National Assembly for Wales

Diolch. Good morning. Bore da. Can you provide details of your discussions with the UK Government regarding the additional legislative competence for the Senedd, and executive competence for the Welsh Ministers, required for water sector reform? And do you have any insight as to when the UK primary legislation will be introduced?

Yes, thanks, Janet. We're in close discussions with the UK Government, and have been all the way through this process, including from the run-up to this with the Sir Jon Cunliffe review—the independent review on water regulation. So, all the way through this, it's been an England and Wales piece of work, and we continue in that way.

And on the devolution matters, to bring forward an economic regulator for Wales, we will indeed need devolution in that space. So, we're having constructive discussions with the UK Government to secure the necessary powers to do so. It's worth pointing out, however, that this is quite a process, because the UK Government will need to take, as they've done—. They've set out their White Paper already with the direction of travel on this. We've set out our Green Paper as well, so there will be a process where the UK Government will need to lay legislation, and we'll have to follow with our legislation shortly afterwards. So, there's a process to go through, but the engagement is close, constructive, and it follows, I have to say, what Sir Jon Cunliffe recognised, which is that there is a different policy and legislative framework in Wales and it would merit having a different regulator here in Wales as well.

Okay. Thank you. Your Green Paper proposes that new regulatory functions for Wales will not be operational until the mid-2030s and will be overseen by an England-only body until that time. Can you explain the rationale behind this decision, and how are you ensuring continuity for the Welsh water sector during such a long period of transition?

So, the first thing to recognise is, even though this will be an absolute step change in the way that we have regulation in England and in Wales—. And I make that separation deliberately, because if we pursue this in the way that's been envisaged by Sir Jon Cunliffe's report, and the way we've set out in the Green Paper, then we will have a separate regulatory structure in Wales, a separate system planner approach in Wales, and so on. But to get to that point is not an overnight switch. There is all the consultation we will need to do, starting with the Green Paper now. Then there will be the laying of the legislation required for it, then there will be the scrutiny of that legislation, and then there will be the things that flow from that legislation. So, actually, looking towards the mid-2030s is no surprise within that. But that does not mean that we have to wait until then to line up some of the things.

Also, by the way—you're right in saying, Janet—we need to make sure that the transition is very clear, and we'll be setting out how we will handle that transition as well. It will mean, up until that point, that we continue as we currently are, with Ofwat in place. We will lay out the transition steps and the phases as we move towards any changes, but, to make it clear, this isn't a race in any way. We recognise that England will have to lay legislation in order to enable us to take forward our legislation. It's not a race; it's actually a sequence of steps. And we do need to get this absolutely right, because if we do get this right for Wales, what we'll end up with is not what we've had—the sort of 1980s-style economic regulator, with all the criticisms and all the challenges around that—but we will get a form of regulation in Wales, and a transition, that will give stability for the investor community, so that we can keep the money going into dealing with our antiquated infrastructure with water companies and so on. It will give that certainty. It will also deal with affordability, not just with social tariffs, but the wider affordability of bills as well, but it will also focus on that wider paradigm that we have in Wales, which is focusing on the environmental clean-up of our rivers, clean-up of our water systems. So, that is worth taking the time to get it absolutely right.

Look, it's not a race at all and the mid-2030s is probably realistic. So, the transition you mentioned is really, really important. We've got to carefully sequence this, because we don't want to either disrupt the current stability for consumers. Bear in mind we're also talking about things like the Drinking Water Inspectorate here. The Drinking Water Inspectorate, by and large, I have to say, are well regarded in the work that they do. We want to make sure that we maintain those high standards. There is still work to do with the DWI on that as well, but also in this transition period. As I say, we don't have to wait. So, if we identify areas for improvement now on that road to where we're heading, we need to get on that. So, what we'll be doing is that we'll be laying strategic policy statements from the Welsh Government to Ofwat. In fact, if it hasn't been laid, we're planning to lay it today. So, one of those strategic policy statements will be laid today. I just don't know whether it's been laid, as we're sitting here, or not. Of course, this will reflect, the one we're laying today—our water reform programme, our transition plan and also the policy intent, which we've laid out in the Green Paper called 'Shaping the Future of Water Governance in Wales'. And I anticipate that this Government and the next will need to lay more strategic policy statements to update as we go through this transition. That's critical to give that stability. So, I hope that helps.

We also need to make sure that the price review process goes on. We've just come to the conclusion, last year, of the previous price review process, and we do it differently in Wales. So, we do actually bring together people on the price review forum. We bring stakeholders together. It's not the way it's done over the border. So, we talk about how we balance consumer bills, give stability, do the infrastructure investment that we need. I hope that the next Government will keep that process going, because we start now on the next price review process as well. So, all of these things need to be continuing steadily, not waiting for a big bang at some point—a step-by-step sequence through.

But it's difficult to retain that certainty and stability that we all want to see when you have so many moving parts, moving at different speeds in different countries—parts of, maybe, a new regulatory body in England responsible for bits in Wales, whilst NRW does other things, whilst another body is being set up. It could become very messy, very shabby and very dishevelled, couldn't it?

It could, but it doesn't have to be, and I don't think it will be. We've set off very well on this because, when the independent water review started, it was very much started as an England and Wales—. And, if you noticed, there were almost simultaneous statements by the UK/England Government and the Welsh Government, but actually making clear that we were on a journey. When it landed, we both then made statements around that as well to give that certainty and stability of moving forward together. The strategic policy statement that we're laying today, or which might have been laid as we're sitting here—I don't know—will give, again, that clarity. So, it's really important, and I think your point is right, Llyr, that the next Government continues in this way, working in lockstep, and lays out for consumers, the investment community—because we need to maintain confidence in the water sector in Wales so the investment will continue, and for all the criticisms, we're in, I think, a more benign situation in Wales of confidence within investment in the water sector and we need to maintain that from the wider investment community—and also those environmental and campaigning groups who want to see a different regulatory space. So, what we need to map out for them in these strategic statements is, 'Here's where we go next and then, in six months' time or 12 months' time, here's the next iteration', but being clear to everybody that there is a real planned way through this. We're not rushing at it, but, 'Here's the structure, this is what we're going to do, you can have confidence, we're moving from here to the end result in a series of steps and in lockstep with the UK Government', because this is a bit of a piece.

One of the important parts of this, of course, is that, as is often remarked, even though the proposal is in our Green Paper and in the UK paper to move ahead in slightly different ways in regulatory structures, there will be overlap as well and some of those bits need to be very properly joined together, so that means we have to move it together. So, yes, you are right—to give that stability and certainty, mapping out how we do it, and the first statement we're laying today will be a help in that, I think.

Did you want to come in, Claire?

Just really briefly. The other thing that we're expecting to publish before the end of this Senedd term is the joint transition plan with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. So, that maps out in more detail how the next price review will best reflect the journey of reform and how some of the other changes will work. And that's expected to be a bit of a living document. These are the next steps. We'll then need to reflect on how that will need to be updated. 

And then, just to go back to Janet's point on the mid-2030s, really what we're talking about there is that price review. We're clear that the PR29—the next price review—will have to be undertaken by Ofwat or its successor body because of the timing. But it would be the new regulator—all things being well—that would do the one in PR34. But it doesn't mean the body wouldn't be operational before that, and it doesn't mean that it wouldn't be doing things, because, actually, where we are today, in 2026, we're already thinking about, or Ofwat is thinking about, the methodology for the next price review. It's a really long lead-in. So, just to be clear, the body will be up and running much before the 2030s.

Okay. 

And it's just worth saying as well, Chair and Janet, that we work together with DEFRA and the UK Government on their White Paper. We'll have a transition plan in addition to the strategic statements we'll be putting forward. The first transition plan will be laid later this year to set out clearly how we do it, and that will be followed by other steps in the transition plans.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. Obviously, this will form a big focus of work for our successor committee, I'd imagine—

Yes. 

—given the scale of that and the magnitude of the task.

Just very, very briefly, because I know I want to move on, are you confident that the Welsh Government has the capacity to handle this whilst getting on with the day job?

Yes, absolutely. The reason I say that is—we always worry about internal capacity within Welsh Government and, ultimately, the deployment of capacity is down to the Permanent Secretary—for us, it's a question of what we prioritise. This is a priority, amongst many other things, Chair. 

Yes, sure. Okay. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. 

Can we move on to air quality? I wanted to ask particularly, as you're due to report on your consideration for setting long-term targets for six pollutants by April, and I'm just wondering, if you're in a position to tell us where you're at, what we may expect from that, which pollutants you anticipate maybe a future Government would need to make targets for by 2030.

Yes, indeed. I can give you something of an update, but it's worth saying that what I don't want to do is pre-empt where those decisions might land on the future air quality target setting, in advance of considering advice that is coming to us. But it is indeed our intention, as soon as practical after mid-April, to publish a report on setting targets under section 1 of the Act. And then, as you know, that leads to annual reporting after that.

So, what that's going to be based on is independent advice provided by the clean air advisory panel. Now, this is going at pace already, to develop their advice. They're planning to finalise their advice and bring it to us in the very near future, so that we can meet that timeline. But, as I say, I don't want to pre-empt that, because I need to have that advice in front of me on what the long-term targets for those six pollutants should be.

Okay. But you've targeted the same level of PM2.5 reduction that the UK Government has achieved for England—

Yes. 

—but your target is five years slower. Why do you think it will take longer for us here?

I'm not sure that it is five years slower, just to say, because there are statutory targets, and then there are non-statutory and interim targets.

Okay. 

So, our proposed target is set at the same level as the equivalent target in England. So, the statutory target in England is 2040. The proposed target date in Wales is 2035. It's five years earlier than England. What they have done in DEFRA is they've proposed an interim target.

