National Assembly for Wales

Bore da. Good morning, everybody, and welcome to this meeting of the Climate Change, Environment, Sustainability and Rural Affairs Committee. My name is James Evans, and I have the privilege of chairing this committee. I'll note that the public items of this meeting are being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and a Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. I'll note that the meeting is bilingual and that simultaneous translation is available from Cymraeg to Saesneg, and I would ask Members if there are any declarations of interest.

Chair, a declaration of interest as a farmer.

Lovely.

Yes, the same—I'm a farmer.

I'm a member of the Badger Trust.

I run a smallholding.

Thank you.

I co-own some agricultural land.

Thank you. Mine is on my voluntary register of interests. And, as all Members have declared those now, we shouldn't have to do that at every single meeting in the future.

So, we move on now to item No. 2, which is general scrutiny of the Cabinet Minister for Rural Resilience and Sustainability. Welcome, Minister. It's good to see you on that side of the table for a change.

It's a change to be on this side of the table, Chair.

Exactly. Thank you very much for coming today. I think it'd be useful for everybody around the table if you wouldn't mind introducing your officials, if that's okay.

Yes. I think, maybe, in fairness, in case I mangle their job titles, they can introduce themselves. But, as you say, Llyr Gruffydd, Cabinet Minister.

Bore da, bawb. Diolch, Weinidog. Gian Marco Currado. I'm the director of rural resilience of Welsh Government.

I'm the Chief Veterinary Officer for Wales.

Bore da, bawb. I'm Rhodri Asby. I'm the interim director for environmental sustainability and climate change.

Thank you very much, all. As I said, this is our first general scrutiny session with you, Minister, and we look forward to, in the rest of this Senedd term, having regular sessions with you and, hopefully, you'll be accommodating to our asks in the future. Given recent events, Cabinet Minister, with drought and wildfires across the country, I was going to focus the first part of the session specifically on that area; I think it'd be beneficial to Members. But, before I hand that over, I'll probably just give the opening question, as is my prerogative as Chair. If you could just outline some of your priorities for your term of office, because, obviously, if everything is a priority, nothing is a priority. So, it'd be quite useful to hear from you what your priorities are as the Cabinet Minister.

Yes. Thank you, Chair, and I think it's fair to say that, having just published the programme for government, a lot of those particular priorities are articulated there.

For me, this is a very broad portfolio. As you say, it's difficult to prioritise everything. We've been clear in terms of certain aspects of the portfolio where we want to focus particular efforts. One would be responding to the climate and nature emergency, which is, I believe, a societal expectation on us. We are seeing the consequences of climate change being revealed—you know, this summer. We touched on that; we'll come to it in a minute. So, there's a lot of work to be done in that space. But also we need to do it in a way that works for communities, and works for farming particularly, which is a big other part of my portfolio. I hope to be an ambitious Minister, but one that's pragmatic and practical in the way that I approach some of these challenges.

Food is also important to me. We have a good-news story here in Wales. We have excellent primary produce. We have an opportunity to build not only an economically successful food sector, but one that meets the needs of the people of Wales in terms of providing that nutritious source of affordable food that everybody deserves. You'll be aware that there is a piece of work particularly around a national food strategy that we're pursuing, and I very much hope that that'll be something that we can really deliver on—not just the strategy obviously, but the benefits and the outcomes stemming from that.

The risk of starting to list things, Chair, is that I forget elements. No doubt you will pick up on those in scrutiny, but, yes, it's been an interesting few months in role so far, and it's probably going to get even more interesting as we move forward. But it's a challenge I relish, it's a challenge I'm embracing, and hopefully it's something where I can make sure that, when my time is up, I can say that I did make a difference. 

Lovely, diolch. I'm now going to hand over to Members who've shown an interest in leading on this area to deal with wildfires and drought. So, I'll hand over, first of all, to Niamh.

Diolch. My first question is to do with climate adaptation in light of the wildfires. So, the first one that I had was to do with water quality. When I went to see Llangynidr reservoir, one of the concerns that was raised with me was the impact of the wildfires and the ash that would be falling then, and also the other wildfire debris that would be going into the water in that reservoir, and I'm sure in other communities as well. So, I was just wondering how you're monitoring and addressing the impact of that happening in the water system.

Yes, okay. So, the events following the wildfires, I think, have reminded us of the scale of the challenge in terms of adaptation. You singled one particular thing out, and certainly I'll address that in a minute. It does remind us, I think, that there is an urgency in terms of responding to make Wales more resilient in the light of these kinds of extreme weather and wildfire events.

In fairness, the UK Climate Change Committee has always emphasised the need to focus strongly on adaptation, but this has probably given us more than a nudge in terms of reminding us that, actually, we mustn't be dragging our feet on this. So, we could probably come on in a minute to talk about some particular interventions, ideas, longer term strategic stuff, but, in relation to water quality specifically, clearly, Natural Resources Wales has a role to play, the water companies themselves have a role to play, in terms of monitoring quality on an ongoing basis. It's difficult, I think, to come up with a way of avoiding these situations. If fires happen, then these kinds of consequences are the ones that we have to deal with. So, it does come back then to making sure that adequate investment is in place to make sure that water is protected or cleaned, in a way, from ash or whatever comes out of these fires.

These are the things that we're now being faced with in a more stark way than previously, and the climate change—not the climate change—the wildfire summit, of course, that's proposed is going to be one opportunity to really dive into these issues, work with partners across the sector, to try and address not only the more immediate responses around water quality as a consequence of wildfires, but certainly embedding the longer term strategic changes that we need to make in response to those. Rhodri, I don't know if there's anything that we need to add to that.

As you said, there's a long-standing framework for monitoring water quality, both in regards to drinking water and in relation to, obviously, Natural Resources Wales's monitoring of water quality in general, and that absolutely continues.

Can I just—?

Yes, carry on.

So, would that summit as well be looking—? Obviously, we're talking about the impact, again, of climate change. Would you also be looking at air quality? Because I know one of the biggest and most stark statistics that came out to me was that, during July, Torfaen had the fourth-highest carbon emissions per square kilometre in the world during the peak of the wildfires, which is a really terrifying statistic, I think, and obviously it's going to have long-term impacts, then, on people's health moving forward. So, I was just wondering: will that be part of the work you're doing as well, and also how does it tie in, maybe, to the Environment (Air Quality and Soundscapes) (Wales) Act 2024 as well? I don't know if that's been considered when it comes to the air quality, moving forward. If we're going to see these wildfires getting worse and worse year on year, it is going to have that long-term effect, then, on people's health. 

It's difficult when these events happen; there will be consequences that you have to manage as best you can. But I think what's most in our gift is managing ourselves to a position where we minimise the likelihood of those fires happening in the first place, because, once they're burning, you can't stop those kinds of emissions hitting communities. So what we need to focus on, I think, primarily is making sure that we minimise the risk from wildfires.

There are two approaches to that. There's the operational stuff—fire and rescue, the Welsh Government's role, military support, all that kind of thing, and we can talk about that. But then we do have the longer term strategic interventions that we need to plan now, such as encouraging land management in a way that helps mitigate some of these risks. We already have certain sources of funding available to farmers—for example, when you think of drought, to look at sinking additional boreholes, creating lagoons for water et cetera. The sustainable agricultural loan scheme as well is out there to help farms become more resilient in the face of climate change, and maybe help some of these. We're looking at doing more to encourage drought-resistant crops, which retain more moisture in the ground, through the sustainable farming scheme. There's work ongoing on peatlands, for example, and rewetting, which can all help avoid finding ourselves in those situations. But when it does happen, then clearly there are public health consequences.

Again, I'll defer to Rhodri in relation to the Act, because I think those are circumstances or situations that arise that maybe hadn't been considered at the time of the Act particularly, but obviously they would be relevant in terms of protecting people's health.

Anna, did you want to come in?

Yes, I just wanted to come in on a different topic. With water, we've been fortunate in west Wales not to have had some of the fires to the extent they've been had elsewhere, but we've had a lot of difficulties with people experiencing water shortages or no water at all, and a lot of that has been down in south Ceredigion. Before the drought came in, this was happening. First of all, the system isn't designed to cope with the level of water demand, so when the heat went up, people were using more water and the system couldn't cope with it. They were trying to truck water around, and that's to do with the geography and the design of the pipes. So there's something that we need to tackle there that's unlike other parts of Wales and the UK. And then also, with the heat, the way that the pipes are designed there, they can't cope with the changes in the ground, basically, when it gets very dry and then very wet again, so we've had lots of burst pipes. There's an awful lot of money going into fixing those burst pipes, and it doesn't last for long. I've had constituents come that have had the pipes burst three times, they've been without water. It's not a resilient system, so there's something about how do you work with the water companies, perhaps looking at this now with new regulation. We really need to invest in a more resilient water infrastructure.

We do. Again, this is another example of the consequences of climate change, basically, and it highlights again that we're not as resilient as we should be. It underlines the importance of adapting to become more resilient in future. And you're right, water companies have a role to play in that. I know Dŵr Cymru and Hafren Dyfrdwy have investment programmes. We're looking at the next price review, we're starting to consider that now in terms of striking that balance between the level of bills against the need to invest. And as a backdrop to all of that, of course, there are opportunities around changes to governance of water regulation in Wales, because we know that the UK water Bill is coming forward at some point later this year, which will hopefully give us the opportunity to recast that regulatory landscape somewhat, particularly in an economic sense, so that we can make sure that some of the considerations that may be specific or particular to us here in Wales are properly reflected in those regulations. Clearly, environmental regulation is something that NRW already does, but that economic regulation piece, I think, is something that we desperately need in order that we can manage that whole water management piece in a way that's a bit more bespoke for our particular needs in Wales, and then allows us maybe to emphasise more strongly the need for that kind of adaptation that you're highlighting. 

Andrew. 

