to very much support farmers to ensure that bare soils are not damaged during winter. However, what was raised with us was perhaps some of the perverse of incentives of having that as a universal action. So, what we decided to do, based on that feedback, was to say, 'We will work with farmers through the optional to try and do that in the right way.'

Very similar on things like the heavily modified peatland, we recognise that heavily modified peatland will not be present on all farms, so having it as a universal action didn't necessarily make sense, but what did make sense was focusing our effort to truly understand where that heavily modified peatland is and to support those farmers who have got it, to support them.

And again, similarly on ponds and scrapes, what we've done is we've moved the requirement to manage our existing ponds and scrapes under the habitat universal action 7, but any creation of additional ponds and scrapes would be supported through optional, again, so that we can have a bit more of a targeted approach.

So, it's all based on feedback. We are doing this suite of analysis, if you want, that will support the final decisions by Ministers, and part of that will be to look at some of those changes that we proposed in the scheme outline in November, what the impact might be, et cetera.

That's useful. Thank you so much.

Because of time, we'll probably have to move on.

In terms of the second part of your question, Heledd, I think we need local residents or those who feel that they're currently being affected to engage with the local authorities who have their own air quality imperatives as well, to actually deal with them here and now. But, yes, we are on target with working through our target options and the new air quality targets. One of the pressing ones is the PM2.5. I don't have to declare an interest any longer of my involvement with the cross-party group on this. That was one of the ones that everybody thought, the consensus was that we needed to move on it rapidly. We're hoping to hold a public consultation on PM2.5—we're hoping to hold it; we're on target to hold it—in the autumn of this year, and that will allow us then to maintain our target to taking the requisite actions that follow through it. Obviously, if we do that consultation in the autumn, we’ll need to consider what feedback we have from it, but it’s based in the chronology of achieving the targets on time and moving ahead with that. We’re also, of course, working on the advice to determine what additional pollutant-specific targets we might want to bring forward, but the PM2.5 is moving at pace. The other work is also going on in the background quietly, and as soon as we get some outcomes on those wider targets, what the next ones will be, we’ll be happy to discuss it with the committee as well.

'the proposed guidance does not go far enough in mandating stronger enforcement measures, expanding Smoke Control Areas…or ensuring effective monitoring of air pollution, particularly in communities most affected by poor air quality.’

First of all, I would say this as a concerned citizen as well as Cabinet Secretary for this area, we really welcome the work of Asthma and Lung UK in holding our feet to the fire on this and pushing hard on it. But, look, we’re absolutely crystal clear on our need to deal with air pollution and to clean up air in individual communities right across Wales. That’s why we have in place the clean air plan, that’s why we have the updated guidance aimed at local authorities. But it’s not necessarily within that guidance that we need to provide statements on Government ambitions to protect public health; it’s already out there within the clean air plan. We did consult on the guidance, by the way, the guidance to local authorities on local air quality management and smoke control, between December 2024 and March 2025. I think the balance we need to strike here, Heledd, is what we set out as very clearly our ambitions within our clean air plan, and then actually what we put within the guidance to help local authorities.

Obviously, the consultation has now closed, but we haven’t concluded the analysis of those responses or any revisions to the guidance. So, that feedback will be one of the things we’ll reflect on, and consider whether there are ways in which the guidance ought to be strengthened. You referenced, within the feedback from Asthma and Lung UK, mandating certain things. Guidance can’t mandate things. Guidance is guidance. It’s due regard for those people who are responsible. I think where there are areas where there’s a sort of prescription of certain things in particular places, that’s something we’ll need to take forward separately. But we’ll be looking, as the Deputy First Minister said, at taking really seriously the feedback we’ve had. And on our air quality work, we’ve been able to work in a really positive partnership with a range of organisations campaigning in this area. That’s something we’d want to continue to be taking really seriously, their views and thinking about how we can build that into the approach.

And part of the way we can do that, by the way, is—. Our ambitions are clear, but can we actually build on those? So, when we bring forward the promoting awareness air pollution delivery plan, then we can actually build on that. Part of that will need to be listening to the feedback of those campaigning organisations out there, listen to the thoughts of the committee as well, so that, where we need to clarify higher ambition, we can state that. So, those air pollution delivery plans linked to promoting awareness are going to be an integral part of this.

That is the secret. All of the steps forward that we've taken have never been by the Welsh Government doing this by dictum. It has been with stakeholder engagement, including those campaigning groups. But also, our local authorities are integral to this. So, it is what we put in guidance, but, more fundamentally than that, it is the action plans that follow from that then. And we do need all of our local authorities to be working with us, and with campaigning groups locally, to say, 'These are our priorities. This is what we're now going to do to change it.' The necessity of this is because it is, genuinely, a social justice issue—it absolutely is—and I think local authorities get that, as well as campaigners.

I think the reason we've taken a little longer than expected is exactly because of that point we touched on earlier: it's because of the engagement with stakeholders. It's quite a tricky, complex area, this issue of idling. We've been working with stakeholders here to try and consider the best package of proposals that are both proportionate and effective. In exploring these options with local authorities, with other stakeholders as well, and internally, we're trying to bring forward proposals that are the most effective way to tackle idling behaviours. So, we've worked, since March 2024, with a group of stakeholders—through, by the way, the promoting awareness of air pollution delivery group—to try and understand this better and to bring forward proposals as part of that draft delivery plan. We aim to go out to consult on this aspect of it by the end of May.

Yes. And that's on our duties around promotion of awareness of air quality. That'll be the consultation we're hoping to get out at the end of May.

Does the legislation include vehicle idling orders, because that's such a big thing, isn't it?

I think that is something we're expecting to progress separately to that consultation.

Okay. Thank you. I'm going to ask you some questions on biodiversity now. A recent Audit Wales report found almost half of public authorities included in the study have not complied with the section 6 biodiversity duty to prepare and publish a biodiversity action plan. It found that a quarter of public authorities have not produced a report at all. So, to what extent were you aware of the lack of implementation, and what is the reason, do you think, for this lack, and to what extent is the Welsh Government responsible for it?

Thanks, Carolyn. First of all, let's just say we do genuinely welcome the report from Audit Wales, and we'll be responding very soon in full detail to the recommendations. As you rightly say, what they focused it on is the implementation of the section 6 duty, but that means it didn't actually extend the scope to examine the many examples of where there is action already being taken for biodiversity—beneficial actions by public authorities across Wales. It focused on the implementation of the duty. 

The section 6 duty is about embedding that biodiversity across all functions. We recognise that its implementation across public bodies can be improved, but the duty itself has had a positive impact. In fact, you picked this up in your own recent report on halting and reversing nature loss. It's driving actions, even though we've got an issue with the implementation of the duty per se. So, even though those specific section 6 plans have an issue with their implementation, the biodiversity actions and the action on the ground at the moment are still being guided by existing plans that are in place, the policy documents, including the natural resources policy approach, the nature recovery action plan, the UK national biodiversity strategy and the action plan that goes from it. So, it's not as if there's nothing happening, but what the audit office have, understandably, focused it on is, 'Have they implemented the section 6 duty in bringing forward the plan?' The actions we're keeping on pushing on, but there is a piece of work here to do to make sure that all of those authorities do step up.