Right. 

So, the statutory targets for England remain unchanged—they're at 2040. So, it's good to see that they've got an ambitious interim target, but, actually, our statutory targets for Wales are more ambitious in the timeline than they are for England. 

Okay. Right, there we are. So, where do we stand on regulations banning the sale of wet wood and other polluting materials? Before the end of this Senedd was the intention. Is that still the case?

So, we will not be introducing regulations to restrict the use of particular types of solid fuels in domestic burning before the end of this Senedd, but there are good reasons why. We commissioned, back in 2024, Ricardo to model the costs and benefits of potential domestic fuel regulation. Now, their model was interesting because it indicated that regulations could result in increased costs for consumers, but there was limited data that those findings were based on, so they could be overestimated, there could be some element of uncertainty. So, we need to strengthen the evidence base on that. So, we're gathering, right now, additional data and insight on the implications of domestic burning and types of fuels, and that will support the next steps. But we need to get that right because, if we're having Ricardo or others flagging up there could be impacts on things such as increased costs, we absolutely need to understand that right before we move ahead. So, it will be for the next Senedd to take it forward.

But having said that, many of you will be aware that we're already out there working exceptionally hard, very publicly, on awareness campaigns, because we do know the risks of things like wet wood and so on. So, following the passing of the Environment (Air Quality and Soundscapes) (Wales) Act 2024, we have that duty imposed on us to promote awareness. So, we've sponsored things like the global action plan, the clean air night and so on, which focus on educating members of the public about the impact of burning solid fuels, domestic fuels, and this includes the impacts on poor air quality and highlighting the negative effects. Now, those have been quite prominent. I've seen them myself being pumped onto social media and elsewhere. So, we're getting on with that anyway. But I think we need to do a bit of work on the evidence base to make sure, as we bring forward any proposals, they're well grounded and they take into account the air quality impacts, on which the evidence is clear and emerging, but also the impact on consumers as well.

So, there's no timescale to that, is there, at the minute? 

No, there isn't a specific timescale. It will be for the next Government, but we're doing the work now on building that evidence base.

Yes, sure. Okay. Joyce, you wanted to come in, and then we'll come on to Julie.

You need to help people transition, obviously, and most of my area is off-gas, so that's not an option, and oil has shot through the roof—the price. So, in terms of helping people to transition, as well as the message, 'It's not good for you', what work is happening in that space?

That's absolutely the right question to ask, because, in filling the evidence gap that we have to see how this really impacts and whether there is a differential impact in different parts of the country, or there's a different impact between rural or deep rural areas and urban areas because of the off-grid nature, we need to consider, or a future Government will need to consider, 'If we want to take this forward, where's the support, then, that we line up to enable people to move to alternative forms of domestic heating?' And I think that's a really moot point, because a future Government will need to make sure that it's easy to transition to other types of fuel. So, the point is right. I can't give you the solutions yet, but it is absolutely a consideration that's been in my mind that we can't just say to people, 'You have to shift away.' And I think the evidence, by the way, is pointing clearly to, 'We need to shift away because of the air quality impacts.' Both air quality outdoors, but also air quality indoors as well. However, we need to give people the tools to do that and the right incentives. So, I think the next Government—this will be one thing that they'll have to return to, based on the evidence that we're gathering, and then also how do we help people do that, as opposed to simply saying, 'You must do this.' It can't be a waggy finger sort of thing, it's got to be, 'We'll help you transition.' That's got to be part of what we call the 'just transition' for people who live in communities where they're off-grid.

Thank you.

Did you want to come in?

Just really briefly. So, the Warm Homes programme, which obviously has a decarbonisation focus, absolutely is about transitioning to more sustainable methods of heating homes. So, particularly for people who are least able to themselves invest in those technologies, that's a really key programme of support. And there has also been some other promotion work around heat pumps, I suppose for more of the able-to-pay people, and that's had really good take-up. So, we're just doing some evaluation of the impact of promoting that and people taking advantage of some of the incentives. So, it's where the climate change and air quality work intersects in terms of solutions. 

Yes, joined up. There we are. Okay. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you. Julie, we'll move on to you.

Bore da. I wanted to ask you about climate mitigations. So, can you give us an assessment of how you think we're moving towards net zero, and is your ambition still to outperform the carbon budget 2 by achieving the 44 per cent reduction in emissions?

Thank you, Julie. I mean, first of all, in terms of your last question, the answer is 'yes'. We don't know the final figures yet, but I'm still quietly confident that we'll outperform compared to carbon budget 2, although we won't know for sure until we have the full data next year. And it's worth saying as well, I know there's a lot of discussion over the role of Tata Steel in the decisions there—

I was going to ask you about that.

—contributing to it. But actually, it's the other things that we've done to actually deliver against carbon budget 2 that have taken us to that point as well. So, it's important to note that. But we're waiting to see the data. But, yes, I think—

So, what is the impact of Tata Steel?

So, there will undoubtedly be an impact, but, again, we don't know until we see the data published slightly later this year. There will undoubtedly be an impact with that. But it won't be the whole reason why we've managed—. If we get to that point, which I'm hopeful of, that we'll actually outperform where we intended to be on carbon budget 2—. That data on the role of Tata Steel within it will become clear later in the year.

In terms of the overall drive beyond carbon budget 2 to carbon budget 3, carbon budget 4—the climate change commission, helpfully, have produced their proposals around carbon budget 4 and their suggested route. And as you'll have seen, a lot of it is based on decarbonising the electrical supply, both in terms of generation and the use domestically, residentially, by businesses et cetera. What it does make clear is that we will have to go further and faster, and that does bring challenges.

So, we produced, back in October 2021, our Net Zero Wales, the second carbon budget proposals, which looked at a 37 per cent reduction compared to the 1990 baseline. As I've said, we're very hopeful that we'll actually get there and slightly outperform it. But going forward, we said in carbon budget 2 that we aim to achieve that 44 per cent in emissions; we're confident we'll get there. And just to say as well, as far as this Government is concerned, we're staying the course on this—we think this is important—and to seize the opportunities that come from this as well. It always seems like a burden, but we grow opportunities from this, and jobs and skills within doing this as well, and stimulate the market.

So, the latest data for 2023 estimates that emissions in Wales have totalled 34.1 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent. This is a decrease of nearly 6.5 per cent compared to 2022. It's a fall of 38 per cent compared to base-year emissions. The formal data I mentioned that will come forward later this year will be in around about June. So, we expect the emissions reductions between 2023 and 2024 to exceed the 3 per cent fall in the UK. So, we will outperform it, but we're waiting for that.

With Port Talbot, as I've said, our feeling is that, clearly, this will have an impact on how our expectations are on where the data will land, but I think, actually, it's the other steps that we've taken as well that will have got us to there. If recent historic blast furnace emissions continued in full through 2024 and 2025, then our estimate is that Wales would still be on track to meet its carbon budget 2 target. So, if those blast furnace emissions had continued, we would still be on target. And I have to say, that is quite an achievement.

Thank you. So, carbon budget 3—how are you involving stakeholders and what engagement is planned in order to inform that carbon budget 3?

So, we did an early part of the engagement of the plan during Wales Climate Week back in November, and it coincided with a written statement just before that and a discussion paper that we set out showing the plan and different options on the way forward. So, we had, on the back of that, 131 engagements, discussions with communities, exploring the solutions for decarbonising, because it is important, in line with the approach we take in Wales. We don't do this in an ivory-tower way, we engage with communities—they're part of the solutions on this. So, we've focused on decarbonising housing, which is one of the big thrusts, transport, agriculture and land use as well. So, that began late last year, and it continued up until last month, in fact, as well. No, last month or next month? It's still ongoing. Next month, I think it is, yes.

So, what we're doing from the evidence gathering in those is we'll produce a summary of discussions, we'll publish this alongside the plan, subject to agreement from the next Welsh Government, because it's all being done now. The plan then will be a collection of that feedback plus existing and new policies to help us achieve what we need to do. So, all policies that are brought forward within the plan will have to be subject to formal consultation as well, and that will take us into the next Government.

The other aspect on our engagement is my officials will continue, then, to engage with a wide range of stakeholders on the plan throughout 2026, and that will include things like round-table events, boards of significant organisations and the wider networks that we have, and also groups and wider community groups. So, yes, that's thoroughly under way. Just to emphasise again, the next Government will—. If carbon budget 2 was challenging, carbon budget 3 takes us to the next level. But in that higher level of challenge also comes a higher level of opportunity, if we're willing to seize it.

And what about the net-zero challenge group? How is that involved in this development, and have you provided the group with an update on the recommendations, as its chair called for, as did the future generations commissioner? 

The work of that group has been really integral to a lot of the work we've done over the last year and since they produced their report. But it goes alongside a range of other sources, including some really analytically robust, strong evidence from other organisations, including the Climate Change Committee itself, of course, alongside the challenge group. The work that Jane Davidson and the group did was really helpful, because it set a really high ambition pathway of, 'Here's a range of options that you could take forward', and that's helpful to us, because, as we look at carbon budget 3 and the level of step-up we need to do, some of those need to be on the menu, if you like, to help inform decisions going forward.

So, as part of that Wales Climate Week I mentioned, we published a paper. It had a long title, but the title was—I'm going to have to read this now—'Enabling the People of Wales to Deliver and Benefit from the Net Zero Transition in 2026-2030 and beyond'. This explicitly drew on some of the work of the challenge group as well, and people could feed into that as well. So, back in October I wrote to Derek Walker, the future generations commissioner, and to Jane Davidson, the chair of that challenge group, to give them an update on how we were using their work in taking forward where we go on the next carbon budget.