Thank you. Minister, I was particularly taken when I went up to Llangynidr by the scale of the fire that was up there. In a Welsh sense, it was huge. I appreciate on an international scale it was relatively modest, but it was huge in relation to a Welsh fire, and two things struck me. I met Brian and Julian, Julian being one of the graziers there, and he was saying that the number of sheep that grazed that particular common had gone down from 5,000 to 2,500, and so the fuel that was there to power the fire, obviously, is enormous. And the other thing that struck me was the firebreaks that, under the direction of the fire service, they'd had to put in overnight to try and stem the flow of the fire. On the firebreaks, just looking at it—and I can understand why—they had to go down to the rock. I can imagine in peacetime, if you like, when there's no fire, you engaging with NRW as a grazier, or as someone who uses that common, you'd be locked up for a decade or more trying to persuade them of the merits of putting that firebreak in. Would you agree that on firebreaks and managing the commons and open spaces, there needs to be a rethink of the ground rules that allow these firebreaks to be put in, so that we are having management tools in place that reflect the conditions we now have with the climate change that we're seeing? And on grazing, would you agree with me that there does need to be a more balanced approach to allowing stock to graze these open spaces and try and reintroduce grazing to take down that fuel stock that grows on those open spaces that powers these fires?

The short answer to both points you make is 'yes'. On grazing, the one word that you didn't use was 'managed'. I think we need to manage the grazing, but I think it clearly is something that we now need to reflect on. I've been clear about a suckler herd and the potential there to do a bit more in terms of support through the SFS. So, encouraging that kind of grazing is something that I am keen to pursue. What was the other one, sorry?

The firebreaks.

The firebreaks, yes. Well, yes, exactly—

I'm assuming NRW are the management agency who you'd go to to try and do that in what I call peacetime, rather than the crisis of where you have the fire.

Yes, and I agree as well. This now is where I think the wildfire summit in October will be useful, because it will bring all of the players. It will bring the farming representatives, it will bring NRW, Government, local authorities, the fire and rescue services all together on the table so that we can start bottoming out some of these work streams, basically, that we need to now pursue with greater urgency. And for me, in terms of my broad responsibility around land management, then these are the kinds of interventions I think that we really need to try and bake into the way that we encourage land managers to operate in the future. What that looks like exactly is up for discussion, but certainly those are the kinds of interventions. I listed other things earlier as well around peatland and creating lagoons, ponds or something, and whether those can be used then at times of need—all of that comes into the mix. But I see the summit on 22 October as the kick-start for that discussion in earnest.

On that point, the First Minister wrote a letter back to me and he said that we need to look at how we manage land in Wales in the future—managing peatland and the rest of it. We've all been on visits to different places. I went to the Elan valley, for example, and looked at some work they were doing on rewetting, but it's more of a science-based look at rewetting. Rather than the blanket, 'Let's just rewet everything', let's look at what will work. So, I'm just interested, from a Government perspective, in how you and your officials are working with some of our bigger land managers across Wales to identify areas that are appropriate to be rewetted and areas that aren't appropriate. Because if we see these blanket schemes, which we've had in the past, they can do more damage than good and aren't a good investment of public money. So, I'm interested in the work that's going on behind the scenes around this, just to make sure that we're getting the best value for money when we're putting public investment into these schemes.

I'll ask officials to come in on that. What I would say, though, is that rewetting and peatlands is a longer term project; it isn't necessarily going to help us next summer. So, we need to be mindful that we need the more immediate interventions that we can absolutely put in place to mitigate risk for the coming year—well, I say the coming year, but, crikey, it could be February or March, couldn't it, depending on the weather and circumstances. But is there anything in particular we can add on that?

The only thing I would add, and maybe Rhodri wants to pick up on it, is that we've got the national peatland action programme. Part of that is working with some of the big landowners to look at exactly those opportunities. The only other thing I was going to pick up, which was on a previous answer you gave, Cabinet Minister, is that in moving into the SFS, we've already moved away, by and large, from having stocking limits, for instance, on habitats. We're looking more at the outcome that we want to achieve, which we recognise in a lot of areas will include grazing. But, as the Cabinet Minister said, I think there is absolutely an opportunity, through the evolution of the SFS, particularly in the optional layer, to look at what we can make available for farmers, whether it's in the space of more drought-tolerant crops, or whether it's in the space of ponds, reservoirs, et cetera.

I know John wants to come in, but I've got a further question. So, I'll bring Andrew in, then I'll come back and I'll bring John in, if that's all right, on this point.

Could I just clarify the SFS guidance on this? Given that we know that grazing helps reduce the fuel stock, how is that captured in the SFS guidance and rules so that a farmer can see that as a green light to get more stock and put it out there to graze? Because I hear the sentiment in the committee room saying we can do it, but then you go to Encyclopædia Britannica, the guidance, and you just get tied up in knots.

In simple terms, what we've tried to do with the guidance is describe the outcome that we're trying to achieve on the various habitats. We've got 12 habitat types, if I remember correctly, and we've tried to describe what the outcomes are that we're trying to achieve. What we haven't done, which we've done in the past, is set particular grazing or stocking limits. That applies to most habitats. I am conscious there are some habitats where we do set some grazing limits, particularly things like winter uplands, and that is a conversation that we need to have in light of the changing circumstances. But, for me, that looks like that's probably an evolution of the journey that we're already on, in a way, where we're trying to say to farmers, 'This is what we're trying to achieve with this habitat, we recognise that managed grazing is part of your tools, we'll leave it to you to reach that outcome', without saying, 'You will have a prescriptive stocking limit.' 

You made a point, Cabinet Minister, about the suckler herd, for example. What we're hearing is that farmers need some assurances going forward. I've seen so many schemes where farmers can put in for Government funding, whether it be from national parks or others—to have cattle grazing uplands, have collars attached to them, because we all know the work involved with hefting cattle, moving them around is very difficult, but the collars allow that to happen more easily—only for schemes to be stopped or just paused and not carried forward. I'm interested in the long-term security for farmers. If you want an immediate action, that could be something that could be delivered quite quickly, but also benefit in other parts of the industry—with our native breeds, for example. Look at the Welsh black and other types of native breeds, which are bred to be on this environment—they're not bred to be in sheds all year, they're bred to be on these hills. Is that something the Government is looking at as part of upland management to deal with wildfires? Will the Government give some assurances to those people, rather than going down a scheme for so long and then having the rug pulled from underneath them with probably weeks to go?

You can pick up on that again, if you want, Gian Marco. What I would say, and I said this earlier today, is that, having spent the summer visiting shows, speaking to farmers, rural communities and rural groups and organisations as well, the industry is looking for three things. It's looking for certainty. Hopefully we've been able to provide some of that in the commitments that we've done for longer term funding for the sector. But it's also looking for flexibility, in that when circumstances change, we are willing to change our approach. Hopefully, being pragmatic and practical, we're demonstrating that around some of the announcements that we made today and other announcements we've made in recent weeks. But also then the wider general support for the industry, talking the industry up, et cetera. I hope that we're managing to do that. This is exactly the kind of evolutionary piece that I'm interested in, in that we do adapt along the lines of what works for farmers and for the environment and some of the climate challenges and nature challenges that we're facing at the same time. Did you want to come in?

Yes. Just within the context of what the Cabinet Minister has said, one of the reassurances I can provide is that one of the three priority areas that we've got for the work that we're doing now to involve the optional layer of the scheme is what we call sustainable production, which basically picks up an awful lot of the things you've just raised, Chair. It's looking at that support that we can give to farmers that will improve efficiency on farms, so have an economic outcome, but also improve efficiency from a climate perspective. A lot of those things link back into the suckler herd, rare breeds, there's things like age to slaughter, those sorts of things. Hopefully, once that work that we're doing with stakeholders materialises into some optional actions, with the backing the Government has given in terms of the budget, those two things give some longer term certainty to farmers in those areas.

John has been waiting very patiently online. Sorry, John, I'll bring you in now.

A lot of the things have already been mentioned by Andrew, but I'm looking more specifically at upland common land. There's an example going on in north Gower at the moment, where Natural Resources Wales are involved, trying to do exactly what we were told was needed to be done when we went up to Builth Wells agricultural show, and the same things that Andrew was talking about—having more animals, horses, cattle, sheep, and stopping the common land just becoming scrubland and bushland. It's obviously improving the quality of the land, it's non-invasive in its control and it's good for the animals. The problem is that, in Gower—and I don't know whether it's the same in other areas—there are 120-odd commoners that are noted, but there are only about four or five that are actually using them, and therefore it looks almost an impossible task to do anything in areas like this. Is it something that the Minister has actually looked at? It would obviously increase local productivity, help the repairing of the ground and fight against climate change, but it seems a tough task, especially when looking at the infections of animals. I've been told that the animals would immediately need to be taken off the common and put onto land, and that seems to be a big block to whether Natural Resources Wales can actually make this work in highland areas that are common land.

Yes, common land does bring a different kind of challenge, doesn't it? It always does, it always has done, because of, as you say, the large numbers of interested parties, and it is a challenge, sometimes, to bring them together in order to bring schemes or bring opportunities forward, but we are keen, again, to be flexible in that space, and optional schemes are ones that we want to encourage those particular kinds of farmers to be involved in. I don't know if you want to add about the habitat.

Yes. At the moment, we've still got the Habitat Wales Scheme for commons, which is very much designed to try and bring graziers on commons together to deliver outcomes. We are conscious that that scheme needs to evolve, in effect, into an optional action. As I mentioned earlier to the Chair, we have three priority areas and that is one of the priority areas now, working with our stakeholders to look at what support we can give to graziers on commons. We are more than aware that there are, as the Cabinet Minister said, challenges on some commons, either because the graziers are unable to come together or because only some actually graze the land. So, those are the sorts of questions that we're trying to get into as we look to see what the optional support might be for common land graziers.

But I think—. Oh yes, go on, John, sorry.

No, no, no, please.

Well, I was just going to cap this off by recognising the huge efforts and endeavours of the farmers, alongside the emergency services, the fire and rescue authorities, Natural Resources Wales and others who really stepped up in the face of these fires and really went above and beyond. I think we should recognise that, thank them and praise them for that.

Bringing those groups together in response to that kind of situation, we wouldn't wish for that to happen, but I think it has happened in a way now where we can really build on that in a positive sense, and keep that sort of joint working and dialogue and negotiation going, so that we can, maybe, design approaches in the future that work for all of them in a mutually beneficial way. And again, I come back to the summit that will be happening soon as an opportunity to really bring those partners together and set out a programme of work moving forward, so that we don't find ourselves, hopefully—or at least that we learn the lessons from past experience to make us a bit more resilient if and when these situations arise again.

The programme that Natural Resources Wales have in north Gower is something that's tackling exactly what it is that you're talking about, and I just hope that's something that you can support when they look for funding, please.

