Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Thank you very much for the question and good morning to committee. We are making good progress towards our renewable energy targets. The progress, though, is impacted by changes to both electricity consumption and generation. We've got to the point where renewable energy electricity generation now makes up 34 per cent of all electricity generated in Wales. That's up from 27 per cent in 2022. We will be publishing our updated energy generation report. That will be published shortly, and it will, I hope, be published before the end of the Senedd term, and that will give the latest data in terms of both energy generation and use. But, of course, our ambitions are for Wales to meet the equivalent of 100 per cent of our annual electricity consumption from renewable sources by 2035, and to keep pace thereafter. So, those are, I think, ambitious targets. 

When we think about the targets around locally owned, we have a target for at least 1.5 GW of renewable energy capacity to be locally owned by 2035. I'm really delighted we've already nearly reached our 2030 target for 1 GW to be locally owned. That's really key to retaining benefit in Wales, which essentially is what underpins our approach to our energy strategy overall.

You've said that they're ambitious targets, but RenewableUK Cymru tell us that they don't believe that they are sufficiently ambitious to capture the full benefits of the energy transition. Is there an element of regret that you're not pushing harder on this?

I wouldn't agree that our targets lack ambition, I would say that they certainly do. We know that projected energy demand will nearly triple by 2050 because of our approach to decarbonisation, and I think that our targets are ambitious as we get on that route. We're aware of the 'Unleashing the Full Value of Welsh Renewables' report, advocating for those higher targets. Of course, we've been doing recent work alongside the energy sector on our energy sector deal, and I think that's going to be really important, in terms of ensuring that, going forward, we have that strong relationship, which will help the Welsh Government in terms of setting and meeting its target but also ensuring that the renewable sector plays a full part in that as well.

And then, of course, we've got to think about this in the context of the work that we've commissioned the National Energy System Operator to do around the strategic spatial energy plan. When that plan is available, then we can compare it to our targets and consider the full implications of that in terms of our approach to energy. I think the work that NESO has been doing has been really important. I know officials have been working hard to make sure that NESO has up-to-date and quality information from the Welsh Government, so that it can model a number of energy system options. Obviously, we want to be in a position where we have the least-cost option and the least-impact option for communities as well.

We'll come on to that in a minute. You've suggested there that, after this work is done, you'll look again at those targets. You haven't set sector-specific targets. Is that something you think that may well be an option, moving forward?

When a previous Minister consulted on this, and I think that was back in 2023, the consensus was that, actually, overall targets were better. I think I still support that, because even in the time I've been in this post, which is only 18 months, the level of innovation that is happening across the renewables sector is really quite staggering. So, I think sector-specific targets might put us in a different position, where we're chasing particular sectors and ignoring huge innovation that is happening in other parts. So, I still think that the overall target is the right approach.

Okay. Thank you.

I just wanted to briefly add that, at the time of publishing the targets and consulting on that, we did a lot of analysis about where we expect to meet those targets by type of technology. So, there was an analysis report, an evidence report, which sat alongside the targets, which broke down what we thought could come forward through the planning system, looking at solar, onshore wind, offshore wind, just to try and give some indication of where we expected to meet those targets from those types of technologies. So, there was information published alongside the targets that gave an indication of where we thought that that target would be met by technology without going down the route of specifying targets.

Sure. And it would be interesting to see where those are now in relation to the point that you were making, that, actually, what you thought might be the stronger growth areas over time might not well have been that, and had there been sector-specific targets, then maybe that would have taken your eye off the ball somewhat.

I think, so far, if you look at the breakdown in what we thought would come through the planning system, we're broadly there. So, we've had the offshore wind projects that have gone through the Contracts for Difference projects. They were specified in that target report, and they're coming through, they're on track. And if you look at the onshore pipeline as well, it's broadly in line with what we expected at the time of the analysis.

You mentioned CFD, Contracts for Difference. I mean, obviously, that's improved significantly in a Welsh sense, hasn't it, of late, so are you now confident that the process is working more effectively for us here?

Yes, I think so, certainly in terms of the most recent announcements. Ahead of that, I did write twice to the UK Government, and, of course, I have conversations with my counterparts to make sure that they understand the breadth of the opportunities here in Wales. And I was also keen to impress upon them that the size of the funding pots has to be commensurate with the size of the opportunity. So, I think that the recent announcements are really positive, and we can see more happening in that space.