I remember, when Jane Davidson was Minister, I was made biodiversity champion in our local authority, and I had to drive it within my authority under the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006, and make sure that a biodiversity action plan was created. It was quite tough, really, because not everybody understood the impact of biodiversity and what it meant—

Yes, it has driven that.

—especially when you're fighting against money for housing, money for social services, and if you see that as something frilly. So, I just think, when everybody else is facing all the cuts in funding, having a champion to drive it through might be a way forward—I don’t know.

But you said the section 6 duty will be a mechanism for public authorities to contribute towards the new biodiversity targets expected in the anticipated Bill. So, given poor implementation of the duty, how do you intend to improve awareness and delivery either through the Bill or new guidance, and can you give some examples?

I think the new legislation is going to be a step change in promoting biodiversity actions on the ground right across the whole of Wales and across our public bodies, because within that Bill, if the Senedd sees fit to approve it, we will have a new environmental oversight body whose role will include oversight of public authorities' environmental actions, including section 6. It will have that framework to introduce biodiversity targets to halt and reverse decline in biodiversity. It will have monitoring processes, evaluation processes, key indicators to measure progress against targets and to assess biodiversity recovery. It'll have powers within that, if the Senate approves it, to designate public authorities to specifically contribute to biodiversity targets, and also, importantly, that duty to promote awareness of the importance and threats to biodiversity. Now, that'll be a step change. That will really change the whole culture. So, I think the section 6 duties have helped. Even though the implementation of the plans has not come forward universally from all public authorities, they've been getting on with good stuff. The new legislation, I think, takes us to another dimension in tackling biodiversity loss and reversing the decline in biodiversity.

We have eight minutes left and I'm going to ask Julie to lead us through what will probably be the final section, so I'm afraid we won't get to all questions. If it's all right, we'll write to you with any questions we didn't reach. 

Yes, indeed.

Thank you. Julie.

Diolch. Yes, I want to ask about waste. I wanted to ask, really, how many of the targets that have been set in the 'Beyond Recycling' strategy are likely to be met in 2025, in this year, and those are a 26 per cent reduction in total waste, zero waste to landfill, a 50 per cent reduction in avoidable food waste and a 70 per cent recycling rate.

Yes, I think, for purposes of brevity, we've made remarkable progress on landfill. Wales is now below 1 per cent. It's an incredible achievement from the 95 per cent we were sending to landfill in 1999. We as a nation have led the way in this. The latest recycling rate has climbed again; we're now up to 67 per cent. I know some people would say, ‘Oh, well, you should be higher.’ Well, look, we're leading the way on this. Our local authorities are striving hard to deliver against the 70 per cent target. For some local authorities, it's more challenging, okay, but we're working with them. Particularly in the early years of the target this was really challenging. But, in 2023-24, we now have seven local authorities in Wales delivering 70 per cent or over, and actually before the target came into force, of the 70 per cent. The question is that we keep going higher now and pushing more. And just to say, by contrast, across the UK, recycling rates have plateaued across the same period. So, we're going upwards, working with partners, going upwards. It has plateaued in the UK.

We're also, of course, working on things such as food waste as well, now termed inedible food waste, because where we've got food that can be used to actually redistribute to others who can make use of it, that isn't waste food, that's surplus food and we need to get it. But where there is inedible food waste, the Welsh food waste road map, which we published in 2023 through WRAP, identified that the targets would be challenging, but the sectors with the most potential were household and manufacturing. So, we're focusing on household food waste through campaigns that I know you've been involved with, like the 'Be Mighty. Recycle' and the Climate Action Wales campaigns to raise awareness of, 'Don't throw this stuff, don't contaminate other waste. Separate it. This can be used.' And there's also support for businesses to reduce waste in the supply chain, and that includes, by the way, things such as Farming Connect, so we're reaching into that area. Also, Business Wales are doing work on this, and also, of course, FareShare Cymru. So, we can always do more, but, my goodness, we are outstripping other parts of the UK.

Yes, that's very good news, obviously, but what about the 26 per cent reduction in total waste? How near will we get to that?

Claire.

I think we'll probably need to write to you on that. We have got some statistics, but they haven't been checked by our stats colleagues, so I don't want to quote them and then get told that they're wrong. So, it's probably better if we go and take a little bit of time to just check those and then we'll be able to provide the committee with an update. 

Thank you.

Thank you. Certainly, with two of those, you're virtually there, aren't you, which is very good. 

Yes.

Then I wanted to go on to the deposit-return scheme. I know that you've said that you're keen to have a Wales-only scheme, including glass. What is the attitude of the UK Government now about that, seeing what happened in Scotland?

We're working really collaboratively, now, with the UK Government, and I've met in person—. As well as there having been extensive work, intensive work, by officials over the last year or so, I've met and had face-to-face meetings with Mary Creagh, my old colleague from the UK Parliament, discussing this. And there's a real will from us here in Wales and the UK Government to work together. And we applaud their ambitions, by the way, to do what they're doing in DRS with recycling, it's just that we're in a different position in Wales, and we're keen to help the UK by moving ahead and showing where I think we will all eventually coalesce, which is coming together with DRS based on reuse as well as recycling. Our approach is beyond recycling. So, the engagement with the UK Government is good. We still say that it's our regret that what we consulted on three years ago and more, which was on a four-nations basis, on DRS with reuse, the Government at that time walked away from that and it's caused us some challenges. But the schemes can operate in parallel, and that's the place we're now in with the UK Government, to see how these two schemes can work in parallel. And, eventually, I'm confident in saying that Scotland will want to dovetail into what we're doing and other parts of the UK will want to—will have to, because of the decarbonisation journey we're also on as well and the circular economy journey. But it's going well.

We haven't gone to seek an exemption from UK Government on the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 because we've been working, now, in partnership. It's a very different approach now. So, we're working in partnership with the UK Government and we haven't diverged, just to be clear, from what was previously the agreed position. We didn't diverge, it was the previous UK Government that diverged from it. So, we're going to work with the UK Government as they develop their scheme. They're going to work with us as we develop ours in parallel. We want to work also, by the way, intensively, with the wider stakeholders out there, because this scheme needs to work in Wales, but also across borders. So, we'll have a consultation coming out very soon on this, and this will include all parts of the sector. So, from microbreweries to corner shops, to whoever. But also, before that consultation even happens, we're already doing intensive engagement with key stakeholders to hear their concerns. But I have to say, Julie, as well, that some of them are very keen to seize the opportunities in this because this does create jobs and economic opportunities in Wales by moving ahead in the way that we are seeking to do.

Okay. Diolch. I'm afraid that time has defeated us. So, there will be some further questions that we'll write to you with.

So, that will be starting at a quarter to, but we'll now take a break of 10 minutes, and we'll wait to hear that we're in private.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Cadeirydd. I'll turn first of all to somebody familiar to the committee from the earlier session, Claire.