And fill the gaps.

I'm not sure that we're supposed to lobby in committee for funding, John. I will bring in Vikki.

Thank you, Chair. Going back to the interplay between wildfires and nature, it's quite a complex interplay, isn't it, as we discussed, with some of the things like grazing, but not overgrazing, whether we're looking at controlled burning or firebreaks—all of that. But just to focus on the peatland restoration for a moment, because there have been some fantastic projects that have happened already. The one in the Tywi forest, for example, it's very interesting to see the early results that are coming out from that, but also that EMBER project that's been happening with the University of Leeds. So, could you just talk a bit about the early learnings from that and how your thoughts may or may not have changed as a result of the wildfires we've seen?

Yes, I think this is a success story—I can't even say it. I think it shows what is possible with the right investment in the right place. I had the pleasure of visiting a scheme up in Conwy near me, and really the learning that I took from that was that some of these places are recovering more quickly than anticipated and expected, and bringing those benefits sooner than anticipated. Yes, it's a longer term project, over time, clearly, but we are already seeing benefits in terms of water management, flood resilience, water quality, but also then the whole biodiversity restoration and improvement as well. So, I'm particularly keen to continue to support these kinds of investments and schemes. I don't know, Rhodri, if you want to add anything in particular.

Well, I think as well as the benefits you've mentioned, of course, there are the really important carbon benefits in terms of the sequestration that it delivers. So, those examples are real win-win examples.

Yes, thank you. And where the peatland has been damaged by the wildfires over the summer, like in Llanwonno in my constituency, my understanding from speaking to local land managers there is that that damaged and compacted peat can now form an additional fire risk unless mitigation measures are carried out. And obviously, Welsh Government through many years has invested a lot in peatland restoration. Some of that now has gone up in smoke— 

Literally.

—over the past few months. So, I'm just looking for some reassurance, really, that that investment will continue, and particularly for those areas of peatland that have been damaged in the last few months.

Yes, I hope so. Clearly, it needs to be the right kind of intervention and it needs to be affordable. But, certainly, I'm very aware of the damage caused by the fires. And I'm sure many of us, not all of us, maybe, but many of us saw the news reports when this was really flagged as an issue, because it's taken thousands of years for those environments to be established and it took weeks for them to be destroyed. So, we have to, again, I think, redouble our efforts to avoid finding ourselves in this position in the first place. So, it's a balance then, I think, in terms of investing in those particular programmes, but also investing in the need to protect them in the wider sense. 

And appreciating that the main focus of the wildfire summit has to be how we can get ourselves ready for next summer and the events that might unfold then, I also just wanted to ask about you keeping an eye on the longer term view with all of this as well. So, one thing I'm really interested in is beaver restoration. I know that's a long-term goal, but there's some really excellent evidence coming out from around the world—Canada in particular—about how the reintroduction of beavers can really help with that rewetting agenda, and help with the whole situation around wildfires. So, just to see if you've got any thoughts there.

No, not really. I mean, I understand the case that you're making and I appreciate that there is a case to be made and I'm happy to listen to that. It's not on my list of 10, 15 priorities, but certainly, if there's a discussion to be had, I'm happy to have it, certainly.

Well, I'm very happy to continue to speak—

Okay, I'm sure you will.

—about beavers and their role in restoration over the coming years, and perhaps when you're looking at those higher tiers in the SFS and some of the things that have already been talked about around rewetting and helping farmers to protect their water courses, I'd love to see that as a long-term goal, tying in with beaver reintroduction. 

I've got a long list of speakers coming up now, but I'll take them in order—. Is this related to Vikki's point, Anna, because I know Paul's been waiting a while? 

Oh, sorry, Paul, yes. 

Yes, okay, I'll bring in Paul, Niamh and then back to you Anna.

Yes, thank you, Minister. Have we done any work yet on the impact that the wildfires and the dry weather this summer have had on biodiversity—loss of habitat and things like that? I was just wondering what work has been done on that, if any.

Rhodri, you could probably answer that one.

I've not seen the outcome of any work as yet in terms of any results from it, but I do know that there is work being undertaken in relation to looking at the effects on habitat through bodies like Natural Resources Wales.

Yes, just to say, we're very aware of the impacts, clearly, although they haven't been quantified as such, have they? But that's certainly something that we need to be aware of.

And is this something that's going to be picked up at the summit?

Yes. I very much see the summit as the starting gun, really, for bringing a lot of partners together around the table with a particular focus, as I said earlier, on the operational stuff, which is important, which addresses the more immediate 'What are we going to do for next year?' kind of thing, but then there's a whole work stream there about that longer term natural infrastructure piece, really, in terms of how we mitigate these risks. There's also, granted, a discussion then about how do we address the impacts that they have and maybe restore nature as well within that equation. But I see a role there for NRW, Government, land managers—there is a wide range of stakeholders that need to be part of that discussion. 

Diolch.

Any follow-up, Paul?

No, that's fine. 

Niamh.

Mine is a lot to do with nature, so I don't know if Anna wants to come in here.

Yes, Anna.

Mine's not to do with—[Inaudible.]

Oh, right.

Mine is just jumping back, sorry, to agriculture, if that's okay.

That's fine. You go wherever you like. 

Just following up on one of the questions, a lot of us here went to visit Llangynidr, and I think seeing that really put into perspective the devastating impact it's had on farmers across Wales. I spoke to Julian as well, and I thought it was a really powerful conversation, but one of the things that he flagged were the really big concerns he's got to do with the amount of winter feed he's had to use already, and also finding replacement grazing land as well. We talked about the destruction of the peatlands. The amount that was destroyed there was horrific. You could see the rock from where the peatlands had been. I know that the Welsh Government did provide some support for farmers when everything happened in August. I was just wondering, if we're going to see this happening yearly, are you looking at longer term support for farmers who are having to, like I said, use their winter feed, try to find some replacement grazing land? Are those conversations you'll be having? 

Yes. We could end up in a situation where we provide support for everything, and that's not practical in terms of the resource that we have. But my focus is on investing in the right place to help these farms become more resilient moving forward, so that you bake in some of these elements, some of these factors. I mentioned earlier that the industry has asked for flexibility where that's possible. Well, you'll be aware, for example, that today we've announced an extension, or we've pushed the close period for the control of agricultural pollution regulations a month further into the winter, to support farmers to deal with some of these issues that are stemming directly from the weather conditions over the summer. So, where we can be flexible, we will be. Where we can encourage investment in the right place, we will. And where we can, we will provide that.

But we're all on a journey here. It's an evolutionary piece. I'm particularly keen now in light of what we've seen in recent months—. And it isn't just feed, et cetera. We're seeing, and I know Richard is here, animal diseases coming into the UK now that we haven't seen before, primarily because of climate change and the hotter, wetter weather. So, it's a very broad piece. And I don't think it's for Government to fund all of it. But Government needs to work with the industry to get it to a place where it's better able to contend with these challenges. And where we can, we will support directly, but it isn't just money as well. There are other ways of supporting through certain decisions and the way we do things.

There are two other Members who want to speak, but just on this point directly, Cabinet Minister, it's been raised already in the Chamber about whether Welsh Government is looking at bringing forward payments to support farmers early, because people have to wait for the funding and the support they receive to come through, but if that money was received earlier, it could help people to get through the winter. Is that something that's under active consideration from the Government at this current time?

Well, we have actually committed to increasing the initial payment for the basic payment scheme and the sustainable farming scheme from 70 per cent to 80 per cent. [Interruption.] Well, it's 14 October, I think, or from 14 October. So, it's a couple of weeks away. And that's directly to address some of the cash-flow issues that have been highlighted to us as a consequence of some of these challenges. Look, I'm open to a discussion about when those payments land. I'm sure that officials would tell me that there are challenges in doing that, otherwise why hasn't it happened already.

It hasn't happened before.

Yes, okay, well that's something we could consider. But I'd imagine it's not as easy as just saying, 'Let's do it.'

Anna, I know you're on my list, but Gareth hasn't spoken yet. We've got the Minister until 11:00 and we're going to take a break in between—unless he wants to stay longer, and it would be very pleasing if he would—so I'll bring Gareth in now and then I'll come back to you.

I'll tell you at 11:00. [Laughter.]

Until 11:30, sorry. We've got plenty of time. 

In my constituency, over the summer, we went to look at some wildfires; we went to look at the causes of them. And it was often—we witnessed it, because the fires were literally started by anti-social behaviour. I know it's broadening the scope, again, of what the Government can do, but I think a lot of it is down to anti-social behaviour, people not understanding the origins of these fires, and I think that's something that we need to deal with as well as a Government.

Yes, I think there's a public education piece, but there are also those who are intent on doing damage, which again brings a different kind of challenge in terms of policing that, particularly in rural areas, remote areas, where that might be difficult. But, yes, the police also have a role to play in this discussion, absolutely, because we need to try and bear down on all of those aspects that have left us in the position we found ourselves in over the summer.

Okay. Anna. 

I was going to come in on a similar point to Niamh about the impact this is going to have now over the coming months, immediately, for farmers with these things like feed stocks—I won't go over that—but also the knock-on effects, I suppose, to other parts of Government, with food prices. The extreme heat, fires et cetera—it isn't just in Wales, it's across Europe, with the wider supply chain. So, to what extent is the Government, or you, having discussions with colleagues about what implications this will have on our wider economy and on the cost of living?

Yes. That wider food resilience piece is important to us. It's a feature of the work that's already started around the national food strategy as well. Ensuring access to affordable food is important. Now, much of that comes back to, I would say, producing more of it ourselves, making sure that we have that food resilience as a priority in terms of what we're asking farmers and land managers to achieve. But it also means protecting local processing capacity as well, so that we retain the economic benefits and create jobs as best we can as part of that process. So, that opens a whole other sphere of discussion.

You'll be aware that the Deputy First Minister as well, last week, or earlier this week, announced £5 million for local authorities in Wales to try and support interventions around poverty, and food particularly. And I was very glad that she implemented or took consideration of rurality in the way that that was distributed, which, again, I hope speaks to a different way of looking at these things from the Welsh Government. 

So, there's a lot to do, and we are getting on with it, but, certainly, that's another one. 

Yes, I'm sure we'll touch on the food strategy later.