I think part of this, as well, is about the increased confidence now that the industry has, following the work that we've been doing to speed up the planning process here in Wales. So, we had lots of renewable energy companies at our investment summit, because clean energy was one of our key topics there, and they were all really pleased to hear the First Minister say that she wanted Wales to be the fastest place in the UK to make planning determinations. And to do that, of course, we've invested heavily. We've invested strongly in Natural Resources Wales, in our own planning directorate, Planning and Environment Decisions Wales, so that they can increase the capacity there. And we've also changed those rules about allowing inspectors to take decisions up to 50 MW. We took decisions to invest in planning capacity in north Wales for infrastructure of significant size, and so on. So, I think that we've done quite a lot in this space to give developers confidence as well that Wales is a really good place to invest and where their projects will be seen quickly.

You mentioned there the need to accelerate the process of decision making around some of this. Of course, there is that constant tension then, isn't there, between the community having its say and having time to participate in these processes to feel that their voice is being heard. How is the cumulative—? I mean, there's a community impact, but there's an environmental impact as well, potentially, isn't there, of these projects being implemented. How is that cumulative impact being managed when you're trying to do things at pace?

I might ask Neil to come in with a bit more detail on this, but on that point about ensuring that we involve communities well and early, I was really pleased earlier this week to launch our guidance for pre-application consultation. That was a piece of work that Grasshopper communications developed for us, but it did so in strong partnership with the industry, and alongside Planning Aid Wales, which we continue to support to make sure that communities understand how they can best engage with the system. So, I think that that's a really, really good piece of work that should make community engagement at the very, very early stage more effective. So, that was really positive.

And then, just thinking again about the importance of speeding up planning decisions, last year, 13 developments of national significance were determined. That's the largest number that we've ever determined in a 12-month period, and we also reduced the time last year for decisions to be taken, or the average time, by six weeks. So, that's down to 30 weeks. So, I think it demonstrates that the changes that we've put in place and the investment that we've put in place are making a difference. But, on that point about cumulative impacts and policy 18 of 'Future Wales', and so on—

Yes, okay. The other thing to remember in terms of speeding up, though, is that we've just commenced the new infrastructure consenting process in Wales. So, we're moving away from developments of national significance towards a significant infrastructure consent process, which is not just the planning consent; it will give you all the consents you need to get the development up and running. So, rather than having to get your planning consent and then you may need to get another consent and another consent, you can now get them as one package. That'll be a big improvement, going forward, as well.

In terms of cumulative impact, we look at it at a number of different points in the process. Obviously, 'Future Wales', when the pre-assessed areas, particularly for wind, were looked at, the potential cumulative impacts were looked at there. The 'Future Wales' policies themselves make reference to cumulative impact being a legitimate thing for decision makers to consider. So, the inspector, when they're undertaking the examination of an application, will consider cumulative impact, as will Ministers when they make the final decision. So, that is built into the process.

There's also the opportunity where the inspector considers it appropriate to potentially have, if you like, a co-joined inquiry. We've seen that before in mid Wales for larger energy projects, larger windfarms, where a number of windfarms were considered together. So, that's an option as well. We believe that the process is robust and does consider cumulative impact. Also, the environmental impact assessment process takes that into account. So, it's built in at all the key decision-making stages.

Thank you. I know that Janet wants to come in, and Delyth as well. So, we'll take those, and then we'll come back.

How does the citizen feed into this new, faster way of deciding all these permissions, because we've got a major, as you know, windfarm coming off the coast of Llandudno and the community have not been consulted at all?

So, in terms of windfarms off the north Wales coast, they're not within our gift. They're actually consented through the nationally significant infrastructure process because they are above the 350 MW threshold. In terms of projects we consent, there is a pre-application consultation process that must be undertaken by the developer before they can submit their DNS/significant infrastructure consent application. The Minister's just referred to the good practice guidance, which was published this week, and also the additional support we're giving through Planning Aid Wales to ensure that communities have an opportunity to engage.

So, that scheme off Llandudno is not considered a significant scheme?

We have boundaries in the devolution settlement between the projects that we consent and the projects that the UK Government consent. Where they're above 350 MW, except for onshore wind, they go, essentially, through Whitehall.

Through the UK—

Yes. So, they have a slightly different process.

Yes, they do.

Delyth, and then Carolyn as well.

Thank you. Good morning. Just so I could understand, I appreciate that, almost, the consolidating consent regime would reduce bureaucracy and, for businesses, that would be a good thing. Might there be a flip side to that, though, in that there would be fewer potential opportunities for citizens to engage? If that is the case, do you think that there is a need for more of a robust effort to ensure that citizens definitely know where their opportunities are, because there will be fewer hinge points, almost?

When we, if you like, created the legislation, one of the concerns that communities raised was the multiple times that they're engaged. They don't know when they need to engage. They don't know which one is, if you like, the critical decision. So, in bringing it all together, there's one opportunity now, and it's clear to the community that that's the time that they need to engage. So, we feel that's a better approach.