Bore da. Claire Bennett, I'm the director of climate change and environmental sustainability in Welsh Government.

Bore da, Chair. Andy Fraser. I'm the deputy director of national security and resilience in the Welsh Government.

Bore da, Chair. Clare Fernandes, deputy director for water and flood.

Chair, thank you for that, and the way that you framed it, because it is right: there is local response, there is Welsh Government, Welsh national response, and also UK, and there's collaboration between those tiers as well. So, the Welsh Government approach to incidents—. With certain emergencies, significant emergencies, we'll activate our crisis management structure, so this actually puts in place, then, the co-ordination, the gathering of information, dissemination of information, right across Wales. We have that flow between the local, the pan-Wales and also UK as well. This, by the way, is the approach—Andy and Claire here are very involved in this—that we take not only in terms of storm incidents, but other issues as well, other emergency situations, and threats to critical infrastructure across the UK as well.

So, it is a clear understanding of what we do as Welsh Government, what's actually delivered on a local resilience basis, and where there is a need to actually reach out to UK Government as well. So, during emergencies such as severe storms, Welsh Government liaises with the UK Government—the Cabinet Office is the route into it. We communicate between the two Governments. I have to say, my experience of being a year in this role, with several incidents that we've dealt with already, is that it works very, very effectively. There is an instant, 'We're switched on.' The systems jump into operation there. And in fact, if you look back prior to storm Éowyn—so I get the pronunciation right—which impacted right across the UK, as opposed to some of the more recent ones we've had where there's been major impacts within Wales, that was a constant flow of information and collaboration between the four nations, not least in respect of things such as mutual aid across the four nations as well. So, there are very well embedded systems and processes.

What is the Welsh Government's involvement in developing and issuing emergency telephone alerts such as the one sent out during storm Darragh?

So, we have a direct role within this in two different ways. So, first of all, in issuing alerts of the highest severity, for example, we work with the Cabinet Office and other devolved Governments. So, we've developed protocols, ways of working together on this. We've undertaken national trials of the system and we've learned from those activations as well, though recently, of course, we had an actual activation of it that was, in a sense—. The direction for that came from Welsh Government, and I'll explain that in a moment. I might turn to Andy and others. So, as part of the overall protocol in this, Janet, consent is required from Welsh Ministers for an alert to be issued in Wales, so that's one important thing. But, secondly, alerts in Wales can be requested, flowing upwards, to the Cabinet Office, so either from multi-agency groups on the ground, the co-ordination on the ground in Wales, such as the strategic co-ordination groups, or directly by Government to Government. I'll turn to Andy in a moment to—.

You will have all, I hope, received messages recently where the alarms went off, as people were sitting in cafes, in theatres and so on. Well, that was one that actually came up from Welsh Government to say, 'We have significant impacts right across Wales. We went to, in effect, use the protocols to say we must have an alert going out.' So, during storm Darragh, discussions were held between UK and Welsh Government on the applicability of using the alert as well as what that content message should be. But, Andy, you and I, we went through this at the time with the First Minister, and it's very much the First Minister who makes the final call on this. Andy.

Diolch, Deputy First Minister. I think the first thing to say is that the UK emergency alert system is owned by COBRA unit within Cabinet Office, so in developing that system, the trialling and testing of that system, they have done that in consultation with the devolved Governments. As the Deputy First Minister was saying, our role in that is to develop protocols so that we know how the process works should an emergency alert need to be issued. The system was there to deploy in all sorts of different situations, and very significant major emergencies.

In the case of storm Darragh, because the Met Office red warning for rain covered the breadth of Wales, it was a national decision to be taken as to whether it was the right thing to do. As the Deputy First Minister has said, if there are situations on the ground that make a gold commander within a strategic co-ordination group deem it necessary to send an emergency alert, that would flow upwards from that strategic co-ordination group to us and COBRA unit for that to be activated. We would have a role in assessing the nature of that message, whether it was appropriate or not, but it's a fast-track process.

I think I should also say that, in the context of storm Darragh, we did have a number of hours to consider the content and the timing of that message. In certain situations, we wouldn't have that opportunity, particularly for no-notice emergencies that would mean that there would need to be a very rapid decision-making process to send an alert to the public. That would be done through the protocols that we've developed with COBRA unit to get that alert out to make sure that the public have the advice and the warnings that are necessary in those particular circumstances.

And it's a 24-hour capability. So, it's always there. There's no sleep with this system. If things happen, the response and the enactment of those protocols are immediate. But, interestingly, in terms of that issue about engagement with the UK Government, the storm Darragh alert was issued jointly between UK and Welsh Governments, but we had a bit of time to engage on the content and to agree that. But it was a joint agreement to actually issue the red alert.

Useful. Joyce.

If you haven't got time, and it's location specific, so it might not be Wales specific, it might be a region, can you narrow that down to give those people in a given region their warning and exclude the others?

Yes. So, the functionality of the system means that you could issue an alert to the whole nation, or you can isolate the message to a particular community. It can work on local authority boundaries, on constituencies and right down to the level of mobile phone sites. So, for one example, the emergency alert was deployed at a local level in Plymouth in Devon because there was an unexploded bomb. They needed to advise the local community, several hundred properties, so they were able to focus that message to that community. So, we do have that functionality. That, again, is managed by COBRA unit. They just need the relevant information to enact that.

Diolch. I'll go to Heledd, and then we'll come back to Janet. So, Heledd.

I just want to be clear, on storm Darragh, therefore, should everybody in Wales have received a message, then?

Some of us are panicking, because we didn't get them, I think.

Yes, and I had it three times.

Just to be totally sure.

It's quite strange. I know from my street that some people received it and some didn't. I didn't receive it. So, there was some confusion there. I think perhaps some of it is trying to explain to people how this works, some awareness raising.

Indeed. In the case of storm Darragh, the alert was issued on the basis of local authority boundaries along the coast. The intelligence that we've had back from the Cabinet Office is that the mobiles that should've received it did receive it. There are some technical issues, so if there's movement of people between mobile masts, they move and they might get the message more than once, or if their phone is off they might get the message more than once when they turn it back on. There are several issues in terms of individual mobile phones that might mean that people get it twice. We're working with the Cabinet Office on those examples where people should've got the message and didn't. The alert only works with 3G-enabled mobiles, for example, not older mobiles. So, there are some limitations in the technology, but this is all part of the ongoing process. And it's a new system; it's only been introduced in the last couple of years or so. So, there is a journey here in terms of making sure that it is fit for purpose and it's moving with technology.

But with the argument of let's not let the perfect be the enemy of the good here, what we do know is that it was really effective. What we do know is that people spoke to each other, it was picked up on the news, on social media and everything else, and people jumped to action and thought, 'This is serious', and that will have an effect on saving lives.

Thank you. The Flood Forecasting Centre told us about the growing gap in forecasting capabilities between Wales and the rest of the UK, based on different levels of investment in technical solutions. Do you agree with that assessment? Are you concerned by the gap? And also, are you working with NRW to address it?

