National Assembly for Wales

Good morning, and welcome to the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee's scrutiny of the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs and the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning. This is our final scrutiny session of ministerial responsibilities in this Senedd term. We have apologies from Sam Kurtz, who will be joining us in the latter part of the session. I'll call for declarations of interest. I'll declare that I'm a partner in a farming business, should any agricultural issues come up in this part, the trade part, or obviously the scrutiny part that we resume at 1.30 p.m. The meeting is fully bilingual. Anyone requiring translation, the headsets provide that.

I will, first of all, ask the witnesses to introduce themselves for the record and the positions you hold within the Welsh Government, and then we'll go into questions. Russell, do you want to be the first one to introduce yourself, please?

Good morning. I'm Russ Roberts, deputy director for trade and investment in the Welsh Government. 

Huw Irranca-Davies, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs.

Rebecca Evans, Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning.

Emily Hole, head of the trade policy division, European Union reset and implementation.

Thank you, all. Obviously, events over the last couple of days have dramatically changed the picture when it comes to trade going forward. I'd be grateful, Cabinet Secretary, if you could update us on the view of the Welsh Government as to the likely impact on trade and what preparations the Government has taken to work with other Governments here in the UK to make sure that Welsh businesses and communities can be as resilient as possible.

Well, thank you very much for the question. I think that, at the moment, the picture is very unclear in the sense that we don't know how long the conflict will last and how broad the conflict will be. So, it's very difficult to answer that specific question, but I do want to reassure committee that we are having those discussions with the UK Government. So, just yesterday, we had the Interministerial Group for Trade, and I had the opportunity to talk with UK Government colleagues, but also colleagues from the devolved Governments as well, about this particular situation.

Clearly, at the moment, it's a case of preparing for all kinds of eventualities and having those discussions to make sure that those plans are in place. Obviously, Welsh Government, UK Government, we all have tried and tested emergency and civil contingency procedures in place to deal with unexpected shocks. But I suppose one of the immediate concerns, which has been raised frequently, is around energy. So, on domestic energy bills, certainly there'll be no immediate impact, and that's because the cap was set just before the conflict began. So, that was set for the next three months, with prices actually down 7 per cent for the next three months. But the absence of a swift end to the war might see petrol and diesel prices increase, and all of that at the moment, I'm afraid, is just highly uncertain. But we're preparing, of course, for various eventualities, and having discussions with our colleagues in different Governments.

I wouldn't ask you to speculate, Cabinet Secretary, because that could exacerbate the situation, but given that the middle east is a volatile area, there are bound to be scenarios that, in preparation for an event like this, the Government and Governments of the UK have worked on. What is the best estimate of the Welsh Government, in the scenario that we're seeing unfolding, in terms of its effect on Welsh businesses? If I take the agricultural sector, for example, there are already difficulties in being able to secure diesel, and all the fertiliser companies are closing their books on orders for fertiliser. I appreciate it's an evolving situation, but it's not exactly in an area of the world that has been renowned, sadly, for peace, so you're bound to have got some preparation in place to be able to respond, along with the other Governments, to help companies weather the storm.

I think we've got recent examples, actually, in terms of how we've been able to respond swiftly. The situation around energy was much more pronounced, for example, when Russia invaded Ukraine, and we were able to respond quickly there to support households in particular. But I don't think it's helpful for me to speculate, because there are so many ways in which things could move in the next days and weeks and beyond. If things are resolved very quickly, then the impact will obviously be much less severe. On the specific impacts around fertiliser and other products, I know that discussions are being held in other parts of Government.

Yes, indeed, and we regularly meet as a quad of ministers within the inter-ministerial group. The first thing is—and you're right in saying, Chair, and my Cabinet Secretary colleague—we can't get into the realms of speculation. But the first thing is monitoring what's going on. And you are right: we are starting to see those concerning signs of the escalation in input prices, fertiliser, feeds, and so on. But we don't know where it will go. So, the first thing is monitoring. We do that effectively across the four nations, and, of course, as well, with partners across the EU, to see the impact, because these are global supply chains that could have impact. But, yes, indeed, we will then plan for what eventualities emerge. We don't want to get into the range of speculation, of course, but we have very good four-nation engagement on this.

I think the First Minister confirmed that the Welsh Government offices are safe and secure, and the staff are, and that's something we all welcome. But are they operating in any meaningful way, given the difficulties out there, to be able to feed back information to the Welsh Government, of any developments that might occur? Or are you solely, as a Government, relying on UK networks, which is understandable, because, obviously, they're far more engaged in this process?

The UK Government networks are far more extensive, but we do have a presence, and thank you for raising that matter. Our staff overseas are accounted for. We have regular welfare check-ins with our staff overseas, but they will engage with their UK Government counterparts as well. So, we have a proper joined-up analysis of what's going on. But also paramount at the moment, I have to say, Chair, is their safety and well-being themselves as well.

And one final point, if I may. You said that there was the inter-ministerial meeting yesterday. Are you able to give us an update on any discussions that were held within that inter-ministerial gathering that could give reassurance to businesses and people here in Wales that the Governments are working in lockstep, and making sure that they are responding in real time, rather than facing up and catching up to the situation as it's developing?

Just to reassure businesses and households, regular members of the public as well, that those discussions with the UK Government are ongoing. In respect of trade, yesterday we had the opportunity to talk about potential impacts on trade and the importance of making sure that we're ready for any eventuality, given how uncertain things are at the moment, and the way in which things could play out, both in terms of the breadth of the conflict, but then also the timescale of the conflict. I think all we can really say at the moment is that the links across Governments are really strong. We've got existing structures and fora in place to deal with unexpected emergencies and unexpected pressures and so on. We've had COVID in recent memory, we've had the war in Ukraine. All of these things, I think, have built up our ability to be resilient and to respond quickly to things. So I suppose at the moment it's just a note of reassurance that those structures are in place and those conversations are happening.

It's worth saying that that is at the highest level as well. The First Minister also has regular updates from the UK Cabinet Office. But certainly, in response to your earlier question, our officials are engaging with their UK counterparts overseas, including, I have to say, in this very dangerous moment, making sure that the welfare of citizens of Wales and British citizens is looked after as well. So there is, as you would expect, a very close join-up from those who are on the front line of experiencing this in the region, but also at a First Minister level as well.

Okay, thanks. Just on that point, is the First Minister engaged in the COBRA process or not? 

The First Minister is always the point person in terms of COBRA and in terms of resilience matters.

So she would be expected to attend that meeting if it was dealing with issues related to Wales.

Indeed, she would be the individual in the Welsh Government. She is the lead person on COBRA meetings.

Thank you. Alun.

I think this conversation reinforces the point that the Cabinet Secretary made to us in January, that Brexit was a bad idea at the time and remains a bad idea today. I think the importance of our links with the European Union has been demonstrated both by events over the last week but also by the continuing war in Ukraine. I am interested, therefore, in any update you have for the committee at the moment. The negotiations on the new relationship, the reset and the rest of it, were due to be concluded in the first half of 2026. We are coming to the end of the first quarter of 2026, and so I presume that the pace of negotiations will quicken, if possible, given international issues, and that there will be some negotiations taking place after we go into recess. It would be interesting, I think, for the committee to understand where the Welsh Government is on these matters at the moment.

We expect the next UK-EU summit to take place over the summer. What we have been working on is to ensure that we can be clear with the UK Government on our priorities for that. Our first priority is around the existing negotiations with the EU and making sure that they’re concluded around the sanitary and phytosanitary and other things, for example, which Huw can talk on in more detail as well.

The second priority is around seeking to ensure that the additional barriers as a result of Brexit are removed in relation to trade. We know businesses are continuing to face barriers on exporting to the EU, so we want the UK Government to be really exploring ways in which those can be removed. Those could include, for example, addressing barriers such as rules of origin.

Then also we want the UK Government to focus on improving opportunities for young people. We’re really pleased with the results around Erasmus+, but we want to see progress now on a youth experience scheme, again trying to address some of those concerns.

So those are the priority areas for the next negotiations. There is no date set for the summit, but we are not anticipating that it will take place until the summer, and actually it's unlikely to take place before July, so obviously we can’t anticipate that things will happen this side now of dissolution.

But that timetable seems to be slipping a little, which is probably to be understood. Let me focus in on two areas. First of all, Erasmus+, youth experience, which you have mentioned there, Cabinet Secretary. I think the conversation over Erasmus and youth experience really does demonstrate the tragedy of Brexit, because as Members we would be working with our colleagues on the European mainland to actually develop these schemes, and Wales has always played a leading part in that.

The second aspect that I want to cover with you is on trade. The committee’s research has shown that 56 per cent of our overall trade in Wales—the exports—is with the EU, and that is a significant export market for us, the biggest export market for us. So the negotiations on trade are of absolute importance to this country. I'd be interested to understand where, in the structural format of negotiations, the Welsh Government is involved, both in terms of Erasmus and youth experience and then the wider trade aspects of the relationship and the negotiations.

On Erasmus+, I’ve had meetings with UK Government colleagues, specifically the Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations, Nick Thomas–Symonds, and I’ve done that alongside my colleague Vikki Howells. I know Vicky Howells has been meeting bilaterally with her counterparts in the UK Government as well on the specific issue around Erasmus, to make sure that the scheme meets the needs of people in Wales, but also actually finding out what more we can learn from the experience of Taith. Because whenever I speak to colleagues, even at the Celtic forum, colleagues from across the EU, Taith is really well known and it’s really well respected, so seeing what more we can learn from that I think is really important.

Can I stop you there? The important part of our relationship with our European friends is about how we learn from each other, and Taith demonstrated that Wales can still be at the forefront of European thinking and demonstrating European leadership. Of course, Erasmus was a Welsh invention, from Wales. So, how can we—and are we able to—still exercise that level of thought leadership across the European Union?

I think we certainly can, because since leaving the EU, this Government has put a lot of effort into maintaining our relationships with partners across the EU in various different ways, through the Vanguard institute and a whole other range of methods. I'm trying to think of the name of the role now that Derek played in Europe—Derek Vaughan.

I think it’s called Derek Vaughan, actually. The job title is to be Derek. 

He had a specific role. But that role was really useful in keeping up those day-to-day contacts as well.

Taith is going to continue until 2028, so there's still more that we can learn and share through Taith, and I know that colleagues across Europe and the UK Government are looking at that.

And then, on the trade side of things, we have a specific inter-ministerial group on EU relations. I sit on that group, and that's where we have the real opportunity then to talk about some of those wider, more strategic issues around relationships, whereas the more detailed discussions then, for example, around SPS are led by the Deputy First Minister, and he does so in his inter-ministerial groups as well. So, those inter-ministerial groups, I think, have been really, really valuable, especially in this particular space.

It would be useful to come onto SPS in a moment, but could we just continue with this conversation on trade? My assumption is that there will need to be changes to the law as a consequence of the agreement with the EU. Tell me if I'm wrong with that assumption, by the way. And I also assume that we don't quite know yet what changes will be needed, because the negotiations haven't been concluded. But there's also going to be an EU partnership Bill, which I think you mentioned in your last evidence session with us, Cabinet Secretary. So, it would be useful for us again to understand the conversations taking place, whether it's ministerial or official level at the moment, about the development of the EU partnership Bill, and also how that will impact the structure of changes to the law that will take place as a consequence of the agreement when it is reached.

We have yet to see a draft of the EU partnership Bill, and formal discussions at a ministerial level are yet to begin. That said, I did have an in-person meeting with the Minister for the Constitution and European Union Relations just last month, and I restated what we said before about the Welsh Government not normally expecting UK Government Ministers to be given powers to make changes in devolved areas, certainly without a legislative commitment not to use these without seeking our consent first. So, I think all of that is going to be really important in those discussions as they move forward. As I say, we haven't yet seen the Bill, but, once we do, we can get into those discussions in more detail. I think one of the challenges here is going to be about timescales and, of course, moving to dissolution shortly.

What's important to us, I think, is that Welsh Government officials are involved in the drafting of the Bill, not simply consulted after it's been drafted, but also the structure of engagement. Our colleague Hannah Blythyn has been representing this committee in the parliamentary partnership assembly, and there's a meeting taking place in two weeks, where I suspect I'm representing Hannah. It would be useful for us to understand any potential changes to the structures of governance in terms of this partnership Bill, which I believe should then be reflected in changes to parliamentary representation as well, because it's always important to have that balance between accountability, scrutiny and governmental relationships.

I'll ask Emily to say a bit more about the official-level engagement that has been going on. But, obviously, we wouldn't want Wales to have any less power in devolved areas than we did when the UK was a member of the EU, and that's our starting point.

Yes, that's what I'm saying.

I can talk about governance a bit on the Bill and more broadly, if that's helpful, at an official level. For the Bill itself, we've had some very initial conversations with the Cabinet Office Bill team about the Bill. We've been very clear in those conversations about what the normal expectations of the Welsh Government would be in terms of the powers contained in those Bills. As the Cabinet Secretary says, we have not seen a draft of that Bill yet. We do think we're going to see it fairly soon. I think the main thing to note on the Bill from an official perspective and in the dealings we're having with the UK Government is that the legislative consent motion for that Bill will fall on the other side of the election, which has consequences.

In terms of governance structures, just to clarify, I think, a bit, there are the governance structures that we have with the Cabinet Office. So, the Cabinet Office is the overall lead for EU reset. We engage with them regularly on the whole agenda. We engage with them on the Bill as well. The Bill will create powers to make changes that are needed to implement the agreements. There will then be a secondary legislation programme led individually by each UK Government department. So, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs would be responsible for the SPS secondary legislation programme. There's a separate governance structure with those departments as well. So, if we took DEFRA as an example, leading on SPS, we have really very good official level engagement with them. So, we engage with them on everything from the negotiations to implementation, legislation, communications—all of it. I think, if I wasn't here today, I would have three separate meetings today just on SPS with DEFRA. So, the governance is very much there.

