National Assembly for Wales

Jenny Rathbone.

Yes, I propose Jenny Rathbone.

Thank you very much. Unfortunately, Mike Hedges has had to send his apologies, but we have Mick Antoniw joining us in his place. Welcome, Mick.

For the record, is anybody needing to make a declaration of interest on either this item or the flooding item that we're dealing with subsequently? I take that as a 'no'. 

Obviously, this is a bilingual meeting, so people can speak in either language according to their wishes.

This is the third and final session of our inquiry into the emissions trading scheme for the time being, and I very much welcome the Minister, Lesley Griffiths. Would you like to just introduce yourself and your colleagues for the record?

Thank you, Chair. Lesley Griffiths, Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs; with me I have Christine Wheeler, deputy director, decarbonisation and energy; Rhiannon Phillips, head of carbon trading; and Catriona Hawthorne, who's a lawyer in my environment and energy team.

Thanks very much, Minister. If I can start off by asking if you could explain what the rationale is for adopting a common framework of a UK emissions trading scheme. 

So, there are three main benefits of a common framework in an unlinked standalone scenario. So, a UK-wide system rather than an individual national system will create a larger carbon market that will have greater liquidity. There will be a consistent carbon price across the UK. We'll have access to a larger carbon market, so that will increase opportunities for emissions reductions and the cost-effectiveness of emissions trading. A common UK-wide approach to carbon trading also avoids carbon leakage from one part of the UK to another. That would have a negative effect on the contribution of the policy to reduce emissions in line with international obligations and the statutory targets we have, and carbon budgets. I'm still hopeful that the UK Government will agree to a linking agreement with the EU emissions trading system, and if that were the scenario, a UK-wide trading scheme would be the preferred option.

Thank you for mentioning that. I just wondered if you could elaborate a bit on how the Welsh Government has worked with the UK Government and the other devolved administrations on obtaining an agreed common framework. You've mentioned already that the the idea of linking it into the European emissions trading scheme appears to be still a matter under discussion. Are there any other issues that haven't yet been resolved or that are a cause for concern or disagreement, as far as you're aware?

Obviously, I've been working very closely with the UK Government since we had the referendum back in 2016. I would say that's increased significantly over the past two years, so since 2018, particularly in preparing a successor policy to the EU ETS. At an official level also there's a very robust governance structure, and there are a great deal of working groups that officials attend. There's also a senior officials' board. I think that meets monthly to provide oversight and steer. At a ministerial level, I've had the opportunity several times to discuss the proposals that were set out in the consultation document that was agreed by Ministers from all Governments. We also agreed the final policy position, and that was reflected in a joint Government response document that progressed via the draft Order.

I've consistently defended the devolution settlement around this. I've really encouraged us all to have a very high climate ambition and pressed for a successful linking agreement. I've also stressed the importance of this policy to Wales, given its impact on 46 per cent of our emissions. That's considerably greater than the approximate 30 per cent of emissions UK wide. 

I think it's fair to say that relationships haven't always been easy. They were quite difficult to establish, I think, in the beginning and to maintain. We've had a significant turnover of UK Government Ministers in this portfolio and also the disruption of elections, et cetera, but I think we have found sufficient common ground to be able to make significant progress. I'm meeting again next week in relation to this. There were no disagreements on the policy design of the initial UK ETS. I think that's important to stress. And our response to the UK Committee on Climate Change's advice on the cap and the trajectory is the next key decision point, and I think that will be a good test of the policy development that we've had.

Discussions on a decarbonisation fund have paused. I would like to see those restarted. I suppose that's an area of concern at the moment. Again, we've got—. As you may be aware from other conversations, the UKCCC's advice has been postponed until December, and I think that might be a prompt to the UK Government to reopen discussions around the decarbonisation fund. 

I suppose for me the biggest disappointment is that the UK Government still doesn't express a clear preference for the UK ETS. They're still looking at a carbon emission tax, which I think could undermine all the good work that we've done. And a huge amount of goodwill has gone into all this work, so I suppose that's the biggest disappointment.

Okay. Now, Lord Deben, in his evidence last week, was urging the UK Ministers to link the UK framework to the European emissions trading scheme, simply because, without that, we will be subject to changes that could completely destabilise our economy that we had no control over. He made the point that, if you're not part of a larger trading scheme, you have very limited room for manoeuvre. So, I wondered how much this argument has been pressed with the UK Government. Lord Deben was anxious that were simply taking an ideological approach to this matter, rather than a practical approach.

We've always maintained that the linkage is of importance. It doesn't surprise me that Lord Deben has pressed for that, and certainly, discussions—. I'm trying to think; I haven't met him for—. I certainly met him during lockdown because I remember it was a virtual meeting. That's always been of concern, and that's something that we have pressed continually. 

Okay. Well, we probably can't go much further on that at this stage. In your letter to the committee, you stated that unlike many other emerging frameworks, the roles for Welsh Ministers are defined within the legislation relating to the UK emissions trading scheme. Can you just briefly outline what those roles are? 

The Climate Change Act 2008 sets out the role of Welsh Ministers as the national authority, and that's regarding trading schemes in Wales. So, we are working as four Governments across the UK on this scheme. Each national authority will then jointly undertake the role, which the greenhouse gas emissions trading scheme Orders refer to as the UK ETS authority. I suppose what that means in practice is that I'm jointly responsible for all key decisions around the scheme, as set out in the Act and the Orders. I suppose some examples are in establishing the system: I agreed the cap and trajectory that I mentioned before, the scope of businesses covered, the policy on free allowances, the monitoring and reporting requirements, the role of regulators and the enforcement and appeals procedures—so, I suppose the short way of saying it is the policy design of the scheme. In undertaking my role, I suppose my focus is on our climate ambition in Wales and supporting businesses to be able to decarbonise. 

Okay. Obviously, that's the legal aspect of it, but there's also the framework outline agreement and the concordat, which are the non-legislative elements of this framework. They're due to be published at the end of this month or the beginning of November. Do you envisage any slippage on that? If you could just clarify the process and timetable for finalising these two important documents and how they relate to the delay in the report by the UK climate change committee, not reporting until December. 

To clarify, we don't intend to publish the draft FOA and the concordat at the end of October or beginning of November; I can't remember exactly what you said. What we're going to do is make the provisional drafts available to the scrutiny committees of each legislature, as soon as we have clearance to do so by the JMC(EN). So, that's what we're aiming to do by late October, if possible. I'm due to receive the documents imminently; they have to be signed off by the end of next week, so I hope I might get them this week but, certainly, I will get them by early next week. The process after that is that there would then be a cross-Whitehall write-round before the JMC(EN) review the provisional documents and agree for them to proceed to scrutiny in each of the legislatures.

So, timescales have slipped a little, I think, in finalising the drafts, but I do hope to be able to provide you with copies of them—the first half of November I think is probably the safest timescale to go to. I can't give you a firm date because, obviously, the clearance processes for this are outside of my control. But once they've been distributed, each of the Parliaments' scrutiny committees will then have the opportunity to review the documents. You can provide comments and recommendations then to the relevant Ministers. I'm happy to come in front of you again for further scrutiny, or because of timescales, it might be better for you to write to me and I would be able to answer any concerns or points that you then raise. 

The next thing after that would be for all the responses to be collated from across the four countries. Any amendments then would have to be agreed by all four Governments before the final document then goes to the JMC(EN) for final sign-off. So, obviously, we're hoping to get this all finalised by the end of this calendar year, for obvious reasons.

Okay. So, there will be—there's got to be an amount of time available to the Senedd to enable us to consider these draft documents and also provide a response to go forward to your joint deliberations with the other administrations. So, if it's not going to be published until the middle of November, that means very little time before the Christmas break.

Yes, absolutely, but, as I say, this is outside of my control. The write-around and the sign-off—everything to do with leaving the European Union is on incredibly tight timescales and that's not the fault of the Welsh Government.

Okay. All right. Well, we'll obviously endeavour to give this matter proper consideration, because it's seriously important.

Absolutely, and as I say, I'm very happy to come back if you prefer, or, because of timescales, if you wish to write to me, I will make sure that we endeavour to answer all your questions.

Okay. Can I call Llyr to come in on the approach to carbon pricing?

Thank you, Chair. Good afternoon, Minister. I'm just wondering to what extent the proposals for a UK ETS sufficiently reflect our unique emissions situation here in Wales and the prevalence of a number of big emitters. Should we not be looking for a more differentiated approach, given that our profile is quite different to the rest of the UK?

It is our emissions profile, I think, that makes this policy such an important policy from a decarbonisation and also from a business competitiveness point of view. The EU ETS has, for a number of years, provided a framework, which has recognised the susceptibility of a number of Welsh industries—so, if you think of cement, for instance, and steel manufacturing—to carbon leakage. And that's provided a carbon market that enables our highest emitters to decarbonise at the lowest cost.

The UK ETS works on the basis of a UK-wide cap for a UK-wide market. An emissions trading system allows the market then to determine where to cost-effectively reduce emissions and emissions will reduce across the whole system in line with that cap. So, the traded sector is responsible for approximately 46 per cent of Wales's total emissions. However, they're also important, obviously, for our economy and communities, and the concept of a UK-wide cap for an emissions trading scheme is important to maintain industrial competitiveness and protect jobs that we have here in Wales.

Well, yes, you say 46 per cent for Wales, but of course, it's 30 per cent across the UK, and that's my point, isn't it? The profile is very different here in Wales, but you still believe, I presume, therefore, that a UK-wide ETS is sensible for Wales despite those disparities.

Yes. The EU ETS and the UK ETS already differentiate. So, that UK-wide cap manages carbon leakage as risks between the nations of the UK. So, the differentiation is based on the risk of carbon leakage and the scale of the emissions. That differentiation is risk based; therefore, Wales's businesses would benefit, I think, from this approach.