We are aware of the differences. They're relatively minor at the moment, I've got to say, but we are aware of them. And I think, as we take forward that collaboration across the UK, we're not, if you like, missing the boat here, but we need to be on that boat. The investment that we've already put into things such as flood alerts and flood warnings is significant. We need to engage, now, with the Met Office and with our counterparts across the border about how we align our investment going forward to make sure that we're all part of the same improvements that we've got in the technology around flood warnings. Because some of these are the really tricky areas that we've always struggled with—things like surface water flooding. We're seeing much more of that now. There's always been difficulty with the predictability of that, but the technology and the predictability is improving. So, we want to be part of that, Janet. I think there'll be further considerations to be lifted up to me about how we engage with it, but we are engaged, cross-border, on those discussions.

As part of this inquiry, there has been a great piece or work done in terms of engaging those impacted by the storms, and despite the £6 million investment in those flood alerts and flood warnings with NRW, you'll be aware that there are examples where this failed, where people were flooded—and river flooding, not surface water flooding this time. You can just imagine the feedback we've had in terms of people feeling extremely concerned that the same thing they experienced during storm Dennis happened again during storm Bert, despite this investment. How are we gong to ensure that those alerts are meaningful? Because another part that came through the research was that alerts are too frequent now, that people actually do understand their level so they can become complacent. When is it really a warning and they need to be prepared? Because there's just that concern: how reliable is it, with the millions of pounds of investment that there's been?

First of all, it's important to put the investment in. We were talking about it in a different context a moment ago in terms of the predictability of things like surface water flooding and other aspects of more difficult flooding. But we also need to put the investment in, which we have done and are doing, to the flood warning system. But then, there is the working with communities and with individuals to stress the importance of this, the importance of people signing up to it, and then understanding what they are.

The three levels of alerts that we have from the alert, the warning, the severe warning, they are different. We've got symbols linked to them to explain, in a sense, in clear pictorial meanings, what this means in terms of escalating to risk to life and property going through it. But we also need to give people confidence at a community level and individual level to respond to those—to understand, and then to work collaboratively on the street level, as well as with statutory bodies or flood forums or whoever, to say, ‘Well, what do I now do?’ and not to go, ‘I can ignore that one, I’ve seen too many of those’ or whatever, but to put them on, when the first level comes out, to go, ‘Okay, I’d better be aware. I may not need to immediately start moving my furniture upstairs or whatever, but something’s happening.’ And then, as it escalates, to know that we kick in the actions from it. So, there is a piece of work to do.

The other piece of work to do, I have to say, is making sure that more people sign up, particularly in communities—. There is something of an overlap between communities that are disadvantaged and lower take-up. That’s bizarre, because some of the impacts of flooding are happening in some of the more disadvantaged communities. So, I think collectively—it’s not just a Welsh Government piece—it's the Welsh Government and local authorities and, I think, trusted intermediaries on the ground, Heledd. Who are those organisations, community groups and activists already on the ground that can actually spread the word on why these are useful, what it means when they come out, and what actions you need to take, and to drive uptake of this as well? It seems perverse to me, and it’s definitely an area we need to work on to drive uptake in those areas, as well as the affluent areas where people are signing up in greater numbers, by and large.

But, if I may, I was also saying about those that didn’t receive those alerts, not just ignoring them. They suffered the same thing in 2020, were told there were millions of pounds worth of investment, they failed again, water in the house, damage done. They were signed up to those alerts, but those alerts didn’t come. Why?

That important point is why we need to constantly learn what's gone wrong in individual circumstances. If people are signed up to it but they didn’t have the alerts, then the point that Andy was making earlier about the red alert system applies equally to those other flood warnings and alerts that we give. We need to understand why that’s happened. Is it technology? Is it signal? Is it the communication platform? Whatever. We’ve got multiple ways now that we can communicate with people. It’s not only through our phones. It can also be done through e-mail and different other ways as well. So, you are right, we do need to constantly learn if it’s not getting through to everybody. But the other point of this is people shouldn’t be standing on their own. There is that community resilience piece. When other people, neighbours and others, get alerts, what I would like to see happening is that community resilience that says, ‘Have you had it?’, ‘Well, no, I haven’t, what’s going on?’, ‘Well, we know what’s going on, let us help.’

This is slightly different. It was issued too late, once water was in the house. So, NRW have been clear, because they hadn’t issued in time, water was in the house, then people received the alert.

Sorry. I'll turn to Claire in a moment. One of the big examples of that is Sion Street in Pontypridd. As you know, as we’ve debated here in the Siambr as well, that particular act of the weather meant that it was rising at something like 0.33m every 15 minutes along that riverbank. I saw it myself first-hand. They are already looking at that issue of does there need to be adjustment in the way that the alerts are sent out and the rapidity of them, or the way that that is better communicated. Because when you have that rapidly escalating problem, you don’t have five hours. It’s not a Tewkesbury situation where you’re saying, ‘The upper Wye is washing down, and in 12 hours you will be flooded’, it’s actually saying, ‘Outside, in an hour, it will have raised 1m outside, and that will be over the banks.’ So, we do have to learn the lessons of that. That work is being done. Claire, I don’t know if you want to add to that, about the work that’s being looked at on that.

I joined a national meeting between NRW and Welsh local authorities I think a fortnight ago, and NRW confirmed they have dropped the trigger on that section of river for alerts, recognising that that pace of rise of the river was not something they’d seen before and recognising that, were that to happen again, you would need to issue the alerts sooner. So, that learning from that experience has been taken away. I think, just building on what the Deputy First Minister was saying around that community resilience piece, as well as knowing what a flood alert or a flood warning means, it’s knowing what it means in the context of the particular place or community, because it could move quicker in some locations than others. So, it's knowing that you respond to an alert, not wait for a warning, in some places, and what we can do to support communities in developing that understanding—community flood plans. There's lots of tools that are out there, but it's reinvigorating that in the places we know that are at greatest risk. 

Thank you. I know that this is getting into some of the areas that Joyce is going to be leading us on, so I'm going to bring Joyce in, and then we'll come back to Heledd, if that's okay.

I'm going to ask about resilience planning, which is what we are talking about, quite frankly, and the overall assessment of Wales's resilience in dealing with what could be increased storm frequency and severity. I'd like to ask how you're taking the integrated learning forward, because there was a lot of learning with COVID-19, and post COVID-19. So, it would be interesting to me to know how you've taken that learning, which is, really, tackling the same issue, and transposing it to here, and also ensuring that all organisations are involved in that learning—and that includes health, the charities—if you've got a major situation potentially happening on the ground.

There are a couple of important points to be made there. One is that this involves everybody who's involved in the response, and they need to be part of developing the risk evidence base, which is coming on leaps and bounds now.