We also have to remember there were some quite archaic regimes that we brought within the significant infrastructure consent process that have no community engagement at all. So, we've just tried to level that and give everyone the opportunity—give them the opportunity once, undertake it properly, inform the design of the project, and take it through the process.

We've also introduced things like, at the examination, the opportunity for open-floor hearings. So, the community get involved at that point, rather than having to decide which sessions they want to get involved in. It's a real opportunity to express any concerns or support for the proposal.

Briefly from Carolyn, and then we'll—.

Earlier, you said that you're hoping for 100 per cent renewable energy by 2035. If that should happen, are we able to decouple from the gas prices, then, in Wales, because pricing is set by gas pricing?

It would certainly help. The target is that we would host enough renewables to meet 100 per cent of our demand. The target doesn't say that that means that all of our energy will come from renewable sources. I think, because we’re part of the GB Energy system, it will still be the case—as you look at all the modelling that happens at the UK level by the National Energy System Operator—that gas is going to maintain as part of the energy system moving on.

Can we not separate from the GB Energy system?

The way that it’s set up now, in terms of the integration, that would be very difficult to do. The infrastructure does cross over the borders. But I think it’s very clear that the more that we have renewables on our system, the lesser that link to the global prices is at the moment. And if you see the prices that were awarded through the contracts for difference process, the price for onshore wind and onshore solar in particular was significantly lower than the global price of gas. So, investments in those technologies, and also the offshore technology as well, will reduce that dependency and bring a lower‑cost system to the consumer. 

And again, it creates insulation from global instability, which is very timely as well, isn’t it?

You wanted to come in, and then we’ll come to Janet, then we’ll move on.

Just on that point about the guidance, I'm really keen to share it with the committee. One of the things that the guidance talks about is how the engagement with community should be iterative, and developers should engage very early, so that communities are able to see the plans. But then developers should be able to say, 'Because you told us this, we’ve changed the route, the materials, the various different things to do with the proposal', so that communities can actually say, 'I see how my views have been taken into account.' Equally, if developers are unable to make the changes that communities want, then at least communities need to understand why the developments haven’t changed, and so on. So, I think that that kind of iterative, working with communities approach is really important. And then also on the cumulative impact point, just to mention that Planning and Environment Decisions Wales is making some changes to the planning portal. They’ll be publishing an interactive map of infrastructure applications so that that transparency is greater in terms of where the cumulative impacts might lie.

That’s interesting. Will that include at what stage of the process those are at? Because very often people have a pre‑application consultation with shiny displays in a village hall, and then they don’t hear anything for months, and they’re scratching their heads wondering, 'Where are we at with that?' Maybe that’s something that you can take away and consider.

It’s part of the online casework portal. Interested parties should be able to see where there are clusters of developments. I’ll check the level of detail, but you would expect it to be updated.

Sure, and maybe click through so that you can see where the application is at. Janet. 

Thank you. The Welsh Government has previously said it would judge whether a national energy plan was necessary once the timescales and scope of the strategic spatial energy plan and regional energy strategic plans became clear. What is the current position on this?

Our position has always been around that planned approach to the energy system, because we think that it will lead to—as I mentioned before—that kind of lower impact. So, you have the energy system that you need, and it has the least cost and least impact on people, whilst also obviously providing the access to the clean energy that we need. Since Wales pioneered the energy planning approach, the landscape has got a lot busier.

I’ve mentioned the work that NESO has been doing on the strategic plan, and also on the regional energy strategic plan. That will inform distribution network companies’ plans. So, there’s an awful lot of work going on at the moment. I know the original timescale for the strategic energy plan has been delayed, but we are looking forward to seeing some progress on the potential pathways in the coming months.

We’re already reviewing the impacts of our spatial planning work on energy through 'Future Wales: the National Plan', and then also working with regions and local authorities on their plans around the local energy plans for every authority. Ultimately, we’re focused on what levers we have here in Wales, but also I think that we probably are ahead of other parts of the UK in that planned approach that we’ve always taken.

A big one that keeps getting raised with me—. The question is: are you still on track to publish the renewable energy sector deal this month? When referring to the deal previously, you’ve suggested—and I think we need to be asking more from developers—. In terms of community benefits, can you outline what asks you’ve made of developers in the process to agree the deal, and what kind of things might feature in those asks?

We’re making really good progress on the renewable energy sector deal. The group had its last meeting the week before last, so I was able to attend that. Ed has been very involved in that, but I think it's been a really positive and collaborative piece of work. The current situation is that the companies that are involved in the deal now are taking the sector deal back to their boards to get agreement there. But assuming there won't be any big hitches, the plan is to publish it before the end of the month.