Yes, and, of course, the global impacts we can't do anything about. The Strait of Hormuz and all that will have an effect, and it just underlines, I think, the need for us to be as self-sufficient and resilient as possible, and that goes for meat and horticulture as well. We're woefully underproducing in that space, and both of those are particular areas that have been identified as priority workstreams for the food strategy.

Andrew, you wanted to come back in.

Yes. We seem to have walked into the cost-of-living area, and one thing that the National Farmers Union have been calling for is interest-free loans for the purchase of fertiliser, because, obviously, fertiliser, through the global consequences, has doubled in price and is likely to go up even higher. 

The Government have a bank, which they use for business. Is the Government minded to try and make some financial facility available so that farmers can get interest-free loans to purchase fertiliser? Because, as a direct consequence of not having fertiliser, you reduce the output, and therefore you're feeding a market, which is already hungry for product, at a lower rate, then, you are. And the numbers—. When you look at the farm balance sheet at the moment, with fuel through the roof, inflation creeping back in to Ukrainian levels—Ukrainian conflict levels—the balance sheet just really is unable to take these costs. So, a mechanism—which doesn't cost the Government money; obviously, the loans have to be repaid—could be a way of working with the Government bank to create a facility for interest-free loans.

That's an option. Certainly, I'd be open to considering that. There's a logistical challenge in terms of getting that money out the door in a timely fashion, because setting up a scheme and administering it isn't something that you do by pressing a button. But, certainly, I'm happy to consider that. I'm aware as well of calls for a UK-wide emergency scheme, which is something I would really be supportive of, something I would like to see happen. So, there are a few potential elements there. 

I'll come back as well to the point I made earlier—it isn't always about money. There are other things that Government can do that can support the industry in difficult times. You're aware that, due to the weather circumstances, farmers are now going later into the autumn for silage cuts, hence one of the reasons we felt that limiting the closed period would help. So, there are practical interventions that we can make as well. But, certainly, in terms of funding, where we can support, we will. It's just a matter of which means is best to achieve that and how affordable that is, but also how practical it is in terms of the way that we implement it.

Talking of practicalities—I appreciate it's not your responsibility, but it's something the industry is looking at—the fertiliser tax is due to come in on 1 January. It's madness to think about introducing that when you've got the cost pressures that we've got at the moment in the industry, through no fault of the industry, but through the global dynamics. Many people have lobbied to try and defer that fertiliser tax for at least 12 months. Have you made any representations to Whitehall in relation to that?

No, I haven't, but I think that that pragmatic approach to circumstances is one that the UK Government should consider. And now that you've raised it, I'm sure it's something that I can do.

But, to date, you've done no representation to the Westminster Government on it?

Not directly, no.

Disappointing.

I'll use the Chair's prerogative now to try and bring this part on wildfires to a close, with one final question from me, Cabinet Minister. I think, during the whole time when we had the crisis, a lot of people were very unsure as to where civil contingencies sat within the Welsh Government, who was responsible, which Ministers were responsible for what. In the previous Government, in your ministry, the Llywydd now, Huw Irranca-Davies, who was the rural affairs Minister, held civil contingencies. I think it was very unclear for a lot of us, as Members, and, obviously, public bodies as well, as to who was responsible in Government. So, is that something that Government has thought about since and how that can be streamlined, so we actually, from a Government perspective, know who is responsible, who will be in charge of mitigating these things in the future, rather than it being spread across so many different portfolios and then things falling through the gaps? Is that some learning that the Government is going to do, going forward?

There's always learning and I think that coherence is important. It can be done across portfolios, certainly, because, obviously, there are bespoke responsibilities that have to come together when events happen. So, I don't think we should presume that, because it's more than one person, it can't work. But there's no harm at all in looking at that wider picture and sharpening it up where we think that's appropriate. And again, that may well be a consequence of the summit that'll be held on 22 October and a discussion I'm more than willing to have with my colleagues in the Cabinet.

Lovely, thank you. And I think I'll just put on record, on behalf of the whole committee, our thanks to all those emergency services, farmers and community groups across the country who all came together to tackle these wildfires. If it wasn't for some of the general public at large, I dread to think where we'd have actually been, because I don't think the emergency services could have managed it all on their own. So, thank you to all those people who helped.

We'll now move on to some other areas of questions that Members have got an interest in to ask you questions on. The first area will be on biodiversity. And I know Niamh has got some questions she'd like to ask you on biodiversity. So, I'll hand over to you, Niamh. Thank you.

Diolch. So, my first question is: obviously, we've got the establishment now of the Office of Environmental Governance Wales. I was just wondering how that progression is going and how you see it as fitting into your wider vision as a Government when it comes to biodiversity?

Well, look, we found ourselves, post Brexit, in a situation where we didn't have that environmental governance oversight. It was a vacuum that needed to be filled. Other parts of the UK filled it. And regrettably, we didn't get to the point where we had that body in as timely a manner as we would have wished. We're now getting to a position where that is in place. And it will be a key part in that ecosystem, if you like, in terms of having that oversight on Government and others. And it's one element, I think, in a bigger picture here, because we will have the statutory targets for biodiversity coming on board. Work has already started on that as a consequence of legislation passed in the last Senedd. And as somebody who sat over there arguing for strong and meaningful targets, we will make sure that that is the case. And as somebody also who sat over there arguing for the environmental governance body to have teeth, I will make sure that that is the case as well. So, there's a lot happening. Rhodri, do you want to add anything on that?

Well, I think, in terms of a live update, obviously, we are, at the moment, in the process of recruiting for the chair and chief executive, which is being done at pace—so, obviously, working to establish the body and working in line with the legislation that was put in place in 2026.

Following up on that as well, I was just wanting to have an idea of how the marine environment ties up to it as well. Sometimes, as we've discussed as a committee, it gets quite overlooked, the marine environment, and I feel like progress has been halted a bit from previous Governments when it comes to marine environments, when it comes to marine protected areas as well. So, I was just wondering what your vision is for that as well, and, with the Office of Environmental Governance Wales, how that ties into it from a marine side.

Yes. Well, I mean, it will have that oversight across the whole piece, and I think it has been a weakness in the past that people tend to think of the terrestrial and the marine as two separate environments, whereas, in fact, it's all one and the same, because what happens on land has a direct impact on marine as well. So, I think we need to keep that at the fore of our minds. Rhodri, do you want to add anything on protected areas and the work that's happening in that space?

In terms of the protected areas work, then obviously that does continue at the moment. It's really important in relation to the interface, as you've said, between the two, and really important also in relation to the engagement that happens alongside the approach as we bring that forward.

Yes, and we have a national development framework, which is terrestrial based, but obviously we're going to extend that out now to focus on marine as well, which I think is, again, a real signal in terms of seeing it as seamless, as one environment and not two things that are separate.

Yes. That's really good to hear. Another part as well that I wanted to come in on, and it's something I'm quite interested in, is to do with the nature finance side as well when it comes to biodiversity. I was wondering if the Welsh Government has looked at that aspect of things, because I think there's possibly quite a lot of potential there in getting public and private investment in when it comes to helping with biodiversity and restoring our natural ecosystem. So, is that a piece of work you're looking at doing?

Yes, there's a lot there. You know, Government can't do this all on its own, and I think the more that we can leverage additional investment in, the better. It has to be done in the right way, of course. We don't want greenwashing and that kind of thing happening. I pay testament to the work that happened under the last Government in terms of setting out parameters for doing that in the right and proper way. But, again, Rhodri, do you want to add a few points?

Yes. Really important work in terms of bringing investment into ecosystem services and being able to leverage that in. We're undertaking work at the moment on a consultation to be able to bring that forward and intend to publish that consultation shortly, in the autumn.

And I see an opportunity there for farmers, particularly land managers, to open up a whole new revenue stream in terms of having financial recognition for a lot of the work that they do.

Diolch.

John. You're on mute, John. There we are. You're away now. Don't touch anything. I think they've unmuted you.

Okay.

Yes, we can hear you now.

Thank you. Swansea University are the fourth in the UK in terms of innovation in biodiversity, including pest control, fertilisers and drug-control-resistant plants. I'm just wondering if the Minister has had any discussions with Swansea University. The scientists that they have there are really quite cutting edge and exporting a lot of what they currently have, and, with the change in the climate, the work that they do is ever more suitable for the needs of what we have here.

I haven't, no, but you've piqued my interest there, and I'd be really keen to learn more about what they do, because, as you say, there are a number of challenges that we face, and we really do need to be able to develop that expertise, lean heavily on that expertise, and make sure that we can implement some of the innovation that they're leading on more widely.

I visited last week Aberystwyth University, where there's a lot of work happening in terms of animal health. The veterinary work that's happening there, the development of laboratory capacity—there are all sorts of opportunities around these academic hubs, and the more that's happening in that space, the more learning we can take, and the better off, hopefully, we'll all be, as long as we can implement that in a practical way.

Thank you.

Lovely.

If it's any help, I can pass details over.

Thank you.

Lovely. Do any Members have anything on this? I've got a question. I'm just interested—. You are the Minister responsible for biodiversity. I'm just interested in the balancing act in Government, because we've seen in certain parts of the country large-scale infrastructure, for example, which is planned for certain parts, which some people contest will have huge impacts on biodiversity and biodiversity loss. I'm just interested where the Government's thoughts are on that balance between large-scale infrastructure and the loss of biodiversity. I'm just interested where you're working across Government portfolios to try and balance those competing priorities of wanting one thing and wanting the other.

Well, I would hope that the planning system takes some of that into consideration. Clearly, the planning system is there for a reason. It's both to protect interests and, also, to allow the right kind of development to happen in the right kind of place. So, I'm not sure what kind of infrastructure developments you're thinking about particularly, but there will be examples where a balance has to be struck, and I would hope that the planning system takes that into consideration. But that doesn't, sort of, hold back our ambition because those are, I'd imagine, isolated examples. We are clear that we want to get to a position where we halt the decline of nature by 2030 and it's been restored by 2050. Now, that's ambitious. That means that we need to make sure that we have those robust targets in place, those statutory targets, but that actions reflect that as well. And we are developing the climate and nature action plan, which is a big piece of work for us as a Government. Because at the minute, if you think, we have a whole sort of disparate landscape of legislation and strategies and action plans, and we really need to try and bring a coherence to that by bringing much of that together in a way that is action based and outcome focused, and that's one big piece of work that we're undertaking at the minute.