The traumatic incidents we see also give us the opportunity then to ask how we strengthen our evidence base in what we know, and how do we communicate and engage with all responders across Wales, including the Welsh Government, by the way, about existing and emerging risks. That means then that we can have a greater collective understanding of what the short, medium and long-term civil protection risks are, and how that informs the work that we're engaged in on preparedness, response and recovery—recovery is critical as well.

In some of the situations that we've seen, traumatic as they are, we're getting better at building resilience in and recovering much more rapidly as well. Because we cannot—I've made very clear; I've been very honest with this, and sometimes been shot down about it—avoid every situation that is coming down the line. This is now not just where Wales is—where we are—but right across the globe. But what we can do, based on that better evidence that we have, is strengthen our preparation and our recovery. 

One of the key pieces within this will be the publication, within the next few months, we are hoping, of the Wales resilience framework, which will set out that on a strategic basis, and how we support the emergency responders and local resilience forums in developing their part within what are, for some, statutory responsibilities, and, for others, a part of the response to it. Andy, I don't know if there's anything to add.

I would endorse those points, Deputy First Minister. There are just a couple of points to add to that, I think, in the context of the question. Our understanding of the risks that Wales faces, from the short to long term, has improved significantly in the last few years, and I think it's one of the major learning points that was flagged in the module 1 report from Baroness Hallett's COVID inquiry. We now have in place a better understanding of that risk, and we also have a better understanding of preparedness and resilience across the different sectors through a preparedness assessment that was undertaken as part of the development of our new risk register.

We've also taken the opportunity to enhance and strengthen our crisis management arrangements, to which the Deputy First Minister referred a moment ago. The resilience framework that the First Minister will be potentially announcing in the next couple of months will focus on the building of those response and recovery capabilities, and how we can take a longer term approach to securing societal improvements and societal resilience so that it is a whole-society approach.

Just a final comment really in relation to the local resilience forums. The category 1 responders have the statutory responsibilities for preparing plans, for warning and informing the public and so on, and we are providing new funding—the First Minister has approved new funding—to support that multi-agency co-ordination work, looking ahead, so that we have a more robust approach at the local and national level.

That extra funding is critical, and there are some good examples. Powys took on a really good example of local wardens with the things we're talking about, where you haven't got time, but you know it's coming, and a network of dedicated local people prepared to take that message on, so that they're informed in the first place, and they make sure that everybody that needs to be informed is informed, much quicker than would otherwise happen. So, following on from what you've just said, is that playing a part? Is that a part of the consideration, underpinning the local resilience?

I think it is. I think that the locking in of third sector community support into the whole process is vital given the range of evolving risks that we are facing, not least from extreme weather and climate change, but the whole gamut of risks in play.

Okay.

Can I bring Heledd in on a supplementary on this?

On this in particular, one of the things that came through extremely strongly in the engagement work also was the role of volunteers, and how people who were flooded were supported by neighbours and so on. The National Infrastructure Commission for Wales makes recommendations in terms of how we support volunteers within our communities. I note from your response yesterday to Delyth Jewell in the Chamber, and also in your paper today, that you've mentioned working with the National Flood Forum, but that is a different recommendation to that of the national infrastructure commission, which suggests building our own resilience here in Wales. Obviously, the National Flood Forum is a charity, England based, receives no Government funding apart from specific projects. Does that mean that you've made your mind up not to establish something in Wales?

No, no. We’ll respond to the national infrastructure commission recommendations, which genuinely we really welcome, but we also have different views coming from the Chamber on approaches within Wales as well. If the outcome that we're trying to achieve is real community-level resilience, which as colleagues have mentioned, will differ markedly from community to community, then the question is: what's the best way of achieving that outcome? Now, I would suggest in some of the communities that you and I represent, you need more capacity to come in there. It might be something that is driven in collaboration with voluntary organisations, but it might be statutory players coming in to say, ‘We need to fill that space.’ It might be something to do with developing the work that we're already doing in some of the communities you represent with an organisation that looks like the National Flood Forum, or a version of that.

I haven't made my mind up yet. What I'm more focused on is the outcome. I'm less focused on necessarily saying, ‘Here's one structure that will work for all of Wales’, but it might be. I just want to make sure, as we picked up on that social justice issue earlier on, there will be some communities where there is a really great network of neighbourhood support, community wardens and so on that do it. I've seen it happen. There are others who do not currently have the capacity to do that. So, how do you build that capacity? Is it by putting something in place to do that long term? Or is it to say, ‘Let's go in there and build that capacity within communities’, which will have multiple benefits beyond flood resilience and response?

So, no, I haven't made my mind up. And we will bring forward our response to the infrastructure commission in detail shortly. We're mulling through what is the best way to do this. But the outcome has to be every community, which is going to be very different from valley to valley and street to street and coastal neighbourhood to coastal neighbourhood, has that ability to prepare, respond, help each other. And that might be statutory, that might be a national body, that might be something else.

Okay, diolch. I'm going to bring Carolyn in on a supplementary to this, and then we'll go back to Joyce. Just for everyone to be aware, we're halfway through the session and so, if Members could discern which are the most important of their questions that you'd like us to focus on. Carolyn.

I wanted to get across about building community resilience from the community up. Flooding happens really quickly. It's really scary, especially if it's from surface water coming off—. So, the initial knee-jerk reaction is, 'Phone the council and get sandbags.' So, we heard that RCT have got resources to get sandbags out, but councils cannot store sandbags, so they need operatives in to build sandbags first of all, and then getting them to places where the roads are flooded is really difficult. So, that's a first reaction. We heard that in north Wales, they don't provide sandbags to residents. They might do, if they can. They'll use sandbags to divert water from a lot of properties, if they can. Okay. Residents don't know that. Okay. So, first, their knee-jerk reaction to phone the council is wrong, so they need to be resilient and have floodgates ready. If they're flooded once, they're going to flood again now. They need to have grant funding available for those who can't afford it, or to know where to go to get floodgates ready for the next time, to get air brick holes. But you've got to build it up from each area. Some areas flood differently. North-east Wales is really hilly, so you get a lot of surface water. We had evidence from Anglesey that it was different, it was from the sea. 

Okay, we'll probably have to press for an answer. 

But I just feel it's really important. And they don't know who to contact as well, or who is in charge of different areas. So, they might have phoned the fire service, but it's knowing who to go to and who's in charge of different ditches and drains, and things like that, and I just wanted to get that across.

Okay, that's useful. Diolch.

You and I and all Members around this will know when our areas are predicted to be facing flood impacts or other things, we will put out contact details and clarify who needs to go where. But I think there is a real job of work to do—coming back to this piece of community resilience—in not having people who are ignorant of where to go, and if they don't know—. Most members of the public will not have this on their minds all the time, but there will be groups and organisations, whether it's local authorities or it's actually trusted intermediaries, that we need to get to the point where they are the ones who will be engaging with the communities and actually saying, 'Here's the response: here's what we'll be doing and here's who to come to.'