Okay. Before, Julie, you go on, I think Janet wants to come in with a brief—

Yes, just a quick question. I raised it in the Senedd two years ago, but other Members have started raising it now, about the energy company obligation 4 schemes and the Warm Homes schemes, and the mess that some home owners have been left in, as a result of very, very bad workmanship carried out, and some have just been left worse off than they were before. And, of course, with CES having gone into administration, people are contacting me now to say that they've been left high and dry. As a Government, what are you doing to protect those consumers?

We've got to make sure that we give confidence to consumers that whatever the ECO programme, the Warm Homes programmes, the solutions we put forward are good and reliable and they're not left high and dry. Now, there's part of the piece here that falls within the UK Government and part within the Welsh Government. Some of them are historic schemes—

Sorry, can I just stop you there? It's very confusing, that bit, because I'll say to people, 'Who's done it?', and they say, 'This is the company, but I think it's UK Government.' They have no idea who they've signed the paperwork with or for or—

Yes, indeed. Some of them are UK Government-supported schemes, some are Welsh Government-supported schemes. We've learnt from our experience in Wales, because some of the stuff that we've—

Arbed.

Yes. Some of the stuff we've done recently under my predecessor, Julie James, with the optimised refit scheme is designed to learn from some of the schemes that have done well and those where there have been failures as well. There's been real improvement. The question in Wales for the ones that we support is how we use those lessons to inform the next iteration of Warm Homes, improvements to insulation, energy efficiency, and so on. I think—

That's what I'm trying to ask—

Yes, you have asked, and the Minister—

Which ones do you support?

We can write to the committee and show the ones that we do—

Yes, that would help.

I understand what you're saying: it can be complicated. Because if you're an individual consumer and you're living in a terrace in the Valleys somewhere, and you see a scheme that looks good and it's backed somehow, or it seems to be backed, by funding from UK Government or Welsh Government, you think, 'Well, that's great'. But, ultimately, some of the failures that we've seen have come down to individual installers as well, or, occasionally, where there are changes in policy, and a company makes a decision that they don't continue, as you just referred to, in the market.

Yes, it's been a get-rich scheme for some.

A note on that would be useful—

We're happy to do that.

—because I'm mindful as well that there's probably more than one Cabinet Secretary involved in this space as well.

Yes, indeed, and more than one scheme.

Yes, absolutely.

So, I think we will drop you a helpful note.

Thank you. We'll come back to Julie, and then I know, Carolyn, you have something you want to raise here as well.

This is my last section now. What about progress towards a net-zero public sector by 2030, given the fact that the latest data shows that average emissions are constant at the moment?

Yes, indeed. We have to keep—. I was just going to say, 'Keep our foot on the gas'; that's the wrong phrase to use here. We have to keep driving hard on public sector decarbonisation. It's absolutely true to say that the focus we've put on this with the net zero 2030 ambition has really stimulated significant action and also leadership. The public sector has stepped up and said, 'Right, we're with you on this, we're going to do it'. So, we have had progress on this, and some of that progress is also demonstrating to others what is possible—so, influencing wider change across Wales.

Even though average emissions, you're right, have remained constant at an organisation level, what we are seeing is real progress in things such as waste emissions, buildings, running costs of public services as well, because it's having a real impact on driving costs down. The emissions have continued to decrease now, year on year, since 2022, and I think that is a real achievement. But this is not going to be a linear journey, I'm afraid. It's not going to be an overnight journey. This is a question of trying to incentivise and work with the public sector on decarbonisation so that they get to that point where they're just running on their own to do this. But we know we have to work with them and pump prime them to do it.

The 2030 aspiration is still there. It's exactly that. It isn't a target, but I think it's right to say this is where we want to head to. The aim of that aspiration is to push the ambition and inspire leadership. Last year's future generations report, in fact, highlighted how that aspiration, coupled with, frankly, Welsh Government and taxpayer support, has really driven progress that we wouldn't have seen otherwise. Between 2018 and 2024, the Welsh Government energy service has supported—and I've seen many of these first-hand myself—over 400 projects in the public sector. Those include things such as shifting towards newly installed renewables, advanced energy efficiency work—some incredible work; genuinely, absolutely at the cutting edge of technological and estate management innovation—to drive down costs and drive energy efficiency, and things like zero-emission vehicle fleet replacements as well.

We estimate that the renewable energy projects just on their own have introduced something like 44.5 MW of additional new capacity. It's the equivalent of about just short of 20,000 homes' consumption. So, we'll keep on driving on this, but it's not going to be linear and it's not going to be overnight. But we have to do it, because I think the public sector can demonstrate to others what can be done.

And the public sector is the area that we've got most influence over, isn't it?

Absolutely.

Finally, the Welsh Government in its performance: how do you account for the 49 per cent increase in the Welsh Government's own emissions from 2023 to 2024?

There's a very straightforward reason for that. We've actually increased the accuracy now of the data that we record, including on the supply chains, so not simply the Welsh Government's own emissions. The carbon emissions reporting that we do now is much more comprehensive. It's become much more accurate over time, and deliberately, by the way, because we want to track this, not just in the Welsh Government, but right down the supply chain into the Welsh Government as well.

The increase that is recorded between 2023 and 2024 is due to an increase in the emissions measured for those supply chains, which are generally measured through what are called expenditure proxies, rather than actual emissions. The Welsh Government itself actually had a slight reduction between 2023 and 2024, and we continue to make progress, but we're now taking into account the supply chains as well, which is the right way to do it, because we also want to help the supply chain decarbonise as well. 

So, the supply chains are calculated in with the Welsh Government now.

We've added them into it, so the increase has been rightly reported, and this is the benefit of transparency. What it shows is we are actually still decreasing, but the supply chain that we've now taken into account is the big piece of work we now need to work on with the supply chain to bring down. Just out of interest, as of 31 March 2025, we had an 83 per cent reduction in the 2010 baseline in scope 1 direct emissions within the Welsh Government, and scope 2 indirect emissions from the estate, giving a revised total carbon footprint for the estate of 2,132—. It's not the tonnage capacity, but it's an overall reduction in what we are doing in our estate of around about 10,500 tonnes of carbon dioxide since 2010. And we've got a 6 per cent reduction in emissions in 2024-2025. Our gas consumption has reduced by 21 per cent over the last two financial years, and there's a range of other things that show that, on our estate, we're doing well. It's the supply chain piece that we need to work on.

Maybe you could provide us with that in written form, to help us to capture that. 

Yes, there's a lot of detail. 

That would make it much clearer. 

The more you ask, the more confusing it gets, to be honest. 

Thank you. Diolch. 

Carolyn, you wanted to come in. Thank you.  

Yes, please, regarding reducing carbon. The public sector seems to be doing a lot here, but what about the corporate and the private sector? I'll be asking these questions to Rebecca as well regarding business and economy. For example, do we calculate cost of carbon during construction of new plants and buildings? I know a new school has recently been built, and they did calculate the cost of carbon. They used recycled concrete, basically, as part of it, which is fantastic.

But I want to give you another example, which I've talked to you about. It's carbon capture and storage. It's a UK national scheme, and the Hynet proposal in north Wales. As part of that, Uniper, a gas company, are building a new concrete plant that is 10 times the size of the existing one, with chimneys 145m high to capture carbon. But the calculation of the cost of that build in terms of carbon is massive, and there are other industries who are joining this as well. I'm concerned it's greenwashing, because it starts with the oil and gas companies in Stanlow.

Whenever anybody speaks about it, they say it's a UK Government scheme. Do you talk to the business and economy departments regarding this as well? We had a petition about expansion of quarries as well for these builds—so, expansion of quarries and air quality on these quarries. We've had petitions on them as well. I just want to, you know—. It's that balance all the time, pro-business and economy with the environment.

Yes, indeed. First of all, yes, this is a cross-Government approach, not a single department siloed approach. We meet regularly as the key Ministers—so, transport, energy, local government, myself—to co-ordinate our actions within this. You are right that there are policy tensions. Where we have, for example, energy-intensive industries—. And it won't only be the cement industry; it'll be what's the future, for example, in some really ambitious transition proposals from Pembroke and Milford Haven, which will rely on elements of carbon capture and storage in order to help them get there, plus new technologies that move away from traditional fossil fuels.

That's really important, because these are jobs and homes and people in areas of Wales that really need it. So, there are sometimes tensions, but they're resolved through that cross-government approach, and actually working with the sectors as well.

In terms of CCS, we recognise that that is part of the solution, but it has to be dealt with in a way that there is a pyramid of actions that you take before you get to carbon capture and storage. You want to use every other deployable decarbonisation approach before you get to that. But we do recognise there are some energy-intensive industries for which that needs to be part of the solutions of the future, without commenting on any one particular example. But it's that pyramid approach, exhausting everything else before you get to it.

But yes, a properly joined up cross-government approach, and again, I hope that continues in the future, because it's one of the big benefits we have, that when we look at how do you balance energy imperatives, jobs and just transition imperatives—and we published our just transition strategy only fairly recently as well—that we also make sure that it's all within a decarbonisation focus. And let's stop talking about decarbonisation as a burden, burden, burden, and start talking about it as opportunities. Because if we get the piece right on, for example, alternative fuel sources in rural areas, we're talking about jobs in those rural areas for people. If we get the solutions right in terms of some of our big fossil fuel industries transitioning, that means jobs in those areas. So there are real opportunities here, if we get this right. 

Thank you very much. Joyce.

I'm going to talk about climate adaptation. I’m interested in your response to the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales chair's suggestion that climate adaptation hasn't had equal consideration with mitigation in terms of policy and planning.