So, just to develop that a little bit, is having a linked scheme—does that not risk constraining Wales in terms of maybe extending the remit across other sectors? Is there not a risk that that holds us back a little bit?

No, we don't think so. The ETS—it's not a silver bullet to decarbonise our highest emitters, but I think it is a really important policy. No, I don't think it will.

But is it your aspiration to extend the scope of the ETS? Surely we're not going to be content with just leaving it as it is—

No, no, it will—

In the short term, it probably makes sense to stick with what we have, but surely it'll evolve over time.

Yes, and it will have, obviously, review periods. I think we've got two review periods that will be within the current scheme in the way that it's set up now.

Because the reality is that the discussions that are happening on a UK-EU level more broadly aren't going swimmingly, are they, so it may well be the case that we don't have the option of a linked approach. So, if that isn't possible, would your default approach then move to settling for a stand-alone UK ETS?

As you say, the fact that the UK Government haven't ruled out the carbon tax, for instance, shows you that there are still clearly issues. I'll bring Rhiannon in on this because I know officials have been having further discussions. Rhiannon.

Sorry, just unmuting myself. So, we've had some discussions with Treasury colleagues particularly around the carbon tax. They were very keen to progress with the two options going forward, and arguably it was a sensible course of action until we could definitely establish a UK ETS, that we had that policy gap. The conversations have been along the lines of, 'Well, we're progressing very well with an ETS', and therefore, from a technical perspective, officials are confident that we can get an ETS up and running and there are some benefits that we can see of having an ETS over a tax. So, the ETS is flexible: it allows businesses to choose when to invest, so we can then look across the business population and decarbonise in the most cost-effective way. A tax, on the other hand, can give a certain amount of certainty sometimes in terms of the price, depending on how you set it up, but you don't get that flexibility, so everybody has to pay and nobody necessarily gains from doing the decarbonisation early, unless you bring in additional measures that make it look a bit more like a trading scheme. So, those are the technical conversations that we've had, but the UK Government still want to keep the option open of introducing a tax, which of course would be reserved.

Yes, but my question was: what's the Welsh Government's preference? I mean, if a linked ETS isn't possible, then is it Welsh Government's position that you would rather a UK stand-alone ETS?

Yes.

I see. Okay. And then, if that didn't happen, then obviously the carbon emission tax is the only option. So, there's a clear preference in terms of policy in that respect, is there? Just for me to understand.

Yes.

Okay. Joyce, did you want to come in at this point?

Just really to probe on the carbon emissions tax. The UK Government in the 2018 budget stated it would publish a consultation in 2020 on the design of that carbon emissions tax as an alternative, as we've been discussing. The consultation was published in July and closed at the end of September, setting out how that emission tax could operate if it was introduced. Have you got any more to add in terms of that consultation and what it might look like if it was going to be introduced?

Well, as I stated in a previous answer, it's incredibly frustrating that the UK Government are continuing to pursue the consultation. I think it undermines all the good work we've done around frameworks and the extreme goodwill that's been put into this policy. As Rhiannon said, we would have no role in ensuring the tax design worked to reduce emissions in line with our climate ambitions. As I say, it goes completely, for me, against the principles of the common frameworks that we agreed back in 2017. It would completely undermine the UK ETS legislation that's already been laid in all four legislatures also. I can't prevent the UK Government from legislating for a reserved tax, but I can repeatedly express strong opposition, which is what we've done.

Okay. Llyr, did you want to come back?

Just to conclude, then, what you're saying is that there'd be no option for divergence at all within the carbon emissions tax as far as you're concerned; we have to go with whatever they choose to do.

That's right. 

Okay. And just finally for now, then, what's your best guess in terms of when a final decision on a replacement ETS scheme is going to occur?

Going to occur?

Yes. I mean, how late can it be left before you really need to make it happen?

Well, the end of the year.

And are you confident that's going to happen?

As I say, I'm expecting to get the drafts imminently. Certainly the timetable I laid out in a previous answer to the Chair, if we are able to stick to that timetable, then, I think, yes. The difficulties are, as I said, outside of my control once you go into that Whitehall cross-department write-around, et cetera. I've got a meeting next week where I will seek assurances again. I mean, certainly, from previous meetings I've had, I do think it will be possible by the end of the year.

So, at the moment, we don't know when, and we don't really know what either.

As I say, we've laid—

And that's not a criticism of you at all.

No, no. I didn't take it as a criticism. We're doing our best to make sure everything—. Whenever I get anything—. I've said before, I'm expecting the drafts imminently, and I know I have to sign them off by the end of next week, so I will sign them off by the end of next week. We can only do what's within our responsibility and power. But certainly— and I'm looking at Rhiannon—I think we are happy with progress at the moment, and, again, I will get further information when I need meet with Minister Kwarteng next week.

The UK ETS is on track. The question about the timing of the decision about introducing the tax is the one that unfortunately we've not been able to have any certainty on to date.

Thank you for that. Joyce, you wanted to come back in on UK ETS, I think.

I think there was one question that was raised yesterday in the economy committee, and it was a consideration—. We talk about outsourcing, we talk about emissions according to production, but they wanted to know whether there's any consideration about consumption as well. For example, you can outsource something by having it produced elsewhere, but what they were really after was considering that if you make a product near to home—in other words, Welsh steel—you're not actually adding any carbon into that production by the amount of miles it might travel. So, that's really what they were talking about—the consideration of consumption, because consumption is buying and using, and if you're buying a product miles from home, then there is a carbon trail in the travel and consumption of that. If you haven't got an answer now, that's fine, but I'm putting it on the table. I know you won't have had time to consider it, but, for them, it was a serious consideration that all factors were on the table.

Before you answer, Minister, Joyce, there's quite a lot of interference on your microphone. I don't know whether there's something causing that. But anyway, Minister, if you would—

I'll do it like this.

That's better.

Okay.

On the point Joyce raised, I think I'll go for some legal advice, if that's okay. Cat.

I want to go on now, anyway, to the Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme Order 2020. That enables one of the national authorities to exercise functions of the UK ETS authority on behalf of the others. In what circumstances do you think it's likely that that would happen, and what is the process for seeking agreement between authorities for that?

Thank you. Well, I envisage all major functions and decisions will be carried out by each of the national authorities, so each Government will have a roll to play there. So, that ensures devolved competence is exercised appropriately, and it avoids any single national authority's decisions dominating the ongoing management and operation of the scheme. The legislation does offer flexibility, so where we can operate more efficiently, for instance, by undertaking an uncontentious operational function once—so, an example could be an issuing of a standard direction to the regulators to carry out specific actions—the Order sets out conditions or timescales when these need to happen. So, it may be more efficient for the direction to be co-ordinated and issued by one of the national authorities on behalf of a number of them. So, it is possible to foresee opportunities in many cases, and seek agreement by the relevant authorities as they agree to a forward programme for work, for instance. With ad hoc decisions, I suppose agreement may be sought in writing between the relevant Ministers of officials, and I suppose it depends on the nature of the function.

Moving on, we've had joint Government responses to the consultation, and 22 per cent of respondents disagreed with the proposed scope of a UK ETS, citing a perceived lack of ambition. So, the question is: why have you chosen to replicate the sectoral coverage of the current EU ETS, and how would you respond to the suggestion from some respondents to the consultation that the scope of the scheme lacks ambition and ought be expanded to ensure that the UK is capable of achieving its net-zero target? 

So, when we went out to consultation on the scheme, all four Governments were very clear in their preference for a linked ETS, as I've said. And we also need to provide a very smooth transition—well, as smooth as possible, post Brexit—whether we introduce a linked or a stand-alone scheme. I think that was one of the things that came out very clearly in the consultation. So, by keeping the same scope in the first instance and ensuring that other policy features offer compatibility to the EU ETS, we guarded against introducing technical barriers to linking, whether they be real or perceived. However, we did want to start gathering evidence on potential future scope expansion, and that was why we had the follow-up question in the consultation. So, I do recognise the need for wider measures in order to be able to stimulate investment in low-carbon technologies, and obviously these will be considered in detail when we look—we've already started looking—at the next low-carbon delivery plan, which will be published next year. So, I want to consider the options in the round and introduce the right measures to achieve the outcomes that we need. As I said, and I'm sure you've heard from other people, carbon pricing is not a silver bullet, but I think it's a really useful tool that we've got in that wider tool box.

Before I bring in Janet Finch-Saunders, Minister, I wondered if I could just reiterate the point made by Joyce Watson around the potential for global leakage. If we're not producing steel in Wales and we're importing it from the other side of the world, there's clearly more carbon emissions produced just by having to transport it. So, is there anything further that you or your officials want to say on how we ensure we're not dumping on the poorest countries with less control? 

I don't know if you heard me, Chair, I did say I'd bring in Cat on that point that Joyce raised before.

Catriona.

I'll go to Catriona. Thank you.

Yes, as you say, this is a difficult issue and I don't propose to be able to answer it in an enormous amount of depth right now. We are aware of the nuanced issue regarding indigenous production of coal, for example, versus imported coal. It's a technical issue. I think it's fair to say the science on it is not universal, and it is forming part of our considerations as we go out to consult on coal policy more widely. I think it would be interesting to look at the views of the economy committee yesterday, but it is something that we're aware of and that we're continuing to look into.

Rhiannon, did you want to add—?

Yes, shall I add a bit to that? So, it's really important to think not just of transport, but also the embedded emissions. In the case of steel, the embedded emissions are far bigger than any transport, so it's a kind of a red herring to really worry too much about the transport. What an ETS does is allow us to prove that we set a price, to avoid carbon leakage, for instance within the UK between a plant in south Wales and a plant in the north-east of England that might otherwise have differential standards. So, having a UK scheme avoids that. Linking to the EU ETS would do the same with our European competitors. So, we would then have, over time, the same carbon price, which then will drive the same behaviours across the EU, and the same would happen if we linked wider and wider and ended up with a global carbon price. Ultimately, what we need is a global carbon price.