It's different depending on which department it is. So, if we took Erasmus, the Department for Education would lead on that; the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero for the emissions trading scheme. So, it does vary slightly; each secondary legislation programme governance structure will differ slightly.

I think the committee would like to be reassured that there's a Welsh Government official working in each one of these teams, because it's at the point of drafting that these policies are really set and trying to change them afterwards is always far more difficult. So, we are reassured to hear about our engagement, but I hope that we are embedded in it, rather than simply having meetings after decisions have been taken.

I think that phrase is important. I think the reality of this is now that our officials are embedded in that governance structure. As Emily was saying, these are daily meetings, these are intense, it's the way that I think you and I would want to see this happening, but it is also then supplemented by the regular quad meetings as well, where we pick up on the big issues that are being worked through by our officials as well. So, yes, I can say with some surety here that it's embedded in the way that we would want to see this happening. We're not being locked out of this; we're right in there.

Just to conclude, my assumption is, from what officials have been saying and what the Cabinet Secretary has said, that you as well, Deputy First Minister, are fully engaged with the SPS and biosecurity aspects of this as well, which, I assume, are as tortuous as ever.

Yes, indeed. And you are right, they're tortuous, but they're essential as well. So, ministerial engagement is critical to this. So, we do this in two ways: we have the regular quad meetings on an inter-ministerial group basis, where we take this through, but we also have, as needed, additional meetings then to resolve certain issues. But it flows from, I have to say, the intensity of the work that's going on at official level.

I think we are being—. It is fair to say, without sparing anybody's blushes here, I think the benefit of where we will get to on this is because of the input of the devolved Governments, but also because of the officials working. We're trying to get back to a place that we would have recognised in the best form of working before we left the EU, that level of intensive engagement. But, yes, officials are embedded, but so are Ministers.

Good. It may well be that we need at some point—we're probably going to run out of time now—to look at the whole process of EU relationships and the structures involved. I still have concerns that, although there's good working, clearly, there between Governments, and inter-governmentalism does seem to be working from the evidence you're giving this morning, but then when it comes to formal representation, both at summits and in the EU-UK meetings in the run-up to summits, I'm concerned that the Welsh Government doesn't have the same place, and I think, from a Senedd point of view, that's something we've been talking about in terms of our democratic oversight role.53

So, it would be useful—. Actually, it might be useful if the Deputy First Minister could write, prior to dissolution, to the committee outlining how Wales is represented in conversations with the UK Government and EU negotiators—that particular aspect of it. I don't think we've got time to go into it this morning.

No. Okay, if you could do that. I see you nodding, so, hopefully you will. Just from my point of view, can you confirm that those Welsh Government officials are—how shall we put it—formal attendees to these committees rather than occasionally invited, so, they are part of the formal structure? Because we're going into an election, there could be a change of Government, there could be a change of policy, but that wouldn't affect the constitution of these committees that are working up. We can agree or disagree with the outcome of that, but it would be good to understand are those officials part of the official make-up of those working groups.

Emily, from the coalface.

I would say that it's an evolving picture. For the big, formal governance groups that have already been set up for, say, SPS, yes, we're on the terms of reference as a formal member. That wouldn't change. Because of the pace of the negotiations, new working groups are being set up all the time, every week, so we're just getting sight of the terms of reference. For the ones we've seen, yes, we are members of those groups. We are consistently invited to all of it.

But it's at the discretion of the UK Government whether you attend or not, then, and the invitation. It's not part of the constitute and quorum of the working group that you have to be there.

No, it's up to them to ensure that we're invited. We've never had an issue of not being invited to any of them.

Okay, that's helpful to understand. Thank you. Hannah.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'm going to turn now, if I may, to US trade. Indeed, in the world that we live in and the state of geopolitics at the moment, the only thing we can predict is unpredictability.

But, Cabinet Secretary, I noticed, in the report that you gave to the committee, you talked about how the latest data available shows that the US was Wales's second largest goods export partner. So, we've seen a number of things happen in recent weeks, and certainly since you were last before committee, around the so-called Trump tariffs, the US supreme court's decision on that, and the response of now just implementing a 10 per cent tariff, which has recently come into effect. So, are you able to offer some initial reflection to the committee on any analysis you've done about how that will impact on Wales, and, in particular, the impact on the UK's economic prosperity deal? Diolch.

Sorry, I missed the question. Was it specifically on the most recent announcements around tariffs from the US?

Yes, and your reflections on what that impact might be in respect of Wales, but also in terms of the ongoing work on the UK's economic prosperity deal.

Great. Okay. Obviously, the US is one of our most important trading partners, and we did really welcome that announcement last year that the UK had secured the framework agreement to continue negotiations in several areas. Obviously, it's not a legally binding document, it just sets out the framework and the groundwork, really, for further negotiations. So, we obviously want to see barriers reduced to trade—actually, both ways as well; so, inward investment from the US is also really important for our economy.

Obviously, there have been some very fast-moving things happening in the US in terms of their approach, and we just want to make sure that we continue those discussions in a really constructive manner. There are some particular areas where we're concerned that progress has to be made—so, for example, around clarity on steel, automobile. The US court ruling recently has added to the picture, but our understanding is that the ruling means—. The ruling and subsequent action by the US means that a 10 per cent tariff rate is applied now to most US goods, rather than 15 per cent. Steel and automotive are sectors that we're particularly looking at, because those are the exceptions to that 10 per cent rate.

Okay. Thanks for that update, Cabinet Secretary. I understand that it is, as you said, in a state of flux, but, in terms of that engagement, is that done through UK Government or is that done distinctly as Welsh Government officials or Ministers?

So, this is done through the UK Government, but, again, it's something that we talk about in the Interministerial Group for Trade. So, again, it was something we were able to talk about in the meeting yesterday to get the very latest picture, particularly following the US court rulings. We're working with the UK Government now to understand what the latest developments will mean for the UK and Wales.

If I may, Chair, I think Alun was focusing on the EU and trade with the EU, and we know how important that is to Wales, specifically, not just the UK as a whole. So, in terms of the approach the Welsh Government takes, how do you balance priorities between EU and the US? What sort of approach do you take on that?

Well, the EU is our closest and most important trading partner. The US is also a really important market to us, so we want to see an improvement in that relationship, but progress with the US can't be seen to the detriment of our trading relationship with the EU. So, the relationship with the EU remains our first priority, but the US, obviously, is very important as well, and I don't think it is a binary choice between managing the relationships between the US and the EU. We want to see action taken to improve trade in both camps, and I think that we can do that.

In both sets of negotiations, our principles remain the same. It's essentially about trying to make things easier for Welsh businesses to be able to trade across both of those markets. Both of those markets are really important in relation to our export programmes as well, so we've been able to support a number of export events to the US—three events so far this year, with a further two later this month. Over the same period, we've supported Welsh businesses to take part in eight trade events to Europe, so they're both really important markets, and we're doing everything that we can to support businesses to open those up.

Thank you.

Okay, Hannah? Could I just ask you on the supreme court decision, which was a week last Friday in America? That obviously changed the landscape of the legislation that the President could use to enforce tariffs, but the President firmly believes that he has the legislative backing to keep tariffs in place and they will be part of his arsenal. What assessment has the Welsh Government made of the 1972 legislation that the President has alluded to that he'll now use in the tariff regime and of the impact that will have on Welsh businesses in particular?

I'll ask Emily to come in on this particular point. 

I think, fundamentally, our answer to any of the tariff legal questions is it's up to the US how they set their tariffs. In practice, at the moment, what we're not looking at is a significant change. We had a 10 per cent tariff under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act 1977, we have a 10 per cent tariff under 122. Those tariffs can only apply for 150 days. In that time, if the administration wants to carry on, it will need to find a different legal means to do so. It does have different options. I think there are three other legal paths that it could use to put tariffs on—they will work slightly differently—or it can seek Congress's approval to continue with the 122 tariffs.

So, we do have an idea of what legal powers they're using. It is uncertain anyway whether they will stick to whether they can use them or not. We've not seen a massive regard to legal powers previously, so it's wait and see, but it is up to them what they use. We will keep an eye on it and its legality.

Just on the tariffs that have been paid to date, in light of the supreme court judgment, is it your understanding that, in the period that that judgment levied the tariffs on businesses, that money would be due back to those businesses, because the judgment said that it was an illegal act that took place? 

The judgment obviously wasn't clear on the repayment element. It is our understanding that it's possible, but we need to remember that it's the importers who pay tariff, not the exporters. So, Welsh businesses will not be paying those tariffs; it will be the US importers on the other side who would be able to reclaim, if they can do so.

And finally, to you, Cabinet Secretary, if I may, on the US side: this week, Foyle Food Group of Northern Ireland exported the first beef as part of the tariff-free quota that was negotiated by the UK Government. Are you aware that any Welsh companies will benefit from that tariff-free quota and are participating in that export drive in the US market, or is that something that, regrettably, companies haven't engaged with yet?

Not at present, but we are very interested, clearly. Our approach would be that if you can reduce tariffs and open up export markets, that's to everybody's advantage, surely. So, we're hopeful that we can benefit from this in the same way as the case that you just described going forward. But it is early days yet.

Okay, thank you. Jenny.

I want to go on to steel. The steel safeguards that we have are due to expire at the end of June, and, under World Trade Organization rules, we're not permitted to roll them over. And the senior chap for Tata, Russell Codling, the commercial director, told the House of Commons Business and Trade Committee on 10 February that the UK Government has two months to save the UK steel industry. So, I know, Rebecca, you had an inter-ministerial meeting yesterday, and I wondered what your deliberations have produced, if there's anything you can tell us about what is obviously a very imminent crisis.

So, this was really timely as a meeting yesterday, because steel was another featured item on the agenda, and I was able to really impress upon UK Government what I know they've heard from industry, but also from unions as well, about the fact that this issue needs to be resolved really by April, because that's the point at which the orders will be going in for the next quarter. So, UK Government is really alive to that issue; I think it's making good progress, and I really hope for an announcement in the coming weeks now.

Okay, so you think they're gripping it, because they've yet to publish their steel strategy, and clearly this is, in light of things going on elsewhere in the world, a pretty substantive issue.

Yes, I did feel reassured from the meeting yesterday that the UK Government is really focused on resolving this issue, and then also alongside that, in terms of understanding the importance of publishing the steel strategy as well, because I think committee might have heard from union representatives, and I met with union representatives recently, and the lack of certainty and what that means for individuals, I think, was something that really came through strongly to me in that meeting, in terms of the mental and physical impact of uncertainty on steelworkers themselves. So, that is another reason we're pressing so hard for the publication.

I want to move on to scrap now, because UK Steel have recently published a report entitled 'Steel Scrap: A Strategic Raw Material for Net Zero Steel'. So, I wondered what that means for Wales in light of the fact that, at the moment, we export something like 80 per cent of our scrap to other countries. What does this mean that the UK steel industry are saying scrap is a really important element in all this? Obviously, if we want to build wind turbines with scrap steel, we've then got to have good-quality scrap that is much more resilient than, say, scrap for canning a tin of tomatoes. So, just what do we need to do? Because I don't think Indian imports are happening at the moment, any time soon, given the situation in the world. So, what is the latest on how we're going to make ourselves resilient in terms of steel?

So, scrap will be absolutely critical, and that, again, is why we're so anxious for the UK steel strategy to be published. The Steel Council has done specific work looking at the importance of scrap and all of those issues around the quality of the material. So, we do expect the steel strategy to have a really strong section in it in relation to scrap as well. But, as I say, this is another reason that we need the strategy to be published as soon as possible.

So, are there things that we need to do to get cleverer at recycling steel to the quality that we're going to need for building bridges and wind turbines? 

Yes, so I think the quality will be really important, and then how that scrap is processed to make sure that we're using—. You'll probably want to get expert opinion on the correct kind of scrap, but I think that all of that should be captured in the steel strategy, which will, as I say, have a specific section looking at scrap, which is a technical area that—

This is very important for Wales. Obviously, Tata's electric arc operation isn't yet onstream, but we've still got the one down the road, and we need to ensure that we've got the processes onstream to safeguard the jobs. I'll pass over to my colleague Luke Fletcher, who obviously has a local interest in this.

Luke.

Diolch, Jenny. Diolch, Cadeirydd. Yes, this question on scrap has been hanging over us for quite some time, and if you speak to a number of people within the industry, part of the recipe, formula, for using that scrap steel will include direct reduced iron. That’s been pretty clear throughout. I think the question around scrap in particular, though, coming back to the whole trade element of this, having had conversations with a number of scrap metal dealers—the Deputy First Minister will be aware of Bayliss Metals, for example, in Bridgend—one of the things that they are adamant about is that the steel that they are getting in, they would still be looking to export that steel, because it makes up a large part of their order book anyway. But also, if you look at the lead times on payment terms with Tata, 7 Steel UK, whoever they might be, they are incredibly long. I think in the case of Tata, you are talking around 90 days. So, I think the question that I would ask the Welsh Government around this is: I understand the arguments around waiting for the steel strategy, but what sort of conversations have happened with the wider sector around how we resolve some of those issues around payment terms? Because, of course, with some of these scrap metal merchants—well, not some, the majority of them—they are smaller businesses, or they tend to be, and payment terms of that length of time, competing with the ability of getting paid the day that the scrap is exported, obviously is appealing to them more.