Niamh.

Yes. Just following on from what you mentioned about the climate and nature action plan, I was just wondering how that interacts with the previous Welsh Government's nature recovery action plan? Are they kind of merging into one, or is it going to be separate—?

Well, you have a strategy and you have action on the ground, and I think it's about striking that balance between having that ambition and having that bigger picture approach, but then having bespoke actions sat underneath it. We have a plethora of legislation in the first place. We have the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, which sort of touches on this, we have the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, which was passed here, and we have the UK Climate Change Act 2008 as well. There are a lot of expectations in terms of reporting and monitoring and acting as well. When I was a member of this committee, one of the comments regularly was that there was so much happening it was really difficult to see a route to achieving not only the biodiversity goals, but also the net-zero goal as well. So, hopefully, our climate and nature action plan will distil much of that into a coherent document that people can hold us accountable to, but also see in terms of action happening on the ground. Rhodri, is there anything I need to add on that?

I think, in relation to the nature recovery action plan, it's really clear, the relationship between that and section 6 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. In terms of the biodiversity duty, obviously, that does need a detailed plan to be able to discharge that requirement. But, as the Minister set out, in relation to the climate and nature action plan, that's about bringing coherence and looking at the fact that, with regard to climate and nature, there are common root causes and being able to address them through integrated action, rather than action within each of the individual areas.

Lovely. I've got two Members indicating. Anna and Paul.

Great. Thank you. So, I was just thinking about—. Bringing a few things together, there's, obviously—. We've touched on the kind of nature finance. There's a lot of investment coming in, needed in order to tackle the nature crisis, and also climate, both adaptation and mitigation. And the sooner we can kind of get this investment in, the better. And we can see that, actually, the cost of not doing so is going to be far, far greater. But, in all of this, there's a kind of 'who pays and who benefits?' and the impact on our wider economy and communities. And, I suppose, some of the measures we might take—. I was looking at the amount, actually, you can have of sequestration. How do we actually, whether that's peatlands, but also, actually, farming, pasture—. But you can do farming in ways with grassland, et cetera, that's going to be really beneficial. So, where we place our investment in this, or who delivers—. I've also heard some farmers saying that, actually, there are millions of pounds being spent on schemes to benefit nature in the uplands, say, but, actually, local landowners or farmers aren't getting a penny of it and that's causing—. So, how do we do this? How do we think about this investment in ways where we're really building up our local economies and communities to reap the rewards of the investment that's coming?

Well, I think that's the magic formula, isn't it? If we crack that one, then I think we're sort of halfway there, at least. But I'm just thinking, for example, of water management. There are catchment-based partnerships out there that bring a lot of these players together. The Welsh Government is investing tens of millions of pounds in flood mitigation schemes in this financial year. But we also have water companies that have a role to play. We have Natural Resources Wales that have a big part to play. We have landowners themselves that have a big part to play, bringing those communities in so that we can make sure that you maximise investment when you bring that investment together. They could all do their individual things, which would be all well and good, very laudable, but when you bring partners together on that catchment scale, I think you can do so much more, utilising probably the same resources but in a more joined-up way. So, there is more that we can do, and, yes, I'm all ears if you have any particular ideas, but nature finance is a big part of that as well. But those people on the ground need to be empowered as well to make decisions.

Yes, maybe skills and everything, if we think or know that different interventions are coming, so that people are ready in our communities here, I suppose.

And to take that a step further, the flood forum work that we're doing now in setting up a flood forum for Wales, that's all about community resilience. So, they should be part of that catchment-based discussion as well, because those communities at the bottom of the valley are the ones that see the real difference when the extreme weather events hit.

Paul.

Just picking up on the question that James asked just now, actually, I've got constituents who are very concerned that, say, data centres are being considered to be essential national infrastructure. But I think that, actually, biodiversity habitats also should be considered as essential national infrastructure. But, of course, planning—. You talked about—. Well, the planning system should take care of that. I guess it's incumbent on us, and perhaps you need to have a conversation with the Cabinet Minister for Local Government, Housing and Planning about the way that we see, for nature resilience and so on, but also for people's well-being, that that natural environment, that biodiversity and those habitats are, in a sense, essential infrastructure as well.

I think you make a very valid point and a very fair point. It's a fair challenge. It's one that we need to consider and reflect upon. But that's the change in mindset that we need to see happening on a societal basis. And, yes, challenge accepted. Good point.

Lovely. Well, I think we're about halfway through our session, Cabinet Minister, so I think it would be probably an appropriate time for us to take a break. So, if we have a break now, a comfort break for people, and we'll be back in five to 10 minutes. Thank you.

Thank you, and welcome back, everyone, to our general scrutiny session with the Cabinet Minister. We're moving on to another area now of questioning for the Minister, and we're going to move on to climate mitigation and an area of interest that Niamh showed interest in following up. So, Niamh, will you lead us off in this area, please?

Thank you, Chair. Yes, my question is specifically on carbon budget 3. As we know, it's quite a big step, but, obviously, a really important step as well. I just wanted to touch on the fact that, if I'm right from what I've been reading, 60 per cent of the emissions reductions required come from policy areas that are reserved or partially devolved. So, I was just wondering what your relationship is looking like with the UK Government, and are you getting those kind of assurances that you need from them as well that the policies and actions needed in those areas—along with, obviously, actions from the Welsh Government as well—will be in place to ensure that we meet our goals with that budget?

Yes, well, that is the challenge, isn't it? What we can do within devolved powers we will do, but we're very beholden, I think, to those reserved responsibilities of the UK Government.

Work is ongoing across Government on carbon budget 3. Obviously, the deadline is the end of this year. The UK Climate Change Committee has made it clear that much of the heavy lifting depends on that action from the UK Government, predominantly because industry and energy in the main are non-devolved. So, action in those spaces is really key if we are to meet the carbon budget 3. But we're doing everything we can within those areas of responsibility that we have, predominantly, of course, around transport and housing, which are the two main sectors that can contribute to this. And, as I say, that work is ongoing and we will be making an announcement later on this year to outline those actions specifically.

Do you have a time frame of when later on this year you'll be making that announcement, roughly? 

Well, we have to publish it by the end of the year, so there will be a statement around that time. It'll be before Christmas, I suppose, to be general. This is what Ministers say usually, isn't it? Which Christmas I didn’t say. [Laughter.]

I think she's asking which Christmas, Cabinet Minister. [Laughter.]

Minister speak, yes.

Just to follow up, would you be able to provide a bit more detail on the discussions you're having with your UK counterparts around this as well? Are they constructive conversations? Because, obviously, like you said, it's a really big challenge, and the UK Government have a big role to play in that as well as us. I was just wondering how that dynamic is working in those conversations.

The difficulty we've had, of course, is that it's been a bit of a spinning door in terms of Prime Ministers, Secretaries of State and Ministers of State as well. So, we are making it clear continually our expectation of UK Government, particularly around some of these areas. On energy, we will make the case for further devolution so that we can have more responsibility over those things that we feel are important to us. But those are ongoing and continual discussions. The UK Government have ambitions. Whether they match ours remains to be seen, but certainly—. I don't know, on an official's level, Rhodri, is there anything that you want to add?

There's lots of extensive joint working with more than one Whitehall department on this topic. And obviously, there's the framework of inter-ministerial groups, with supporting structures for senior officials underneath. So, we are in active engagement with the UK Government with regard to this agenda.

But your fundamental point around the UK Government having to do much of the heavy lifting to support us in achieving our carbon budget 3 is well made.

Diolch.

Paul.

Yes, just on that, looking at the graphs that we've been provided with: fuel supply and electricity supply are half of those reserved matters. But, of course, it strikes me that we could perhaps reduce those considerably by increasing the amount of renewable energy we generate here in Wales, decarbonising domestic heating and decarbonising private transport as well. Those are things that we still have the levers, don't we, to change, even though they're reserved. 

Exactly those kinds of interventions. Retrofitting homes as well is another one—you know, energy efficiency. And, of course, it brings me back to a point that I made earlier that I do want to reiterate: retrofitting houses brings those kinds of benefits in terms of driving down carbon emissions, but it gives people warmer homes to live in, which is another win for that one investment, isn't it? It improves health outcomes, because you have fewer children living in damp, cold homes, growing up with respiratory problems, or, potentially, fewer excess winter deaths—elderly people not being able to keep themselves warm. So, there's a health benefit as well, so that's another tick. You need those homes retrofitted, so there is a job creation element there in terms of economic activity as well. That's another tick as well based on this one single investment. That's a sort of win-win-win-win situation, and that's the kind of approach that I would like to replicate across as much of Government as possible, where we can.

On that one, making sure that new homes are built to those standards, particularly around heating, is going to be another win there.

It is indeed. We don't need to be building houses that are the houses that need retrofitting in future, because there's another cost. So, we must do as much as we can through the planning system and through the regulatory regime, to make sure that we're building the right kinds of houses that are futureproofed. And coming back to our earlier discussion, we've spoken at length about keeping homes warm and insulating them for heating. But, of course, we are now realising that there's a cooling element as well that needs to be considered in that. So, all of that is in the mix, really.

Lovely. Before I bring you in, Vikki, I've just got a question myself on this area. You mentioned the planning system, Cabinet Minister, but we do see, don't we, disparities across the country in terms of how local authorities and national parks implement planning guidance as well. If you take the conservation areas, for example, the amount of people who want to retrofit their homes to put solar panels on or do different things—they aren't allowed to, because they're in the conservation area, which goes directly against Government policy, which is actually to retrofit homes. So, I'm just interested what pieces of work you're doing, as the Minister responsible, basically, for climate change within the Government, to work with the Minister for planning, to make sure that, actually, Government policy is coherent and actually deliverable, rather than one part of the system saying 'no' and the other part of the system providing funding to allow it to happen, but locking out huge communities across Wales who simply can't do it because of the planning laws. I'm just interested how Government are trying to mitigate that to make sure no-one's left behind in this process.

I mean, not specifically on that point necessarily, but that is a discussion we're having, and I'm actually meeting with the planning Minister next week, I think, to discuss some of these issues. The other one as well, of course, is looking at planning in a rural context, and the potential to unlock some of the opportunities that might be there if we get the system right. So, there's an ongoing discussion to be had there. You're never going to iron out those contradictions totally because planning is about striking the balance with different influences and different factors that you have to consider. But where there is more that we can do, I'm very much happy to have that discussion.