So, there are other mechanisms that we can think about to stop the huge differentiation that might otherwise exist. One of them is a border adjustment mechanism, which is a kind of tax or levy on imported goods. So, instead of us disadvantaging our own businesses by having a carbon price here, but none, maybe, from imports from outside of the EU, we might look at levelling that up at the border. It's something that Europe are looking at now, and I've had some really early discussions with officials at the UK Government who are also just keeping an eye on those developments and considering what sort of measures we might need to bring in to level that up.

Okay, well, that's all very interesting, but we probably haven't got time to pursue it further at this moment. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Lesley—Minister. How was the level of the emissions cap—you know, 5 per cent below the UK's notional share of the EU ETS—decided upon?

We used analysis of the likely impact of different levels on two factors: the emissions from the business population and the carbon values. So, in particular, given this is a new scheme and it will take time to bed in, we wanted to understand the impacts in the early years as well as the longer term trend. To do this, we needed to consider not only what transactions may be required to meet the in-year obligations, but other market behaviours. For example, some participants will purchase allowances several years ahead in order to have certainty on prices, which they then pass on to consumers. Given this is a new scheme, I think it's reasonable to assume this behaviour would significantly increase the demand for allowances in the early years, particularly amongst participants who don't have free allowances.

So, the option of retaining a notional cap we think was unacceptable, as the excess in allowances was too significant, and then we didn't think that the policy would achieve its goals. The likely impact of a higher cap—say at 10 per cent below the notional share from day one—was no additional reduction in emissions in the early years, but a very high carbon value. So, given the tight margins for some of our businesses in Wales, the additional costs had the potential to be unbearable, really, and may well result in job losses and in carbon leakage.

The preferred option, which was 5 per cent below the notional share, offered a higher environmental ambition than the notional share, while managing the costs in the early years. Additionally, by introducing the two-step approach, with further tightening in either 2023 or 2024, we're providing, I think, a clear signal to the market now, and that will allow businesses to prepare for a further trajectory.

Thank you. Then, can you confirm whether the 5 per cent would apply in both a linked and a stand-alone UK ETS?

Yes, it would.

Thank you. If the UKCCC advises a more ambitious cap and trajectory, what scope is there to adjust the cap before 2023 or 2024?

There's no scope, really; the practicalities of doing so are just not possible. When you implement a new net-zero, consistent cap by 2023, it's possible; it's very ambitious, but the changes that you have to the cap can only happen at the start of each calendar year. So, if you think that we're going to get the UKCCC's advice in December, there just isn't the time frame, because we'd then have to assess it, we'd have to agree our joint proposal, we'd have to go out to consultation, we'd have to give the market notice, and then we'd have to legislate. So, you can see that there just isn't the timescale.

But, what the climate change Act sets out very clearly is that changes of this nature will need to be taken through an affirmative Order. The four Governments will then have the opportunity—sorry, not the Governments; the legislatures would then have the opportunity to scrutinise the Order. So, that does provide some additional rigour. But, again, it clearly adds to the timeline also.

So, I am keen to establish a long-term cap and trajectory as soon as possible, and I think it's very fair to say that the other three Governments of the UK are keen to do that also. So, the commitment to implement no later than 2024 is a backstop, really, in the event that we can't progress through these stages as quickly as we would like to and we planned to.

Thank you. And finally from me on this one, aside from seeking advice from the UKCCC, what work has the Welsh Government undertaken either individually or jointly with the UK Government and other devolved administrations to identify an appropriate long-term cap?

So, my officials and those of the other Governments are currently in the process of jointly agreeing the process for arriving at a proposed revised cap. They will then come in the form of recommendations to myself and my other ministerial counterparts. What we're going to do then is use the evidence base and the analytical tools to explore different options, and we'll seek alternative views, we'll seek further evidence, and that will all be done through consultation.

Given this is a UK-wide scheme, we aim to mainly develop a shared evidence base, where possible. That's so that we can have consistent assumption and models. But, of course, within the analysis, we aim, as far as possible, to be able to understand the differential aspects— sorry, the differential impacts—so, for instance, between the economic sectors and the four nations of the UK.

In terms of just a unilateral analysis for Wales, the UKCCC are going to advise us on our third carbon budget, which will be for the period 2026 to 2030, in December. So, we're preparing to review our economy-wide emissions trajectory, including the independent evidence gathering and the use of our own analytical tools. So, that work then will underpin our new low carbon delivery plan, which I've already mentioned we'll be publishing next year. So, these two pieces of work will need to complement each other. Given that the ETS will cover 46 per cent of our emissions, they really need to be able to complement each other.

Okay. Thank you.

Lord Deben was absolutely clear that, by setting it 5 per cent below what our notional share is, we're dropping the ball and we're not being ambitious enough. Aren't we simply deferring the pain further down the road on the grounds that somebody else will sort it out?

No, I don't agree with that. I've set out very clearly why we agreed on the 5 per cent. I think it was a very pragmatic decision to come to that 5 per cent, but I think I've set that out very clearly.

Okay. Thank you. Neil Hamilton.

Good afternoon, Minister.

Afternoon.

The Order setting up, authorising, the ETS was laid in July, but next month there's going to be an amendment Order that provides for free allowances to be allocated. Can you tell me what involvement you've had in the development of this Order, what your input has been?

Yes. So, the Order—. So, officials have been very involved in the policy development. I know they've reviewed legal drafts, they've agreed the final text, and it is a really technical process. So, I know that the regulators have been involved—so, for us, it's Natural Resources Wales; they've also provided advice.

So, the Order is due to come to me, as I said, imminently, and we will agree it later this month. My understanding is—and again I'll be looking at Rhiannon for assurance—that we'll be taking this to the same Privy Council meeting in November as the affirmative Order—yes, Rhiannon's nodding—subject, obviously, to the four legislatures agreeing the Order, and it will then be laid in each of the legislatures under the negative procedure.

This is a very important element of the scheme, certainly for energy intensive industries, and it's important particularly for Wales, I think. So, we need to have a proper input into the way this free allocation is decided in the first place and then to monitor changes that might take place in the future. Can you tell us what reviews are going to be taken in relation to future changes in the allocation of these allowances and when these reviews might take place and the changes consequent upon them take place? Has that been decided or thought about or—?

Yes. We've committed to a review outside the window of the sort of standard whole-system reviews, and we aim to co-ordinate that with some other targeted reviews. 

During the consultation, the question of methodology for free allocations split respondents quite equally—I think it was 52 per cent against 48 per cent. The issuing of free allowances has a very significant financial impact on participants, so I think those decisions that we're taking need to be based on very robust operational data. So, what we said during the consultation responses was that we would set out a timeline for changes when the review is launched to give as much policy certainty as possible. So, we will need to consult on any proposed changes resulting from the review. So, I guess there will be—you asked for some timescales; I don't know if Rhiannon's got any further information on timescales that she can give you.

We're still not hearing you, Rhiannon. I'm not quite sure why, because—

Hang on, is that better? We're looking at the timescales now. It's going to be outside of one of the whole-system reviews, as early as possible. The arguments that participants put forward were that they weren't necessarily getting sufficient free allocations if it was a standalone scheme. Conversely, the auditors in the European Commission have suggested that maybe there's an over-allocation in some sectors. So, a review on a UK-only basis for a bespoke free allocation methodology is probably a sensible move, particularly if it's a standalone scheme, rather than linked. 

It's equivalent to printing money in a way, isn't it, so it's very important that we keep control of the system and make sure that, where allowances are being created, they go to the most deserving cases, shall we say.

The Finance Act this year, 2020, contained provisions in section 96 for emissions allowances to be allocated also in return for payment. So, you can purchase allowances as well as get allowances for free. The regulations include who may participate in allowances and what allowances are to be allocated in return for payment, and when and where these allocations are to take place. Can you, Minister, explain the purpose of this and how it relates to the wider workings of the UK ETS?

So, in order for the UK ETS to be an active market, a trading system is required for the greenhouse gas emission allowances to be auctioned. So, that's the purpose of the scheme auctioning regulations of this year. So, the regulations establish the design of the electronic auctioning system for allowances to emit 1 tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent. The regulation covers matters such as how a bid is accepted, the auction clearing price, how unsold allowances are dealt with, which you referred to, and your volumes of allowances to be auctioned, et cetera.

Yes. The devolved administrations and legislatures don't have a formal role in making these regulations, so can you tell us what involvement you've had in their development?

So, there's been a disagreement between the devolved administrations and the UK Government around this on whether or not the provisions relating to auctioning of greenhouse emissions allowances are reserved or not. So, we considered that the provision in the then Bill met a test for a legislative consent motion—you know, the Bill makes provisions for Wales for a purpose within the legislative competence of the Senedd. The consent motion was approved, but then the UK Government disagreed with the Welsh Government's view. So, it considers that the auctioning of emissions allowances is a matter that relates to fiscal, economic, monetary policy, so that's obviously reserved to the UK Parliament. So, it was therefore considered that the test for a legislative consent motion was not met, so because—you know, there is no formal role for devolved administrations and legislatures in making the regulations on that basis. But the auctioning system has been designed to reflect the overall policy of the UK ETS, and obviously that's been developed and agreed between all four countries.

Making a charge on something and getting something in return is a bit different from paying a tax, isn't it? And one can really see that it's automatic that this should be a reserved matter under the scheme of the current legislation. 

Well, as I say, it wasn't just Welsh Government, I think it was the other devolved administrations as well, so—.