Yes, indeed. As you know, we published, Joyce, our climate adaptation strategy back in 2024, and I think this was important, because putting the focus onto adaptation as well as mitigation is really crucial. We really welcome the NICW's valuable work and their report ‘A Perfect Storm’ as well. In fact, I spoke at the recent launch event last October. We're considering the recommendations they put forward, we'll be issuing a response by the end of March on that. And I do agree, by the way, with the NICW chair's point to the extent that, in the past, there has indeed often been more focus on climate change mitigation rather than adaptation. And that's been true, by the way, not just in Wales, but across the UK, and in fact probably across most of the world as well. That is now changing, and rightly so, because we're seeing the impacts now of climate in our communities on a daily basis: coastal erosion, flooding, drought, wildfire as well. So we have to take action. So that adaptation strategy that we brought forward in October 2024 sets out the actions we need to take, and we need to drive on with that now. We can't do one or the other, we need to do both: mitigation and adaptation.

It has rained, I think, every day since January, and that is a serious concern. But what is equally serious is, in the summer, it might not rain for three months. Part of that climate adaptation has to be dealing with water—how we preserve it, how we use it, and a huge education programme that goes along with that. We're going to see that increase. I'm fairly convinced now that we've got a wet and a dry season. There are many layers underneath that, and many communities that will need to come on board as well. Land management is significant. If we're going to have food, we need to look at helping those land managers and owners do two things: hang on to the water so it doesn't increase the flooding, and this is climate adaptation, but also to be able to feed their livestock or water their crops. What sort of conversations are happening in that space? 

Many, and we're already doing much within that space as well. This goes from the individual level, citizen level, through to the grand strategic and operational level.

Let me start at the individual level. We need to do a lot more around valuing and preserving water. I think this really come down to the basics, to the promotions that we do with local authority partners in terms of water butts in gardens and so on, through to more advanced technology with rainwater harvesting in public buildings, but also, where we can, with people who want to invest in them themselves. I am that classic early innovator who, 20 years ago, put a massive submarine under my garden that is rainwater harvesting, so when I flush the toilets—. I was in the fortunate position to do it, but I was really interested in the technology of doing this as well, and it really works. So, how do we get more of that deployed? But then it's also doing more of the stuff that we are really pioneering in excellent ways—so, the stuff that we're doing on sustainable urban drainage systems as well, so that we don't have the water running, flushing straight into the drainage system and then out into overloading our antiquated infrastructure; we have natural processes to slow down the run of that and actually gain biodiversity gains as well. 

But it is that bigger piece of value in water, and I think it goes right from the strategic level—. So, it was great to be, recently, at the first of Dŵr Cymru's launches, with our encouragement and our support as well, of using natural processes to do with storm overflows—on a megascale now. It was an investment that actually turned out to be, if my recollection is right, a third cheaper than doing an engineered solution to that storm overflow. But it also meant that the local community up in the Valleys had a beautiful meadow, pasture land with filtration of stuff going through and so on. Phenomenal. A third of the price cheaper, if my recollection is right, and also ending up in a lovely community asset as well, with walks around it and so on. We need to be doing more of this.

We also need to deal with the fundamental thing of getting through to individuals—myself and everybody else—that there is a value in water. We shouldn't be using well-treated, expensive drinking water to flush down the toilets. We need to find ways to avoid doing that, which means valuing water. And I still, to this day, remember, when I was the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Minister, walking along a chalk stream down in the south-east of England, talking about this issue of valuing water and then saying to him, 'Hey, we really need to do something about how people—. The trend now in things like power showers. Everybody loves their power showers. They use a huge amount of water, these power showers, as well. We need to talk to people about educating, the awareness space, around those.' He said, 'Oh, I can't do those. That means actually making difficult decisions for my own constituents, and they vote for me.' Well, actually, right across the piece, SuDS, sustainable drainage approval bodies, what we do at a strategic level as well, we need to keep on pushing on this, so we use water well and we stop it flowing down.

The sustainable farming scheme has a role to play in this as well, slowing it down on the run-off off hills. Peatland restoration has a part to play in this, capturing water, holding it back. That's where, actually—. To come back to the earlier point on the legislative proposal in the Green Paper, it also talks about a systems approach to water. So, it's not just a regulatory piece; it talks about a systems approach where every piece is joined up about capturing water, holding it back, valuing water, so it's not done in silos anymore.

And also beavers.

Yes. Yes, we made a little announcement on managed beaver reintroduction and the legal protection of beavers the other day. Beavers have a role to play as well going forward. They definitely do. Natural processes.

We need to catch up now with Cornwall and Devon on the beaver front—quite seriously. 

You did previously tell this committee you'd like to see more private investment levered in to support that climate adaptation. Have you an update on progress in that particular area?

Yes. I've been consistent in my view that this is an area that we need to get on to, so we have prioritised some work on this in our team. My officials have been working on the development of an agreed standard, because that's important—an agreed standard of what good private investment looks like for Wales. An approach that we take forward has got to be compatible with others in the UK. It's got to be lined up with the best international standards as well. So, we're keen to support this. We set out our sustainable investment principles last year, I think it was. That's a really important basis. It's been very well received. The response from communities and environmental organisations, climate change organisations, is that that's the right thing—no surprise, because they helped us actually bring that together as well.

But there's more that we can do as well from looking just over the borders as well, on a UK and a wider aspect. So, for example, there's a project being led by the London School of Economics and Political Science called ATTENUATE, and that's focused on the right conditions for UK climate adaptation investment. It's funded through the UK Research and Innovation programme, maximising UK adaptation to climate change. We're also, by the way, waiting for the CCC's fourth climate change risk management advice to be published in May, and that will provide us with some evidence to work forward as well. So, from my perspective, and, I hope, the future Government's as well, I'm really keen to see further work going forward on leveraging private sector funding, but it has to be absolutely right, so that it gives confidence to people that we're doing the right thing there—so, base it on those sustainable principles, sustainable investment principles.

Okay. Thank you very much. Right, we'll move on. Carolyn.

Thank you. I'll just mention that youth climate ambassadors formed a petition, which was very successful, on asking for nature-based solutions. They said that only 2.5 per cent of the budget is spent on them, and they wanted more, but I guess they are far cheaper than the big built ones. And the Petitions Committee are going to do part of their legacy report on flooding and clean waters.

Good.

Just to say—. I was focusing very much on some of the work that was going on, flowing from the question on climate adaptation. There is another wider piece of work, and we need to see if we can dovetail some of this. Because there is—. You're absolutely right, when you get environmental organisations coming together with farming unions and others saying, 'We need to find more investment into this space that is to do with not just farming, but nature and biodiversity and flood alleviation and so on'—. So, we're also keen on that space as well. So, we actually—. We've done a couple of pieces of work in the autumn on the nature biodiversity aspect of additional finance. We had a 'Financing an Environment for Wales' conference that took place last autumn, with the future generations commissioner, who was involved as well. Last year, there was a Wales biodiversity conference. There was a dedicated session on that, on how to unlock this private finance and demystifying private finance, because there's some really good work going on out there, but a lot of people don't know about it. Bannau Brycheiniog National Park Authority have had funding for a natural capital development position to take forward work from private finance within their area. And not to forget the recent announcement, enabled by our work with the Wales coast and seas partnership, to take forward the marine fund Cymru. That's a significant step forward. That means—. The fund opened for contributions on 29 January, with seed funding from the Crown Estate, and there's a call for projects out there to pull in private investment. So, there's a lot now going on.

Marine and biodiversity are on our list of areas that we want to cover later on—

Yes, brilliant—brilliant.

—so I'm sure we'll be able to develop some of those points further. I'm hoping to get two more areas of questioning in before we have a short break, maybe, if we can. Carolyn.

Just regarding the sustainable farming scheme now—I know we're topic hopping, but—can you provide an overview of the first few weeks of the sustainable farming scheme?

Yes, indeed. So, we're up and running. The scheme started on 1 January. I've got to say that everybody knows that there have been some people calling on us to do more here or do less there, or whatever. But, actually, the general mood around it is really positive. It genuinely is positive. The engagement that we've had with not only farming unions, but enviromental non-governmental organisations and others, is, 'This is good.' We get the feeling—. We won't know for certain until the window is open for applications and then it closes what the numbers will be, but there's a lot of interest, which is really good to hear.

The SFS map went live in December. That allows farmers to check their land-based information and how it'll work for them. Our communication work is focused on encouraging farmers now to check those maps, have a good look at it, see if it works. So, we're proactively in this space. Then, the single application form will open on 2 March. That'll be the first opportunity for farmers, having looked at, 'Am I interested? Does it work for me?', to put their applications in. It'll close, then, on 15 May. It's by that point that we'll know what the uptake and the interest has been in reality—how many have turned from interest into applying. So, I would encourage farmers: 'Please, look at this, see if it works for you.'

Okay. Are the optional and collaborative layers on track to be introduced as planned this year?

Yes, absolutely. This is the exciting future-focused work now. But, yes, the development of the optional and collaborative layers is ongoing. It's ready for them to be introduced in phases through this year now, going ahead, and through the transition period. There'll be other iterations of it as it goes forward, working with, if the next Government decides to take it in the way that I've done, the stakeholders to say where do we go next—which is great; we've built a dynamic scheme. The organic part of this has already been published, which is great, and it's landed really well. I was speaking to farmers up in the Oxford Farming Conference and the Oxford Real Farming Conference and they really welcomed that as well. And also we are hopeful to publish—no, not 'hopeful', we will publish—in March an overview of the optional and collaborative actions that will be available in 2026. That's to give clarity to the ones who are applying, 'This is what the menu is now', and there'll be another phase then of optional and collaborative going forward as well. So, it's on track, online.

Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Sioned.