I'd be interested, if you wouldn't mind keeping us up to date, in the conversations you're having with those other Cabinet Secretaries. This area that we focus on, obviously other committees across the Senedd do as well, so it would be quite useful if you could keep the wider Senedd updated on that discussion as it goes on. I'll bring Vikki and Andrew in, and then I'll come to you. Thank you.

Thank you, Chair. I would argue that one of the key ways for us to reach net zero is for the public sector to lead the way. Under the previous Welsh Government, there was a range of support and funding streams to assist with that. The previous Government had the target for net zero in the public sector by 2030. Is that a target that you will maintain? 

The question is, 'Is that target still achievable?' I would like to think that we can at least get closer to it, if not to it. It is going to be very challenging, in all honesty. I can't sit here and tell you that, yes, absolutely, it will be reached. But I think we need to have that ambition and retain that ambition. I made the analogy in other contexts before. You need ambitious targets. And even if you don't hit the target, I bet you go further than you would have had you not had that target in place. But the investments continue.

We know the public sector very much has a big part to play. We saw some statistics this week about the benefits being brought by electric vehicle fleets within the public sector, saving millions and millions of pounds to taxpayers because of the benefits that they bring. So, we're on that journey. I want to continue on that trajectory. And I know local government are keen to as well, because they see much of this as an invest-to-save piece as much as anything else. Whilst there very often is quite considerable capital investment upfront, you can then start realising some of those savings. So, that is something I absolutely want to do.

Diolch.

Andrew.

You said you're meeting the planning Minister next week. In the UK, the UK Government some years ago changed the planning system in England to have a presumption on permitted development rights for redundant buildings to be converted into housing, or office space, as such, to create economic activity and to meet some of that pent-up housing demand in rural areas. Are you supportive of such a change here in Wales? I appreciate it's not your portfolio—

No, it's not—

—but your voice in lobbying the planning Minister to make that change would be a considerable voice, and it's a good way of introducing new capital into the rural economy.

I said next week, but it could well be the week after. It is soon. [Interruption.] It is next week. Thank you. There we are. Okay, right. I didn't wish to mislead the committee so early in my tenure. But those are the kinds of things that we need to look at, because where there is learning that we can take from other parts of the UK and beyond, we need to. And also, we don't want to be left behind. If there are opportunities that we can grasp, then we should do. 

Now, I'm not going to say definitively that this is absolutely what I'm pushing for, but we are starting that discussion about how we can look at this anew, afresh, in light of much of what we've discussed already today in terms of some of the challenges that we face around climate and nature, but also some of the economic challenges that we face. Because we have to have living, breathing communities, which are as much a part of the ecosystem in which we exist as nature is as well. So, it's about, again, striking that balance, but there's no harm at all in taking a step back and looking at it to see whether there is more that we can do, and I'm keen for us to do that.

Okay, thank you.

I wouldn't want anyone to comment on any other parts of any of the Government portfolios, Minister; you've only just come into post.

Yes. Tomorrow the world.

Exactly. David, you've got a question.

Yes. I'm not sure if this is your portfolio, but industrial parks and places like that—. I was recently on one where a solar panel manufacturer was just explaining to me his frustration in the fact that they're generating an awful amount of electricity that they have to put back into the system, and all of the units around them are desperate for that electricity. I know that you've looked into it, or the Government has looked into it, to a certain extent, but we really need to move on that and start producing electricity where it's needed, on industrial parks and places like that, and then it's transported nearby.

So, it's not my portfolio, but I think that principle is absolutely right. I've always said we have at the minute a hub-and-spoke model when it comes to energy, where you have large, centralised, big energy-generating hubs. That's then distributed to the ends of the earth very ineffectively and inefficiently through transmission loss et cetera, which isn't, I think, the best way necessarily to do it. We need to move to more of a spider-web situation, which is much more resilient, where you generate locally, you use locally, and if one of those hubs goes down, then there are other networks nearby that can kick in. The risk is that, if you are on a hub-and-spoke model, if one of those big generators glitches, then it's a huge problem for half the country. There's an ongoing discussion around that. I know local grids and things are being trialled. I would want more of that to happen here in Wales, but I'm definitely now straying into other portfolio areas, but there's a strong case to be made for doing more of that.

Thank you for answering, Cabinet Minister. I know it's in the Cabinet Minister for Enterprise, Connectivity and Energy's portfolio. John.

I'm afraid it's a fairly similar question, but relating to agricultural communities. Wind turbines tend to be used in places like Denmark, in villages; they're spread out all over the country. I know one of the policies is to have community-owned wind turbines. I'd just like to know how well we're doing with that at the moment and how many are we looking to do in the future?

Well, again, Chair, that isn't my responsibility, it's very much with the Minister with responsibility for energy and planning. I fear that, if I did pick up on that question, I really would be straying into other people's responsibilities.

Yes. I'll draw this bit of the session to a close, and we'll move on to animal health and welfare, but my question on this, and it's probably pertinent to what other Members have just asked, is that you are the ultimate Minister responsible for the climate change budget within Government, but a lot of the things that can mitigate climate change, the things we have to do to get towards a cooler planet, actually sit in multiple portfolios across Government. I know previous Governments used to have ministerial round-tables where they used to come together to discuss these matters, as you well know, because you sat in this chair before. I'm interested in how this Government is approaching that and how you bring all those portfolios together to support our move to a cooler planet, because, if we don't, individual portfolios of Government will go on and do their own thing and work in silos. I'm interested, from your perspective, as the ultimate portfolio holder, in how you're bringing all that together to deliver on some of the aims that the Government and the Senedd have set us for Wales.

I will slightly challenge you on your assertion that I hold the climate change budget, because every budget within Government needs to be a climate change budget. Every Minister has a part to play. Every department could contribute. Those discussions are happening at a Cabinet level. We have had discussions on that level, discursive Cabinet meetings as well, where we've kicked this around to make sure that all Ministers are fully aware of the role that they have to play. Clearly, I'm keen to drive those discussions and to make sure that they're happening, but we are very much working on a collaborative cross-Government basis, and that is reflected in the way that individual Ministers come together in groups, bilaterals, trilaterals et cetera, to make sure that we're all contributing the best we can. So, it isn't just the one budget, everybody's budget counts, and everybody's budget has a role to play.

We could go back and forth now, but the main expenditure group sits within your brief for climate change. We'll move on now to animal health and welfare. Andrew's going to lead us on this part.

Thank you very much, Chair. Minister, many countries have brought in a ban in relation to antibiotic residues in Brazilian meat. I appreciate you don't hold trade responsibility, but you hold the agricultural brief here in Wales, and obviously there's a real fear about the dumping of product into the UK market because the ban has not been adopted by the UK Government. With your chief vet alongside you, are you concerned by the residue of antibiotics in Brazilian beef, and will you be lobbying the UK Government to instigate a ban on their product coming in? And it's not just beef, it's lamb and poultry—particularly poultry. I'd be grateful to hear your view.

I've already raised, in the inter-ministerial mechanisms that we have, concerns around ensuring that farmers in Wales have a level playing field when it comes to some of those international agreements and arrangements that are in place. There is a risk that we find ourselves undermining a lot of the good work that's happening in Wales around antimicrobial resistance, for example, public health as well, as well as the economic piece in terms of maybe a two-tier market here if we allow some of this to come in. Richard, are you keen to come in?

Diolch, Weinidog. To answer your question specifically, Andrew, with regard to Brazil and imports of products of animal origin, as you rightly say, the EU have taken an action with regard to beef and poultry, and there are concerns about residue controls in the Brazilian system. So, at an official level, in addition to what the Cabinet Minister has described in terms of inter-ministerial engagement, it's a conversation I've had directly with my CVO counterpart in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, from the point of view of raising the issue. And similarly, we've also heard from our domestic stakeholders from the point of view of the topic. Similar to what the Cabinet Minister mentioned earlier in the session, when we were attending agricultural shows over the summer period, this was a topic that was rightly raised during discussions. DEFRA are undertaking a risk assessment with regard to the competent authority and official controls within Brazil, and we will await that outcome at an official level from the point of view of understanding the position, from the point of view of what we would do as UK—I say 'we' from a UK point of view, because it's a reserved matter on a UK competent authority basis in the first instance—and we would then be working on a UK basis to understand what that risk assessment tells us at a technical level to inform any next steps.

Are you as chief vet concerned by the residue in animal-origin products coming out of Brazil with the information you have at the moment?

I think we have to be concerned if there are lapses or gaps in official controls in any country. Where there may be lapses or gaps from the point of view of official controls—it might be residues, it might be other sanitary and phytosanitary conditions—that's naturally why we have the systems and processes in place at an official level that look at risk. So, it may be that we're looking across the piece at disease threats, as another example, and the threats that products of animal origin might pose to our domestic farming systems, livestock health and welfare, and other animals, indeed. 

If I just dwell on that for a moment, where we see those kinds of threats, we do risk assessments on a collective basis within Great Britain, and we take safeguard actions. Where we've seen diseases that we do not have in the UK that would be notifiable and exotic—peste des petits ruminants, for example, which has been in Europe, lumpy skin disease, and you will all recall, as a committee, foot and mouth disease in Europe in the last 18 months—we took safeguard measures, based upon risk assessment and evidence, to then prohibit imports from European nations. Where there are non-European nations that may be affected by diseases, we similarly do the risk assessment and we put safeguard measures to protect our animal health and welfare and all that stems from that, whether it's the protection of public health, as the Minister rightly said, and I think you're also alluding to, Andrew, in your question, from the point of view of things like antimicrobial resistance. We know that there are infectious diseases that can also affect public health. Bird flu is a clear example. Clearly, we've had several years of bird flu in the UK, but where there are other diseases that are zoonotic, we have to assess that risk from an animal health and welfare and public health point of view, working with our public health counterparts. 

So, it's all part of our risk management cycle, whether it's looking at AMR official controls on the one hand, looking at disease threats that may pose direct risk to animal health and welfare, livestock, companion animals, equine, whatever, and all that flows from that. We've had a substantial discussion this morning around sustainability and resilience, and we recognise, again, as officials and at CVO level, we have to anticipate shocks to the system, and animal disease threats represent one of several shocks that can occur to the system. So on the one hand, we need to be prepared, we need to be assessing risk and contingency planning, and that's a system-wide issue as well, right the way from the farm and individual premises level, all the way up to Government and back down again.