Now, we're not at that point yet, but what we do know is this is going to be an increasing feature of life within Wales, England and everywhere else. So, this isn't necessarily to do with a top-down approach of saying, 'There will be one standard approach', because it will vary depending on the emergency situation, and it will vary from valley to valley, from local authority to local authority. On that basis, it is this trickier question of how you develop that resilience at a local resilience level, not just on a street-by-street level, but actually with knowing who people go to if it's for sandbags or if it's for an emergency response, and so on. 

I've seen this work well in places—really well and really effectively—but it does require that engagement piece with people, so that it doesn't come out of the blue and that they absolutely know, 'When this happens, here are the places I go to.' We're not there yet, and that is a particular challenge I think—again, to come back to it—in certain communities where that resilience has not yet been built up.

Okay, I've got Heledd on this specifically and then I'll go to Joyce. 

Do you think we're putting enough resource into this element? Because, obviously, there's a lot in terms of flood defences and so on, but having that emergency plan for every at-risk community, do we need to put more resources into that element? 

We're always alive to that. We're always alive to the need for competing pressures across this area of work and where we actually prioritise. I think the work we're bringing forward on the Wales resilience framework will really help with that, and identify gaps and so on. But I think it's not purely investment, it's all of us stepping up to the mark together to say, 'This is an area we need to focus on.' It wouldn't necessarily all be, if you like, Welsh Government money, although we've put a lot of funds into this already. It's something to do with the local resilience forums as well, because some of our early discussion was focused on investment into predictability, investment into alerts. Yes, all of those are important. Perhaps at least equally important is the capacity of individuals and communities on a street level to know what to do.

I don't know if colleagues want to add to that, on the work that we're doing on that. 

If there's anything brief. It would be useful if you could send us any more detail in writing, but if there was anything brief anyone wanted to add. 

I think the only thing we can say is that this is definitely a priority. It's not just investment and funding; it's having shared purpose and mechanisms to make that happen on the ground. There's a number of partners who are active—NRW is funded in this area and obviously local authorities play a huge role—but it's getting the most out of that and having everyone working with a common purpose, and in situations of high pressure and stress that can be difficult, and working through that is really important.

That's really helpful. Thank you so much. Joyce.

I think that's covered.

You're happy. Okay. In that case, we will move on to Julie.

We've already started to talk about some of the issues I was going to talk about—obviously, the investment into more deprived communities has already come up. I know that it's not just investment and funding that you've said is needed, but what about the investment? Is any of the investment targeted specifically to more deprived areas? Because we know their resilience is less.

It's not specifically tied to more disadvantaged or deprived areas. But the simple fact is that there is a significant degree of overlap on the risk assessment that's used for prioritisation of funding and disadvantaged areas. So, it's happening de facto, because we have significant densely populated areas—whether it's on the coast or whether it's in the Valleys—where there are high levels of disadvantage and they are being most impacted. So, it's always based on—. It's a well-established model and formula for investment into local authorities, but also in our wider Welsh Government programmes of investment, and it's based on risk. So, those people who are at risk, those properties that are at risk, that's where the funding goes to. But, Julie, just to reassure you, there's a significant overlap where there is a disadvantage.

Thank you. I think we've already mentioned that the numbers of public sign-ups for flood alerts are less in those types of areas. So, Huw, is this where you see trusted intermediaries helping? Could you tell us just a bit more about that?

Yes, that is part of it. I think we really need to put more effort into this space of working with existing organisations on the ground. Because, curiously, even though in an emergency situation people will understandably go, 'Where do I get my sandbags from?', or, 'How do I put this floodgate up? Who can help me?', and so on and so forth, actually it's more than that. It is to do with how do we work with existing groups on the ground. And that I think is work that we're doing with the local resilience forums to try and enable that, and the sort of work that we were touching on, about how do we build that resilience in local communities, what's the best way.

But I would say as well, it is to do with evaluating what works well currently. NRW are currently doing that piece of work, in looking at the take-up of people—as we touched on before—who are receiving, who are signed up for, alerts. We've put £6 million funding into that now from Welsh Government, giving that ability, the tools to communities, to have the right information to take the right action.

Just to say, even though there are things we can constantly improve on that, since it was launched back in July 2024—last year—that service has issued 553 flood alerts, 197 flood warnings, two severe flood warnings, and they've been sent to over 42,000 customers. We now need to do more to identify which people are not signed up and are not responding to that. We know that the take-up is low—it's 34 per cent. So, we've got something like just short of 50,000 properties signed up, out of what we estimate is around about 150,000 who could get a warning in those areas. So, what's not happening there that people are not going, 'Well, I should be taking an alert as well'? So, I think we all have a role to play in driving the take-up of that investment. It's good that we're putting the investment in; we need people to take up that opportunity and then take action on it.

Yes. And isn't it that some of it is the information? I think we had written evidence from the Red Cross that said, I think, that 36 per cent of people didn't know there was such a thing they could do. How do we let people know this?

I think that is all of us. It's us sitting around this table, it's local authorities, statutory partners, it's NRW—and they are doing a lot on this, by the way. Every time we now face an alert, it's also going alongside in parallel, 'Sign up, sign up, sign up', and explaining what these alerts are and what the warnings are. But this is, I think, genuinely—. We know that the greatest reach of this is not, with all respect, me as a Cabinet Secretary, or a local authority, saying, 'You should sign up for your own good.' It's actually those voluntary organisations on the ground, saying—. While they're doing other things, whether it's the food pantry or the benefit advice or whatever, it's them actually saying, 'Hey, by the way, you can take up these flood warning systems—you need to. Have a look at these'. Or it's the local Men's Sheds and places like this—that's how we get deep into these communities, because, if you look again at that overlap with disadvantage, well, many of those people in our communities will be attending some of these organisations. They won't be rocking up at Bridgend County Borough Council head office or Rhondda Cynon Taf head office; they will be on the ground, and that's where we need the information that we're putting out as well.

Thank you. And then my last question is about the priority service registers, and we did take quite a bit of evidence and views about those. But I know that you mentioned the JIGSO system, and nobody else, I don't think, has mentioned that to us. So, we wondered what it was, whether you could tell us about it.

Right. So, it's a good takeaway for us, because, as you probably know, even though there's a statutory requirement to actually do a debrief after each incident, I've also taken it upon myself—and my thanks to all partners involved—in the immediate weeks after each event, to actually sit round a table and go, 'Right, what are we learning here?' One of the things has been priority customers. So, we have different groups of customers with different organisations that have put themselves onto a priority list, for Dŵr Cymru or for the telecoms people or whatever. They're not quite the same list. People are self-identifying, and some people are not identifying at all. So, when we had the recent incident in north Wales, with the significant water outage that impacted tens of thousands of people, I think, over the course of that 12, 24 hours, the number of people who came forward to be put onto the Dŵr Cymru priority list in that area quadrupled in that period. So, what was happening is that people were not identifying themselves. So, there's that. JIGSO can help us with this. So, what JIGSO is, it's a digital solution. It's relatively recent, so maybe that explains some of it as well. But it's aimed to design that response to major incidents. It's part of the DataMapWales platform, which includes geospatial information, and it allows the sharing of data—in a protected way—and there is scope within that, then, to actually identify, amongst the many things it does, vulnerabilities within the population.