The community want to come with us all on this climate problem that we've got, but the solar farm on Anglesey, for instance, they were saying at the time to people just generally, it went round that, 'Oh yes, there's going to be all of these community benefits'. And then it's gone quiet on that aspect, and people just feel that big companies are coming in and taking parts of Wales and using it for their own ends and own profits, and then they just leave the community.

That kind of perception was definitely behind why we wanted to work with the industry on the sector deal. I'll ask Ed to just give a quick flavour of—.

It's probably worth just adding that in terms of the partners that are around the table on the sector deal, it's much broader than just the industry. So, it's not just the developers, we've got Menter Môn on the work as well, Community Energy Wales, and a number of other community groups as well, to make sure that this isn't just about speaking to industry about, 'What do you want?' It's very much about, 'What do we want as all key stakeholders in this energy transition?' and feeding that into the deal. So, it has been really constructive; it has been a negotiation—

Are elected Members at all ever involved in any of these? Because they're the voice of the people. Sometimes, I see where elected Members are not involved, and then there's this huge void. How does that information then get back to the community? 

We haven't included elected Members as part of the deal. It's very much been the stakeholders that are involved in delivering the projects and speaking for the communities on behalf of— 

I meant more at a community level—I don't mean all elected Members on a small board. But I do feel that that local elected input is necessary, because we're the ones they all come to, and we have to be a voice with knowledge and information, you see.

Just picking up the point on the level of community benefit, one of the challenges we've had is that the UK Government is currently consulting on the community benefit funds that are available, so they're talking about consulting on the kind of thresholds that are part of that. And so we haven't been able to specify that level of detail, because we're part of that wider UK consultation on those levels. But there are strong commitments around getting a greater level of benefit as part of this deal, not just in terms of community benefit funds, but also through supply chain benefits, investment in skills—it covers that whole spectrum of what we'd expect from project developments. 

Yes, I get that. It's more about where people feel they've had some—

Yes, I think you've made the point. And I think that's an important one, isn't it, albeit that elected representatives play their part in the wider public consultation processes, as I'm sure we all do anyway. Carolyn, we'll move on. 

Carbon capture and storage. How are we ensuring that having the CCS strategy will not slow innovation to actually decarbonise certain industries? I'll give you some examples.

For example, part of HyNet, which is UK Government-led, Heidelberg is building a new plant, which is going to be called low-carbon, but they're building a new one. Whereas, in Wrexham, new technology is being developed already with a low-carbon cement plant, eliminating the need for heat and kilns, and that is actually reducing carbon dioxide by 85 per cent. So, there is new technology already without having to build new plants to capture carbon and store it offshore.

Another example is Uniper, which is building another plant 10 times the size of what's existing, with 145m kilns. They were supposed to be 150m high, but the aerospace industry have complained, so they reduced it to 145m, which will need lots of cement and concrete to build it. So, to me, it doesn't make sense, when we're trying to decarbonise, that these big plants are being built where quarrying will be involved, et cetera.

I know it's UK Government-led and a development of national significance. When communities have tried to input and object, they've been told, 'It's happening anyway and there's nothing you can do about it.' When I've asked questions in the past, I've been told that the Welsh Government are looking to move away from expanding fossil fuels and to decarbonise and to not support these sorts of schemes. So, how do you tie that up?

I think that's why the policy that we published—I was going to say it was earlier this year, but I think it was towards the end—. The recent policy that we published was very much about making it clear that we support the deployment of carbon capture and storage where it makes a clear, measurable and sustained contribution to decarbonisation targets and objectives and where it supports and actually accelerates the move away from fossil fuels, and where the creation of emissions is first avoided to ensure that the emerging infrastructure is targeted to where it delivers the greatest decarbonisation and economic outcomes, and then when it contributes to growing a sustainable economy. Those are actually quite high bars, really, in terms of where carbon capture and storage infrastructure should be used. And we were very much about it being something that should be supported on that journey to net zero and as we transition away from fossil fuels. So, that was our approach, really, and it was something that we developed, again, in collaboration with industry and following quite significant consultation as well. 

Can you outline work to develop a policy for the utilisation of carbon dioxide, including timescales, rather than storing it offshore, which is a concern for environmentalists? Because, again, with carbon dioxide, the nature of it is still relatively unknown. I remember a geologist saying at the start that they're concerned about leakage and acidification of the sea. Here, again, there are new technologies, so if you capture it and store it there, or you could develop into pellets, use it in the food industry, energy itself—once it's stored offshore, that's it then, basically. It's a lost product. We've got the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 in Wales, we've got the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance, so—.