There's a separate stream of work, which the UK Government is leading on, in relation to fair payment. I've had one meeting with the UK Government on that, but it is a UK Government-led issue. I'm more than happy to write to committee with an update on that. But, to reassure colleagues, the issues around scrap and through the Steel Council have been very much led by experts, so technical experts, but also the industry itself. So, as I say, we await the steel strategy, which will have a significant element on scrap in that and, as I believe, a strategic approach to dealing with scrap in future years.

Again, I take the point around waiting for that steel strategy, but what I would really like to get an understanding of from the Welsh Government is: what are the proactive asks the Government has been making to the UK Government around what should be included in the UK steel strategy from a Welsh perspective? 

In the steel strategy overall?

Yes. So, what is Welsh Government going to the UK Government asking for its specific inclusion within the UK steel strategy, whether that's the overall strategy or specific asks for the Welsh steel industry?

Overall, we've looked at what specific capabilities and priorities we have here in Wales and, actually, one thing that we have really been leading on in those discussions is around research, because obviously at Swansea University we've got really important skills around metals. So, we've been really pressing for an important role for innovation and investment, and so on, on the skills and research side of things. So, that's one of the things that we've been really pressing for strongly as a result of the discussions that we've been having with the UK Government around the steel strategy. And obviously our move to the electric arc furnace is going to be really, really important, and making sure that scrap is available and all of those other things that are going to be important for that to be a success.

What have the Welsh Government's asks been around tariffs? What would be your preference as a Cabinet Secretary?

We've made the case to the UK Government that the steel strategies have to provide adequate protection for our steel industry, and that is by putting tariffs at a suitable rate as a deterrent to stop the excessive dumping of steel into the UK market, but then also with a flexible quota arrangement that would support our existing flow of trade with the EU. That's partly because Wales and the UK don't manufacture all of the different types of steel that we need, so we do still need some types of steel to be entering the UK, but we need to manage that in a way that doesn't harm our own industry. Then, also, we want to potentially support the inclusion of a melt-and-pour arrangement within the UK steel measures, but it has to be flexible so that it doesn't harm the transition of Tata to the EAF. So, those are some of the things that we've been asking for.

Specifically in relation to the current measures proposed by the EU, so around reducing the quotas that the UK has on steel by 50 per cent and then increasing the tariffs outside of that quota by 50 per cent, those details have been calculated and allocated on data held over the period of 2022-24. The EU believes that that's a suitable reference period, but actually we support the UK steel sector and the UK Government in making the case that it doesn't take into account adequately a number of things, such as the move to net zero, such as COVID, for example. We would want those quotas to be much more reflective of current trade flows and more recent trade between the UK and the EU. Again, that's something that we're pressing with the UK Government in relation to steel. I know the UK Government's had a number of technical discussions now with the EU to set out the case for both sides to have favourable steel measures that meet the needs of both markets, and, as I say, we're still in discussion with the UK Government on that.

Okay. Returning to what a suitable rate for a tariff would be, does the Welsh Government have a view on what that suitable rate would be?

I think those would be for negotiation between the UK and the EU, in the sense that, as a general rule, we don't talk in detail about negotiation positions.

And what would be the Welsh Government's position in relation to China? I'm pretty sure the Cabinet Secretary will be aware that Unite has called on the UK Government to remove the status of 'developing country' from China to try and curb some of the dumping of Chinese steel within our market. Does the Welsh Government have a view on that specifically?

We certainly want to look into the implications of that. The last thing we want is excess steel being dumped on our market, for all the reasons that I've discussed. I don't know if there have been any discussions on the detail with the UK Government.

No, okay.

Jenny.

No. 'No' as in 'I don't know'.

I'm asking the wrong official, because we haven't got our steel officials, unfortunately, with us today. It would have been a good idea.

Okay. Could I just ask a further question, which may be in the Deputy First Minister's domain, or yours, Rebecca? One of the demands of UK Steel in this new report is that we uphold environmental standards by restricting the export of scrap to non-Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries who can't demonstrate that they can process them sustainably, and that this has already been done by the EU. So, is this something that the UK Government is planning to align itself with? Is there anything you can tell us at this stage? Because, clearly, that would be something that, for other reasons, we'd support. It's very difficult, isn't it? We're still going to need to export steel, and we hope to be able to export steel to the EU, but at the moment I appreciate you're in negotiations and you can't—. Perhaps you could send us a note before our final meeting with the steel industry.

Yes, we'd be happy to do that, Jenny. From a circular economy point of view, we want to maximise the capture of steel and reusable, recyclable steel within this country, because it also drives jobs then as well—we capture those jobs here. We're very alive to what's happening in the EU as well, and particularly, harking back to our earlier discussion, we're keen to both maintain our environmental credentials and drive forward on the circular economy, and also maintain wherever possible that dynamic alignment with what's going on within the EU as well. I'll happily drop you a note on that that will give you some more detail on it, but our starting point in principle is capture what's available here within the UK and use it to create those jobs that we want here.

Finally, is there anything that Wales needs to be doing to ensure that we maximise the better quality scrap for the things that we don't want to have to import steel for?

I'm more than happy to include that within the note, because we are into quite technical aspects here that are probably beyond our gift as Cabinet Secretaries. But we're more than happy to drop you a detailed note on that.

Just for clarification, I take it that the Welsh Government are supportive—I think I have interpreted this correctly—of changing the regulations on the export of certain types of scrap so that you protect the indigenous Welsh/UK steel industry that relies on quality scrap rather than the lower end of scrap metal, so that they can produce high quality steel, and secondly, you would be also setting an environmental benchmark as well to make sure that if it was exported, it was going to countries that could genuinely deal in that product in an environmentally friendly way. You are supportive of that. 

We are supportive in principle of that. What I can do in dropping you the note is set out exactly where we are on considering any measures to make that happen.

But with your food processing responsibility hat on, we also don't want to be importing tin for cans. There needs to be a stream of production for canning food, which obviously doesn't need to be that high quality.

Yes. That principle is absolutely right. So, the question is what can we actually do to make that happen. It is something of an iterative process as well. But I will happily set that out in the note back to you.

Thank you. Are there any other questions from colleagues? No. Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. Deputy First Minister, thank you very much. You have managed to answer our questions in such an efficient way that you have got an extra 20 minutes for lunch. You have 18 minutes to be exact. I look forward to seeing you back here at 1.30 p.m. with your officials, Deputy First Minister. As usual, the record will be sent over to your good selves so that you may check it. If there are any issues, please liaise with the clerking team. Otherwise, that will form the official record of your evidence this morning. Thank you very much. We will now break for lunch and resume at 1.30 p.m.

Welcome back to the final scrutiny session with the Deputy First Minister and his officials. The sessions will be split into two. In the first session, Members will ask their own questions, and then there'll be a general scrutiny session in the final hour on key points that the committee has undertaken during its five-year tenure this over the Senedd period. I'll ask you first of all to introduce yourself, if I may. I'll start with Richard, if I may, and then we'll go to questions.

Prynhawn da, bawb. Good afternoon, everybody. Richard Irvine, Chief Veterinary Officer for Wales.

Huw Irranca-Davies, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs.

Prynhawn da, bawb. Gian Marco Currado, rural affairs director.

Thank you, all. Deputy First Minister, could I ask you to address the comments that you made in the short debate on the veterinary profession? It's pertinent that we've got the chief vet with you as well. The UK Government are undertaking a considerable amount of work into the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966, and also the Competition and Markets Authority has an investigation into veterinary practices here in Wales, but also, obviously, across the United Kingdom. There was a substantial petition that came via the Petitions Committee, and you indicated quite a degree of support for much of what has come out of the Competition and Markets Authority's recommendations, and also, obviously, the call for evidence into the veterinary surgeons legislation of 1966. 

Thank you for this opportunity to address that. How long back was that debate now?

The first week of December.

Yes. There are two separate pieces of work going on, as you indicated. There are some overarching elements, or some that overlap, but, actually, they're two separate pieces of work, and I suspect that they'll be taken forward separately as well. One of them is very much in the reserved territory. Pardon my voice. The consultation on the reform of the veterinary surgeons Act is being led by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on a GB-wide basis. It is a reserved matter, but the good thing I would say to anybody who's interested in this at the moment is that the consultation is out there live right now. When the debate was going on, it hadn't opened; it's now open and up and running. It's looking at things such as the introduction of a licence to practise process, a new fitness to practise process, the regulation of veterinary businesses and animal healthcare providers, governance of the sector as well, the wider veterinary professions as well. I would strongly encourage anybody who listened to that debate originally and who is still interested in it to put their views into that.

On the CMA one, which is a separate piece, the publication from its review is expected, I believe, in May. It's likely to be May. That one, of course, is looking into particularly—and I know I've met and discussed this with a number of people, including my own constituents, but also in my wider travels as well—that important thing about maintaining veterinary practice, but also the affordability and accessibility of those services throughout all parts of the nation as well. A particular concern with that, of course, is to make sure, to use a colloquialism, that people aren't being ripped off, they're having a good service being provided and can access it locally as well. So, two really interesting pieces of work, we're glad they're going on—people should put their views in, I think.

Do you support the conclusions of the Competition and Markets Authority, in particular when it comes to transparency and pricing, and, in particular, knowing the ownership of practices? Because a lot of these practices have been purchased by conglomerates. Obviously, the other point that they make quite clear is their concerns around the medical pressures and the profit pressures, and a veterinary surgeon shouldn't feel under pressure to make a decision that isn't based principally on the well-being of the animal.

Absolutely, and that's what it all boils down to, fundamentally, the welfare of the animals. That's got to be first and foremost in considerations, and I'm sure that would be the same for pet keepers and pet owners, as well as the veterinary profession, I just want to say, because they are under immense pressure across a range of areas. My thanks go to the veterinary profession in its widest sense for the work that they do day in, day out. They are all striving to achieve those high animal welfare standards, whether you're talking about vets who work in agricultural practices or who work with small pets and companion animals, and so on. They're doing a really good job.

Do we support the broad conclusions? Who wouldn't support the idea that you should have more transparency both in terms of ownership and how these businesses operate, absolutely. But there is, of course, that balance to be struck. You're absolutely right, Chair, in saying this is not to say there can be no profit within this, but that it should also be balanced against affordability and transparency on those costs, so that when Alun Davies takes in his pet chinchilla to be treated—

Chihuahua.

—then he knows the animal welfare aspects are being well looked after, but also he's getting a good fair deal, and also that that business can carry on. One of the things we do want to make sure is that it's not all—. There has been a tendency in the market to move towards these consolidated business ventures. Well, actually, we also do want to see a diversity of practice and local practices. So, having that transparency that you know you're getting good delivery, affordable delivery, and there is some profit in the business, is important.

And you've conveyed those sentiments and support for the broad conclusions of the Competition and Markets Authority to the relevant Westminster department, who will, obviously, make any changes to current regulations.

Yes, indeed. They're well aware of our views on this. And also, my chief veterinary officer as well, Richard, is engaged on a regular basis with his counterparts on how we take this forward. I don't know if you want to add on that. 

Diolch, Deputy First Minister. Just to add a specific technical point that I'm sure is fully within the committee's sights, the Competition and Markets Authority review is focused on the companion animal sector.

Yes, indeed. 

So, just to ensure that we're all—. So, Alun Davies's chinchilla or chihuahua will be therefore in scope. But, joking aside, it's an important distinction, because as the Deputy First Minister rightly highlighted, we have a diversity in the profession in the provision of those animal health and welfare care services across Wales, across GB/UK and across sectors. As I say, we work closely with our UK Government and devolved Government counterparts in this space, whether it's on the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 reform—. As the Deputy First Minister said, consultation is live right now. Any organisation or individual is therefore—. It's the right time to feed in views on that consultation.

As the Deputy First Minister also said, the CMA final report is anticipated around May time. I think we also have to bear in mind that their further findings will come forward, and we'll continue then to scrutinise those in in collaboration with counterparts to understand more about what the CMA's conclusions are in their final report, as well as what the implications may be both in terms of the scope of the CMA review itself, but also recognising, as the Deputy First Minister also said, where there may be overlapping areas. But, as I say, they are two distinct entities from the point of view of the CMA review of the companion animal sector and provision of services and care, and the veterinary surgeons Act with regard to reform of the veterinary profession as a whole.

And that's—. My final point on this, if I may. The Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons, obviously, is currently the regulator, I believe, and there's a discussion and a debate as to whether it should be stripped of that responsibility and an independent ombudsman created, as outlined by the Competition and Markets Authority. I believe that is in the interim report. Do the Welsh Government support that reform in the way the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons is constructed in that piece of legislation to create that independent ombudsman rather than leave that regulatory responsibility with the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons?

We have not got a firm, finalised view yet, because we need to see the final outcome of this piece of work. We're very interested in the recommendations it'll bring forward. Once we have the final version, then we'll come to a view as Welsh Government. 

Okay, thank you. Jenny. 

Thank you very much, and apologies for being late. I want to talk to you about the sustainable farming scheme. We're at a really critical point here, because we won't know until 15 May how many people have signed up to the sustainable farming scheme, and clearly that's incredibly important to try and ensure that we have excellent food being delivered without trashing the environment. How will the numbers who join the main scheme determine the amount of money available for the optional and collaborative layers? 