Diolch. Yes. We're actively considering this now, because, when we have a call from the IEPAW for things like civil sanctions, we should take it very seriously. It could particularly assist with issues such as fly-tipping and dumping. So, we're considering it actively. We want to see more action in this area. My officials are working on it. The reality is that work that flows out from that will come forward now for the next Senedd for consideration. But I do get that there's a real appetite in the Senedd as well, not least with the cross-party group, to move forward on this. So, you can sense I'm very sympathetic to it. If there's another tool in the armoury we can put to it, then we should. But it will be for the next Senedd and the next Government to consider.

Yes, indeed. I don't know, Claire, if you want to update us.

Yes. So, it's a bit of a mix of things. We've had proposals from NRW of areas where they would like to have either additional ability to introduce civil sanctions or to change the penalties. They themselves are engaging directly with the Ministry for Justice on things in the criminal penalty space around levels of fines. And we've also been doing a piece of work to map out, I suppose, early legislative proposals, which, obviously, will be a matter for a new Government to consider whether they wish to proceed with, to address—I can't say it—to address issues like this, where there are gaps in the civil sanction menu, where there might be other aspects of the current legislative framework that don't operate. So, it's not a sort of policy Bill, it's a 'How do you make the legislative framework work more effectively to achieve those objectives?' So, we've mapped out that from our knowledge within the team of things that are missing. We've also asked NRW for their proposals and also engaged with the Welsh Local Government Association to see if there are barriers that local authorities are aware of. So, that will be ready for a new Government to consider whether it would like to take forward any of those proposals. So, it's ongoing, but, obviously, it's a matter for the next Government to decide how to proceed.

Okay. Very briefly, Joyce, if you would.

I know it's a matter for the next Government, but it's a matter for us now when people actually build this in as a business plan and they are polluting waters and rivers and cutting down trees. So, is this being given the urgency that it requires?

Yes, it absolutely is, because we don't have to wait for just moving on things like civil sanctions—although, if that's another tool in the toolbox, then the next Government should actively consider it. So, we're doing the work preparing for that, but, meanwhile, it's good to see that prosecutions have increased in many areas—not universally, but particularly in some local authority areas.

There's also work that's currently going on where we're working, actually, across the UK on electronic tracking of waste as well. There's a good piece of work going on on that, so we can identify literally where this stuff is moving about and who is moving it. So, we're looking forward to that coming forward, because that'll be part—. Because some of this is not simply to do with the end point, where some idiot—some idiot—dumps stuff over the edge of the Bwlch mountain, as we had recently—absolutely soul destroying—in a site of special scientific interest, and then the local authority and the landowners are left to clear up the mess. Absolutely appalling. But we can get on with the intelligence-led side of this as well, because there is criminality within some of this as well.

But we can also do things such as making sure that we work with local authorities to enforce this, and with NRW, and to increase fines where we can do it, increasing the number of cameras and surveillance that's going on on the ground as well, which we are doing. And acting, to be honest, on some of the good ideas that are coming out of the cross-party group on littering and fly-tipping, because there is some real food for thought within some of the proposals, including some things where we'd have to engage with other agencies and even with the UK Government—things like sentencing policy and so on. So, there is a range of things that we can move on, and we are, and there's also, frankly, what we're doing at the point source stuff. So, what we can do on tackling the amount of waste that is being generated at source before it is being done. And that comes to things like extended producer responsibility, the deposit-return scheme and a lot more. So, yes, civil sanctions are one part of it, and I think that, if we get other tools, we should be willing to look at them and deploy them if necessary. Meanwhile, we need to get on with it. 

We also have to stress, as I know the First Minister has done when asked questions on this as well—I was just about to swear—individual responsibility. People should not be giving waste to unlicensed operators where they don't know where the heck it it going, because that is working into this stream of criminality, and it is polluting our rivers, polluting our sites of special scientific interest. So, yes, all of us have got a role. 

Diolch, Chair. So, we're going on to biodiversity now, and I've got a few questions. So, we've previously heard that progress in implementing the biodiversity deep-dive recommendations has been limited by the Welsh Government team's capacity, with their efforts diverted to working on the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill. I raised this, of course, yesterday during the passing of the legislation. Can you comment on the Welsh Government's capacity to progress the deep-dive recommendations?

Yes, I'm happy to. And, just to say, we haven't passed it yet. 

No. 

It's still subject to the Senedd—

Oh, no, I know, but you know what I mean. 

—but I'm hoping we do get there. There was a good mood around the Bill yesterday. 

Through the session yesterday, I raised this. 

No, no, indeed. But, actually, the Bill is part of the recommendations of the deep-dive as well. The proposal was that we bring forward this legislation to fill the governance gap that emerged after we left the EU. So, bringing that forward is very much part of it. 

But, look, we have indeed already made significant progress on the deep-dive recommendations. So, for example, the Bill itself, that was part of the proposals, establishing the environmental governance body. On sustainable funding mechanisms, for example—we touched on it in the earlier session—we've been funding the Wales seas and coastal partnership. I visited some of the work that they've been doing in various communities around the coastal areas in Wales, but part of what they've done is develop, now, marine fund Cymru. That is a real step forward, because marine fund Cymru means that we can now enable long-term, really highly ethical voluntary contributions to maintain and enhance the resilience of our marine and coastal ecosystems. We've provided £85,000 as part of this for a development manager to take this forward for three years. And, as I was saying earlier on, the fund is now open for contributions, and we think there is real interest in it.

But we've also applied those sustainable investment principles towards the wider nature markets, supporting net zero, climate resilience, all of that. We've also, as you know—because I know you've spoken about this a lot—put a lot of funding now, significant funding, into seagrass and salt marsh restoration. It's over £1 million, over £1.1 million. But we've also funded—and I think a lot of MSs have visited these programmes, and they're really core to those biodiversity deep-dive recommendations—the Nature Networks programme. 

And the oysters. 

Yes, absolutely. All of that is flowing from the recommendations that were brought forward. We're also taking forward as well a spatial approach to marine planning, which is part of the proposals. 

We've been calling for that for some years. 

You've been calling for a long time. So, we've started to identify the strategic resource areas, spatial assessments, working with the Crown Estate. We've commissioned scoping studies on wider marine net benefit. And we've also—linked to this as well—brought forward, on 1 January, the sustainable farming scheme, because that—not to forget—requires all farmers at the universal layer to deliver a minimum of 10 per cent of each farm to be positively managed as habitat. Also soil testing, et cetera, et cetera. So, on a range of issues, we're already taking forward those deep-dive recommendations, including the Bill we debated yesterday.

Thank you. Now, we previously recommended an action plan to progress work towards 30x30. You accepted the recommendation and committed to identifying priority actions for the next month. Can you provide an update on this action plan?

Yes, happy to. So, we've set out the work that we're doing, taking forward the action plan with— 

Could we have a copy?

You'll have it—

We've seen it before, Janet.

Yes, but the latest.

It's in written statements, but we can send the written statements to you as well again. So, back in August we published the 30x30 framework. That's the basis of the work now, the platform we build on, and that's been done in collaboration with stakeholders. So, that sets out our approach to protecting 30 per cent of our land, our freshwater and marine environments by 2030.

Alongside that, we've actually been bringing forward—again, co-developing—a suite of very practical evidence-based tools supporting the delivery. So, that includes, by the way, the work that we've done to bring forward the recent announcement on Naturfa sites, places for nature, Naturfa sites. So, Naturfa is a non-statutory mechanism for recognising sites that will contribute meaningfully to the 30x30. So, these sites have to demonstrate outstanding value for nature. They're biodiverse, they're very resilient places with long-term benefits for ecosystems and the communities that rely on them. So, the Naturfa tool, honestly, if there are committee members who haven't had time to look at it, have a good look at it. We can send you further information, but it's been co-designed through a task and finish group—landowners, local authorities, community groups and others—whether sites are suitable for inclusion in this Naturfa pathway. And that, by the way, flows also from the biodiversity deep-dive recommendations. So, there's a lot of work already going on now to do the 30x30.

How many of those Naturfa sites are there, and where are they?

We can give you the full rundown on it, yes.

Thank you.

I don't have the list with me.

We can follow it up.

Right, okay. How do you respond to Audit Wales’s special sites of scientific interest report concluding that NRW has made limited progress in developing the SSSI series?

Triple-S I.

Triple-S I. That's even easier.

I'm old school, I call it 'triple-S I'. People call it different things.

I do, normally. I'm just reading this. Because the report highlighted staff capacity constraints, data gaps and fragmented digital systems as barriers to progress. What will the Welsh Government do to support NRW to improve things? 

So, the first thing to say is we recognise SSSIs have got a key role in driving the 30x30 target, alongside the other work that I was describing as well with the Naturfa sites. And, just to be clear, because we tailed off a little bit at the end there, those sites are in development. So, there isn't a list of those sites, but we can write to you on the work that's being done to bring them forward. But, yes, SSSIs are very important as well. So, it's not just the designation of SSSIs, it's the condition and the management of those SSSIs. But we do need to do those SSSIs alongside other initiatives. The ones that I’ve talked about, such as the Nature Networks, the national peatlands action programme. It was a hell of an achievement for Wales to actually deliver that a year in advance. Now we need to go to the next step as well. So, yes, SSSIs are really important. We welcome the push on that.

We have started to see developments coming up now, housing. We all know we need new social housing, we need more houses. But we're starting to see sites coming up that are major SSSIs. And they seem to get through. So, it almost makes it a little bit worthless, having that status, if they're going to be able to ride roughshod over it and build houses.

Well, the planning policy guidance is very clear on how you prioritise designated landscapes and also things like high-value agricultural land as well. But it's not a complete block or impediment to development. And sometimes there will be policy tensions. And, quite frankly, any Minister who's sitting in Cabinet would always need to reconcile this, but within the planning policy guidance. It's not within my remit, the planning policy guidance.