On the briefing that you gave the committee on Monday, I think it was, you put a very powerful map up regarding bluetongue, in that it showed the eastern part of the UK landmass in effect nearly clear of this current wave of bluetongue, and the south-west and the western half of the country in receipt of the new wave that's coming over. Is that clearance in the eastern part of the UK landmass due to some sort of immunity that's building up? Because obviously it hit the eastern part of the country far earlier, three years ago. Or is it that they've been more aggressive in the vaccination there through the lessons-learned exercise? And should that map—this is to the Minister—be part of an information campaign, put to the industry? Because your warning to the committee that we face what's going on in the south-west next year really does make you, as a livestock producer, sit up and take note and takes you down the road of vaccination, because it is so graphic, and it's there, it's unarguable.

You can respond to the east and west question first, and then I'll pick up.

Da iawn. Diolch, Weinidog. As you rightly say, Andrew, within England, they're in effect in the third year of the BTV-3 epidemic—the bluetongue serotype 3 epidemic. It hit Kent in late 2023, and we've seen a westward progression of BTV-3 through a range of factors: midge-borne—as we know, it's a midge-borne disease—but also long-distance livestock movements, and other factors too. I think to put a pin in exactly one factor would be misleading the committee. It would not be possible to do that, because there will be several, as you've alluded to. Uptake of vaccination will be part of it, development of natural immunity for livestock that have been exposed to BTV-3 would be another.

You have to also remember the fact that within the eastern side of England, livestock density is lower, and where we move west, the livestock density, including Wales—. Some of the highest, if not the highest, sheep density in Europe resides in Wales. But that westward spread of disease of BTV-3 is, as you rightly highlighted, a clear and present danger for us in Wales. We have over 200 BTV-3 cases confirmed today in Wales, and I anticipate that that number of confirmed BTV-3 cases will continue to rise over the coming days and weeks. The action that can be taken right now and over the coming days, weeks and months is to vaccinate for BTV-3.

I've spoken at farmer meetings and veterinary meetings over recent weeks. We have had co-ordinated communications campaigns. Back in the spring, you'll recall, we did an extensive bluetongue vaccination campaign through Farming Connect. Through these farmer meetings and bringing stakeholders together through the working group that I chair and under my office, we share that map that illustrates what has been seen in the south-west of England. The Animal and Plant Health Agency have published that map online—it's freely available to all and everyone who would want to look at it.

But what we have seen in the south-west of England, and now the north-west of England—if we just focus on those two areas specifically—has been an explosion of BTV-3 over the summer months. We've seen high livestock density and high temperatures, which accelerate the transmission cycle of this midge-borne disease. That BTV-3 seeded into the south-west of England last summer.

There is that clear and present danger in Wales right now for BTV-3, but the action now for next year is that it's crucial to vaccinate. Because if we take the lesson of the south-west of England, that is what we have to prepare ourselves against for Welsh farming, Welsh livestock health and welfare, and Welsh family businesses on farms. Because we can see that potential devastation coming towards us, and vaccination against BTV-3 is the only and best protection that vets and farmers can work together to deliver for the farmers of Wales, learning from the south-west of England.

Thank you for that full and comprehensive answer, Richard. Cabinet Secretary. 

I'll pick up briefly. I think you've said previously that England are in year 3 of bluetongue. Wales is in year 2, effectively, and Scotland is in year 1. We need to look at what happened in the Netherlands, where vaccination now is widespread and the accepted way to deal with this. They're coming out of that cycle, and they're now in a position where they can hopefully put bluetongue behind them. We need to get to that point. 

I'll bring Vikki in now. I think it's on this point.

Thank you. In that technical briefing on Monday, you underscored to us the fact that vaccination is the No. 1 way to try and prevent the spread of bluetongue. I'd like to see if there are any parallels there with where we're at with bovine tuberculosis, because we know that there is an effective vaccination for cattle. I understand there are difficulties there; if you're testing cattle for bTB, if they've been vaccinated, it can flag a false positive. I think there's some work going on at Aberystwyth University around that, if I'm right. But I'm just wondering: is it a possibility that we can ever get to a place where vaccination is the No. 1 routeway to eliminating bTB here in Wales? And if you think we can't, why might that be the case?

There's a question, as you say, about vaccination in cattle, but vaccination in badgers is an approach that's being utilised. And not to prejudge the work that's ongoing at the minute, but that could well be a part of the approach here in Wales. I don't know if you want to add anything on that. The DIVA test is obviously the issue there for cattle, isn't it?

Diolch, Weinidog. Absolutely. I will just clarify a couple of points, Vikki. And obviously we're talking about bovine TB, to clarify the abbreviation bTB.

One initial point to reflect on is that, where we're talking about bluetongue vaccines, they are commercially available, market authorised and licensed for use in the UK. It goes back to the point you're rightly making that vaccinating against bluetongue is the best protection, placing orders to pull that commercially available vaccine through the supply chain. And again, that's a conversation that I and my team will be having with stakeholders, farmers and vets on a daily basis.

For bovine TB, we're in a different place with regard to cattle vaccination, because the scientific field trials are ongoing with regard to testing the safety, efficacy and quality of a cattle BCG vaccine on the one hand. So, we do not yet have a market authorised product, a licensed product available for use in cattle for vaccination. The Minister quite rightly highlighted—and I think in your question, Vikki, if I understood you correctly—the notion of having what's called a DIVA test, alongside the use of cattle vaccine. Because you need a test—. The term DIVA—my turn for using an abbreviation, Chair, forgive me—stands for differentiating infected from vaccinated animals. So, you need that test alongside, because the standard skin test, if you vaccinate animals, would yield false positives, as you rightly say. So, having the DIVA test alongside it is crucial from the point of view of the widespread deployment of cattle vaccination. But we have to work through the science and the evidence to understand the safety, quality and efficacy of a cattle vaccine, and similarly the performance of a DIVA test alongside cattle vaccine use. 

The final point to make, Chair, if you'll allow me, is that I think we would be naive to consider that there is one single measure that will eradicate and bring us to an officially TB-free Wales by 2041. We have to look at a range of measures and we have to be science and evidence led to develop the measures that are appropriate, based upon the evidence and the epidemiology of bovine TB in Wales, to then achieve that officially TB-free Wales target by 2041. We can only achieve that target by partnership working, with everybody playing their part, respecting that there are different tools in the box that may be applicable in different parts of Wales and for different reasons. 

Before I bring you back in—and I know that Niamh wants to speak as well—is this on this point, Gareth, on TB?

Yes. We had a vote in the Senedd Chamber about dealing with TB, and I'd just like to ask where the Government and the Cabinet Minister are and where we all are with that.

We are awaiting the outcome of work by the technical advisory group, which is looking specifically at tackling TB in wildlife. The TB programme board is also deliberating in terms of identifying the evidence that can get us to a point where we are more effectively taking that holistic view of TB in wildlife, in livestock, and people have a part to play as well. I'm awaiting the report from the technical advisory group. I've said that, once we have it, it will be publicly available so that everybody can see what they're bringing forward in terms of their recommended approaches. Hopefully that will happen in weeks, if not a couple of months, but certainly, I hope, before the end of this year.

Just really quickly, Cabinet Minister, on that point, I was going to ask about a date when we think that report—. I agree with the chief veterinary officer that there’s no one-size-fits-all model to dealing with this, but it would be quite useful to have some assurances from the Government as to when that report is going to land, because it has been a long time in the making to get to here. And I know it's got to be done right and I appreciate that, and it has to be done, and there has to be agreement on the board as well to what is published, but it would be quite useful if you could write to the committee to outline when that will be reported so we can put it into our programming.

You're right to say that the group needs the time and the space to do what they need to do and not rush the process. I've been saying previously that it's imminent. I now understand that maybe there is a bit more work that they need to do, but again, I don't think that necessarily takes us beyond Christmas. 

You've nailed it in one, Cabinet Minister—

Well, there we are. We can move on, then. [Laughter.]

But I would just like to be absolutely clear. I know it might sound like semantics, Chair, but we have our technical advisory group, who are our independent scientific experts. It does what it says on the tin; it's a technical advisory group that looks at the evidence. It is the programme board who will be bringing forward their paper, supported by the evidence from the technical advisory group. And, as the Cabinet Minister rightly says, the programme board's paper, and the Government's response, are anticipated by the end of the calendar year. 

So, before I bring Niamh in—and I know John wants to speak—just so that I can be absolutely clear, and it's on the public record: whatever that committee, that TAG recommends, the Government won't have sight of it first to alter it or change it. What scientific evidence is provided will be what's provided, and it won't be, shall we say, Government-proofed before it's released to the public.

Correct. I have had no involvement in the process, and neither will I until, obviously, I receive their final report. 

That's good to get on the public record. Thank you, Cabinet Minister. Niamh.

Yes, jumping back quickly to bluetongue, and it's a question I posed to you in the technical briefing. Obviously, we know with the vaccination—. I think you said before that prevention is the best way, isn't it, when we're talking about bluetongue. So, with the vaccination uptake, obviously the unions are pushing for the uptake, Welsh Government's pushing for it as well, so it's not for a lack of trying, but we're still not seeing those numbers that we need to see really, especially from what we've seen in south-west England. I wouldn't feel comfortable seeing, next summer, what could possibly happen with the vaccination levels that we're at.

What is causing that barrier, do you feel, for farmers to not take up that vaccination? And how are you as a Government going about trying to tackle those barriers as well? Because, of course, we need to see more of those vaccinations if we want to ensure that we don't see what happened in south-west England happening here in Wales.

Thank you. Diolch, Niamh. So, I think, just as a basic tenet, prevention is better than cure. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. So, that is absolutely clear in my mind. Forgive me, I've dived straight in, Cabinet Minister. 

No, no, you're the expert. [Laughter.]

I assumed Niamh was directing the question at me.

I'm sure she was. 

I was looking at both of you. [Laughter.]

No, carry on, please. Go on. 

And, as you say, I'm repeating myself, but the clear red flag and lesson of what's happened in the south-west and now the north-west England, on BTV-3, is absolutely salutary for us all to learn from. 