So, we're in the area of uncertainty and expectancy now. We've designed the scheme, as you know from previous appearances in front of the committee, to be genuinely accessible. We believe—. Even with the fact that we are asking farmers to do a range of things within this, we believe it is accessible, but we will not know until people sign on the dotted line. But we have made clear, in making sure that farmers have that confidence in coming in, because we've set the universal layer there, that we also want to then go further forward in developing the optional and collaborative, which is, as I've said before, more funding available to farmers to do the right thing, working together on, I'd say, broadly two areas. One is to do with productivity, which can include, by the way, better management, husbandry, soil management and so on on the farm, but also on that collaborative spatial basis.

So, yes, we're in great expectation. The amount of work we've done to lay the ground for this is phenomenal. My personal take at the moment, Jenny, is that I'm really heartened by the amount of interest that we've had, because it's gone through the autumn since we laid the basis of this back in last June, through the autumn when we've done the roadshows, through the ready reckoner, that people have expressed their interest.

Save your voice, Cabinet Secretary, because we know you've worked incredibly hard on this. The issue now—and you've tried to engage absolutely everybody—is you're running out of time, aren't you? And so it'll be down to the future Government to implement or not the optional and collaborative. 

Yes.

How much anxiety is there, amongst the people who you've been working with to get these optional and collaborative actions together, that the whole thing could fall apart? 

No. Well, there isn't anxiety, oddly, because this scheme doesn't appear out of nowhere. The work that we've done over the last year on some of the collaborative elements, things such as the Ffermio Bro, things such as the integrated landscape approach—some of the optional pieces we've already had out there trialling. So, we won't bring them forward all at once. We've always said it would be a phased approach, because the intelligent approach taken by this scheme is that we can actually develop the optional and collaborative with stakeholders in the same way we've brought the overall scheme together, as we go, but we will be ready with initial ones to start in phase 1. Then we'll develop phase 2.

You raise an important point, though, which is this. I've always made it clear, and the work that we've done with farmers and environmental groups and other stakeholders has been on the premise that we are genuinely asking farmers to do a wide range of things within the SLM objectives, sustainable land management objectives. And that includes things such as climate resilience, which is good for the farm, by the way, for their future resilience, but also biodiversity, habitat creation, as well as really good food production as well. Now, a future Government could—. You never know what a future Government could do. A future Government could say, 'Hey, we're not bothered with that stuff, that's rubbish, that's a diversion.' I understand that another party has announced its manifesto today—I caught some of the headlines as I was walking in here—basically saying, 'Scrap the thing' and going back to something that looks like from the 1950s. That's my interpretation of it, anyway.

Actually, there's a really big sign-up here, Jenny, from farmers, farming unions, landowners and from the environmental groups to do the right thing with this, and it gives that certainty going forward. So, I'm always the optimist when I appear in front of people, but my optimism is driven by the things we've put in place that steer a future path for this scheme and the support that there is for it. So, yes, can I absolutely guarantee what the future Government will do? No. Can I say to them that they'd have to unwind a hell of a lot of work? Yes. Do you know the other thing they'd have to unwind? It's the collaborative approach we've done this in, where you bring together—. It's not just farmers and landowners over here and environmental groups over here—all sitting around the table saying, 'Here's what we're trying to do.' That gives me confidence that we've got a good thing in place and it gives me—. Not to say that any Government couldn't undo it, but they'd be an unwise Government to do it.

So, short answers would be good for your voice. What risk, if any, is there of farmers being paid twice for the same actions under the SFS and the preparatory phase? I don't know if you want Gian Marco to—

I will, to save my voice, pass it, but we've taken account of this already to make sure that it doesn't happen. But, Gian Marco, I wonder if you can help me, with my voice, a little bit. 

Yes, of course, absolutely. In short, I think the risk is small, because we have built on the tried and tested systems that we have in Rural Payments Wales that we've developed over many years of managing things like the rural development programme. That includes the underpinning databases, so we've got the integrated administration and control system, IACS, which is the framework, and underneath that is the mapping system that allows us to, in effect, look at that level of detail. So, we are confident that the risk is small.

The other thing that I would just add is that, for the first time, we're going to be working with farmers to try and understand perhaps what other payments they might receive outside of what we're managing, to try and further reduce that risk. But I think the systems we have, which are tried and tested, are the best insurance we have against that risk.

Okay. The new Farming Connect programme—how do we know that it's going to give as much support to new entrants, like horticulturalists, given that the commissioning of it was done, in terms of ourselves, behind closed doors? So, we're obviously not quite sure what's been going on or who's got the contract.

Yes, we can give you an update on that. I think we've explained previously why the process of commissioning this was done in the way that it was done, but—

We've got that on record, yes.

That's helpful. But, yes, the question you had was to do with new entrants, with horticulturalists— 

Well, I think that Lantra has been providing a lot of help to horticulturalists, who, by definition are—or most of them—new entrants. I just wondered what assurances we can have, in the context of the food security issues I just want to ask you about as well, that future new entrants are going to get that sort of support, which they need to be successful businesses.

Yes, absolutely. Not only in horticulture, but the wide aspects of Farming Connect have been integral to this period of introducing the SFS. Lantra and others have been very much engaged in helping shape what we do with this, and the horticultural aspect of this, I think, has been welcomed by many smaller growers and others, where we've adapted SFS to deliver on it. So, Farming Connect will help us with the advice on that. I'm going to hand over—. My voice is getting—. It's worse than this morning.

I'm happy to add. What we've done is—with the new contracts, we've obviously built on the learning of the previous Farming Connect contracts, which includes that dedicated support to horticulture. So, we absolutely expect the new provider, which the Deputy First Minister made an announcement on in January, to continue that support for new entrants as a whole, but also specifically in horticulture. As the Deputy First Minister said, we've deliberately made some changes to the scheme, which we've discussed before, including the eligibility rules, the size or number of labour hours, deliberately to encourage horticulture. So, we think that the support plus the scheme rule changes, plus some of the optional actions that we're developing, which build on some of the current SFS preparatory schemes that are targeted specifically for horticulture, all of these things should help us grow that sector, which is something that Ministers have been keen to do.

I'm going to have to cut this part now, because we've had 10 minutes on it, so another Member can come in on—. 

If we can come back in, if there's time—. 

I will try, if there's space, Jenny. I did notice that Sam wanted to intervene on this particular section, and then I'll invite Luke to ask his questions.

Lovely. Thank you very much, Chair. I just want to come back to Gian Marco's answer to a previous question to Jenny Rathbone around duplication of payments for support. Can you just clarify? Do you mean that if a farmer or farm business is receiving support through a private business, for example—I'm thinking of First Milk's regenerative scheme—that means they then become ineligible for some SFS support, or have I misunderstood?

Just to clarify, what I meant was if there is support provided by Welsh Government in other areas that we don't administer through Rural Payments Wales. We're trying to get a handle on that in addition. That's what I meant. Sorry, if I was unclear.

Okay. That's a helpful clarification there. Thank you, Gian Marco. Thank you, Chair. 

Okay. Luke. 

Diolch, Cadeirydd. In the first half of this session, I just wanted to look at peat and the banning of peat in particular. This has been something that's been in the pipeline now for some time. I was wondering if the Cabinet Secretary could outline what some of the barriers are to progressing now with the ban on peat in compost.

Yes, there's only one obstacle really, because there's sign-up across the four nations to move ahead with this. We've discussed it regularly at the inter-ministerial groups. I've seen correspondence from Scottish Government colleagues recently supporting the idea of taking this forward on a UK-wide basis. It makes sense to do it. So, we're all eagerly in anticipation of that moment where the UK Government can find a legislative opportunity to do it. We do keep pressuring them. Sorry, pressuring is the wrong word, because they do want to do it; they've signalled that very clearly. It's finding that legislative opportunity. Now, I understand that we have a King's Speech coming forward shortly. I don't know what's going to be in it, but I wonder—I hope that there'd be an opportunity somewhere in there for a piece of legislation that may not be a peat Bill specifically, but that could be an environmental piece of legislation, or a land-use piece of legislation, that we could move on that together. All of us now, as nations, are behind this, but we'd like to do it on a UK-wide basis.

Okay. Am I right in thinking that there's a private Member's Bill going through Parliament at the moment?

Correct. Yes, indeed. 

So, what would be stopping the four nations getting behind that private Member's Bill? If we're talking about looking for a legislative opportunity, there's one in the pipeline.

If it's shaped correctly. As you know, the classic question of a private Member's Bill is: is it broadly in the right shape that it's suitable for being taken forward? And the other thing, of course, is whether it would be carried over into a future session. Because if we're facing another King's Speech, where we have that moment, that hiatus, some Bills get carried over, some don't. It's not often—it's not without precedent, but it's not often—that a private Member's Bill gets carried over. It tends to be Government Bills that are at tail end. Look, we would be supportive of any mechanism that can achieve this UK-wide approach to the peat ban.

Okay. So, no, indication whatsoever, then? 

Not on timescale at the moment. But genuinely, rest assured, this is raised regularly, in writing, in the inter-ministerial groups. So, the only barrier, the only impediment, to taking this forward is UK Government saying to us, 'We've found the opportunity.' 

Right. 

There is another, alternative way, which is we all do it on our own. And if it goes on and on, I suspect we'd all have to come back and say, 'Right, shall we try and co-ordinate between us?' But, logically, within the market that we have, this is a good one, with the consent of devolved Ministers, to take forward on a UK basis.

So, that was going to be my next question, around, well, at what point do we turn around and say, 'Well, it's taking too long on a UK level, why not just put it through our own processes and co-ordinate in that sense?' So, what would be the cut-off time in your view?

I don't think we can go on through the next term of the Senedd with the next Senedd Government still going, 'When are we going to get there?' So, at some point, this is going to have to be resolved. The investment that we've done, the work, the collaboration that we've done with the sector to find alternatives, we're at that point where we can do this now with the horticultural sector and so on. So, I don't think we can go on another four years in this Parliament saying, please, find the opportunity. The DEFRA Secretary of State is very aware of this and is supportive of this. The challenge for the DEFRA Secretary of State is to actually carve out—. Often, the hardest things to land are the pieces of legislation that have the greatest support. They're the easiest ones to take forward, but a government will rush at a King's Speech with highly contested or symbolic legislation or things they really want, so this little one gets squeezed away to the end. But, no, I don't think it can go on forever. The next Senedd term, I think, Ministers here will have to make a decision on how it goes forward.

Okay, fine. 

Okay, Luke?

That's it for the first half. 

Hannah. 

Thank you, Chair. I'm going to turn to animal welfare in the time I am allocated now, and perhaps, Cabinet Secretary, you could give us in the initial instance a brief update on how you view progress of the Welsh Government's ‘Our Animal Welfare Plan for Wales 2021-26’, as I know it contains a number of programme for government commitments.

[Inaudible.]—PFG commitments, and I'm pleased to say we've progressed on all of them. We can, if it's helpful, drop a note to the committee on where we've got to on this, because shortly we'll be updating the whole of the Senedd on where we've got to on all the PFG commitments. So, the piece of work that we were doing on the animal licensing, we've made statements to the Senedd previously showing how we're taking that forward. We’re minded to do it in a phased approach, so we will do it on the main animal licensed establishments first of all—the kennels, the catteries, et cetera, et cetera—and then we'll move in phase 2 to those areas such as grooming parlours and so on.

There's a range of other commitments that we've made and we've taken forward as well. I'll come to Richard in a moment to save my voice. Richard, I wonder if you can help with that.

Absolutely, Deputy First Minister. As you rightly say, we have several programme for government commitments that have all been completed in this space, and as you said, there'll be further updates in due course. With regard to Animal Licensing Wales, we have a successful programme, I think it's fair to say, on an all-Wales basis in bringing together our local authority colleagues with regard to training harmonised approaches that then enable that inspection and enforcement regimen across Wales.

The consultation that I think you're alluding to, Deputy First Minister, if I've understood you correctly, took place probably a couple of years ago now, and very clearly identified priority areas for action as part of the further development of a national licensing regimen. And where you were referring to kennels and catteries, I think just for the committee's benefit, just to expand on that briefly, if that's okay, that is really thinking about centres that you might characterise as 'rescue centres' or 'rehoming centres', where dogs and cats naturally find themselves, shall we say, but bringing that together as part of a future regimen with regard to licensing.

We will also be bringing forward, as we have done every year as part of the animal welfare plan for Wales, an annual summary of progress against the animal welfare plan for Wales. So, a year 4 summary will be brought forward in the coming weeks as well, to hopefully provide more flesh on the bones, if you will, more colour to the picture than I'm able to give in the relatively short time that we have in committee with you this afternoon. So, that will provide more detail, building on the previous annual updates for the animal welfare plan for Wales.

So, I hope that makes sense by way of an overview. I'm conscious of time, Chair, so I don't want to prolong the answer unnecessarily.

Okay, no problem. Thank you. Hannah. 

Thank you. If only more politicians were like that. [Laughter.]

If you could or were able to provide any information to the committee it would be appreciated. I think it would certainly help the work we're doing around a legacy report for the seventh Senedd as well.

I want to turn to the use of cages for pheasants and partridges by the shooting industry. I know there's been particular concern in the last year or so in terms of the risk of spreading disease, and the inspections of game bird farms. I was wondering if you could give us an update on that regime for inspection and any action the Welsh Government is taking or committed to perhaps recommending in the future on this matter. Thank you.

Yes, you rightly alluded to what could be done in the future as well, but our focus primarily at the moment in terms of caged birds has been on the laying hens part of this. But you rightly point out there is also work to be done within the game birds section as well. But I'm going to pass to Richard.