We've been pressing the UK Government for some time on the issue of non-pipeline transport for carbon capture, and the UK Government now has—. I think it's published its consultation. It hasn't yet closed, so that's ongoing at the moment. That really provides some insight as to how this could be used in future. We think that the information will form the foundation for additional policy work now specifically on the utilisation of carbon dioxide. Non-pipeline transport we think unlocks transport between carbon dioxide producers and otherwise disconnected users. So, potentially broadening the geographic range of the potential usage of it. We’ve been pressing the UK Government to undertake that consultation, and it has, but I think that work will have to continue and guidance will have to be developed in response to that. So, I think that'll be future work for the next Government.

Please could you send me the link to that consultation on the pipeline? Again, the Health and Safety Executive have had to write new guidelines for the piping of carbon dioxide because, again, its nature is relatively unknown and there have been concerns, should there be leakage, of asphyxiation, as happened in Satartia, Mississippi. So, there's concern for communities where it's passing by.

Can I just ask Ed to say something about the work that we've commissioned on the regulatory route-map as well?

Yes, absolutely. First, just picking up your point around the innovation, that's absolutely right. If you look at the work that's going on around south-west Wales, particularly around RWE's plans to capture carbon and ship that, that's linking with the wider industrial cluster there as well. So, they're looking at how they can use that captured carbon, how they can use the residual heat from those processes to decarbonise other activities in the region. So, it very much fits in with that wider net-zero industrialisation process and plans that are in place. 

In terms of the guidance, we've published the policy, which we worked up with industry, and we're going through the process now of developing a regulatory route-map. We hope to publish that at the end of this month, and that really sets out where the regulatory processes are going to sit, what's the responsibility for Welsh Ministers and our environmental bodies, what's the responsibility of the UK Government, because they're also developing their own regulatory route-map, because this is an area where there's dual competence, depending on where the carbon-capture technology is going to be.

With the combination of those two regulatory route-maps coming together, then, we're looking to then develop the guidance later on this year, which will hopefully then bring forward the clarity that investors need about how to apply our policy in Wales and the kind of requirements that we need from a regulatory perspective. 

The industry is looking to be a net importer and import carbon dioxide from Europe as well, as part of the business case, and pipe it again offshore, which is a concern. So, you know—. Sorry, I will move on. I'll let you move on, sorry. But it's the first time I've been able to air this and discuss it here. Thank you.

Yes. Okay. But you will send us a link to that document. Janet.

Could you provide an overview of the areas you've highlighted to the UK Government where further joint work is needed when granting your consent for the GBE statement of strategic purpose? In which areas are you most concerned, and how are you ensuring that the work of GBE, including the Ymestyn grant scheme, does not duplicate Welsh Government funding?

This is something that we've worked really closely on, since the UK Government announced Great British Energy. We've been working really closely through Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru since the very earliest stages. We see this as a really good opportunity for us. We've got Trydan Gwyrdd Cymru already up and running. We've got Ynni Cymru already delivering programmes. And we just know from the experience of setting up those two bodies how long this can take, and how long it can take before the difference is actually felt. So, we're working with the UK Government to make sure that they can use our investment models, essentially, to get investment into communities. We've published a statement of how we would work jointly together. I think the engagement thus far has been really, really positive. We've also got good examples of work that's been undertaken by the Welsh Government's energy service, and, again, that's a way we can collaborate through the UK Government's local energy plan in terms of making sure that projects happen on the ground. So, overall, I think things have been really positive. Areas probably where we would want to see more action would be around the marine sector. We think that in Wales we've got lots of opportunities here—so, tidal stream projects, for example—but those discussions are now under way as well.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Can I just move on to planning, then, because you've said that you expect the review of the national development framework, 'Future Wales', to begin in 2026? Has it started?

Yes. Officials have already commenced developing the monitoring report to review how 'Future Wales' has progressed against the seven key questions that were set out within 'Future Wales'. The kind of evidence that we'll be using will be the national indicators—so, the 46 national indicators that we have—and those demonstrate progress against our well-being goals, and then the 'Future Wales' policy-related indicators that look at key trends in the sector, the integrated sustainability appraisal, and the contextual evidence and influencing factors—so, what new research there has been, what developments and innovation there's been over that period. So, the anticipation is that that monitoring report will be published before the end of the Senedd. There's a lot happening before the end of this Senedd.

What is being published, sorry, did you say?

The monitoring report.

Yes, so it won't be reviewed in that timescale, obviously.

No, the monitoring report will—

Inform the review, basically.

—set out, yes, what the review would look like and should dive into.

And is there any indication of how long do you think getting to that point of a reviewed national development framework—? How far away would that be, do you think? Or is that too dependent on other factors?

It's dependent on the election.

Yes, of course—of course. [Laughter.] But, ordinarily, what would you expect? Well, I know we haven't done this before—

It's also dependent on whether a future Government decides that change is necessary. We've got to remember that this is a 40-year plan. We're five years into it. We've seen quite a lot of turbulence—probably more than we've seen in the preceding 40 years, arguably—so it's going to be a choice that will need to be made.