No, but it's annoying.

Yes, it can be—. I know, I appreciate what you're saying, and it can be frustrating on a local level, but it's important that communities have a voice within this in the process going forward. But it's also important that there's a robust policy planning framework so that we can work through the criteria when decisions are taken. SSSIs are vitally important, but it's absolutely true that not all SSSIs are in a good habitat and climate-resilient state. So, the question is, actually, getting them up to that good criteria again. Many of them are, but not all are.

The other impact on SSSIs, by the way, is climate change itself. The very nature of some of these SSSIs is changing as we have a warming climate. The species, the flora and the fauna are changing. So, actually, the work that we're doing on the wider landscape and designated landscapes—. And things like Naturfa—places for nature—is an explicit recognition—

How do you spell that, please?

'N-a-t-u-r-f-a', one word—places for nature. That is important because there are emerging areas that are more biodiverse, have great resilience as well, that are not necessarily within the designated landscape space, and we need to identify those and build those as well.

And what about the report highlighting staff capacity constraints, data gaps and fragmented digital systems? They're barriers that have been highlighted. What are you doing to overcome those barriers?

There is always a challenge within Government and within agencies to prioritise the available resources alongside our top priority pieces of work—and 30x30 is a top priority piece of work. This isn't a call for additional resource, it's a challenge to this Government and any future Government to say, 'With the resource you have available, where do you want to focus it?' So, we're working closely with NRW now to address the recommendations on this and get a better understanding of the support needed to deliver that 30x30 ambition—and also a piece of that 30x30 ambition, which is indeed the Bill that's currently progressing through the Senedd. We've got to make choices on this. That's going to be key, because that's the one that gives the ability to challenge policy makers, 'You're not doing enough.' So, some of that work looks at how we improve planning, prioritisation, identify any evidence gaps and data gaps, because they do exist. Making sure that—

How do we know that you've identified them and you're working with NRW to improve the situation?

Because I just told you. Sorry, I know that's a flippant answer, but—

I want to know. I want it evidenced.

—Claire can give you some additional information.

Yes. We do need to make progress after this.

When NRW had some additional funding last year, obviously, some of that was for water quality, which Members will be aware of, but there was some other additional money, and that was—. The Minister wrote specifically to the Chair to explain the priorities for that, and that included biodiversity, it included investment in evidence and water quality, to help direct where we wanted to see improvement. And we're also, having seen the state of the environment report published just the other week, working with NRW on how to respond to, I suppose, the issues that present, but also where we need to further invest in the evidence base with them.

And although it's a different area, we've given them funding to develop their marine licensing digital platform, but we see that as the start of a series of business cases and investment in updating the digital systems. It's not all going to happen overnight, but actually identifying which of the critical systems need upgrades and improvements and then making the case for that investment is what I'd like to see as a kind of ongoing programme, with that marine system being the first one to see that significant investment and upgrade.

I'm really keen to ensure we've got the right data collection going on. Has the Welsh Government reviewed its natural resource policy and, if so, will the policy be updated to reflect the review?

Yes and yes.

Good, good.

We reviewed the policy in May 2025 and we'll be bringing forward—. Sorry, it will be brought forward—the revised natural resource policy—in the next Senedd term. So, yes and yes.

Okay.

But we haven't seen that and we will not have seen it before the election.

No, indeed. The revised NRP will need to update the policy to reflect what we've acknowledged here, within the Senedd, on nature and climate emergencies. It will have to take on board the most recent state of natural resources report as well, which was published in December, and also the changing statutory and legislative framework as well. There's a need to bring it forward, but we won't see it this side of the election.

Because there's a statutory requirement under the Environment Act, isn't there, to review it after each Senedd election?

Yes, indeed.

So, you will have reviewed it, but nobody will have seen the review until after the election—

Correct.

—after the election that you're reporting on. It's the next Senedd that's going to see this. It feels a bit like you're playing fast and loose with the wording in the Act here, in that, technically, you have reviewed it after the election, albeit five years after the election, but not publishing that until after the election following that.

Look, I'd push back a little bit on 'playing fast and loose'. We're doing the work and it will be brought forward. But it comes back to this question as well—we could fast track that, if we wanted to, but we are taking through, at the moment, the environmental governance Act as well, and the other pieces we've described.

So, capacity is an issue then for these things.

Prioritisation is always an issue, but not capacity. Prioritisation, choosing what—

The way you framed that suggested to me that you didn't have enough hands on deck to do it all.

No, no. It's just that we've got loads of things on our plate to deliver over the next five weeks, I think it is. This work is going on now, and there will be a refreshed, revised NRP policy, but it will be the next Senedd term. But the work is going on now.

Okay. 

So, can you provide—

Hang on, Janet. Just for clarity—Claire.

Just super briefly, it will be necessary to do, as it were, another review, because SoNaRR will have been published subsequent to the previous review, if that makes sense. But that doesn't need to be a long-winded, onerous process. I think SoNaRR is really clear about some of the challenges, and it's really then about how you respond to that. But we have to go through a process of reviewing it, reflecting and then getting on with producing a new NRP.

And then, finally, can you provide an update on the section 7 biodiversity list of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016? It has been almost 10 years since that legislation was enacted. What is the barrier to the section 7 list being published?

Yes, indeed. We've had the final advice now from NRW and the final handover documentation from them on the section 7 list. I've got to say, this is not an easy piece of work. It's involved NRW, JNCC, the Wales Environment Link, experts and academics to actually get this right. Just to say—I'm going to have to check my figures on this—the section 7 refresh involves over 3,000 species across marine, terrestrial and freshwater groups, new data that's been brought forward, emerging threats such as invasive species as well as climate change. So, that's been a heck of a piece of work. But we're currently preparing—or my officials are preparing for me—advice on the section 7 list. I anticipate now publishing the list next month, and it'll be on the Wales Biodiversity Partnership website. And we'll also bring forward something to explain it, because there's a lot of work that's gone into it, a lot of complexity in it. So, we're also intending to bring something forward that looks like a 'frequently asked questions', 'what does this mean?' one as well. So, it's there, and my thanks to everybody who's been involved, because it's been a mammoth undertaking.

Okay. Thank you. We've got about five more areas to cover in the 35 minutes that we have left, so you can do the maths. Joyce.

On marine, how do you respond to evidence that over 50 per cent of Welsh marine protected areas, or MPAs, are in unfavourable condition? And given there is no MPA strategy and the MPA management framework and action plan is three years out of date, do you think the Welsh Government's management of these is adequate?

So, first of all, I would acknowledge there's an absolutely urgent need to improve the conditions of the MPA network features. The recent MCA assessments—advice assessments and the conditions assessment—have assessed the MPAs at a feature level, not as a whole-site approach. These are really complex, the assessments they've done, and they do recognise there are often very complex reasons for a single feature failure. It could be from human activities; it could be from other things such as, interestingly, highly pathogenic avian influenza, as well as climate change and other pressures. The SPAs that were most affected by bird flu in 2025 assessments—so, for example, Grassholm and the Anglesey terns SPA—are actually some of the best managed marine sites in Wales, but they're impacted by things such as avian flu there. It's worth pointing out that none of the features found to be in unfavourable condition were attributed to fishing pressures. It's interesting, that point, here in Wales, with the approach we're taking with the strategic approach to fisheries and managing them with the best available evidence as well. It's not universally the same across other parts around the UK.

We've got a large amount of work going on now with our MPA management grant, the Nature Networks programme and the funds behind that, but we'd start from the point that you made, which is we do absolutely need to urgently improve the conditions of the MPA network. We've had some successes, because we can often focus on, 'My God, this is too hard to do'. But, if you look at things, for example, we've got internationally recognised species such as bottlenose dolphins and grey seals—they are in favourable conditions across our MPA network. We've got salt marsh plants like salicornia. It's in favourable condition in the three sites in Wales in which it's a feature. Sea and river lamprey are doing well in two out of three sites. The gannet colonies on Grassholm, which took a real battering—one of the biggest declines—are now showing signs of recovery. I want to point that out because it's not that we're doing everything well, but where we are putting the right support and doing the right interventions, we are turning things around and showing real positive signs as well. We need to give that note of optimism to people, but we've got a lot more work to do.

And, of course, the other thing that everybody loves are puffins on Skomer.

Yes, indeed.

It's a key area for that key species. You've got some protection around there, but the sand eels they need, of course.

I didn't address—sorry, Joyce—your point on bringing forward the strategy. The review is well under way. We're hoping to bring forward the completion of that review in early summer this year, so we can get a good sight of that. Also, the fifth marine protected area network management plan has been published, and that plan does detail progress that we've been making. So, I understand the concerns over the delay and so on, but we are getting there.

But, having said all of that, there are no further sites that have been designated, and it seems that there's a slow pace to this work. So, having said those two things, when could we expect to see some final designation of sites happen?

We've undertaken the first iteration of the regulatory impact assessment for the proposed marine conservation zones. We need to do that before we can consult on the proposals. So, the work that we've done now already in designation of MCZs is a core part of the work that we need to take forward. We need to do the RIAs. That will inform the consultation then on the proposals. We may need some more evidence to underpin confidence in the proposals and inform the RIAs, prior to consultation. So, at the moment, I can tell you where we are. My team are working with the MCZ steering group, which includes, by the way, representatives from the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and NRW, to scope out the next steps required, prior to a public consultation on these. Again, this will fall to a future Government, but the work has been done now, so that we can go out to consultation, subject to those RIAs, and people can have their say, stakeholders can have their say, on the MCZ proposals.