Diolch, Deputy First Minister. So, as you rightly said, there was an open consultation on a GB basis now, live, with regard to looking at reformed laying hen and cage systems. If I get this wrong, Chair, forgive me, but I believe the closing date for that consultation is Monday, 9 March. But if that is incorrect, I apologise in advance and will correct the record. But it's obviously important, as we talked about earlier with the Veterinary Surgeons Act reform consultation, that organisations and individuals have the opportunity to feed in on the proposals that are set out in that GB-wide consultation. DEFRA are leading the consultation, and we are party to that, along with Scottish Government, on a GB-wide basis, emphasising that, as I say, it's the laying hen sector and cage reform.

With regard to the game bird sector, as I'm sure the committee is aware, and if I misunderstood your question, Hannah, forgive me, but I think you were also asking around biosecurity and the such. So, as the committee will recall, under the avian influenza legislation, we introduced last year two main changes, one being the introduction of a self-assessment biosecurity checklist for game bird keepers and game bird premises. That sits alongside a mandatory biosecurity checklist for self-assessment of backyard flocks and, secondly, for commercial poultry flocks. So, the third in that suite, as I say, that we introduced was a checklist for game bird keepers.

That also is overlaid by the other change that we made, which was to, if you will, the legislative schedules relating to when we declare a national avian influenza prevention zone, or AIPZ. So, one of the schedules that we introduced, which was new, was a schedule specific to biosecurity and other requirements relating to the game bird sector with regard to an AIPZ. As I say, when we have these legislative measures in place under the avian influenza legislation, those biosecurity checklists are mandatory. So, it's natural that all bird keepers, whatever the type of flock, whatever the size of flock, whatever production system it is, will want to be—I know they do on a daily basis—doing everything they can to maintain the highest levels of hygiene and biosecurity to protect their birds from what we know, with bird flu in particular, is a highly contagious, highly infectious and potentially devastating disease.

So, those are some of the changes to the game bird sector specifically, Hannah. If I misunderstood the tenet of your question, apologies, but hopefully that's useful.

That was helpful. If I could just go back to the Cabinet Secretary then, finally, you talked about the focus now being on the restriction of the use of cages, perhaps for laying hens, for example. I'm not asking you to see into the future, but would you foresee that a natural next step for a future Government would be to have a look at how the circumstances in which the restriction or ending of cages for game birds might be the natural next step?

There is always a forward drive on improving animal welfare conditions generally from this Government, and we've shown it consistently. We do it based on the evidence. So, when we see the responses coming forward from the consultation and looking at the evidence, that's the point, Hannah, we'll make the decisions, but what I can reassure you of is that we've always sought to take the next step to improve animal welfare conditions. So, I don't want to speculate what conclusion we'll come to, but we've set a high standard.

Thank you.

Okay, Hannah? Sam next, please.

Thank you very much, Chair, and forgive me, Cabinet Secretary, for prolonging your sore throat by asking some further questions on this, but we're grateful for your being with us. Can I start by asking a question around the sustainable farming scheme and key performance indicators that you believe exist, or if you could expand on whether food productivity and food security are accounted for within the SFS as drafted?

Productivity is certainly accounted for, because there are elements within both the universal layer and the scheme design that very much focus on productivity, and as we take forward the optional and collaborative layers, then two of our focuses there, one of them is very much on productivity. It aligns as well, I have to say, with some of the work that Hybu Cig Cymru is doing to drive up productivity across the sector.

And, in terms of food security, yes, within the SFS, but I have to say as well, also within the wider work that we're doing with things like the community food strategy, the wider work that we do with the sector across the UK as well. So, food security is always at the forefront of our mind, but productivity, I think, is going to be one of the key challenges for the sector going forward, so the SFS is designed to help that.

Okay. Can I just come back on that point? You mentioned that there are parts around it that'll support productivity, but are there any markers to determine where we are today, having been members of the European Union and followed the common agricultural policy, and our current productivity and food security capacity, and any markers within the SFS, so that after a year, three years, five years, et cetera—whatever the metrics may be—there is clear evidential data-driven determinations that productivity gains have been made, or is it just an ethos within the scheme?

No, it's more than an ethos, but I'm going to turn to Gian Marco again.

So, I think one thing that's relevant in this context is the sustainable land management indicators and targets that we published towards the end of last year. They cover the four sustainable land management objectives, including sustainable food production, the aim being that those are the indicators and targets that will be used to look at all interventions under the Act, including the sustainable farming scheme.

We've identified—off the top of my head—I think it's two in that sustainable production space, but we've committed to doing more work, including the evidence gathering, to develop those targets and indicators further, and that's the space, I think, in which we will see more development going further to then be able to benchmark the scheme and any other intervention that Ministers choose to make under the Agriculture (Wales) Act 2023.

Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Moving on to the universal tier within the SFS, Cabinet Secretary, you and I had a back-and-forth and a point of order on this in the Senedd Chamber around the terminology as to the funding for the universal tier and whether that will be maintained at £238 million, or whether there’ll be a real-terms cut in year 2, 3, exponentially afterwards. But knowing that there is an election ahead, and year 2 of the scheme will be determined by the seventh Senedd and the Welsh Government, what is your intention with the universal tier funding for the second year, if you were to continue as rural affairs Cabinet Secretary after May?

My intention is to come back as the Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs and then, across the Cabinet, with colleagues, negotiate that budget going forward. I can't speculate for you, Sam, I'm afraid. We've made our intentions clear up to this point, and I think we've held good faith with the farming community in setting the universal level at what it is, and the previous two years of the basic payment scheme as well, which was not done by the England Government. We set it there to give that certainty.

I recognise that, going forward, that universal layer is going to be key, not just this year, but for others who want to transition into the SFS. But what I have made clear as well is that we want to then expand on the additional value that the business case makes clear comes from the optional and collaborative. So, yes, sorry, Sam, I can't give you a definitive answer. I'd have to be back here elected as a Minister to make that deliberation.

So, there are no guarantees given by your party that the universal tier funding won't be less than or more than £238 million in year 2 of the SFS if you were to stay as Cabinet Secretary, or if Welsh Labour were to win the next election?

There won't be any guarantees by any party until they're sitting in this seat. Any political party can say whatever it wants, quite frankly, out in the hustings at the moment. It'll be for Ministers to make considered decisions going forward. All I can say to you, Sam, is: as not a party representative, but as this Welsh Government Minister, we've made it crystal clear where we stand on the universal and its relationship to the optional and collaborative, but, yes, I'm going to try to avoid this becoming a hustings and keep it as my role right now. I can't see into the future.

No, no, I appreciate that, Cabinet Secretary. The reason for asking the question is for the simple fact of the back-and-forth that we had in the Senedd Chamber on this, where I highlighted the language that you'd used as Cabinet Secretary, where the intention was to move money in years two, three and four from the universal tier up into the optional and the collaborative tier. I'm just trying to flesh out if that is still what your intentions are.

Yes, you're absolutely correct, and this is something that we've been very open about as well, throughout, with the ministerial round-table and the officials' groups as well, and it's because the business case makes it very clear that the wider value, bearing in mind that this is a whole-farm scheme—. It's designed to do that very good food production in a style of farming that fits the sustainable land management objectives, but, within the SLM objectives, also helps us deal with those wider imperatives of nature, biodiversity and habitat and climate resilience. And on that basis, the business case makes it very clear that the real value comes from the optional and collaborative. So, it's not an ideological or a doctrinaire approach I'm taking, it's because the business case makes it clear that that's where the greatest value comes from.

So, when I ask you, then, whether your intention is to cut the universal tier budget so that more money ends up in the optional and collaborative, that is your intention. 

My intention is—. Let me reframe this for you, because I've always been clear that, as people come into the scheme and the basic payment scheme legacy funding is released into the scheme, then more of that money will go into the optional and collaborative because the business case makes it clear that that's where the added value is. That is not the same as cutting the universal layer. At this moment in time, what I can do as we go to the end of this Senedd period is put in place a level of universal tier that gives certainty to farmers that they can access the scheme. And then, going forward, my intention would be indeed, and I've always been clear about this, that we would put additional quantum into optional and collaborative. That's where the wide round value is actually made.

Okay. Thank you. And just to come in, then, and broaden the discussion around what's happening in the dairy sector at the moment with the fall in milk prices, I just wondered, Cabinet Secretary, what discussions you've had with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs colleagues on this specifically or with the industry. And what work can the Welsh Government be doing to better support the dairy sector?

It's a really timely question when, after a period of relatively good dairy prices up until last autumn, we suddenly found some real impacts across the sector. We've not only been involved on this with DEFRA on a UK basis, because, as you know, this is not just affecting Wales or even the UK or even western Europe, but it comes down to an issue of oversupply on a global basis as well. Now, on that basis, what we can do and what we do is to engage with the industry. So, we've met with the farming unions on this and we've met with the representative sector bodies on this as well. We're keeping a very firm eye on what is happening with those milk prices. We're not out of it yet. We're not out of it, I have to say, but we are anticipating that we will start to see some change in the trend that we've been seeing over the winter. We still have to have the flush coming through as well, which we expect will have an impact as well. But we will definitely make sure, from a Welsh Government perspective, that we will support the dairy industry having a strong future there. The milk regulations will be in place to secure more certainty for purchasers and qualifying sellers in the milk sector. That statutory instrument, as you know, was laid back in February 2024. There's also, of course, the fair dealings obligations, Sam, from 2004 regulations, which came into place last July. Now, that sets a framework to help give a better degree of certainty to the dairy industry. 

Sorry, Cabinet Secretary, could I just interject there and just quickly ask—? Over-production was a point that you raised there. With spring calving likely to commence now, we're going to have an increase again of milk on the market and dairy produce. So, are you saying that your belief is that the price of pence per litre is about to bottom out, or do you think that there's further that it could fall again, knowing that more product could come on the market in the next few months?

No, I think, in the discussions we've had with the sector and with the unions, we've always anticipated that when we have that additional injection into the market, that will continue the situation we're currently seeing. But there will be a point that will come, and we hope sooner than later, and we're in discussions with ADHB and others on this, for their analysis, when it will actually bottom out and we'll see some restoration of prices for dairy farmers. So—

Could I just—? Sorry. Just to come back on that, then, given that there's a surplus of product, especially Welsh product, are you looking at whatever levers you as a Welsh Government have in terms of procurement to increase the amount of Welsh dairy product in public procurement, to try and alleviate some of these pressures?

That's one aspect of it, Sam, but it wouldn't alleviate the total pressures. This has come on the back, as you know, of some very sustained high prices in previous years—

Yes. Are you looking at doing that, or is it for the next Government to look to do that?

It's for both this and the next Government. It's undoubtedly the case that that could be a contribution to this, but it's not going to resolve it. There's a wider issue of resolving the balance between the levels of production and levels of consumption of dairy products.

Okay. I understand that—the long-term issue of supply and demand—but in terms of interventions the Welsh Government can do now, are you actively—? Have you and your officials had discussions around increasing the amount of Welsh dairy product in public procurement to support the sector?

We haven't specifically had discussions on whether we can respond to the price falls within dairy by diverting that into public procurement, because I don't think, frankly, Sam, that that is the solution. It will not solve this problem. However, we do regularly—. As you know, we have ongoing work that has been very successful in increasing the amount of Welsh produce in Welsh procurement chains. But I don't think switching that suddenly on is going to take up the surplus production that is currently in place. It's more productive, quite frankly, to have, as we've been doing, the discussions with the supply chain, with suppliers, with milk distributors, to talk about how they can help sustain the price levels with their farmers to get them through to the other side of this.

I'm going to have to move it on now, Sam, if that's all right with you. Alun Davies, please, for the last set of questions.

I want to pursue this, if i could, with the Deputy First Minister, and pursue some of the issues that Jenny raised, as well, because it feels to me that, through this Senedd and since Brexit, really, we've been debating and discussing agricultural issues in a very piecemeal basis. We've just been discussing the issues around milk prices. We had a conversation earlier about SFS and the rest of it. What we haven't had is the more holistic conversation that we used to have under pillar 2 about the future of agriculture. Now, I obviously recognise that you've legislated and have given yourself quite broad powers to intervene in the industry, but what I'm really interested to hear, Deputy First Minister, is your vision for the future, and where you believe an activist Government should be intervening to guarantee the future of agriculture as an industrial activity that sustains communities across Wales.

We don't debate this enough and, in fact, we've been in the engine room of devising the SFS, but actually the SFS now does set the vision for where we see that whole sector going, and it is a thriving sector. It's a sector where we have many new entrants who want to come in because they can see a valuable future, and across all the different constituent parts, including dairy, including arable, including mixed farms, but it's also a sector that's focused on not just a thriving sector with profitable farms, whether they are on the upland hills or whether they are on the lowlands of the vale, but it's where we also protect the Welsh language. It's where we also have thriving rural communities because you have small and medium-scale farms that are sending their children to local schools, who are working within local sectors as well. That's the future. It's a different future from when I was the—.  It's a different vision, for a different type of farming, than when I was the DEFRA Minister. Wales has a characteristic type of farming that is far greater than its individual parts. It sustains a style of life, a way of living, and it sustains thriving rural economies. If we get this right—. And, I have to say, some of those across the border are now looking at what we've devised with some envy because it gives clarity about something that's not just an industrial sector, but is part and parcel of the culture. It's industry, it's the sector, and it's the culture as well.

But not all farms fall into your description of being profitable, and not all farms fall into your description of being private, and there are some elements of the sector—and Sam touched on this earlier, in terms of productivity—that are exactly the opposite of that, which are struggling and are unable to sustain either a decent quality of life for families farming those areas, but also unable to sustain productive production, if that makes sense. So, I'm interested in what we used to call pillar 2 interventions that you're going to make in order to invest in Farming Connect, and invest in improving the processes involved on different farms, but also processing as an industry, and then the added value further down the supply chain.