Yes. Okay. And of course, as we know, the NDF sits on top of a hierarchy of other plans and the strategic development plans, the regional strategic development plans, are being developed, I suppose. So, could you tell us—? I think you mentioned in a budget paper that £400,000 had been set aside to kick start the SDP preparation for south-east and north Wales, or at least it's been spent in or for south-east and north Wales. Could you just tell us what specifically, what kinds of things, have been paid for from that?

The full amount has been claimed in south-east Wales thus far—the full amount being £200,000—in south-east Wales. Thus far in north Wales, it's £50,000, although we do expect the full amount to be claimed. And the kinds of things it's paid for include a secondee from local authorities to drive forward the foundation of the delivery agreement and then to undertake public consultation, and to make sure then that that delivery agreement could be submitted to Welsh Ministers. And then an additional post has been filled to assist with the SDP progress—costs around recruitment, advertising and so on is part of that £200,000. And then the strategic development plan sub-committee and the secretariat to support that committee work has also been set up. So, the various costs around the delivery agreement, mostly in relation to consultation, translation, staffing costs, advertising costs and so on. And then also some costs in relation to the visioning workshop, which was facilitated by the Design Commission for Wales, and some ongoing contractual costs for the design commission for technical evidence as well. So, that's the kind of the thing that that money has paid for, and will pay for, in north Wales, which is slightly behind.

That's a pretty comprehensive answer, in fairness. So, can you tell us, then, about south-west Wales, because there are concerns about finance being in place to progress the SDP there? What do you do to alleviate those concerns?

So, the original funding in south-west Wales, I think that they allocated around £22,500.We felt that that was going to be insufficient, really, to deliver. I know that the issue has been relooked at now, and the funding is much more in line with what we would expect, so we would expect to be able to provide our additional funding to support what has been now identified to take that work forward. 

Okay. Janet, do you want to come in on this? 

Can you provide an update on the SDP development in mid Wales?

So, in mid Wales, I think that there is an agreement that they're not planning to progress an SDP. I know that efforts at the moment are focused on Powys's local development plan review, and I think that we're comfortable with the approach that they're taking in that part of the world, bearing in mind the kinds of things that the SDP would look at. It is a very different picture, I think, across those authorities.

Okay. So, can you confirm where corporate joint committees have not met the expectation set out in your predecessor's 2023 letter, as highlighted in your paper, i.e. a delivery agreement, demonstration of some technical work and the employment of an officer by 2024?

So, I think that they will have met the expectations set out by the end of this year—

So, that will be two years—

—or, certainly, it would have been met in north and south-east, and shortly by south-west. But, as I said, mid Wales isn't expected to meet that in the same way. 

So, if I could just add to that, the issue we're facing with development plans is we've got a limited number of people out there who can actually undertake the work. Back in 2015, when we first introduced the legislation, the first round of local development plans had been prepared, and, in preparing those, we identified, as did the communities and business and others, that there were some issues that needed to be addressed on a larger than local authority basis.

So, if we'd started the strategic development plans in 2015, we had people who could move from the local development plan into the strategic plan. That decision wasn't made locally. So, we've gone through another iteration of local development plans. What you see in south-east Wales and north Wales now is that people have gone through that iteration. So, for example, Bridgend has completed its local development plan, which has released resource to work on a strategic plan for the region as a whole. In north Wales, Flintshire have prepared their LDP, which has released resource. The south-west Wales partnership will shortly finish their LDP.

In mid Wales, we're still in a cycle of LDP preparation, and the question becomes: is it better to have a strategic plan and scrap the local development plan, or get the local development plan in place and the policy coverage that gives you, then, to manage development for your communities? The other thing in mid Wales is that there are relatively few issues that are cross-border between Ceredigion and Powys—energy being a key one of them, which is addressed largely through 'Future Wales'. So, we're having to work within that differing, I suppose, context, in terms of both people and issues. 

And what about the—

Sorry, Janet, can I just come in, before we move on? That wasn't part of the plan, ironically, of the Planning (Wales) Act 2015, was it? Because I was part of this committee that scrutinised the planning Act that was passed in 2015. It took six years to get the national development framework in place, and here we are, nine—sorry, five—years later, and we still don't have a single strategic development plan in place. And we were told that, yes, it's going to take a long time for all of these tiers of plans to align, because you need the NDF and then you need the SDPs and then you need the LDPs in place. We're 11, 12 years down the line and we're still not halfway there.

So, the intention in 2015, based on where we were with local development plans, was that we could have developed the strategic plans and the NDF in parallel. That didn't happen. So, we—

Why, though? Why did it not happen?

I think it's because of lack of resources, is that what you're saying or—?