So, would there be one list? Would that be the one place to go, then, and everybody would be included?

It's one way to identify the overlaps between different priority lists that different organisations have, without compromising the individuals' data protection and so on, to actually say, 'Hey, we think we might need other people signed up here' or to be considered for priority treatment. 'Water needs to get to these, electricity needs to get to these people rapidly', and so on. Do you want to pick it up, Andy?

Of course, Deputy First Minister. So, every responder organisation, or many of them, have their own lists of priority customers, but they will capture that information for different purposes. For example, the police will have information on vulnerable people alongside, obviously, social care services, local authorities, and Welsh Water, energy companies—different criteria. So, what JIGSO has done has brought together information, principally from the water companies, on those priority customers, but what needs to happen now is that we need to enhance that with the wider spread of information that responders have, to enhance the quality of that. Now, JIGSO's been produced in conjunction with Wales's local resilience forums. The statutory duty to share information lies with those responders. It's a platform that the Welsh Government has funded to enable that and support that endeavour. There's more that we can do to improve the quality of that information, to promote access to it, but it does provide one platform. And it may be that it helps consolidate the range of different information in play, to support responders when that's needed.

And it does more, by the way, than only identify, for example, at-risk properties and households. It also helps with the co-ordination of planning information and preparedness information, but this is one aspect it could do. I think one of our takeaways from what you've been hearing is, okay, it is relatively recent, but I think it's got much more potential to help in the pulling together of this. And there is work, by the way, that has been part of the learning lessons from the two or three recent events that we need to be—. Much of the information is out there, but it's held in different data sets. So, we need to, whether it's through JIGSO or some other way, make sure that we can co-ordinate better without compromising individuals' data security. We need to know who is vulnerable, who should be priority. The second thing is we need more people to identify and register themselves as well, and say, 'I need to be on a list.'

Heledd.

On that, can I ask, is there any work being done to promote this at times when there aren't storms, because, obviously, when things are happening, people might sign up, but they're more worried in terms of protecting those.

So, this kind of information—JIGSO included—should be incorporated into responder planning, multi-agency planning. So, this is not something that should be left until the moment where you need to enact it; it should be part of the planning, testing, exercising, so that this is part of the preparedness approach, so that, when incidents do happen, there's a well-versed approach to utilising the data that they have. 

Thank you. And is it linking up with those that are known to social services? If I give an instance, in February, we nearly had serious flooding. I was contacted—someone that was bed bound downstairs was told to only ring if water came into the house for support. They wouldn't have been able to reach. How do we stop those kind of incidents from happening, because I can't think of anything more terrifying that not being able to move and being told no-one's going to help you until there's water in your house?

Yes. So, JIGSO and the co-ordination of these data sets, whilst protecting the individual as well, could significantly assist in identifying those vulnerable households, because these different data sets—. You're talking about in-between events, well, Dŵr Cymru constantly promote, 'Sign up if you think you're vulnerable', and so do SWALEC, so do everybody else, but they're all slightly different and people may not see them. What JIGSO enables us to do is pull data sets together without compromising individuals' integrity and protection, and then, in advance of or knowing when there's going to be an emergency situation, get in. Now, if it's not being used as effectively as we know that it could well contribute to this, we are working with the local resilience forums and others to actually extend the knowledge and the use and the understanding of how this can be part of the emergency response and of preparedness. The other thing is that this will come out in the Wales resilience framework as well. This is a piece of work that fits into that strategic approach as well.

And just to say as well, category 1 and 2 responders also have responsibilities, under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, to work together and share information. So, I know that some people would say, 'Well, you know, we have to also protect the individual.' They're absolutely right, but, in an emergency situation, you want to get to the people who need it.

Of course. We've got just over 10 minutes left. I'm going to go back to Julie and then we'll move on to Janet.

One of the big issues that came over about these lists is the maintenance of the lists, and we were given examples of where people had passed away and they were still on the lists, and it seemed to be fairly frequently that the lists were out of date, and presumably, with the sort of vulnerable people we're talking about, that is, you know, likely to happen. So, I don't know if you have any ideas about how you would keep these lists, which we hope will be co-ordinated by JIGSO, much more up to date?

I think my initial response to that is, obviously, the management of the data within a respective organisation is a matter for that organisation, but it's important that it's accurate. I think, as part of the process and the work that we're doing, part of that will be to ensure that the data is maintained properly and that those are kept up to date so that it is the best quality information that the responders have to use in an emergency, but we would be, you know, encouraging responders—emergency responders—to do that. I think that would be our role in supporting that effort.

I think the other thing just to add to that is that, during some emergencies, you may start off with a cohort of people with vulnerabilities who have specific needs that need to be prioritised, but as an event is sustained, over time, you will find that people at the beginning who didn't have any vulnerabilities will become vulnerable. For example, if we have mains water disruption over a period of days, people that wouldn't have had vulnerabilities could become vulnerable if they're caring for dependants, for children. So, it's important that we recognise that people with vulnerabilities are not a set cohort; it will evolve during an emergency depending on the nature of that incident.

Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Right, we only have 10 minutes left, so I'm going to go to Janet first, please.

Thank you. Do you feel that the current annual grant funding approach to funding flood and coastal erosion risk management have been effective in minimising flood risk? And are you not concerned the annual nature of this funding limits opportunities for multi-year and non-traditional approaches to flood management?

Did you catch that?

Thanks, Janet. It has been a constraining factor, to some extent, but not entirely, that we've been only able to set annual budgets across Government for the last few years, quite frankly, although we are hopeful that the capacity to move to multi-annual settlements will now increase. But, just to be clear, it doesn't mean we don't currently have multi-annual projects funded by the Welsh Government. I can give you multiple examples, but, two weeks ago, I was standing on the banks of the river in Newport there, where we have one of the biggest schemes. I think it is the biggest scheme in Wales being funded. It's a three to five-year project. It's enormous in scale. Most of these big projects do not happen in one year, so we in the Welsh Government project fund for multiple years for these big projects already. We do it at our risk, however, but the contractors know it's there, the money's coming forward because we've committed to it. So, it has been a constraint. We're hopeful that we will move to more multi-annual funding, generally, for big and small, but it hasn't stopped us funding Aberaeron, Stephenson Street in Newport, and many other schemes that run over several years.

Okay. Diolch. If I could appeal for as brief questions and answers as possible so that we can get as many questions as possible before 11:45. So, I'll go to Heledd before we go back to Janet.

In recent years, you've had to provide emergency funding to local authorities, also provided funding to support households and businesses affected—obviously, very much welcomed by local authorities. But, given the frequency of storms now and severe weather, how do we prepare? And how do we also ensure equity of support for perhaps not the named storms, because it can be equally devastating, and there's a sense of inequity, sometimes, when people see some areas, perhaps, getting the funding but they're not receiving the same level of support.