And can I broaden this a little bit, because we don't often talk enough about fisheries? The same thing applies. Sorry, I don't want to pre-empt you—you might be talking about them later—but the same thing applies.

It certainly does, yes.

The same thing applies. So, yes, the approach we have to farming is that we recognise that there are parts, including in my own constituency, where actually the viability of farming on its own, simply in selling food to market, would frankly struggle, but they do all the other good things—they make sure that they hold the water up, rather than flooding towns downstream; they make sure that we have the right type of good woodland cover in the right place—

But they only do that through Government interventions. 

They only do it through Government intervention, and we should be proud of that.

Yes, we should, and I think it's important as well, by the way. But do we not need a more holistic approach to policy, rather than the sort of compartmentalised approach we've taken?

So, that's my point as to why some across the border now are looking at us with envy. We've devised what is literally a whole-farm scheme, and I also describe it as a whole-nation scheme. It does all of those things in one. It's not a pillar 1 or a pillar 2; it's not an agri scheme over here, or a Tir Gofal over there, or whatever. Some of those schemes were good, by the way.

Go back to Tir Mynydd if you want to.

Yes, indeed. But we've been through years of doing these successive bits. Bringing it together on a whole-farm basis and saying, 'What gives the economic viability of that farm?', but what also justifies—. I think we're in a much better position now to say, 'We can really justify taxpayers' money going into farming, because it's for good food, and it's a range of other things'. It's on that whole, holistic—I hate that word—but that joined-up basis.' We're not compartmentalising. If you look at what's happening in parts of England at the moment, they've chosen to go down that line again—a reinvention of a bit over here and a bit over there. We're trying to do one thing that works, and in a variety of farming as well. So, I want to see—I want to see—dairy-intensive farmers coming into SFS, and actually doing 10 per cent habitat, and we're having those discussions with them, to say, 'You can actually do this.'

So, how do you—. I accept that, and I'm sure that all members of this committee accept the argument that you're making, and then the produce leaves the farm gate, and what we would want to do is to maintain as much profitability within the locality or the region, if you like, as possible. And what we tend to find is that the further the produce goes on leaving the farm gate, the greater the profit, and the further that profit travels from the farm itself. So, how is the Welsh Government seeking to intervene in supply chains to ensure that profitability is retained in the industry and in Wales as well?

We're making this a reality now because of the genuinely groundbreaking work that we've done with a small unit, our food unit, which works with suppliers, primary producers, fisheries and farmers, to get more value into them here in Wales. So, turning them into—. I'm saying this, and I realise I'm doing product placement, but when you look at Jones crisps—

Do product placement—we're happy with that: 'Sponsored by Jones crisps'.

Jones crisps is a classic example, but there are now hundreds, of the success of a small unit of very expert people we have who will make sure that we're not shipping potatoes off to somebody else to make all the money. They are working with that supply chain, the value is being held in Wales. But not only that; Jones, when they do their cheddar flavour, are working with small producers in Wales to get their primary product into it. We're doing this more and more and more, to the envy, I have to say, of, again, across the border. We're really adding value. We've always got more to do on this, and our unit is actually very small, but I have to say, they're leading. They're leading not just here in the UK, but probably leading in terms of European counterparts as well.

The other thing is what we can do—. I want to see, where we can, if there is a premium market in exports for our producers, including, albeit with the global uncertainty at the moment, to places like the middle east for some of our red meat, and we're doing well on that, but I also want to see more on the tables. There's a number of ways we can do that. It's definitely through procurement strategy—and we've revised our procurement approach, so it's not just based on purely pound signs, it's based on the best value, what does it do for the local economy, and so on—but it's also to do with our community food strategy, because intrinsic to that is investment in local food chains, and also what we're doing with the local food partnerships money, with Jane Hutt, my colleague, to allow investment in food processing and food handling.

I very much accept the points you're making, but don't we need to scale this up? One of the points that our colleague Jenny has made for many years has been the importance of us being able to supply schools, for example, with decent food, and we've seen the work our colleague from Pembrokeshire will no doubt want us to note, the fantastic success of Puffin Produce, in ensuring that I can buy Welsh potatoes in Blaenau Gwent, and I think that's important. But we need to scale this up, surely. You look at the investment the Netherlands have made in horticultural production, and it really is shocking how they've been able to develop it, and we've never been able to do that at scale. Because I accept the points you make, but they're quite small-scale interventions, aren't they? What they're not doing is transforming the way that food is produced in Wales and our ability to sustain our own population.

The missing piece of this jigsaw, the one we really need to scale up—I'd agree with you—is horticulture. We're doing some good stuff in it, and we're doing it also, by the way, alongside interventions we're doing with the farming sector. You'll have seen last year at the Royal Welsh, actually, it had a horticultural area specifically. I think it was the first time—. No, the year before. They replicated it this year, and they've grown it, and it's going to get bigger. Horticulture is the one we do need to scale up.

What we're dealing with, I think, is we've lost the culture in Wales of doing horticulture. It's odd, because, actually, this could really strengthen the diversity of our primary food producers. But where we are excelling is exactly in the space you said: people like Puffin, Harlech, Castell Howell, who are working with small-scale producers, to gather them together and get their food into procurement chains, into schools and hospitals as well.

My challenge to them as I sit in this for the last session in front of this committee is this: you're doing really good work, the Welsh Government is helping support this, how do we then ramp that up even bigger? I would argue we've got a good platform to do this now, because we're already seeing it happen. It's not only being driven by Government, Alun, it is working with people like Harlech and Castell Howell, who are then, with our support, working with small-scale producers in order to turn it into food on plates in hospitals, in our prison estates, and so on.

My other challenge as we sit here is this: if we know that some local authorities can do this better than others, some health boards can do it better than others—

Which local authority does it well?

It would be unfair—

We need an example, don't we, of what we want to aim at.

Let him finish his sentence.

We do have some local authorities who are really excellent at this. We need everybody to be modelling best practice around it. Some of this goes back to previous discussions. When I was a committee member on this committee, when we talked about—. It is difficult, sometimes, to shift—. It's easier to take the big file off the shelf and then order from a large producer and whatever. We're making it simpler now to operate with our Welsh distributors, like Harlech and Castell Howell, who will now work with us. So, what we need is good procurement officers in each place—that skill.

But I still want to know what good looks like, in your view.

In terms of naming a local authority? 

If you don't want to name, I don't want to press you on it, but what does good look like? What should we be looking for as local Members, for example? 

If you were to ask me to look ahead five years from the platform that we've built, good should look like the default option is we use local supply chains, we don't use longer supply chains—that's an exception. That's what good would look like. As I sit here in this final session in front of you, I would say the challenge for the next Government is building on the work we are doing to make that normal practice. That will require investment, but not mega investment—clever investment with our food unit, with our supply chain base, with our distributors, keeping working with them as partners so that this becomes absolutely normal, so that Parc prison, Cwm Taf, everybody, automatically—.

And good procurement officers, they go, 'Yes, I know how to do this now'. They've set the platform to do it on, it's not as complicated as it used to be, 'I don't have to go for that big supplier from the midlands—I've got ones here in Wales that will guarantee it's Welsh produce on my plate'. But the one missing bit in this I would say is—and credit to the committee and individuals here as well who've pushed—how much more we can do on horticulture. We think we've done some good things. Ramping it up is the big challenge for the next Government.

I'm going to close that down now and we'll move into the final hour-long session. I'll begin by asking you, Cabinet Secretary: Cyprus is in the news at the moment for the issues around the conflict in the middle east, but actually last week before trouble started on Saturday, it was in the news for a completely different reason, which was the outbreak of foot and mouth on the island. Many Welsh people go to the island to enjoy a nice break and come back accordingly refreshed, reinvigorated. But obviously, what we don't want happening is anything coming back that might introduce, on the twenty-fifth anniversary of foot and mouth in this country, another outbreak of foot and mouth. I'd be grateful if you and the chief vet could update the committee on what you found out by sharing the information that colleagues from Cyprus, I assume, have plugged into the wider animal welfare network and animal health network, and what threat, if any, the outbreak poses to us here in Wales and the wider UK.

First of all, thank you for raising this, and it is worth reminding people on this anniversary of that horrendous intervention of foot and mouth in this country. We all remember the horrendous aspects of that back in 2001, and the impact it had not only on the wider agricultural sector, but the closure of the countryside, and the mental health and well-being of people as well, from tourism operators to farmers and so on. We need to avoid it. People have got to obey the rules, abide by the regulations that we have in place as well, because we do have strong connections, including within our armed forces in Cyprus at the moment.

Richard, the chief veterinary officer, and I have discussed this before recent events have taken place as well, making sure that we have excellent vigilance not just within Cyprus, but right across globally, through the work that the CVOs do together in the UK, but also with their European counterparts as well. But we've specifically discussed the necessity to be very vigilant on the biosecurity now, particularly as we will have people travelling back and forth from the area. But Richard, you can go further on the discussions you've had.

Diolch, Deputy First Minister. As you rightly say, there are measures and pieces of legislation, rules, already in place, particularly if we think for one moment about personal imports. People who are travelling—tourists, or for whatever reason—cannot bring meat and dairy back into the UK as personal imports. We've had that legislation in for a little while now. You're absolutely right to highlight the twenty-fifth anniversary of foot and mouth 2001, and I'm sure we all recall the devastating impacts across Wales and GB/UK that that wrought, and that's not a situation we want to revisit, as I think you're rightly alluding to, Chair.

When we heard the 'news' of the outbreak of foot and mouth disease in the Republic of Cyprus—forgive me again if I get the date wrong; I think it was Friday 20 February, but I will correct the record if I have got that wrong—immediately, and I mean immediately, that Friday afternoon, on a four-nations basis, as CVOs, with our teams, we were putting in place safeguard measures—to draft those and have them ready to restrict the import of goods from the Republic of Cyprus in light of the foot and mouth disease.

Can you give us an indication of what those safeguards might look like or are?

Basically, there are a number of means by which we can control biosecurity through import restrictions to stop product coming to us, or at the border itself. On the latter point, in concert with DEFRA colleagues, DEFRA then wrote to port health authorities and veterinarians to flag the outbreak in Cyprus and say, if there are products at the border, or indeed on the water, stop them. That was acted upon immediately when we heard the news of what was going on in Cyprus. 

Safeguard declarations are specific legislative tools that then further restrict specific products. I cannot remember all the specific detail, but it will be things like untreated wool, hair, hay, straw et cetera. I may have those wrong, so forgive me, again, if I do, because that also sits alongside what also happens through the good offices of our colleagues in the UK Government, which is to delist establishments that are approved to export from the Republic of Cyprus to GB. So, that approval or authorisation, if you will, for export is rescinded when we hear the news. That will also stop products of animal origin, so, again, food products, live animals, germplasm, so that means semen, ova et cetera.

The whole suite of susceptible species, livestock species, as well as the suite of products of animal origin and related are in focus, and those import restrictions are brought in immediately when we hear the news, as well as those communications to those authorities who work at the border, and to raise awareness also with our veterinary community and farmers and vets. I'm sure, as I say, it's already happening, but as the Deputy First Minister rightly said, vigilance for the possible signs of foot and mouth disease, maintaining the highest levels of biosecurity—we touched on it earlier with regard to bird flu, but it's relevant across the piece—the responsible sourcing of products, animals et cetera so that biosecurity is protected, again, also overlaid by those import restrictions that I highlighted a moment ago. And crucially, if anybody suspects a notifiable disease, whether it's foot and mouth disease, bird flu, bluetongue—the list goes on—as you'll be very familiar with, Chair, to report that immediately to the Animal and Plant Health Agency so that we can go out and make the necessary veterinary inquiry and investigation for where those suspect signs are seen.

But I just want to close by emphasising the rapid and collaborative action that we take when we hear the regrettable news of circumstances like foot and mouth disease in the Republic of Cyprus, which we had also been monitoring from the point of view of Cyprus as a whole as part of our horizon scanning, because foot and mouth disease of the same virus had been detected in Northern Cyprus during December 2025, and again we had heard intelligence from our veterinary counterparts on the island of Cyprus as to why that virus may have ended up in the Republic of Cyprus having previously been detected in the northern part of that island.

Is it your understanding that the outbreak is now contained? It's my understanding, reading various press cuttings on this, that vaccines were being sent out there and that was being considered. I understand it's a particularly virulent type of foot and mouth virus, so it spread quite quickly when it came into the Republic of Cyprus from the north, I think you've indicated, chief vet. But is it your understanding that, to the best of their ability, they've contained it now, albeit it's still early stages? 

Yes. To the best of their ability, our veterinary colleagues and other authorities in the Republic of Cyprus are doing everything they can to stamp the disease out. I think it would be very fair to say that foot and mouth disease irrespective of strain type is highly contagious. It spreads like wildfire given the opportunity, which is why we put in such strict and immediate measures when we hear foot and mouth disease mentioned. So, as I said, for us, domestically, that's included those measures I talked about a moment ago.

On the island of Cyprus—sorry, in the republic of Cyprus—indeed they have taken the opportunity to engage with European partners, they’ve taken the opportunity to work with countries to get a foot-and-mouth disease vaccine, they've worked really hard to understand the epidemiology, the source and spread of foot and mouth disease on the island, and are taking all steps to control the disease and eradicate it through different steps, which includes suppressive vaccination as an option. But, as I say, foot and mouth disease full stop is highly contagious, highly infectious. We have understanding from our veterinary counterparts in Cyprus as to which strain type it is, and there's further epidemiological investigation that the veterinary authorities are doing to build that picture in terms of the epidemiology.