As part and parcel of the auctioning system, there's going to be an auction reserve price set at £15 a ton of carbon dioxide equivalent. Can you put on record the rationale for this and the advantages and disadvantages of having a reserve price?

So, the purpose of an ARP isn't to set the carbon price. In a market situation we would want to—you would want the market to find its level, and then to see the price increase over time as the other policy features, such as the cap, take effect. The ARP's a protection against very low prices in the early years, so in other words it's not an auction estimate or a guide price that we would expect to achieve, but a reserve price below which we would be unwilling to sell. So, for that reason, I think it makes sense to set the price somewhere below the range that you might project EU ETS prices would go over a period. And, given EU prices can fall as well as rise, £15 per tonne we thought was a reasonable level for this precautionary measure.

Yes. Because the EU's system doesn't have an auction reserve price, does it? So, the EU price could fall significantly lower than the UK price.

Yes.

The Grantham Research Institute suggested that a price consistent with the net zero ambition of the Government would begin at £40 per tonne of carbon dioxide equivalent in 2020, rising by 2030 to almost double that, £75 a tonne. What are your views on that? 

So, we've been very successful in decarbonising our electricity supply, for instance. So, with the lower cost options, which, I think, have been widely taken, many of the remaining interventions, particularly in our industrial sectors, are costly and more technically challenging. So, the higher the price signal, I think, the greater the incentive to act. We thought the prices the Grantham Institute put forward are not unreasonable, but I think to avoid businesses simply shutting down and shipping their emissions elsewhere, which we don't want to happen, and also shedding valuable jobs, we can't unilaterally shock the market with large price hikes. So, we need to co-operate with the EU and, obviously, other global economies to establish a carbon price that is applicable to everyone. 

Yes, well, as you can imagine I'm fully in agreement with you on that, but can you tell us why the £15 a tonne price was fixed, given that the average of the EU scheme prices recently are about £25 per allowance rather than £15, a little bit more?

Well, I thought I'd set that out. Perhaps, Rhiannon, I don't know if you've got anything additional to say. Can't hear you.

EU price is around about the £25 now. Not so long ago it was considerably lower than that. So, as the Minister said, this is very much a reserve price. It's not setting the price; it's a fallback, if you like, in case the very up-and-down market in the early years might drop through the floor temporarily.

Okay, thank you very much. The Order also provides for a review of the operation of the ETS, and the ETS authority is going to undertake this review, to be undertaken by the end of 2023. Can you give us your view on whether it's appropriate for the ETS authority to review its own scheme?

It does, and I think the important part of that is it also has to publish a report, which sets out the conclusions of the review. So, therefore, the rationale for any proposals that should come out of that review will be open to public scrutiny. The Climate Change Act 2008 sets out which features of the scheme must be laid for the affirmative procedure, and that's all the main policy decisions. So, for instance, extending the scope, et cetera. So, no substantial changes would be able to be made without public transparency and scrutiny, and that, obviously, would include formal scrutiny of all the four legislatures as well.

So, the publication dates, there are two publication dates—I think you referred to one of them—one is at the end of December 2023, and that would be implemented in 2026, and then the following one is December 2028 for implementation in 2031.

Yes, that's right. How will this review process work in practice? What agreement has been reached so far to ensure co-ordination of effort and consistency in how you measure success?

So, officials are currently looking at this across the four countries. They're scoping out the monitoring and the evaluation methodology for the UK ETS. That will then form a key pillar of the review process in terms establishing the existing scheme's performance. And, of course, with performance, the performance within the existing parameters doesn't really tell the whole story. So, it will also need to consider whether we should make changes to the scheme to ensure it plays a full part in the suite of policies that we have to deliver our environmental ambition.

Yes. Well, thank you very much. I think we've only got about four minutes left, so I'll end there. Thank you.

Okay. Llyr, lastly.

I want to ask about the money. Where does the revenue go? Because we know, under the EU ETS, there's a commitment amongst member states, isn't there, that half the money goes into tackling greenhouse emissions or mitigating, reacting to climate change. Will that also be the case under a UK ETS?

I think there have been lots of suggestions about where the money should go. You know, certainly, should it be diverted from general Treasury funds, for instance, and ring-fenced to fund climate change? So, this is currently being looked at; we're exploring the scope of where this should go. We know that if we want to fund power and heat decarbonisation, for instance, we would need that funding. So, I'm asking for all UK ETS revenues to be diverted to industrial decarbonisation, but it's not at the expense of other areas where we think action will be required. It reflects the challenges, I think, faced by industrial, economic that we have. You know, it's so important to the economy here in Wales.

So, how has your pitch for an industrial decarbonisation fund been accepted or—[Inaudible.]?

It's under discussion, I think, to say. I don't know if Rhiannon's got anything further to say around that.

I think the UK Government want to do their review of the cost of net zero first before they commit anything specific, and they're are also considering some broader policies. So, that's hindered discussion, I think, at the official level, until they've really scoped it all out. I suspect that discussions will pick up in the next few months.

So, what's your preference, then, Minister, in terms of the distribution of funds? I'd imagine that you would wish for some of that money to find its way here to Wales rather than be sat in the Treasury and sink without trace, I suppose, or be used for other things that we don't know what they are. Have you expressed a preference, or how would you wish for that to be distributed? Will it be based on the number of installations, or the percentage of installations in each country, or the percentage of emissions from each country, presumably not Barnettised? What's your thinking around that?

The figures that we've seen, there's the potential for a UK ETS to generate between £1 billion and £3 billion per annum in revenue from auctions during the first phase. So, for me, my opinion is that should be recycled in full into financial support for industrial decarbonisation. So, I did press the UK Government to commit to establishing a decarbonisation fund. I think it's the Treasury that's more not prepared to do so, shall we say, than other departments in Whitehall. So, that's my preference and that's what I will keep pushing for.

But that could happen without a penny coming back to Wales, so my question is: how much of that money do you think we're entitled to?

Well, I can't give you a figure, but, certainly, we've got to make sure that we get our fair share, and those are the discussions that are ongoing at the moment.

So, you haven't decided which way you'd prefer for that to happen then, or how that share would be arrived at.

We're continuing those discussions now.

Within Welsh Government or with the UK Government, because, surely, you're pitching for something, are you?

Say that again, sorry.

Well, you're saying, 'We haven't decided', that's Welsh Government and the UK Government, but surely you would wish for as much of that as possible to—

Of course, yes. Absolutely.

Have you put forward a proposal in terms of how you would see that working?

Those are the discussions that are ongoing. I've got a meeting next week, as I said before, so those are the discussions that are ongoing around—as I say, I'm still pushing for a decarbonisation fund.

Yes, yes. I've no issue with that, I'm just wondering how we can make sure that some of that money comes back to Wales. Thank you, Chair.

Is there a danger that the money could simply disappear into the general Treasury pot, because this has happened in the past? I think an expectation amongst the general public, who are worried about climate change, is that it will go into addressing climate change.

Yes, it's very much a concern, and that's why I've been pushing for a decarbonisation fund, because it's my opinion it should be recycled in full to support decarbonisation.

Thank you. Are there any further questions from Members? If not, we will thank you, Minister, and your officials for addressing this quite challenging area of policy—

Very technical.

But very, very important. So, obviously, you'll be sent a transcript to pick up any mistakes that have been made in mishearing what has been said, and meanwhile, if we take a 15-minute break, presumably we can come back a little earlier at five past three. Does that suit you, Minister?

Yes, that's fine. I just need to change officials, obviously, so that's fine.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

See you later then.

Welcome back to the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee. In this second session, we're going to be looking at the challenges around flooding. So, welcome back, Minister. Would you be able to introduce your new officials?

Yes, thank you, Chair. So, with me: I've got an all-male line-up after an all-female line-up last time. I've got Gian Marco Currado, who's the director of environment and marine; Andy Fraser, deputy director, water and flood division; and James Morris, head of flood and coastal risk management.  

Excellent. Thank you very much. If I could start by picking up on some of the evidence we've got from Caerphilly County Borough Council saying that, as a local authority, they're struggling with staff resources in terms of a backlog of projects that need funding and an outstanding workload following this year's flooding. Similarly, we had evidence from the Welsh Local Government Association that indicated there had been a massive reduction in the staffing levels and budget levels for flooding. So, I wondered if you could tell us what the Welsh Government can do to support local authorities to cope with this backlog.

Thank you, Chair. Obviously, on staffing, that is an issue for all local authorities, but certainly on budgets and resources, financial resources, we can do, and we already have done, a great deal. So, for instance, we've already met the commitment that we made at the beginning of this term of Government—we're now into the final year, obviously—to invest in flood defences to protect our communities. So by the end of this Senedd term, we will have invested over £350 million in flood and coastal erosion risk management, and that's helped to protect over 47,000 properties across Wales.

Around funding, certainly, I've been in this portfolio over four years and in the beginning one of the things local authorities told me was that funding was a barrier to them being able to bring forward flood defence and other assets. So we've taken away all those barriers, I think, around funding and we've increased both capital and revenue. I'll just say on capital that, whilst I've been in this portfolio, in the beginning, certainly, we had underspends. I don't want to see any underspends in my flooding budget in relation to capital. So, for instance, one of the barriers I was told of was a bit of match funding that local authorities had to do. So, for instance, now, we provide 100 per cent grant funding for the preparation of new schemes. So we've taken away that barrier for them as well.

I'm always mindful of the devastating impact that flooding has on people and people's lives. There's no room for complacency. So great strides, I think, have been made in making sure that funding has got out to the local authorities and to Natural Resources Wales as well. 

Very good. Janet—I think Janet Finch-Saunders wanted to come in on this point. 

You can hear me okay, yes?

Yes.