That's part of it.

Okay. Maybe that's a question for the Cabinet Secretary, or previous Cabinet Secretary, I don't know—I'm just reading your face there. [Laughter.] But it is of concern, obviously, because it was laid out in front of us as part of the Act that was passed and agreed. We're nowhere near where we thought we would be at this point, really. I'm looking at the Cabinet Secretary. I don't know whether you concur.

We'd certainly prefer to be further ahead than where we are now.

What about the employment of an officer by 2024, on my previous question? Has that officer been employed yet? 

So, people have been employed in south-east Wales, in north Wales, and there are people seconded to undertake work in south-west Wales at the moment.

What plans have you got to have more planning officers?

Do you want me to answer that one?

Well, shall we just finish on this first? So, if this committee was—. I mean, this is part of our legacy consideration as well, in terms of what we recommend to our successor committee in the next Senedd. If we were to ask them to do post-legislative scrutiny of the planning Act, so it would be about 12 years after the Act was passed, would you expect it to be critical? Sorry, that's probably an odd question to ask, but I'm telling you that, if I was a member of that committee, as I am this committee, I have to say, that there is, to put it mildly, frustration that things haven't panned out as they should have. And I know you will say that we do have the NDF, we do have policy statements—there is a framework in place, it's not a void—but it's certainly not what was passed and agreed by the Senedd in terms of the structure that we were led to believe would be put in place.

So, the other thing you need to remember is that the 2015 planning Act, when it introduced strategic development plans, that was a discretionary power that local authorities could apply collectively. It was the Local Government and Elections (Wales) Act 2021 that mandated the preparation of a strategic plan. So, there was a change. We didn't mandate in 2015; the mandation came later. We then hit COVID, and the issues around getting LDPs through the process. So, there's some contextual information as well that needs to be considered.

Okay. So, my last question in this is: by when do you think the whole architecture, as set out in the planning Act, will be in place? That's the $1 million dollar question, and I know maybe it's difficult to answer, but what's your best estimate, given the circumstances we find ourselves in at the minute?

So, we're looking at another four years to get adopted strategic plans in place. They're starting now.

And that, then, will shake down into the LDPs, once they come around for review. 

We've got a refresh of LDPs coming now.

Yes. So, it's another 10 years, then, really, isn't it, or maybe the review, after so many years?

We're looking for speedy reviews. There's no point having a tier of strategic plans if we just take as long on local development plans as well. So, there's a shorter process there.

Sure. Okay. Thank you. Janet, sorry.

Thanks. Why has there been a delay in publishing the formal consultation on the SDP manual?

So, I think that, again, is that resourcing and capacity issue. So—

Can I just say, Cabinet Secretary, it's holding Wales back? I see this as really urgent. Do you feel your department sees the urgency in it?

So, definitely, and I know the First Minister also feels the urgency. Because that's why she put economy, energy and planning together, and it's why, through the budget in the previous year, we were able to provide another £9 million to increase resourcing. So, when I referred to the figures last year in terms of the developments of national significance, and the increased speed at which we're able to do things, we've seen increased investment not only within our own team here in the planning directorate in Welsh Government, but then also through additional funding for Planning and Environment Decisions Wales, for local authorities' planning departments. We've moved to full cost recovery now for planning applications in local government, so I think that you are starting to see the improvement in capacity and the availability of people to undertake the planning work as a result of that investment. 

We just need to get planning officers wanting to work in Wales. 

We'll come on to that in a minute. You wanted to bring something in as well, Carolyn. 

Yes, please. As part of reviewing the national development framework, there’s ‘Planning Policy Wales’ and technical advices notes sit alongside that as well. And there have been calls to review MTAN 1 and quarrying buffer zones. We had a debate on this in the Chamber regarding it. We were told that there was a working group who were against it. Who sits on the working group who would be against reviewing MTAN 1? You don't know.

Which working group is that, is the question, I think, isn't it?

Yes. That was the response to it. 

No, I'm asking you which working group we are asking about.

That was the response we had to the petition debate. We were calling for review of MTAN 1.

I remember. I was part of that, yes. 

And then the response was that it's not likely to happen, and the working group would be against it. That was the response. So, I want to know who's on the working group. Are communities involved with the working group? Because the buffer zones, the petition wanted to increase them to 1,000m, didn't it? At the moment, some quarrying happens less than 200m away from communities, and the argument I'm being told by the quarrying lobbyists is that they want those minerals right on the edge of those buffer zones. But the impact on communities, the noise, the dust, the silica in the air—. It’s something that many Senedd Members as a group have asked for, for it to be reviewed to reflect the impact on the community. We've also got the soundscapes and air quality Bill or something, whatever it's called, going through. So, I'm asking the question now, please.