In terms of different factors that may be affecting vaccine uptake, I think, again, there's no simple answer here. It may be a question of timing. There were extensive conversations going on between farming unions, veterinarians, clients and their veterinary practices, to look at the options around vaccine, the timings from the point of view of the production system, the business—the farm business. Because, as I say, it's also got to be synchronised, if you will, or tailored from the point of view of what is best. And there are a range of factors, I'm sure, that are at play. 

But, crucially, it's a commercial decision that farmers will be taking, based upon their business, based upon a range of different factors, to use that vaccination, to get it into their stock, because it is the best insurance policy they can possibly have to protect against the devastating impacts that BTV-3 can wreak.

And we know that there are over 600,000 vaccine doses for BTV-3 that have been prescribed in Wales to date. But I would absolutely say and would hope the committee would support us in this, Chair, from the point of view of ensuring that message is shared by everybody to protect stock by BTV-3 vaccination, for farmers and vets to take that commercial decision. I don't know if it's in your gift to do that, Chair.

It's not in our gift to do that, I'm afraid. 

Okay. Forgive me for the suggestion. 

But there is that—. For action, you very often need that sense of urgency, and I think there has been, in the past, a feeling that it's over there, not over here. I think, after the experience of this summer, and now this autumn particularly, I think people are seeing it coming closer and closer. So, I do think that there will be a greater awareness and a greater sense of urgency moving forward. 

What we don't want, of course, is for people to leave it until next spring and then realise that there's a huge rush, and we may well be back with challenges around securing sufficient supply of vaccines as well. So, people really do need to consider that even vaccinating now would hold them in good stead for next year. So, it is about getting that message across. 

I will acknowledge the work that the unions and others have done as well in conveying this message. Everybody has been trying to highlight this, but, ultimately, until people feel, maybe, that bluetongue is breathing down their neck, then that sense of urgency isn't always there. But, as the chief vet says, it's the best possible insurance policy, and we've seen now what happened in south-west England. We believe that the picture in Wales is likely to be more like that next year than the one we're seeing this year, so people really need to think hard about that and make sure that they protect their livestock.

A policy question for you on this, Minister; it's probably not for the chief vet. Many people vaccinate against different things, obviously on animal welfare grounds, for example, people vaccinate for pasteurella and all different types of things because of animal welfare issues. If this is going to become, as we're seeing with the warming climate, a regular event all the time, when does this stop being an animal management issue and then fit into an animal welfare issue, if we're losing huge numbers of stock across the country that people aren't going to be compensated for if they die? Maybe insurance companies won't pay out if people are not vaccinating anyway. So, when does the policy element step in to say, 'Well, if people aren't vaccinating, this then becomes an animal welfare matter'?

That's a question I need to think about, really. If they're not vaccinating, then there is a question about the sustainability of their operations, really, because the risk inherent is that you lose the vast majority, potentially, of your livestock. Now, I don't think that makes business sense. I think, as the chief vet said, it's ultimately a commercial decision and it's one that farmers have to make on their own merits, really, in terms of their particular situation. And if it isn't bluetongue, it'll be something else coming behind it. There is that, and we're in this world where we have to recalibrate a little bit the way that we consider how we run our businesses and how we look after our livestock because it's going to be one challenge after another. So, I'll need to reflect a bit on that question. But, certainly, it's this journey that we're on, isn't it?

I'd be interested in getting your thoughts, because with the changes to the sustainable farming scheme, which I don't know if we're going to have time to come on to today—we've only got 10 minutes to go—what requirements are there going to be and changes with regard to animal welfare, or regarding people vaccinating against certain diseases? Because if you are receiving Government money and Government support, and the Government has got a policy position to vaccinate against certain types of notifiable diseases, does that fit in part of the sustainable farming scheme? I'm sure some of the farming unions listening to me say that will probably be going back in their seats in horror, but I'm afraid it's something that has been raised with me and I'm sure others. But I'm sure that's something you might want to consider also.

Yes, thank you.

Lovely. Any other questions? I think John's got some questions on this.

Thanks, Minister. I know that, in your armoury, you have an app called HerdSafe and, from what I gather, it's successful. It's being used not just in Wales; I think Northern Ireland and England are looking to take it on. It may not be totally relevant in terms of bluetongue because, as you rightly say, it's the vaccination that needs to be done, but are systems like this needed? Bearing in mind the conversation that we just had, or the chat from James, where we do need to look at it in a slightly different way, and can it be controlled much more closely by using technology?

You're talking about bluetongue, are you, specifically?

Well, anything, but for bluetongue, which is generally throughout. HerdSafe gives an element where you are able to go onto the farms and test the suitability, the safety processes that they go through. And a general process like that, if it was done via technology, could that be a solution on an ongoing basis as a general backdrop?

Technology, no doubt, has a role to play, but, fundamentally, I think, biosecurity is your starting point. You need to make sure that you keep these diseases out in the first place, coming back to the point the chief vet made that investing in keeping it out is better value for money than having to deal with it once it lands. So, I would default to biosecurity, in terms of your No. 1 consideration in relation to that. But where technology has a role to play, then I would, of course, encourage that.

It's just, with HerdSafe, they go out beforehand to make certain that needed conditions are in place before anything happens, so it is a pre-emptive solution rather than a post.

Yes, okay, fair enough. I'll bring the chief vet in on that.

Diolch. So, I completely agree that prevention is better than cure. Keep it out, that is the way forward, and there are different tools and technology. I think a crucial piece here, and it also speaks to the question you raised, Chair, earlier, is about vets and farmers working closely together to look at the individual herd and flock and the health status and the diseases and conditions of concern, whether those are conditions that are already present in a herd or flock or those that might be coming towards. And to look at that, with vet and farmer in partnership, to assess, on the one hand, biosecurity, as you're rightly asking, John, keeping disease out, prevention, and using different tools to assist that conversation, but also then to take action to ensure that that health planning, if you will—that animal health and welfare planning—translates into an improvement cycle. And, going back to your specific point, James, that is the animal health improvement cycle in universal action 12 of the sustainable farming scheme in a nutshell. Diolch.

We're coming to the end. We've got five minutes left and there are a number of areas we haven't yet touched on. Is there anybody who wants to ask anything further on animal health and welfare before I move on? Because I know a couple of Members want to ask a few questions about agricultural pollution. I don't know if there's any closing questions in the last five minutes to the Minister. Is there anything on animal health and welfare? Gareth, do you want to ask—? No. You're just nodding your head in agreement. Lovely. I know, Anna, you wanted to ask something on agricultural pollution.

Yes. And I have a number of other things, as I'm sure lots of others do as well, but I did want to touch on agricultural pollution. We talked a lot at the beginning of the meeting about the drought and hot weather, et cetera, so I wanted to welcome the announcement that's come this morning that you will now relook and be more flexible on when slurry can be sprayed, essentially. I think I've heard a lot of people welcoming that already. With this point, there's a careful balance to make between agricultural needs and also the environment, and I was happy to see that you're looking at that in this announcement. And, potentially, it's a kind of win-win example, maybe. So, I just wanted to hear more about what you were thinking through, I suppose, on that particular issue.

Sure. And it's about striking the right risk balance here, I suppose. We've heard clearly that slurry stores are fuller than they should be at this time of year. Going into a closed period would be problematic for many because, clearly, those slurry stores potentially would be too full. You could have those stores overflowing or even failing, which would be quite catastrophic for the environment if that were to happen.

Natural Resources Wales have recognised this as well, and they support the announcement that we've made today. So, what we're doing is moving the closed period forward a few weeks to allow farmers to be able to manage that slurry more effectively. It'll still happen within clear parameters around how much you can apply at what intervals and under what conditions. It's not some sort of free-for-all that some may wish to portray it as. So, it will still be done in a controlled manner, but it just gives the sector a bit of breathing space in order to mitigate the heightened risk that we've seen from having those slurry stores too full going into closed periods. So, it's quite a pragmatic step, recognising that there is always a balance to be struck. And, you know, on this occasion, I think it is the right decision.

Thank you.

Any other wider questions on agricultural pollution? I know, Cabinet Minister, that, following Dr Susannah Bolton's review, the committee will be having an update from her in time. I'm just interested in that, before the election, you said you were going to review agricultural pollution. It was one of the manifesto commitments that your party made. I'm just wondering where you are with that and when we can see an update for committee and when that will be coming forward.

So, as you rightly say, the review happened and the previous Government set up a task and finish group to look at implementing the recommendations of the review on the ground. I have, since coming into office, tasked that group with prioritising the farming-by-calendar considerations and looking at the workbook requirements as well. One was clearly a commitment in terms of our manifesto, but it's a message that's coming back clearly from the sector as well. The latter, then, has come partly through the red tape review being led by John Davies as well. It's been an early indication of one frustration when it comes to bureaucracy and duplication. So, they are looking at both of those. I will expect to hear back from them when the time is right. And I think I'm actually attending a meeting—who do I look at for this one—of theirs in due course, so that I can have an update. And as soon as there is something to say, I'm more than happy to convey that to committee, either directly from officials, myself or whoever you feel is appropriate.

Lovely. Well, thank you. I think we're just about out of time, Cabinet Minister. So, can I just thank you very much for your attendance today and all your officials as well, and for answering all the questions the committee have? I know there were some areas we didn't cover, so we might write to you about those areas for updates from the Government on those. And if Members have got individual questions, I'm sure you wouldn't mind receiving a letter from them.

No. I'm more than happy to receive any written correspondence. And just to reciprocate as well, thank you to the committee, and I look forward to engaging with you regularly over the coming months and years. I know there will be legislation, regulation and inquiries that you will be holding, and I very much look forward to having this dialogue continue in a positive and constructive manner.

I think you'll be a regular visitor to our committee, Cabinet Minister.

I fear I might be.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. I hope you enjoy the rest of your day. Thank you. 

Thank you. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

So, we'll now move on to agenda item 3, which is papers to note. Are all Members content with the papers to note? Have they all seen them? Yes, they have.

So, we'll move on now to agenda item 4, a motion under Standing Order 17.42(ix) to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting. Are all Members content? I see that all Members are content. We'll now proceed to meet in private. Thank you very much to everyone who's watched and attended today. Diolch yn fawr.