Thank you. We've had many discussions, Minister, about flooding, and I thought it was quite pertinent really that, whilst this mentions Caerphilly council, the feedback that I'm getting from a number of local authorities was on the match funding. Am I right, was it 85 per cent? So, 15 per cent they had to find, previously.

Well, it depends which schemes and which things you're talking about. So, for instance, we've provided 100 per cent funding for repairs this year. In relation to them bringing forward business cases, we've given them 100 per cent in relation to that. 

Yes, and that's been raised with me by my own local authority that, when it's smaller schemes, 15 per cent is doable, but when the schemes actually need more resources, it's not doable in the current climate. So will you perhaps be looking to 100 per cent, no match funding, on other schemes, where you see that there's an absolute backlog because of the 15 per cent barrier?

We've introduced 100 per cent funding for all preparatory work. So that goes from business cases right through to design, detailed design and modelling. We've also increased the grant rate for the construction of coastal schemes. Now, that is up to 85 per cent. It was 75 per cent before. So, we've put that up to 85 per cent, and that also matches the river and the surface water schemes. Those changes we've backdated, but that one is an 85 per cent one. 

Okay. And then—

I have to say, sorry, Janet Finch-Saunders, I think it's very generous to go to 100 per cent on some and 85 per cent on others.

Yes, no, no, it sounds it, but it's just that, as you can probably understand, the local authorities are so stretched at the moment that they are having difficulty finding the 15 per cent on the bigger schemes.

The other restriction is on working rivers between October and April. Locally, I have one where some shale has built up again since 2016, but the restrictions will not allow shingle and gravel to be removed from October to April. So, can I ask what assessments have been made of the impact of such restrictions on works on the backlog of projects, especially when those alleviation works are needed to stop further flooding?

I'm not personally aware of any issues that have come forward to me. I'm assuming they would go directly to NRW. I'm assuming that's what you mean.

Yes, and then when you meet with them, they say, 'We haven't got the resources to carry out the assessments to make sure.' So it's all a bit of a guessing game at the moment. Do you think you could perhaps have a look at when they do close rivers, for obvious reasons, October to April, that when an assessment needs to be done mid term, because we're now in October—we've got the winter season ahead of us—that perhaps either the resources are in place for them to do the assessments, or maybe to look again at whether the restrictions on the river closing, if you know what I mean? 

So, when you say 'they', you mean local authorities. 

No, NRW.

You mean NRW. Yes, I'll be very happy to have that discussion with NRW. 

And then, in Plenary—. Sorry about this one, but I have to ask. In Plenary, you advised me that money has been made available to all local authorities and risk management authorities to apply for. Can you please clarify whether that funding could be made available to some of our iconic historic projects across Wales, such as Gwydir castle and the absolutely famous Tu Hwnt i'r Bont, who themselves are really struggling at the moment?

I'm sure Janet Finch-Saunders is aware that Welsh Government's priority has to be for flood alleviation schemes, and we look at risk to life. We look at houses first and businesses, and you'll be very well aware of—. Even if a cost-beneficial scheme were to be identified for Gwydir, it is unlikely to be eligible for funding from the flood programme or prioritised above other potential schemes that reduce risk to multiple properties. NRW's modelling review of the Conwy valley flood alleviation scheme has also concluded the scheme does provide benefit to Gwydir, and it doesn't increase the risk to the castle. NRW have appraised the potential costs and the benefits for building a standalone defence at Gwydir, and the appraisal was conducted in line with HM Treasury Green Book principles. It concluded there were limited economic benefits to justify the cost of protecting the castle gardens and cellars. Any funding that's directed towards protecting the castle gardens and the cellar from flooding would mean less funding for reducing risk to homes elsewhere. I think I've said that several times now, so I'm grateful for the opportunity to clarify that again. 

And the reason I keep coming back—

No, no, Janet, can we move on? 

If I can just say on that one, though, the Treasury Green Book has been used and I just wondered what negotiating power—. Oh. I'm trying to move on. Sorry. If I can just ask the Minister: what negotiating power does the Welsh Government have in terms of the Treasury Green Book? As part of that, does our Historic Environment (Wales) Act 2016 not have any provisos within it to help?

I'll have to send a note, Chair, on that. I think I've given a clear—. It's the Welsh Government's policy.

Okay. I think Llyr needed to come in.

Llyr, did you want to come in on this?

Just very briefly, the Minister talks about striking a balance between protecting one property and protecting a number of properties. Clearly, there's an emphasis in terms of Welsh Government policy on protecting as many people as possible, but surely there's a tension there as well in relation to where rural communities come in the pecking order, because if it's a numbers game then, clearly, it'll be the urban communities that always win and the rural communities will always lose. 

The local authorities, so, Powys, for instance, which I'm sure you would say is a rural county borough in general, if you think of the funding that we've put there, we've ensured that they get their fair share. It is done on a case-by-case basis, but primarily our policy—and I'm sure you can understand why I was explaining that in relation to Gwydir castle. But I do think, if you look—. I don't have a list of all the assets that we've put funding into by county borough, but certainly I would say that Powys has had a fair share of that funding. That's a bit of a generalised answer, I think, to your question.

It's just that I'd like to think that it's a bit more sophisticated than just however many homes are covered. Surely, there needs to be some weighting in favour of rural communities as well.

As I say, as each council area puts forward the list of assets that they're looking for us to fund, they're obviously done on a case-by-case basis and it is more sophisticated than that. Sorry, I'm having difficulties with my headphones.

Okay. Janet, do you want to pick up the issues around the capital schemes?

Yes. Where you've got ordinary watercourses that are unregistered land, they can cause a lot of problems. So, on riparian ownership when flood works are needed, what can you do, Minister, as a Government, where you've got unregistered land and local authorities are saying they would do the work but they need the resources?

Again, it's done on a case-by-case basis. So, if local authorities apply for the different pockets of funding within my flood budget, we can look at it on a case-by-case basis.

Thank you. Now going on to question 2: according to the 'Wales Coastal Flooding Review', the development of a national investment programme using a communities at risk register as a tool to help prioritise areas of investment in Wales has been achieved. Similarly, Natural Resources Wales made a commitment to use the communities at risk register to help prioritise work packages. If that is correct, I see no problem with using this communities at risk register to help provide a fairer allocation of revenue budget based on flood risk. Would you consider authorising independent reviews of flood-prone or at-risk areas with the aim of costed proposals being put together, highlighting all the work that needs to be undertaken to mitigate risks?

There is a feeling with section 19 reports, and things like that, that when it's done by local authorities and fed into by NRW or whoever, that it might not be as—sometimes there can be measures that needed mitigating earlier and local authorities' hands are tied when it comes to them doing these reports. Will you be more open to independent flood reviews?

So, section 19 reports are really important statutory reports that local authorities have to provide us following a flood event. At the moment, we're awaiting literally tens of reports, as you can imagine, but they provide us with the lessons learnt. But you don't have to wait for the report before you start work.

So, I'll give you an example. So, the February floods, which were unprecedented—and I'll just focus on RCT because clearly they had a significant impact in the February floods—whilst we're still awaiting their section 19 reports, work is ongoing. We've put over £4.3 million, I think it is now, into just repairing flood assets since the February floods. So, section 19s are a part of the jigsaw, if you like. So, I know—. I used the Rhondda because I know there have been lots of calls for an independent review of what happened in February. We're still awaiting the section 19, but the work is ongoing. I have seen, in draft form, the Natural Resources Wales report. They will be reporting later this month. I've only seen it in draft up to now. So, I think you have to go through the process of receiving the statutory reports before you can call for independent inquiries.

And do you have any plans to reduce the time? There's a year's time frame in which you can do those reports, and concerns are raised when they're seen as a way to ensure the correct mitigation of flooding for a next event. Do you have any intentions of shortening that timescale of when local authorities should produce them?

No, for the reasons I've already stated. You don't have to wait for the report to start doing repair work, for instance.

So, can I ask what the point of them is then?

The point of them—

I think we need to move on, to be honest. We're already 15 minutes nearly into the session and there are several Members who—.

Well, I'll just answer very quickly: the point of them is for lessons learnt.

Okay.

Thank you. Mick Antoniw, do you want to come in now as we've started talking about RCT?

Yes. Minister, I have several questions that are around capital and, obviously, revenue funding. As you know, Pontypridd in Rhondda Cynon Taf, really took the brunt in February and obviously we were very grateful for the support and also for the funding that was available for immediate works that needed doing. But I'd like to start off, then, about that and, as you know, Rhondda Cynon Taf have assessed, for example, the amount of repair and infrastructure work that needs to be carried out, at around £70 million, and obviously the overall figure, including other areas, is substantially higher as well. The Prime Minister, you will know, made an unequivocal promise that the money for infrastructure repair work would be passported through to the Welsh Government. That is a promise that was openly endorsed by the Secretary of State for Wales. Can you just tell us whether you've received any of that money and, if not, what you are doing to get that money?

Thank you, Mick. Clearly, your constituency was incredibly affected by the February storms, and you're quite right about the bill—and I don't think it's a final bill yet; I've heard the figure of £70 million. You will have heard the Prime Minister say on the floor of the House of Commons that that money would be passported—I think that was the word the Prime Minister used—and as far as I'm aware we still have not received a penny. You'll remember that there was also the Tylorstown landslide on the coal tip, and, again, we were assured that funding would come forward for that, and, again, it hasn't as yet.

What are we doing about it? Well, I was in a meeting with the First Minister and the Secretary of State for Wales probably about five weeks ago where we reiterated the promise that was made to us, and I know that my colleague Rebecca Evans, the Minister for Finance and Trefnydd, has written to the Treasury asking for some assurance about when we will get that funding.