And the final point, if I can, Chair and Deputy First Minister, as you alluded to with the news that we have seen with war in the middle east, one of the things that we also took action on was to engage as CVOs, and I know my counterpart UK CVO and DEFRA have engaged with the Ministry of Defence also to highlight the foot-and-mouth disease risk on Cyprus. Now, I recognise that there are other big issues going on in the world with regard to the middle east and Cyprus themselves, but, again, for that biosecurity risk management, we have had that engagement through the good offices of DEFRA with regard to managing any possible risk 'down', in inverted commas, with regard to that specific geographic location and the foot-and-mouth disease detection that you highlight, Chair.

And a final point from my line of questioning, if I may, Deputy First Minister. Last summer, you introduced bluetongue control measures. If you were the Minister after the election and you were faced with the same situation this coming summer, on the evidence that you have that happened last summer, would you introduce the same measures, or would you consider the trading bloc of England and Wales as one control zone?

Yes. We're in a very different situation now. We've moved on, and the work that we've done with the sector as well to get to this point I think has put us in a very different position, so we're not faced with the same decisions this year ahead. The decisions we made last year, even though they were contested, they were based on the very best advice—veterinarian advice and expert advice. We won't have to face the same decision paradigm this year.

Would you mind if I just make two observations in this final session as well? The work of the CVOs and the veterinary service and all of those are genuinely front-line issues, genuinely. The reason I make that point is because we will need to make sure that we continue the investment in this so that people like Richard and his colleagues can actually continue to be hypervigilant. Curiously, the investment that we do never gets to be deployed in anger until we have an outbreak of disease, but we know, from foot and mouth, from avian flu, from bluetongue and other things, just how devastating this can be if we take our eye off the ball. The reason I make that point is that whoever is sitting in this seat next time around will have to argue for defence of the relatively small but consistent investment to make sure that we not only defend what we're doing here in Wales, but across the UK and also have that international engagement. That is the safeguard, the best safeguard we can have.

And if it's my final time that I'm sitting here with Richard, I just want to say 'thank you' to Richard and all his colleagues for what they've done. Because the biggest thing that makes me jump out of bed at night is when I have a message pinging saying, 'We've got an outbreak of this disease or that disease somewhere on the continent, but here's what we're doing.' That takes constant vigilance and some investment to make it happen. So, this committee should keep an eye on Ministers going forward to make sure that they're keeping that investment going.

Thank you, Deputy First Minister, for those comments. Jenny.

Thank you. Thank you for the information you provided about the community food strategy—lots of really interesting information. The Equality and Social Justice Committee, as you know, has been doing an inquiry into access to healthy and affordable food, and I'll put on the record that we've been really pleasantly surprised about the extent of the networks that are developing, but, clearly, there are always going to be the poorest communities who have the least resources to develop networks, and so there's plenty of work still to do. I wondered if the guidance that was issued to local authorities at the real food and farming conference by the well-being of future generations commissioner on strengthening local food systems is entirely relevant to today's international crisis. What response, if any, are you aware of, or perhaps one of your colleagues is aware of, in terms of local authorities starting to take this a bit more seriously than perhaps some of them have in the past?

Yes, I think local authorities are now increasingly bought into this. But, as I said in response to the earlier question, I think we've got more to do within it. I don't know, Gian Marco, if you want to add anything. I think the community food strategy is starting to drive changes. 

It's things like protecting the best and most valuable land, which I'm afraid we've had a couple of really bad moments on recently, and it makes people wonder whether this really is a planning policy or not.

Yes, I've always made it clear that, even though we've got probably the strongest protection of, certainly, the high-value productive land in Wales, it isn't an absolute guarantee that that land will never be sold or used for something else. But the levels of protection are at the best, and we do need to protect that land for food production. However, it doesn't mean that sometimes things do not go forward—. Gian Marco, I don't know if—. 

No. The only thing to add, in terms of the guidance, obviously, we've continued to work very closely with the office of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales, including on supporting the launch of the guidance. I think the local food partnerships are really important in helping to embed some of the principles that are in that guidance with the local authorities, and obviously we'll continue to support through that, but it is a journey, as you yourself have indicated. I think the guidance should be incredibly helpful for local authorities in embedding those principles and those food priorities into their services. So, we will monitor, together with the future generations commissioner, how that's going.

Okay. There's a wonderful radio programme that's on BBC Wales by Simon Wright and Sarah Dickens, We Can't Go On Eating Like This! They're talking about having a market garden in every community, so everybody can access fresh food, because that's obviously lacking in lots of communities. Treorchy is always somewhere I bear in mind—relatively isolated, fantastic meat and dairy available, but the tired lettuce that comes from Europe is not worth buying. So, how do we get that sort of resilience in all communities in terms of supporting local growers? 

I think the work that we've set in place now with the local food partnerships can really help drive that. There's an element of this that has to be also bottom-up, because you will know we've seen some good examples of investment that have then fallen to pieces. We've seen others that have been long-term sustained. I've got one in my own area with the Caerau Growers. One of the highest areas of multiple deprivation in Wales. It started, it faltered, and then with a bit more support it's really got going, and it's motoring—it is really motoring. I've got others in my area that have fallen to pieces, because they relied on one or two individuals who then, for various reasons, weren't able to keep it going. So, I do think that the local food partnerships are a good way into this, because the more mature ones of them can start now, actually, talking about bringing together investment in that, whether it's a community garden model or others. But this has to be part of the secret of tackling food hunger, food affordability, and the skill around it is to have the growing within communities and also the use of that food then within those communities, so it's a joined-up piece.

Some of the work that Jane Hutt and I have seen when we've been out visiting—I know you've seen some of it as well—has been really illuminating on how a grass-roots initiative can have a little bit of support to make this happen. But we've also got to be minded as to why do they fail. That's the trick.

Thank you. Lastly, I know that the food division are currently preparing a commission to reassess public sector spend on food of Welsh origin. When the cross-party group on school food heard from Bury in Lancashire, which is gold star, Food for Life accredited, they found that, with really incisive procurement lenses, local organic food was cheaper than what the big producers were selling to them. And that's why they've, obviously, gone with the better local, fresher food. They're doing all that at £2.90 per meal, and we are going to be paying £3.40. So, I just wondered who's really looking at—. Who's going to inspect procurement processes that may have some vested interests involved in them?

So, I think we should be willing to learn from best practice wherever it is. The investment that we are doing with our own local authorities at the moment, this year, with the local food partnerships totals over £2 million investment. It's what we said we'd spend and we are spending it. And we want them to look at where there are good examples of lowering the cost in order to deliver good, local, nutritious food as well. I do think the ministerial advisory group that we've established has a role in this as well, going forward, to try and drive best practice. But it also ties into the pieces that we're doing with things such as the veg in schools, the healthy eating in Wales approach. All of these need to come together, but draw on where we can see examples where they've driven down costs. We need to shatter this illusion that it's more expensive to have locally procured food, find the ways that we can show, 'No, this does work', and then roll this out.

So, yes, we're investing in this area. We're trying to build the networks in this area. We brought together a Wales real food and farming conference back last year, Welsh Government sponsored, trying to bring those partners together as well. We know there's an appetite for this to take it forward, but we need to show it can work—don't be afraid of this.

If I can just add, I know we've had some really successful projects at a local level that have been joining those dots, funded through our foundation economy grants. And again, I think part of that is very much, as the Deputy First Minister has said, to demonstrate that it can work and how it might work. So, that would be something that—

Okay, but is it a role for the auditor general to look at procurement processes?

I think they might well want to take an interest in this to show where best value is being delivered. And I would hope they'd look at it not just as best value in terms of the cost of procurement, but also the impact of that in the wider local economy as well.

Okay. I did have—

We're going to have to move on now, because we've had a couple of minutes on that. Luke. 

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Keeping with the subject of food, I was glad to hear reference to fisheries earlier, because I think it's true, this is probably one of those sectors where we need to do a lot more work in. There's no overarching holistic strategy in how we approach the sector. To be fair, on the export side of things, there seems to be some strategic direction, and I'll come back to that in a moment. Where we really are missing a trick, though, is on the domestic side and the domestic consumption of the products that we're producing here in Wales. And I'm struggling to see, really, where the Government's focus has been on this. The majority of the catch, let's say, in Wales is exported; very, very little of it is actually consumed within Wales. How do we get to a position where we increase, then, seafood consumption in Wales?

This is a challenge, not least because, including in some parts of our shellfish fisheries, the premium price is actually not on these shores, and neither is the appetite here. So, I love my cockles and laverbread, but actually the biggest—. If you want to get the best price for it, you speak to some of the Penclawdd cockle growers and they'll say, well, it's actually in Spain. They pay far more than the domestic market will, and their appetite for it is huge. Literally, their 'appetite' appetite for it is huge. So, we do have a bit of a challenge here.

Having said that, we've got some of the most sustainable fisheries—things like recreational fisheries—in seabass. The type of fisheries that we do are broadly, I would argue—. We could put a strong case that they're far more sustainable in terms of their impact on the environment than fisheries around other parts of the UK or the North sea or whatever. The challenge is getting that onto local plates. Now, can we do it in an affordable way, in that we get it into our wider diet and in schools and so on? It's tough when those shell fisheries say, 'Well, where we get a really good price for this, much more than you can pay locally, is by exporting it.' I'd love to say we could do an easy trick on this. I think it is an area we need to do more work on.

There is more potential, by the way, I have to say, as well, in some of the aquaculture elements, not in the way that they've done in other parts of the UK with big salmon fisheries or whatever, but there are other parts of aquaculture we could look at—developing in a bigger space not just our shell fisheries, but also things such as seaweed development and so on, for multiple benefits. But this is a tricky one. We don't have a scale of fisheries here where we can suddenly say we're going to feed everybody in Wales, and the type of fisheries is different. We haven't big cod fisheries out there on a mega scale and so on.

Can I just add that one of the areas where we wanted to focus the new fishing and coastal growth fund that we got a consequential from the UK Government on is that market development and seeing whether there is something we can do, notwithstanding all the limitations that the Deputy First Minister has rightly pointed out, and if there's more that we can do to pump prime, I guess, some of that market pull for some of the produce that we have here in Wales?

I was planning on coming to the coastal and fisheries fund, because we did touch on it in the previous session and, at that point in time, it wasn't clear exactly how much money was coming down to the Welsh Government. That decision has been made now. So, if we stick with that, the work around how we increase that domestic consumption of fish is under way, and that's coming from the funding that's been announced.

Yes.

What we've—sorry, Deputy First Minister, if you want me to come in—what we've said is that we know the funding for 2026-27, which is just under £1.3 million. We've identified certain priority areas that we want to support with that funding, which include sustainability, workforce investment, coastal growth, capacity building, but one of the areas is market development. So, we will try—we haven't got the full details yet, but we will look at ways in which we can maybe tailor some of that funding towards market development, market growth, including domestically.

But one of the advantages we do have is we have a very close relationship with the fisheries communities in Wales. The work that we've done with the fisheries management plans, but also the development of the coastal growth fund, we're doing it hand-in-glove with them. So, when we sit down and decide the priorities, including market development, it'll be with them.

The other great advantage is it's been given to us to make the decisions on, and it's important to say that. We're not having directions from the UK Government; the money has come to us for us to take forward. So, I didn't want to cast any doubt in my previous answer to you on what we can do, because I think we can do a lot within developing opportunities for our fisheries across Wales. The question is how much we do in development of that to get it to market here domestically, or market for export. There's the balancing act.

Yes, there needs to be that long-term view on how we increase domestic consumption. That comes back to some of the points that Jenny and Alun made, and, actually, when you think about the food strategy Bill that Peter Fox put through, was there not a missed opportunity there, because having no single strategy for food, specifically on fisheries, is really hampering us in this? We're starting off on the back foot, aren't we? 

Look, I think the management plans we have for our different stocks within Wales are in really good shape, and we're bringing them forward at the pace we said, with stakeholder involvement, and those have that sustainable approach to grow in each of those sectors, piece by piece. We're bringing more forward as we go along there. So, I do think we have clearly defined, specific to the characteristic of these Welsh fisheries, management plans and now the potential to grow the market as well. If we can also land, by the way, as a piece of the SPS UK agreement, and if we can open that up and make easier some of these shell fisheries exports as well—which has now been opened up within these negotiations—then we could do even more, because there is potential to grow, for example, our shell fisheries, and we know what the demand for that is internationally. So, yes, I think we're in good shape, in working with the sector, in order to expand the sector, see what more we can do, but always looking in a sustainable way. The characteristics of our fisheries is it is all going to be done with sustainability of stocks, as well as an eye to the livelihood of the fisheries.

Turning to exports, then, live bivalve molluscs not ready for human consumption were barred from entering the EU. In a previous session with you, Cabinet Secretary, you were hopeful that we would see some progress on that front. Where are we at with that, then?

We're not there yet. We're still in the discussions, and it's still part of that wider—unless, Gian Marco, you want to surprise me here—it's part of the wider discussion. So, nothing's decided until it's all decided.

You're absolutely right. All I will say is that the language that was used in the UK-EU—I forget the term of art at the time—agreement was actually very positive in relation to LBMs. So, whilst the DFM is absolutely right, our expectation would be that that will be resolved as part of these discussions.

'Common understanding'.

'Common understanding'—thank you, Richard.

OK. The final question from me, then—and this is trying to tie up some of the work the committee has done previously on operational agreements. We last raised questions on them back in December 2023, and the then Cabinet Secretary promised that they would come back to us with an update when they were agreed. We haven't had that update. We've been very patient.