But it's been 10 years. I've been asking questions on this for 19 years. You haven't been the Minister for 19 years. But it does seem to me—and you won't be surprised to hear me say it either—that it's almost 'out of sight, out of mind'. I am concerned about the state of our marine wildlife, if you like, and water. We talked about water, but where do you think all that polluted water ends up? Guess what? It goes to the sea. So, I would like more reassurance. I know you're doing a lot of work, but I'd like more reassurance.

The assurance I can give you is that the work that we've done now on building the proposals around the MCZs, underpinned by the impact assessments of them as well, filling in the evidence gap, will put in a good position for any future Minister sitting in this place now to actually take it forward to wider consultation. That consultation is important as well, so that all stakeholders have their feedback on it. So, the work we've done has built the platform now for the next Minister sitting in this place to bring forward proposals. I can't give you a precise timetable, unless Claire's going to disabuse me of that, because some of this will be for the next Minister to say, 'Right, this is now a priority, based on the work that's been done. There might still be some evidence gaps to fill as well, for the RIAs, but we're going to move forward to consultation.'

But the trouble is that they might decide it's not a priority, and the point I'm trying to make is we've had 10 years to try and get it—.

Yes, I understand. I understand.

Thank you. Carolyn.

The new national park designation was in the programme for government, but it has divided opinion and has a lack of support from local authorities, who are concerned about governance, resources and management. Could you set out the next steps in deciding whether or not to designate the new national park?

Thank you very much. I recognise that no designation proposal around the designation of a national park ever gets complete unanimity. I say that as the Minister who was involved in the mechanics of putting together the South Downs National Park Trust. However, I'm really pleased that NRW has now completed its part in this. It did wide stakeholder engagement and consultation in order to decide whether there was a case for a national park, against the criteria that are acknowledged of what constitutes a national park. They've brought forward their designation proposal to the board. The board have said they agree. That area that they have currently mapped, after engagement with stakeholders and wider community, is an area that satisfies those criteria. That means now that it comes to Welsh Government for our decision on it. NRW made the designation order in January. There is now an ongoing statutory notification period for the designation, which closes on 15 February. Is that this week or next week, 15 February?

Next week.

This gives people their chance to formally respond to the designation order from NRW. I'm very strictly limited in what I can say prior to the conclusion of that, but my team are currently developing a package of evidence, including impact assessments, that I'll consider alongside the designation order and the related evidence provided by NRW as well.

Just to make clear, I remain supportive of a new national park, but the establishment of a new national park is subject to an objective legal process that we must ensure is conducted fairly and objectively. So, that's where we are at the moment, but I'm pleased that NRW have come to the conclusion that they have. We now have to work through, fairly, the process that is in place.

I understand many people are still writing now, aren't they, against and for as well? It was just that process and understanding that, really. So, are you hoping to make a designation in this Senedd term, and any obligations that might impose on the next Government? If you're assessing the impacts, would that lead towards—? What obligations would be in place for the next Government, if you know what I mean, regarding governance, management, et cetera?

Ultimately, the decision on this is going to fall to the next Government, because there is a process in place. From my part, all things being equal, I plan to make clear a decision on the designation order that NRW submitted to Welsh Ministers for confirmation within this Senedd term, but this is also subject to representations that are put forward in this period now, going up to 15 February as well.

Okay. Thank you.

And just for clarity, if one statutory consultee objects, it automatically moves into a public inquiry.

A local inquiry—is that correct?

Yes, a local inquiry would be required.

A local inquiry. But that would then take the decision beyond this Senedd—

Yes, and I think that's the—

It would take the ultimate decision beyond—

The final decision, as it were.

The final decision. And we know the view of some local authorities who are statutory consultees at the minute, so, obviously, it's up to them—

Yes, indeed. And it wouldn't be unusual in a process like this to have objections raised or to find that we need to move to a local inquiry either. That's not unusual.

No. There we are. Okay. Thank you.

I want to move on to waste, if I may, and focus on the deposit-return scheme particularly, which has been an ongoing to-ing and fro-ing between Welsh Government and UK Government, this committee and Cabinet Secretaries, et cetera. Really, given the context with the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 as well, I'm just wondering if you could give us an update on your discussions with the UK Government, and discussions particularly around the exclusion of glass, or non-exclusion.

Yes, indeed. So, the first thing to say is my thanks to UK Government for their ongoing discussions. It's been intense, as they say, but we are making good progress in those discussions, so I'm hopeful to be in a position to make a substantive update very shortly indeed. I just want to reiterate that our starting point on this, and all through our discussions with the UK Government, is that international experience shows, in over 50 countries now, that DRS models are really effective and they can also operate very effectively even where there are slight variations across borders, either in country or between countries as well. So, yes, discussions are going well. Hopefully, I'll be able to say something very, very shortly indeed.

So, do you think that we're still on track for a DRS, at least, by 2027?

Yes, I'm really hopeful that when we bring forward some clarity on this very shortly, we'll be able to also in that clarity confirm that we're still heading to that 2027 date to begin delivery.

Given that the Welsh Government has updated its position, effectively, around UKIMA and the impact it has on Welsh legislation, are you going to be requesting an exclusion for the single-use plastic phase 2 products, and are you still on track, with reference to that, to get that done by the end of this Senedd term?

So, oddly, slightly perversely, in some of the work that we've done with the UK Government in the broad context of UKIMA, not just within single-use plastics or DRS, the fact that they've reviewed their approach to UKIMA and want to base it more on common frameworks, which is great—that's where we always wanted it to be. We didn't think UKIMA was needed, quite frankly—you could do it through common frameworks. Anyway, this aligns with our approach, but it does mean that because of that different approach now, it has impacted on our previous approach to this, because, previously, we had a slightly different approach to UKIMA from the Welsh Government. Now, we’ve said that we're willing to work on that basis.

This means that we're not going to have sufficient time to agree the exclusion proposals with the single-use plastics phase 2 before the Senedd pre-election period begins. So, we won't be able to lay an Order on that, but I'll shortly be publishing a written statement giving the full update on this. But it's because the UK Government have adapted their position now on the way that they're going to use UKIMA and are focusing more on common frameworks. That's good, but it just means we're in a different pathway now to try and land it.

But, all being well, you expect that to be something that could happen early on after the election.

It would certainly be our intention that we take forward the phase 2 of single-use plastics, absolutely. 

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Sioned.

Yes, I'm happy to give you the update on that. Following our call for applications in phase 1 of the new grant, we're going to be allocating over £80 million now, as I laid out in my statement recently, to 10 local authorities and to NRW for the years from 2026-27 to 2029-30. It's a multi-year approach, which is significant as well. So, we're not having to have those deliverers on the ground now thinking, 'Well, have I got the ability to do a big scheme that needs to be done over two or three years?' Well, they've had that certainty now; I've called for it for a long time. That's going to mean that there are maintenance works on 400 tips between now and 2030—that's 400 tips. Again, it's prioritised on those high-priority tips and also based on the applications brought forward by local authorities, NRW and others, so they can deliver more complex schemes.

So, this goes from minor maintenance, but important maintenance on those tips, through to, frankly, major capital projects, some of them up to the tune of around £7 million. We've got places like Nant-yr-Odyn in Merthyr Tydfil—£7 million; the British, which I visited the other day up in Torfaen, the British regeneration—nearly £6 million; Graig Ddu Dinas in Rhondda Cynon Taf—£4.8 million; Tylorstown is still going on—nearly £2.5 million; and Penyrenglyn on an NRW site. So, in terms of the UK Government commitment, that's part of what's enabled us to do this—finally, to actually get a UK Government saying, 'We have a shared responsibility in this.' They've committed £25 million. The way that we’re funding it will now work is that we have £25 million from the UK Government in this year, £118 million over the next three years, so the total investment from UK Government will be £143 million. But let's not forget, we've already been investing in this since Tylorstown; we've done significant investments. This goes alongside ours. This is proper partnership funding.

We'll draw up plans for phase 2 of the coal tip safety grant in coming years. Those should be finalised in time for the start of the final year in this phase 1. So, what we're now doing is working with those local authorities and other partners to say, 'And what do we do next?' And that, by the way, just out of interest, will enable us then, as we've publicly said and are saying in discussions directly with the UK Government, to say, 'This is a great instalment, it enabled us to go forward with some big and complex schemes as well as maintenance, and we're going to need to keep this going now for the decades ahead as well.'

We can actually send you, if it's of interest, the detailed table of what we're going to be doing. It's quite a long and complex table of all the sites we're doing in this three years ahead, and then we need to move to the next phase as well.

So, what we are doing now—. We've actually got the quantum of funding for the next three years on this multi-year basis of exactly what we knew, the bids that were going to be coming in, and some really ambitious bids from our partners on the ground. There'll be a new tranche of that as well. The £600 million figure, which we've discussed at this committee before and in the Senedd, it was an initial estimate from some organisations, but it wasn't based on real hard grounded out data of exactly what schemes needed to be done, and it certainly doesn't reflect the work that's been done on the prioritisation even up until as we speak now. So, what we need to do is say, 'Right, here's our phase 1, how much do we now need for phase 2 and how much of that is Welsh Government commitment, how much of it is UK Government commitment? Where are the schemes that will be brought forward that will be ready and how much will those schemes cost, the business cases for them? Are they on the priority tips and so on to protect infrastructure, protect communities, et cetera, et cetera?', and then work to say, 'Right, where does that quantum of funding come from?' 

So, instead of going from what was originally an estimate figure from some, which was always a bit of an uncertainty, of £600 million—bearing in mind this is not going to be even a 10-year programme; this is a 10, 20-year and beyond maintenance programme—start from the other end, which is, 'What is the work that needs to be done, how much does it cost to do?', and building the capacity. So, as we took through the Bill on the new disused tips authority, one of the big things, similar to the floods area, is building the capacity in local authorities, NRW, private contractors, of hydrologists, mine engineers, and so on. So, we also have to put funding in place as we build that capacity to do more. The great thing is, these three years are tackling the most high-priority ones. Next phase, we need to get the funding for that. So, I would simply say, 'Flip it around', because we keep bandying this £600 million around. It may or may not be the right figure. What we need to do is go from the applications that need to be done, and the work that needs to be done, and get the funding in place to do it.