You mentioned Pontypridd and I just want to give the committee—. This came from the chief executive of NRW and it's always stuck with me that, at the peak of the floods in Pontypridd, the water flowing under the main bridge would have filled an Olympic-sized swimming pool every three seconds, and I think that really is an incredibly sobering thought that, as I say, has stuck with me. So, I'm absolutely aware of what happened in your constituency, Mick. 

Well, Minister, the damage and the impact on business and on people's homes was so significant, the consequences are still there and there are some people who have not yet been able to this day to return home. But what concerns me is this: if the Prime Minister has indeed reneged on that promise that he gave in Parliament to the people of Pontypridd, then there are significant consequences because decisions have to be taken now about projects that need to be started in April, when the river can be accessed again. There are issues with bridges as well as infrastructure around and alongside the river—roads and so on. What is the plan B at the moment, bearing in mind there is no money actually arriving to Welsh Government? What is the position that, for example, councils like Rhondda Cynon Taf are in?

Well, I think it's—I hope it is—too early to say that the Prime Minister's reneged on his promise. As I say, those discussions are ongoing not just in relation to flooding, but in relation to coal tips, which is obviously a separate piece of work but they do obviously complement each other. So, I think it's too early to say he's reneged on it. We will keep the pressure on. He promised and so, for me, if you promise something, then you need to do your very best to deliver it. So, that's around repairs and the significant repairs, and I mentioned that I don't think £70 million will be the end of that bill; I'm sure there is still work that RCT are having to undertake to assess the damage that was done.

So, I mentioned in an earlier answer that we've already put over £4 million, and I think probably a significant majority of that £4.3 million will have gone to RCT because they were so badly affected, and, as you say, people still are living with the consequences of the February floods. So, the emergency funding is still going out there. Clearly, if we're presented with a bill for £70 million as a Welsh Government, that funding would be incredibly difficult to find, and that's why—because it wasn't just Wales that had those horrendous floods in February; there were similar events right across the UK—further funding on top of the funding that we've had as a Welsh Government was clearly promised. So, there isn't a plan B as such, as to where we would find that £70 million, because we hope we won't be in that position. However, we would have to utilise the funding that we've got, and I think we've already started to utilise the funding that we've got, but we obviously have to look to the UK Government for some of the bigger items that need remediation, and the coal tips is clearly one of them.

I appreciate those comments. Can I move on to the issue of revenue funding, of course? Rhondda Cynon Taf council, in their submission to you, suggest that one of the problems with existing funding is that it is distributed pro rata, but that it isn't made available on the basis of an assessment of where the risks actually exist. This is the point that they make; they say in their submission:

'However, the funding is not allocated on a risk basis, that is all LAs get the same amount regardless of flood risk within their borough. For example, RCT receives 4.54%...of the national revenue funding',

but has 21 per cent of the national surface water flood risk to manage. That seems a reasonable suggestion, does it not, Minister?

So, we've already looked at that and acted upon it. We previously provided small amounts of additional revenue to local authorities, as you say, on an application basis. Almost all councils successfully applied for the full amount. So, therefore, we kind of thought it would be more straightforward and less burdensome for them, and for my very small flood-programme team, I have to say, to provide full funding to all 22 local authorities and request annual reports. So, that revenue is a helping hand, as local authorities should be able to also use their RSG to meet their statutory flood duties. But, ultimately, I have to manage the limited amounts of revenue that I have to deliver maximum benefit, but, as I say, our capital programme remains prioritised according to risk, but we have changed the way we fund local authorities now in relation to revenue.

Minister, one further point, then, is that, obviously, winter is approaching and people are obviously anxious as to what the impact of climate change is going to be. The situation is far less predictable than it ever was. I mean, in Rhondda Cynon Taf alone, there are 28 incident investigations—there are eight in Pontypridd and Taff Ely. And, of course, the NRW report is extremely important in terms of the concluding of all these statutory reports. You indicated that you have the NRW draft and that it's now towards completion. Are you able to confirm more accurately when that report will be released and also that, when it is released, it will become public so that Members who have been affected will be able to see the analysis that's taken place?

I don't have it; I've had sight of the draft report. My understanding is NRW will be publishing that report this month, i.e. October. It certainly will be made public. I think it's incredibly important that all the reports are made public so that people can see exactly what was said, what the recommendations are, et cetera. So, there are several section 19 reports, as you say, from Rhondda Cynon Taf also.

In relation to NRW, what their report—. So, as I say, I've seen a draft report, and certainly it does highlight how exceptional the February floods were. I think we really do have to pause to remember how exceptional they were. They went on for several weeks, and they were pan-Wales as well. On the report that NRW have done, they've reviewed their own performance and they'll be setting out recommendations in relation to how they improve response and communication as well. I think it's very right that the draft report I've seen praises the staff and their work—they worked flat out and they continue to work incredibly hard—and what their review will do is complement the statutory reports from local authorities, which will also be made public.

Then one final further point, Minister: you mentioned coal tips, and, of course, there are hundreds of coal tips around south Wales. Many are dormant. It appears there's been an investigation into coal tips by the UK Government that they have now sat on and are not disclosing. The concern there, obviously, is it represents potential adverse information about the state of the some of those tips. The Coal Authority, we have always understood, has responsibility for those coal tips—they go back over a century. We can still see them on the hillsides, camouflaged and perhaps modelled as they have been. But they do represent a hazard, as we have seen in Tylorstown. We have, obviously, a history in terms of coal tips as something that cause anxiety when they are mentioned. It is a real concern that the statements made by the Prime Minister the other week were that they are giving up all responsibility for those coal tips and that the Coal Authority has no responsibility for them. Now, it seems to me that must be fundamentally wrong, but represents potentially hundreds of millions of pounds of potential expenditure if that responsibility were to fall upon the Welsh Government. The Tylorstown tip alone, I think, is costing in excess of £10 million. Now, this appears to be another area where the UK Government is reneging on its responsibilities. Can you update us on the report that it appears the UK Government has obtained? Has that been disclosed to the Welsh Government? And, secondly, what is the legal status of the responsibility for the maintenance of those coal tips? 

So, you will have heard me talk in other places about the significant piece of work that Welsh Government has been doing in relation to coal tips. So, following the Tylorstown slip in February, the First Minister set up a summit—I think that was the word that was used—in relation to coal tips and he jointly chaired it with the Secretary of State for Wales. We've now had two summits, and the last one was in probably September—it may have been August, but I would say probably September—where, again, the First Minister highlighted the need for significant funding to come from the UK Government in relation to remediation, because if we're going to remove that risk around coal tips, we need funding to be able to remediate. 

Right at the beginning—so, back in February; the first summit—the Coal Authority were asked to undertake an assessment of the coal tips in Wales, and we're working very closely with the Coal Authority, the UK Government and the local authorities to make sure immediate remediation work is done on the high-risk coal tips, whilst we're discussing the funding issue with the UK Government. Now, this predates devolution, so the UK Government can't simply just say, 'Over to you, Welsh Government', because this predates devolution. And you're probably far, far better than me, Mick, with your legal knowledge around the Government of Wales Act 2006, but we know that with anything that predates devolution, predates 1999, the UK Government need to provide funding for that. So, I absolutely understand the anxiety of people, and that's why, back in February, after the first summit, there was a helpline established for people to ring to ask questions and to seek reassurance. 

The report that you refer to I certainly haven't seen. I'm not aware the First Minister's seen it, but, clearly, we need to know what the Coal Authority are reporting. I'm going to ask Andy or Gian Marco—I don't know which one would be best to talk about the report; Andy has raised his hand—to see if officials have seen it, but, certainly, I haven't, and I'm not aware the First Minister has. Andy.

Thank you, Minister. In terms of our work through the joint UK-Welsh Governments taskforce on this matter—on coal tip safety—as the Minister said, we've been working closely with the Coal Authority. They are directly responsible for 26 of the coal tips in Wales, and we know that there are over 2,000 across Wales. But, we're not aware of any specific reports that have gone to the UK Government on this. They have provided local authorities with the outcomes of their ground checks of over 400 high-risk sites—high-risk tips across Wales—so the local authorities have access to all of that information, including advice on where extra maintenance work is required. But, we're not aware of any overall singular report that's gone to the UK Government from the Coal Authority, and, as I say, we're working very closely on a daily basis with the Coal Authority on the taskforce programme.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Okay, thank you. Llyr, did you want to come in at this point, before we move on to coastal erosion?

Yes, thank you, Chair. I just wanted to raise again—I know there are calls for an independent inquiry into what happened. I think you made the point yourself that the section 19 investigation reports are 'just a piece of the jigsaw'—those were your words. Well, surely, we need to take a step back and look at the whole picture, and not just focus on one piece of the jigsaw. We need to understand whether agencies were doing what they should have done pre flood; obviously, understand what caused it; then look at the response and then, obviously, look as well at the longer-term issues that have arisen out of it so that we can learn lessons.

We know, as we've heard, that people are suffering considerably in terms of mental health issues, trauma from the event itself, anxiety that it could repeat itself and depression, as well, because, of course, they're struggling with where they are. We need to understand that people are still looking for advice and information, struggling with insurance issues, struggling with wanting to know whether they can get flood doors and wastewater caps. Who's providing this information? Surely, we need to learn these lessons so that we can make sure that they're not repeated in future.

Yes, absolutely, and the NRW report also—I presume you're referring to RCT.

Yes.

So, obviously, the NRW report will also feed into that, and, as I say, that will be published this month. They are a piece of the jigsaw. I was asked about a time frame before, and the legislation doesn't set a time frame, but I think we have to give local authorities the time to be able to undertake the necessary investigations. But, as I've said, going back to RCT particularly, we haven't just sat back and waited for those section 19 reports. We've been out there, making sure RCT has had the funding to be able to repair, for instance. 