Sorry, what is this to do with?

The operational agreements in relation to the fisheries.

You're probably slightly—

We should probably write; I haven't got the latest in my mind, if I'm honest. It might be easier if we write to the committee, if that's okay.

Yes, no worries.

If you could e-mail us, it would be quicker, because it might not get to us before dissolution. Okay, Luke?

Yes.

Andrew has learned how to use e-mail.

Hannah—thank you.

Thank you, Chair. Cabinet Secretary, in your paper—if you can think back—for the July 2025 scrutiny session, the paper set out that the bovine TB technical advisory group had begun work to consider the role of wildlife in respect of bovine TB. Are you able to provide the committee with an update on that work today? Thank you.

Yes, I can. So, my understanding is they've been—. Obviously, they've done a lot of work over this year and they've brought forward a lot of improvements already. But the TB advisory group, the expert-led group, have been working on a position paper that looks at the overall aspects of TB and TB eradication, including the wildlife aspects. Now, we're expecting that paper imminently. It's their paper; it'll set out what they want to say. My understanding is that it will be very much based on the evidence and the science, and it'll give some real food for thought to the Minister and the next Government about how they want to respond to that paper, take forward any suggestions within it. So, we're expecting it, hopefully, within the next couple of weeks.

Are you able to elaborate on the position of the TB eradication programme board as well?

Yes. We've absolutely valued the work of the TB eradication board. My expectation is—if I was sitting in the seat—that they will continue alongside the expert TB advisory group. We think the board has been really important in setting that high-level strategic view for the eradication of TB. So, I would hope that a future Minister, Hannah, would say they want both of those to continue: the expert group to bring forward the science and the evidence, including, by the way, as I've said before, not just the epidemiological stuff, not just that sort of hard science on the virus side of it, but also in terms of behavioural science—that's been an important part of the work; and the programme board has that strategic approach that will keep us fixed on eradicating TB.

I would say as well, Hannah, that we're expecting fairly shortly to give an update, as we would normally, on our progress on TB, on the measures we've taken—everything including what's been happening with the Pembrokeshire pathway, what the level of incidence stickiness within herds is—the regular one. We're expecting to do that very shortly as well, before we get to the end of this Senedd term. So, I hope that that will give something of a flavour of where we've seen progress and where there is more to do as well.

Obviously, you hope to be here, but would you say, in terms of that, too, that that would set out potential next steps for a future Government this year?

Yes, I think that the next Minister sitting here, whether it's me or somebody else, will want to engage with the TB advisory group and the programme board, sit down with Professor Glyn Hewinson, the Sêr Cymru professor at the TB centre of excellence in Aberystwyth, who chairs the TB expert group, and will want to say, 'Where are we? What's your take on what's working, what isn't working, what more needs to be done?' If I were here, I'd be doing that immediately that I came back in; I would expect a future Minister to be doing the same. Certainly, the approach that I took when I came into this post was to say, 'I want to see everything that's been done, and what's working and what isn't.' That's why we established, by the way, the programme board and gave the TB advisory group the direction of travel, which is, 'You are the independent experts. Tell us what needs to be done.'

Thank you. Thanks, Chair. 

Just on what's working and what's not working when it comes to TB—and I declared my interest at the start of this meeting—for the life of me, I cannot see why post-movement testing is undertaken on fattening units. It's a huge cost, and the animals don't move on to other units; they go immediately to processing from that unit. So, on your assessment—and the chief vet is with you now—I'd be grateful to understand is there a genuine benefit in post-movement TB testing of cattle, because it's a huge cost to the industry, and other parts of the UK livestock sector don't have to bear that cost.

I will not give my expert opinion, because I'm not an expert, but I would say that this is the type of question that the TB advisory group absolutely needs to wrestle with and does wrestle with, but, Richard, that's one for you.

Diolch, Deputy First Minister. So, if I understand you correctly, Chair, you're referring to units like approved finishing units. 

Well, a finishing unit, full stop—a commercial unit or an approved unit, because you have to test, as the regulations are at the moment, between 60 days and 120 days of the animal moving on your holding. It has been subject to a pre-movement test, and it also gets captured if the annual test is held on the farm during that period as well—the annual test. The animal is tested to death, basically.

I asked the question just from the point of view of clarifying your interest. 

I just get animated because I've got boys back on the farm now actually doing that very thing as we speak, as we're sitting here, and it's costing me a fortune. 

I think the simplest thing I can say this afternoon, Chair, is that we can write to you with information that draws that distinction, because I think, if I've understood you correctly, you're talking about a commercial beef finishing business on the one hand, in contrast with an approved finishing unit, which is a biosecure unit under specific regulation controls, where the regimen, if you will, the testing regimen and the biosecurity requirements are different. So, that's why I asked the question, in the spirit of understanding what your direction of inquiry is. So, I'll undertake to take an action there for us to write to the committee, setting out 'the rules' for a non-AFU setting as contrasted with an approved finishing unit setting, because they are different. 

Yes, and in particular the effectiveness of them, because, obviously, it's a relatively recent introduction, the post-movement testing, and, as I said, talking to people within the sector, I can't find anyone who can see the benefit of it. 

Well, I welcome feedback, as you've just described, Chair. This is also part of what we have at the heart of our approach, as the Deputy First Minister highlighted. We have the independent and, I would say, world-leading expert, as you described, in Professor Glyn Hewinson, in our independent technical advisory group, who scrutinise evidence and provide technical advice. We have the establishment—and working well, I must say—of the TB eradication programme board, who bring the breadth of stakeholder views. And, as I say, not only are they providing technical expertise and strategic advice, they are bringing forward advice that effects change.

So, if we can reflect back a little bit: changes to on-farm slaughter, and more recently, the introduction of a change in policy to standard inconclusive reactors—I appreciate that's a mouthful. That policy went live, if you will, on 1 January. Why did we do that? Well, the primary reason that we did that was because of stakeholder feedback, and then scrutinising evidence to look at where policy change may or may not be relevant.

And then the final piece, as the Deputy First Minister rightly said, is we have the independent technical advisory group, having done a range of different work over the last 18 months or so since they've been in place. The TB eradication programme board would bring forward that position paper, as the Deputy First Minister highlighted. And I have to thank the membership and chairs of both the technical advisory group and the programme board for the hard and unstinting work that goes on, as we speak, from the point of view of grappling with what we all know is a key priority issue for animal health and welfare, the cattle sector and the broader farming sector in Wales and Great Britain.

I get the point you're making. The committee looks forward to receiving that letter. But if you want feedback, scrap post-movement testing. That's my feedback to you.

Right, we'll have Sam next, please.

Thank you very much, Chair, and just moving on, Cabinet Secretary, to the agricultural pollution regulations, where are we following the Susannah Bolton review?

Yes, thanks, Sam. We're in a good place where we've established now not only the taskforce, taking—. My voice is going to go before the end of this. We've established not only the task—

Do you want me to—?

I'll try. Sorry, Sam, hold on for a moment. I can't believe it—

I can get you some hot water, if you'd like—

Yes, that would be great. Thank you very much.

Do you want to take a break for a couple of minutes?

Do you mind if I get a cup of tea or something?

We'll just go into private session for a few minutes and we'll get the—.

Thank you. Brilliant.

Okay, Sam, the floor is yours.

Thank you very much. Cabinet Secretary, the Susannah Bolton review on water quality, where are we?

Sam, we've established the task and finish group with the control of agricultural pollution review. They are taking forward now the short, medium and long-term proposals within that review. Broadly speaking, if you look at Susannah Bolton's work, the short term you can envisage is 12 months; the medium, two years; and the longer term, three years for the more complex areas. One of the areas that they've already turned their attention to, you'll be pleased to know, is the 170 kg of nitrogen from livestock per hectare per year limit, to see what alternatives can be brought forward that are a more targeted approach on that. It is a complex piece of work, but they are working on that very early.

We put out a statement, as you'll recall, back in last autumn, setting out some of the ways we're taking this forward. The recommendations on the 170 kg/N/ha/yr limit, broadly speaking—this is in response to recommendations 8 and 9, on things like the closed period—we're anticipating that they're going to complete fairly shortly, and that is looking at alternatives to the closed period. And then it'll be an opportunity to discuss how we can actually take those ideas forward.

Some of the aspects of the work, I've got to say, Susannah Bolton's work was really excellent. I think everybody's acknowledged that. Now that we're digging into it, now that the task and finish group is digging into it, they're also probably recognising there are some areas that are proving a bit more complex, and they need a bit more evidence. Gian Marco, I don't know if you want to add to that.

Deputy First Minister, just two things. One in relation to the 170 kg/N/ha/yr. As you've said, we've procured basically additional advice that will go to the task and finish group. We're hoping to have that by the end of this month, so that the next meeting of the task and finish group can look at it.

As you say, some of the other areas that we've started to look at in the short-term recommendations are, for instance, the interplay with TB. We've had a couple of discussions with the group. They're ongoing because, as you've said, Deputy First Minister, I think it's fair to say that issues have emerged in those discussions from the input of stakeholders that we need to consider further. So, that's where we are at the moment.

Okay, thank you. And forgive me, Cabinet Secretary and Gian Marco, if I haven't seen it, but have you published the membership of the task and finish group?

I'm not sure if we've published it.

We haven't, but we'd be happy to share the organisations, if that's helpful.

Is there any specific reason why that hasn't been made public, given that they've already met?

No, there isn't actually. I think we'd be happy. I don't think we necessarily want to name individuals, but they're representatives of particular organisations. We can provide that list. That's not a problem.

That would be great. Any work around a potential farm-level pilot?

That's one of the things that they're looking at, Sam. I've been quite keen on exploring this, but it will require some putting together of that. As we've discussed previously outside of this committee, I think it does have some exciting potential. It will require quite a few stakeholders to come together with a willingness to do it, not just on a farm-level basis, but on a slightly larger spatial basis as well. That's the key to this; not just one farm, but on a wider, if you like, definable catchment area.

The task and finish group—sorry, if it helps—discussed this at their last meeting, including feedback from the discussion at the water summit at the end of January, I think it was. So, the discussions are ongoing.

Okay. Lovely. Thank you. And finally for me, you'll be pleased to hear, Cabinet Secretary, with your sore throat—thank you. You'll be aware that there's been a house building moratorium in Pembrokeshire due to water quality and the marine conservation area. How, in your discussions with your colleagues in the Cabinet, and with the Susannah Bolton review and the task and finish group, are you looking at—and I know you said you don't like the word 'holistic' earlier—a holistic approach to water quality, which doesn't look at agricultural policy in silo to house building policy, when it comes to water quality?

Sam, thank you for asking that, because that's exactly the question. The problems that we found in places like Pembrokeshire, Carmarthenshire, Swansea and Neath as well, holding up house building because of the additional load that developments will put onto river systems that are already overloaded, there is a fundamental thing underneath this, which is the cumulative impact of different sources of pollution. So, actually, what we need to do, in line with not just Susannah Bolton's piece of work, but also the consultation that is out at the moment on the Green Paper on water regulation, which isn't purely to do—I know the headline has been 'A new regulator for Wales for the water industry'—but it's also to do with a systems approach to water, so that everything we do in that water space, in catchments, is systematically aimed at cleaning up and taking away the sources of pollution.

That way, Sam, if we take that approach, then we don't get into the problem of pointing fingers of blame at different individuals or different sectors. We work with every sector on a systems-planning basis, to say, 'Let's drop the loads in these river catchments.' So, we don't have the issues that we're currently seeing in some parts in south and west Wales, because we work properly, holistically, to reduce the pollution loads within these catchments. Now, I think that has real merit. Taking forward Susannah Bolton's work, and the Green Paper and the legislation that will have to flow from it, is probably the most exciting opportunity we've had for generations to really tackle river pollution and to stop the blame game, and talk about how we all do the heavy lifting together.

Thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Sam. As I said, we'll write to you, Cabinet Secretary, for the other questions that we had to ask you this afternoon. Thank you to your officials and to you for coming in today. Could I also thank you for your time as Deputy First Minister engaging with the committee, along with your officials, in the various scrutiny sessions that we've held with you? I'll just remind you that the transcript will be sent to you and, obviously, if there are any errors—I think the chief vet highlighted certain areas he wants to double-check on—please liaise with the clerking team. Otherwise, that'll form the official record for today's proceedings. I hope your voice gets better, and there's still three weeks to go until break-up. I wish you all the best. Thank you all very much.

Thank you, Chair. Can I just reciprocate my thanks to the committee as well for your engagement and holding our feet to the fire on so many issues? It's genuinely been helpful and constructive, and it's forced us to turn our attention to areas. It's been the best part of, I think, the way this Senedd works, so thank you very much indeed.

Thank you.

Papers to note, colleagues. Any issues from papers to note?

There's an interesting one from the Auditor General for Wales, but it's a bit late now to do much about it—pity we hadn't heard from him before. Anyway—.

No others? No other comments? Okay. Before I move us into private session, as this is the last proper meeting, because we have a legacy report, I'd just like to put on record my thanks to the clerking team, to the research team, to facilities and everyone connected to the workings of this committee. There are various individuals behind the screen there who make this operation work as well, and I wish everyone all the best for the future. Hopefully, we'll see some of us back here, and some of us are sailing off into the sunset for retirement, but it has been a privilege and a pleasure to chair this committee in the time I've been Chairman, and it wouldn't have happened without you guys and girls and the efforts that you've put in. Thank you very much.

I now move a motion to go into private session. Could I have a seconder for that? Okay. We'll move into private session.