Yes, indeed. I can confirm that my team, my officials, are working on an amendment, as we speak, to the coal and petroleum notification direction. So, that would clarify the interpretation of coal and petroleum development to explicitly confirm that coal extracted from spoil tips is included within the scope of the direction. So, we do intend to introduce the amended direction before the end of this Senedd term.

Carolyn, you wanted to come in. 

Yes. We were really worried that they would use that coal for burning as part of the remediation, so thanks for asking. I just want to touch on PFAS and forever chemicals that are being dumped in land. Apparently there's a reservoir of one in north Wales as well. We had a Senedd event regarding it recently, and we were asking questions in the Chamber last week regarding it. Some from Monsanto as well. You said last week that you would be meeting with the UK Government and hopefully discussing this, and there's a policy or something, legislation, coming from the UK Government. Could you respond to that, please, as well?

I was hopeful that we would have had that. I think the inter-ministerial group was due to take place last Thursday, but for a number of reasons, including one Minister being quite ill, and others only having partial opportunity to join, that IMG was unfortunately postponed. It will be rearranged. As I indicated, what I want to do is introduce that subject as well, because we have had a step forward. There's now a UK PFAS strategy that our officials have been engaged with as well, because it is a UK issue as well as having really direct implications here in Wales. I think that gives us a platform now for proper discussion. What I want to do at that IMG is introduce it as—. We've done some good work in that IMG in a collaborative space on UK issues. I think this one lends itself to that as well. But we've got the UK PFAS strategy in place now. We now need to talk about it at a ministerial level, as well as at official level.

We welcome that. From discussions, it reminds me of the coal tips issue. It goes back to the fact that it is a UK, cross-Government issue, and we want to make sure that the polluter pays, that Monsanto—they've set up an offshoot company—will deal with these remediation issues. That's where we need to hold them to account. I think there's going to be more publicity about it soon. We just need to make sure that we've got our eye on the ball here and are working with the UK Government. Local authorities and NRW are having to deal with it locally, and there's pressure from constituents regarding dealing with it, but they need to know that the UK Government are doing it, not just local authorities.

As a matter of correction for the record, because I had two meetings going, one onto the other, it's my mistake; it was a different IMG that was cancelled last week. We did actually proceed with this, but we ran out of time on the agenda. I will make sure that it is scheduled for the next IMG on this. My apologies.

And can you report back to committee, please?

There is a mechanism in place to inform the committee, although I have to say it's not as thorough as we would like sometimes. But certainly, we do have some top lines. But maybe that's something we can follow up on in correspondence, as well. Thank you. Julie, to bring us to the last area of questioning.

Thank you. I'm going to ask you about tree planting. Have you accepted the UK Climate Change Committee's proposal to lower your 2030 tree planting target from 43,000 hectares to 22,000?

It is really important to say that we've not formally accepted them, but we acknowledge always the CCC advice in drafting carbon budget 3. Tree planting is a critical part of the overall balanced pathway in the CCC advice to reduce emissions across all sectors. But we're not in a position yet where we've formally accepted them, because we need to consider them and decide on what the pathway is for Wales.

Thank you. To me, it seems strange to lower them. Could you comment on why they would be proposing that?

It's interesting, the approach of the CCC on this occasion, because I think they have spent time, I have to say, visiting Scotland, England and Wales, looking at what are realistic pathways to achieve decarbonisation, but also recognising as well some of the barriers to things like tree planting. They've also been looking at whether we achieve the targets, whatever those targets are, in a linear fashion, where we start from tomorrow, just going like that, or whether, to overcome some of those barriers, we need to work on some of what are, quite frankly, cultural barriers in Wales to encourage tree planting.

We need farmers and landowners to be with us on this, and that means things like we've done, Julie, with the timber industrial strategy. That puts in place a clear pathway to grow all types of woodland, not only for things like shelter belts—there's a separate piece of work with the SFS using woodlands for shelter belts for cattle and increasing productivity and so on—but also developing a woodland industry that supplies the small mills in Talgarth and so on, and then goes into building houses with Welsh wood construction.

But to get to that, I think that's where the CCC have, through some of their work, said they recognise it's not just us, but there are barriers to overcome to accelerate that trajectory. I think they've been quite pragmatic, but they haven't said, by the way, that we should step away from it. What they've said is, 'We understand that there may be different ways to get there.' And part of that, by the way, is also the approach we've taken with the SFS as well, which is working with farmers and landowners to say, 'Here are some expectations where we think we can overachieve where we were with the original proposals.'

I was going to ask you about that, because the farmers are only obliged to put in 0.1 hectares. So, how do you think you're going to get the level of planting you want through the optional and collaborative layers?

The first thing to say is that that 0.1 roughly equals—. I hope my memory is right on this now, but it's something like 100 additional trees per farm. That's a good start for every farmer who comes in on the universal layer. But, actually, that's the minimum, that 0.1 hectares. Above and beyond that, we have this mapping exercise that every farmer is expected to do that identifies the opportunities on their farm for planting, which could be well beyond that, a far greater potential within tree planting.

How do we incentivise farmers to do that? It's through the optional layer and the grants that are available for planting. Let me tell you what we've done. We're putting an enhanced per-hectare payment rate in the first three years. We're pushing money into the first three years to incentivise planting of things such as broadleaf-rich planting mixes, which goes well above the cost recovery, well above the cost of putting them in. It's an additional incentive to plant those trees. So, it makes planting significantly more attractive.

These cultural things I was talking about should encourage more uptake, more entrants to say, 'We want to do more than the 0.1, we can see opportunities in these places, which are not highly productive farming land, but they're good places where we can plant trees, and for larger scale planting as well.' The payments that we're putting forward are hectare based, not a flat rate. So, it's an additional incentive to plant larger areas for the farmers who want to get involved as well. What we're trying to do is shape the proposal in a way that farmers know from day one it's worth their while getting in early and for that patch of land that they've um-ed and ah-ed about planting trees on, the funding is there now to do it as well.

So, think about the 0.1 hectares as the minimum. The opportunity plan that every farmer has to produce and the funding we put in the optional layer should incentivise greater uptake towards that 17,000 hectares ambition that we have. I'm hopeful, genuinely, that we can do far more than that. I think that's a piece of work we have to do with farmers, farming unions, advisers on the ground as well to say, 'This is not a problem. This really can work for your cattle productivity. It helps with climate resilience. It is the right tree in the right place. But, do you know, as part of your stability and resilience for your farm, you might want to venture into some wider planting to supply that timber mill in mid Wales. And when dairy prices drop, having a bit of the SFS there and a bit of tree planting funding as well can help in that sort of stability.'

I think we've got the right incentives. It's worth talking about the piece of work that we did whilst the SFS was going on. We established a trees and hedgerows stakeholder group headed by a really good official that we poached from across the border. That is not just doing work in the SFS. It's keyed into it, but it's also looking at those wider planting opportunities that might be in some of the larger estates as well. So, there's a big piece of work going beyond the SFS to try and drive up our tree planting. 

Thank you. 

Joyce.

We're also building more houses, and they tend to start with bulldozing everything in sight, and then we've got nothing left. So, there's an area of work that could be done there. But a further area of work that can be done is in terms of insisting that there's some planting of trees in the creation of an estate or a street or whatever else it is. And also, alongside that, when you're putting in capital moneys for new public sector projects, whether that's a school, hospital or whatever else it might be. So, there are other opportunities; I'm hoping that they are in part of this plan.

They are, absolutely. We still stick with that adage of the right tree in the right place, and that includes in urban environments as well, because we know the health and well-being benefits of having green space around you, including within urban environments. Some urban environments over years of planning have been denuded of green space, including tree cover. We also know, as we look at climate resilience, the benefits of trees, canopy cover with urban environments, to actually cool areas as well. We need to really think about that in the planning. Having big, sterile, concreted or asphalted areas is not good when you look at the health impacts on the population as well. 

This does play into as well some of the stuff we were talking about earlier on. SuDS development is important; it's not just because of what it does with water, it's also because you create green spaces where you can plant in those communities as well and have multiple benefits: tree cover, cooling, climate resilience, and also good spaces for people to enjoy. We need to keep on pushing on that, and it's a question of, again, putting in place the right regulatory structures and then working with town and country planners to make sure that they think, always, about nature solutions, trees within urban environments as well. We know it looks good. People feel good around it.

It cleans the air as well.

Yes, all of those benefits.

Thank you.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Can I just reciprocate that? As you know, when that phone call went, I was always first and foremost a die-hard parliamentarian of the old school, believing in the value of committees and good robust scrutiny, but also, where we can, collaborative work as well, because we're trying to achieve the same ends. I hope I'm back here, but the experience that I've had—alongside the great work of my officials as well, and I would pay tribute to them—has been a real joy. We've dealt with some challenging stuff here. And with much of the stuff that we've talked about here as well, we've set in place a platform for the next Government.

This committee has a role, or its successor committee has a role going forward, to make sure that you keep that energy and focus and forensic analysis and drive and ambition on whoever's sitting in this seat going forward. But for me, I've really enjoyed the engagement with you as a committee—individual members, but as a whole as well. It genuinely is the finest working of a Parliament like ours. Thank you very much for your engagement as well.

As part of that work, you will be sent a draft copy of the transcript of this meeting to check, which I'm sure you will do diligently.