I go back to what I said about the February flood: it was unprecedented. That word is used quite often, but we really have to understand the unprecedented nature of those February floods. But I absolutely understand that people—when I went, particularly to the Rhondda back in February to see what had happened out there, I think people were traumatised; I don't think that's too strong a word, so I do understand what you're saying. But, please don't think we've just sat back and waited for those reports, because we haven't.

Can I ask just generally about agencies working together? Much of this is dependent on agencies effectively working together, and it's been highlighted to me on a number of occasions that that really isn't happening as it should. You have people such as Natural Resources Wales, local authorities, Dŵr Cymru and Network Rail, in many cases. Just to give you an example, if there's a watercourse, ordinarily you'd think that NRW might be responsible for it, but, of course, if there's a railway bridge over it then NRW can't touch 6m each side of it because it's Network Rail, but Network Rail will focus on the train track itself; they wouldn't necessarily consider it as their responsibility to look after the watercourse and clear that. So, what's the Government doing to improve co-operation and work across these agencies? 

Another point, as well, is that when they come together, and it's a hell of a job, sometimes, to get all of those around the same table, what you find is that the level of officers who present themselves in those meetings—they aren't empowered to make decisions. So, they go away, and then those decisions need to be passed up a hierarchical chain; then, they need to come back down and all of a sudden the process grinds to a halt. That's a continual frustration that councillors and others are raising with me.

I suppose my best experience, and probably my first experience, of bringing everybody together like that was RCT after the events in February. So, again, I, personally, didn't see a problem in relation to that. I remember sitting in one of RCT's offices where we literally had everybody around the table. You talk about partners—I can't remember if Network Rail were there, but do you know that I mean? We managed to bring all of the partners together very quickly to ensure that people who were able to make decisions were around that table.

I can imagine that if that—and it did happen in other parts of Wales. I mentioned that the February floods were pan-Wales. I'm sure it happened in other—. I remember going to Llanrwst and again seeing all those partners together around a table. So, I'm not saying it never happens, that you don't get all the partners together, but certainly my experience is that that happened on both of those occasions to which I refer. If you've got specifics, then obviously I perhaps can look into that for you, but I've not heard that as a general complaint.

Well, it's one I get all the time, Minister. And of course, you'd expect it in those unprecedented events that you've referred to. What I'm saying is that surely this should be a matter of course, where you do have those agencies regularly coming together, and being compelled to come together. Because I know in Fairbourne, for example, they've had a hell of a job getting a number of these people together, and I extend that to utilities and other companies as well. Surely they should be expected to attend and they should be expected to be able to respond to requests in a timely manner and an effective manner. At the moment, generally, it's not happening. It may happen where it's politically difficult for it not to happen because of the scale of some of the events, but generally it's wholly insufficient, I'd say.

Well, I don't think I would agree with you on that. I think generally it does happen, and I think it's probably not the normal that it doesn't. I don't know whether Andy or James could come in on this—but again, they are compelled to do that, I would say.

James was indicating earlier. James Morris.

Sorry, just unmuting. Yes, there is a duty to co-operate under the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, and they have to co-operate under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. So, we hope this is the exception and not the rule, and we'd like to know a little bit more if you're hearing reports of Network Rail or other risk management authorities like NRW or local authorities or water companies not co-operating, either in helping to write section 19 and investigation reports or in actually going in and assessing the risk or helping to alleviate that risk. There's a duty on them to co-operate and help each other, and we are seeing that in places across Wales. I was in a meeting yesterday on Canal Side in Neath Port Talbot, and all the players are coming together in a really positive way. It sometimes takes a little bit of nudging, but once we remind everybody that it helps everyone to work together in a holistic way, it usually helps. And we're making this much clearer in the new national strategy as well. We're setting roles and responsibilities clearly.

Okay, well, you say 'nudging'; I'd say a kick up the backside is what's needed sometimes. But there we are, you couldn't say that.

Just finally then from me, if I may, Chair, all of this, the risk register and all of that, is dependent on having robust data. This is something I've raised with you previously. I am getting casework from people who are concerned that the data upon which flood risk very often is measured is not sufficient. I'm told that around 90 per cent of rivers in Wales don't have gauges and a lot of these assessments are done—. I wouldn't say—well, I have said, 'finger in the wind', but you get my drift, it's not as robust as we'd like.

I know that, for example, there was a flood risk mapping report used recently for a decision in Denbighshire where the report itself admitted that it had limitations, saying that some pieces of data were needed for accurate modelling that weren't available. I think the report itself actually said, and I quote, 'As there is no flow data for the subject site, the design flow estimates are uncertain'. In fact, it says it's probably wrong at one point. So, how can we make decisions—? And this has led to school closures, this has led to planning applications being refused, insurance being denied. How can we improve that? Because currently, from what I'm hearing, it's not up to scratch.

So, you'll be aware we have our new national strategy to be published soon, and alongside that we will have new flood risk assessment Wales mapping and, as I say, the two will be published alongside. I think that new mapping will improve flood and coastal risk information, it will help people understand the risk to their property—that's how far it will go down. But, it will also help us realise the benefits of where we're putting our funding into flood defences by showing where the risk has been reduced, for instance, by those new defences. So, we're updating the national strategy, which I'll be launching—I'm not sure I've said this publicly before, but we will be launching it on 20 October. We're updating planning advice and TAN 15 as well, so it is—. We've provided full funding support to NRW and local authorities to create a new national asset database and Wales flood map products. So, there is a significant piece of work being done to improve that.

But unless you have the data that underpins the flood maps, then you're making the flood maps up, in many respects.

Well, you know, you can't gauge every stream; they have to use modelling too. Again, I'll bring James in, perhaps, if he can say any more on data.

It's not possible to gauge every stream. It would, obviously, be excellent if that were the case, but we do need to invest and we need to prioritise. Just like with flood schemes and defences, we need to actually look at where those gauges and automated gauges are best used as well. So, it may not be automatic gauging, but NRW and the local authorities do understand the risk in their water courses, and even in those ones that aren't gauged, they will be aware of previous flooding examples. They'll look at even historic reports and pictures; they'll use their own advice and their own officials to go along and see what's required. So, yes, we can't gauge every stream, but there are ways of modelling and basing assumptions on those that are modelled that are very similar, or we look at models further downstream where we know what the flows are there.

So, when you base your decisions on assumptions, you have to accept, therefore, that some decisions will be wrong and flawed. 

I would probably say that the mapping we have now is better than anything we've had before. We're mapping risk from all sources, as well, so we're going to include surface water and much, much smaller water courses. So, whereas before, it was excellent across coastal flooding, the sea and main rivers, now it's a lot better as well on those smaller streams and water courses, and that's constantly improving. So, there's more and more work going on in this space, not just on traditional schemes, but we want to see more gauging happen to help us learn about natural flood management and how we can see run-off reduced and the effect on our water courses to lessen the peaks straight after a rainfall event.

So the Government is investing in those gauges, is it?

Thank you. Llyr, we need to move on. I'd like to call in Joyce Watson so that we can examine the situation with coastal erosion.

I was simply going to ask a question you've already answered, which was on the national strategy, which we now know is 20 October—you're going to adopt it—but also, what it would mean. But I also want to bring to the table—and James just started alluding to it—surface water flooding and whether that is included—it seems that it was, because you've just said it—and whether we have any programmes of works with local authorities, river authorities or whoever is responsible, to make sure that culverts and under bridges or debris that very often are the cause of flooding—. And it can be equally as devastating as some of the flooding we've heard. It certainly is for those individuals; it's equally devastating. So, do you have any way of knowing that local authorities, or, as I say, river authorities or whoever is responsible, are actually carrying out their routine maintenance, which very often ends up creating complete misery for people when that is not the case?

Clearly, that's a role for local authorities to ensure that they carry out those works. You mentioned surface water; the new flood maps to which I referred in my answer to Llyr that we'll be publishing alongside the new national strategy—they will include surface water also.

I went to Crickhowell earlier this year and it seems that the devastating floods that happened there—. And people told me as though it was a normal thing to happen. 'Well, it always happens because it runs off the fields', is what they told me, and I spoke to several people. So, if I heard you correctly, James, you were also looking at mitigation on run-off. And, of course, one of the main sources of run-off can be, in some cases, with the right setting—and that is the right setting, or the wrong setting if you happen to be subject to it—run-off from land. So, what sort of mitigation are we doing on the run-off from hard surfaces, non-permeable, but also from land? 

This is something that we've worked alongside our planning colleagues on, and with water colleagues on, on implementing the new SUDS legislation—sorry, sustainable drainage systems. It's something we really want to see more of, which is why we've introduced this new natural flood management programme. So, we're investing £2 million over the next—well, this year alone, £2 million, and we're extending it to next year as well, with 100 per cent funding for all NFM, natural flood management, schemes, to see how we can better reduce that run-off and what techniques can be used. This isn't new, but it's something that we do want to learn more about, hence the reason we're putting a little bit more funding and attention on it, and we've been monitoring this closely. But there's a role to play here with land management, with agriculture, with housing, with planning and development, to make sure we don't make this any worse. Because that run-off is something that is problematic when we've got those intense storm events, which is why we're trying to learn more about this and put more effort into catchment approaches and that wider understanding of run-off.

So, you've touched on several things I've picked up, because what we really need to know is what this adopted national strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management will mean. What is in it that's going to be different and make people feel more secure than that which we already have?

So, I mentioned I'll be publishing it on 20 October, and I think what it is—it's a significant step up in our approach to managing flood and coastal erosion risk. I think it's far clearer on the roles and responsibilities, and it sets out new objectives, for instance, on prevention, on preparedness, and on better communication on risk. There's a comprehensive set of measures within the strategy. It also—what James was just talking about, natural flood measures; it encourages more natural flood management, greater collaboration to further reduce risk and create better, more sustainable schemes going forward, and that will then obviously deliver wider benefits.