Yes, I understand that. The reality is that we have established systems where that emergency funding kicks in where there are significant issues and sometimes very localised issues, including in your constituency. So, we try to move extremely rapidly then to bring into place emergency funding. And we say to local authorities, 'This is emergency funding.' This is not the normal sort of investment we were just talking about. This is an emergency response that has affected often significant numbers of people.

We also noticed, though, however—and this was certainly the situation in the last few events, which I really welcomed—local authorities themselves also have stepped up to the mark and said, 'We will put additional funding in that goes above and beyond what's coming from the Welsh Government to help.' And fair play to my colleague the Cabinet Secretary for finance in the Welsh Government, he also then found some additional money to put in.

But there's a wider thing that I think goes beyond that. So, when we have smaller, perhaps, individual communities or streets that don't kick into what, if you like, is the successor to the Bellwin approach of emergency funding, how do those get addressed? Well, again, there is funding that we've put into local authorities to enable them to put measures into individual houses, and repair and get them up onto their feet as soon as possible, but it's a well-established approach that we take in the formula that we use of when emergency funding kicks in. I don't know whether the committee has any thoughts on whether that needs to change or anything.

We will likely write to you with some follow-up questions on exactly this point, if that's all right.

I'm very aware that Carolyn hasn't had a chance to ask any questions in this session. Janet, I know—. Janet, you are muted.

Can you hear me?

Yes. Janet, if you could ask a very brief question so that we can have a chance for Carolyn to—. You're happy to move on, are you? You're happy to move on. Okay. Thank you. We'll go to Carolyn.

I just want to quickly say that the emergency financial assistance scheme has been raised by some authorities, as being set a bit too high. So, for example, when Conwy council had that emergency with water not being available, they spent £200,000, and then, in other areas where there have been storm events, you’ve got to incur costs of at least £500,000 to be able to access that funding. So, could you look at that, and maybe change the level? Because it’s happened quite a lot of times where they’ve raised this as a concern. Three authorities have raised it with me. I could write to you about it; it’s fine.

No, listen, we're always happy to hear from local authorities, and particularly from the WLGA as a collective voice, on whether they think the way that the emergency funding operates is correct or not. But, also, the truth of the matter as well is it’s not only for Welsh Government to respond; local authorities themselves can respond as well, particularly if it’s much more localised or less severe, because it’s exceptional funding for exceptional circumstances.

If you’re suddenly hit with lots of flooding, lots of snow and a lack of water, and you haven’t even got £200,000 or £300,000 in your budget—. Because they’re that cash-strapped at the moment, finding that £200,000 or £300,000 is really, really difficult. Employing extra people there, call centres, that all happened, and they haven’t got that money to cover that cost. And it’s not their fault.

Right. So, the question is—. We’ve talked earlier on about how Welsh Government engages with local authorities, but also engages with the UK Government. If, for example, we had a major animal disease outbreak, there are certain things that fall to Welsh Government to deal with within that. If it’s on an even grander scale, then it would be on a UK basis. So, what I’m trying to get to here is the proportionality of the response. The emergency funding is for exceptional use in real emergencies, and we’ve had several of those recently, and we’ve rapidly responded with it. But if we’re getting down to, if you like, almost individual houses and so on, well, that’s a question of: at what point is the local authority the operator within that space?

I’ll get them to write to you about it, and to Jayne.

Yes. 

I just want to ask you a question—

We've got two minutes left, I'm afraid, so it would be helpful if you could be brief. 

Okay. Regarding infrastructure, so, local authorities told us that neglectful maintenance of assets by riparian owners has caused substantial damage during recent storms. So, this goes back to who’s responsible for certain ditches and drains. And local authorities—I’ve been asking you questions about this in the Chamber as well—would like help in raising awareness that riparian owners are responsible for certain ditches and drains, not just the local authorities, and also, getting down to that local level, who’s responsible for them going forward. So, they’ve asked if you could produce a leaflet or something going forward; I've mentioned that to you—

So, a final word on that then. 

There is already a guidance document, and it makes it clear that riparian owners carry responsibility, and how this works and what the responsibilities are. What I will do—and thanks for raising this, Carolyn, because you really champion this issue—is we will speak to the Cabinet Secretary for Housing and Local Government to see whether there’s something she can do with that information that’s already publicly available, but to the local authorities directly, so that they can also do it as well. It’s a good point.

Okay. Actually, we have a minute left, so if anyone did want to ask a burning question—

There was my last question here about flood capture in the uplands, and I asked that question in the Chamber the other day as well. So, what more can be done? Dŵr Cymru have said that the current planning legislation 

'is pushing us down a route of pouring concrete',

but we need to look at nature-based solutions. But they are being hampered by planning rules as well. So, the planning and permitting process—so, asking for more of that to happen, more long-term planning, catching water in the uplands.

Indeed. And thank you, again, for raising this in the Siambr yesterday as well. We are committed to nature-based solutions in this, and catchment management approaches as well. And at the risk of repeating myself, I think the direction of travel now is to wider catchment management approaches, including natural processes. So, it’s not all to do with, as you’ve heard on your committee, pouring concrete. There will always be a role, I have to say, for the hard defences and the pouring of concrete for some, where that’s the only alternative. But natural processes are the way forward. We’re putting money into that. But I think the catchment management approach is where there’s real potential.

I know we’ve got limited time, but just a couple of things. One is Jon Cunliffe's review of water regulatory bodies. He’s made it clear that he’s interested not only in the wider regulatory structure across England and Wales, but also governance structures within water catchment areas. But, also, the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales has made clear its views, that it thinks that this is the way forward as well. I've made it clear that I think that this is also the way forward. So, ultimately, from the high uplands of the river catchments all the way down, that's where I think the solution here lies. In multiple areas—climate change, flood resilience and stopping down the flows of water before it rushes down the valleys, but also in terms of biodiversity, soil quality and a range of other matters—catchment is where it's at.

Okay. Thank you.

Can I ask for an update in writing?

Yes, more than happy to.

Not on that, on the question I'm about to ask. [Laughter.]

Oh, sorry.

We've seen wildfires now in north Wales; we know what's caused them—uncontrolled burning rather than controlled burning. That in and of itself, that scale of fire risk, is going to give another risk, potentially, in terms of flooding. So, what I would like, because we haven't got time here now, is to understand what impact assessment has been done as a consequence of fires, because we're not only getting flood, we're getting heat as well, and the thinking that comes behind that. I know from the Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences that we're doing an awful lot of work on the types of plants that would retain water or be resistant to drought. So, it would be interesting for me to know what communications you're having with them. I know it's not something you were warned about, but it's something I'm thinking about.

Yes, happy to write to you. 

When we send the follow-up questions that we haven't had a chance to get to, we will include that as well, that request. So, thank you so much. 

There will be a transcript of what has been said sent to you to check that it's an accurate record of what has been said. And, in anticipation of the answers that you'll be sending us in writing, thank you very much for that as well, but thank you for your evidence. 

Sorry that we've gone a little over, but we really appreciate your time this morning. 

Not at all. Diolch yn fawr iawn.