I think it's a very ambitious strategy. It reaffirms the importance that Welsh Government places on flood-risk management. It also has, obviously, a focus on the growing risks that are associated with climate change. I think it was Mick that referred to climate change—that's obviously going to have a massive impact in this area. We've witnessed the worst floods in Wales this year for over 40 years, and I don't think I can overemphasise that; we're all aware of that and how long it went on for and the fact it was pan-Wales. We are learning lessons, but those lessons have to be—. And they have helped us strengthen the new strategy; I think the fact that we had that in February, that has had an impact on the new strategy as well. It also complements the new legislation that we've had since the previous flood strategy—so, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, the SUDS regulations that James referred to. As well as, obviously, we've got different bodies that have been established since we had the previous flood strategy, nine or 10 years ago—so, the independent flood and coastal committee, for instance, and obviously NRW.

Can I have one final question? Just one.

Okay.

It's very quick, but the answer won't be easy. In terms of what we're seeing happening with global warming and intense heat creating fires, there is a consequence—. And we haven't had any yet, but I'm talking about preparedness, which you've just mentioned. If we were to have significant fires break out on woodland, the woodland, of course, acts as a natural barrier to flood. Because the two things always happen. If you have a fire and it creates a huge loss of woodland and then you have heavy rain to follow it, which seems to be the pattern, anyway, there is no surprise then, is there, that you would then have extreme flooding. So, are we—? Does this allow for wider thinking than just simply that we get lots of water, but that also we're getting increased levels of heat, and what that might mean in the way that I've just described?

Yes. I think—.You point out the risks on both sides of that, obviously, and I suppose, for me, one of the things I wanted to start is a conversation about how we manage flood-risk management, and, obviously, this is part of the conversation around climate change that we're all engaged in. We are delivering more in this space, both financially and in policies as well, but there needs to be—you know, there are some very difficult conversations to be had, I think, about how we manage the risk and how we prioritise the funding that we have in relation to floods. And, obviously, heat—. You're quite right, if you think about it—I was reading an article a couple of weeks ago about how many people die during heatwaves, and we don't often talk about that, do we? You don't often hear anybody talking about that. So, there is a very big conversation to be had around climate change adaptation, and that is something that, obviously, our adaptation plans take into account.

Okay. Thank you for that. We now need to find out what money is available to deal with all these risk management plans that you're about to publish. Neil Hamilton. You need to unmute, Neil.

I keep forgetting to do that. Sorry. Minister, you allocated £150 million to the coastal risk management programme. When NRW reported on this, I daresay about a year ago now, at that stage, less than £5 million had actually been used. Could you give us an up-to-date figure, or what is the most up-to-date figure?

Thank you. We're now in the second year of the three-year construction period for the coastal risk management programme. One scheme, in Aberavon, is already completed, and in August I visited the east Rhyl scheme in Denbighshire, up here in north Wales, that's now in construction, and the remaining schemes are due to commence over the 18 months.

Back in March—not this year, 2019—I announced schemes for which funding's been made available for the construction phase of this programme. They're obviously subject to successful completion of business cases and whether match funding is available, et cetera. I've changed the grant rate, I mentioned before, from 75 per cent to 85 per cent, so now, actually, these schemes are now oversubscribed—this funding is now oversubscribed—but it is unlikely all will commence; you always build in a bit of underspend into these schemes. So, I think—. I can't give you an actual figure, but I know that the east Rhyl construction scheme, for example, is £28 million. So, again, that has been started, and, as I say, the Aberavon one has been completed. So, I'm sorry, I can't give you a figure and I don't know if any officials can. I'm just looking at them but nobody's nodding. Oh, yes, James can. Thank you.

I'm finding the unmute button. We're probably up more around £40 million to £50 million now, but the main phase of construction is the point we're moving into now. So, over the next 12 to 15 months, a lot of the coastal risk management programme schemes will go into construction and start spending the big money. But we're still on target for 25 schemes to complete, and, if all complete, it will be estimated that 18,000 homes and businesses will have their risk reduced.

Good. So, there's no danger in underspend, by the sound of it, anyway, at the end of it all. Good, thank you very much.

Janet, do you want to pick up on the capital spend—the £350 million allocated for flood-risk management?

Yes. Thanks, Chair. Just wondering how much of the £350 million has been spent, and on what projects.

That's what I've just asked.

So, we're on track. For the £350 million, we'll exceed it, I would say. We're absolutely on track to exceed it. So, when you include the first schemes that are coming through the coastal risk management programme, by the end of this term, I think we will, absolutely, have exceeded it. All our investments—

How much have you spent to date?

How much have we spent to date? So, again, I don't have the figure to hand. I know it's £45 million this year, but I don't know. James, have you got the cumulative figure for that £350 million?

Yes. We're on track to spend more than £350 million.

Yes. How much have we spent to date?

To date, we're over £350 million. If we are to include the coastal risk management programme and where we're hoping they'll get to this year, it'll be closer to £390 million by the end of this financial year.

Okay. Is it possible, Chair, or Minister, if we can have a breakdown for the committee on what it's gone on?

So, you mean over the five years of the Government? 

Yes.

The £350 million. Yes. Because every year we publish it, so as I say—

It's just easier. If we get it, it's just easier. Thank you.

I just wanted, for clarification as well—are we talking about £350 million plus £150 million for coastal risk management? So, £500 million in all, in capital?

No. No, £350 million was our commitment, but we will exceed it. James just said £390 million, so—.

Okay, thank you for that. I think it would be useful, just so we can see how it has been spent. Mick, you wanted to come in on—have you already covered the section 19 investigations?

No, I haven't, but I'm satisfied with the answers I've had on that. The only point I wanted to make was on this issue of co-operation between all the agencies. All I can say is that, certainly in the experience within Rhondda Cynon Taf, both the council, NRW—Cadw as well, in fact—Welsh Water—. I've attended three multi-agency meetings and also had various Members attending meetings with members of the public who'd been flooded out and so on. So, that has worked. I can only talk about my area, but it has worked very, very effectively, and the council have been very responsive. So, for example, when you had the warnings, the rain warnings, the other day, all the agencies were engaged—culverts, drains, everything, the alarm systems were being tested and so on. So, certainly in this area, which admittedly was the major area in terms of the brunt, it has worked very successfully, and has improved from meeting to meeting.

That's really good to hear, and obviously an NRW report will be being published this month. As I say, it does look at their performance, so there will be recommendations, et cetera, but I agree with you, I think that multi-agency approach—. And we have to remember, NRW, I almost think—. They're not a blue-light service, but they don't know what they're going to get when they get there. They don't know what they're going to be faced with, and they don't have an army of people just sitting waiting, but, once that call is made, they are out there, and I think their communication with the public has been excellent, and particularly in relation to RCT.

Minister, I just wanted to ask a further question, having listened closely to everything you've said. You said that this last year was an exceptional year in terms of flooding, the worst in 40 years. On the other hand, many people say that climate change means we are going to get increasing adverse events of this nature, and I heard Mick Antoniw talking about things that we plan to do in April. What have we managed to do to prevent the disasters that occurred last winter not simply reoccurring this winter?

So, again, I mentioned the funding that's been put into repairs, because I think that's really important. We need to look at the assets that are in place to make sure they are fit for purpose. We had a lot of schemes that were in place—sorry, in the pipeline—that I've tried to bring forward, to make funding available. So, we've had the pot of funding for the repairs, over £4 million. That's gone out straight away. We've had—. I've asked local authorities to look at if they can bring forward—and NRW actually—plans that they had for different flood defences much quicker than they were. I've taken away the barriers that were there in relation to funding to make sure that happens. I've reiterated several times that I don't expect to see an underspend in my capital programme. So, these are all things that we're doing in relation to preparing for the winter, but you can't take every risk away, unfortunately, and that is due to climate change, and that's why I said in an earlier answer to someone that I think we need to have a discussion about how we manage this risk going forward.

Okay, thank you. So, the NRW report is likely to reveal how well agencies have responded to the additional resources that you've made available.

The NRW report?

Yes.

I think the NRW report, mainly, is looking at what happened back in February, rather than that. 

Okay. Has anybody got any other issues, before we close the session, that they wanted to raise? Janet, were you raising your hand?

Yes, only for the fact that Dŵr Cymru have written in about Llyn Anafon.

What's the question?

Whether the Minister will support the local community. They see this as an area of spectacular beauty, wild swimming, with a wide variety of fish. I don't know if you've had much time, Lesley, to actually look at the—. There's huge opposition—700 petitioners already—to the draining of this lake over the next five to 10 years. The local community want to form a community group, like a trust, to help take it over. Now, I'm in talks with Dŵr Cymru. I don't want to catch you on the hop with this one. Maybe you could have a look at this, get your officials to look at it and maybe in principle you could look to perhaps support us going forward with retaining this lake at the depths it is at the moment. 

My officials are already looking at it. 

Fantastic. Thank you. That's all I can ask. 

Thank you. Well, if there are no further questions, I'd like to thank the Minister and her officials for answering all our questions. Obviously, we'll send you a transcript to make sure that we've accurately recorded what you've said. Thank you very much for your attendance. 

Thank you very much. 

I've got two further papers to note. One is correspondence from the Minister on the update on the UK Fisheries Bill and her response to our report on the legislative consent motion on this, which we debated on Tuesday. And then also correspondence from the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs on the LCM on the UK Agriculture Bill. Are we happy to note those two papers? Thank you. 

Can we now move, under Standing Order 17.42, to resolve to exclude the public from the remainder of the meeting and from the first session of the meeting on 15 October?

I move, Chair. 

Thank you. Can we now go into private session, please?