Can I check the—? I'll go back and check exactly what we wrote back to the Petitions Committee who raised it, and individual Members have raised it as well, to double-check which working group.

We did ask for a meeting, but we haven't had a response about a meeting, so I've asked it here. Because we haven't got much time left, have we, to ask these questions?

No, we haven't. It's three weeks, to be precise. 

So, that's why I'm asking you here. 

So, maybe a written note just explaining what the latest situation is on that, and where, if anywhere, those considerations are being—

And are the views of communities reflected on that working group, or is it just the industry's voices? Thank you. 

Thank you. Do you want to carry on with questions about planning?

I think that was—. Oh, increasing the planning system. Yes. Could you update the committee on the various initiatives to address capacity issues? We talked earlier about having enough capacity in local government to develop these LDPs.

I mentioned the additional £9 million that we're putting into the planning directorate, PEDW and local government. I think already we're seeing some significant improvements in terms of the number of people who are working in the sector. It has allowed PEDW to increase capacity to 29 inspectors from 20, when it was created in 2021, and the infrastructure casework team there has also increased from two to five since 2021. Some of the additional budget that we've provided them has been to develop the casework portal, which I mentioned earlier—some of the improvements there around showing cumulative applications. Interested parties can now filter documents on the portal to find out what they're interested in viewing, and they can also sign up to watch individual cases as well as they develop, so when there's additional information provided, they can get notified.

And then, in terms of NRW, there have been 56 new delivery roles, of which 29 have already been appointed, 20 are currently in the recruitment stage, and, again, there's a new planning advice framework contract being established with dedicated procurement support, so lots of improvements there, and we've had an increase in the number in Neil's team as well.

Also, through that work, we're providing specific support for local authorities through the town planning bursary scheme. We've also funded two specific posts in north Wales to deal with those infrastructure developments as well, and of course, alongside that, we've got the full cost recovery, or the move towards full cost recovery, which I referred to. We've said to local government that we would expect to see that funding reinvested in planning services, and we'll be keeping a close eye on that.

At one time, there was talk about having a pool of building regulation officers. So, has that happened as well, investing in those, so there could be a pool for different areas with expertise? 

So, we're looking to see how local government can share resources, particularly those staff who have specialist skills, or where their skills are more sparsely needed across specific projects. Neil, do you want to say a bit more?

Yes, I'll just say a bit more. So, we just recently completed some work with the Royal Town Planning Institute, looking at the workforce needs in the planning profession. So, we published the report probably a fortnight ago. There are a number of things that it identifies. It identifies that there has been a slight uplift in the numbers of people working in planning recently. There are still quite a lot of vacancies. We need to do more to address those. There is a big issue coming down the line around succession planning. We haven't been taking people into the planning profession or into the public sector for a long time, and that is now working its way through.

There are particular challenges around some of the more specialist functions linked to planning. So, in north Wales, for example—you've mentioned a number of significant projects—there's no landscape capability within any of the planning authorities across north Wales. So, how do you address that? Part of the answer is working through the Pathways to Planning project, which is where we essentially pay part, the education part, so changing graduates in geography into planners, or that sort of thing. That's had some success, probably not as much as we'd hoped. We are talking to local authorities about whether there are other options—distance learning options, for example. So, in a number of authorities, as you get further away from our sole planning school, or further away from Manchester or Liverpool in the north Wales context, it's harder to attract and retain people. So, if they can get a graduate coming out of geography in Aberystwyth, can we recruit them? Can we then put them through a course? So, we're talking about those sorts of projects as well.

I remember, when I was a councillor, that the apprenticeship levy, when it was introduced, was an issue for local authorities. It cost them a lot of money, and that was something that we hoped could be addressed in Wales. Is that something that you could look at as well?

I think there's work going on, work that Jack Sargeant's leading on in terms of the apprenticeship levy. Perhaps I can provide the committee with a note on that. 

Julie wants to come in on this, and then we'll come back to you, Carolyn.

I just wanted to ask quickly about the sole planning school in Wales, which, of course, is in Cardiff University. There have been a lot of queries about it and whether it was under threat. Are you confident now that at least our one planning school will remain?

From our conversations with the school, yes, we are confident at this point in time. I think one of the issues we've certainly discussed more widely with them is the ability to increase the pipeline, because Wales is no different to England, to Scotland. Everyone at the moment is clamouring to get more planners, and it may well be that the academic institutions are the constraint on supply, rather than the actual people wanting to go on through a planning qualification. 

Not taking enough people, you mean.

Well, if they've got a limitation on the number of staff they've got at the moment, they can't increase the number. Obviously, that caps how many people you can train at any one point in time. So, those are the sorts of discussions we're having with the university, with the Royal Town Planning Institute, with local government, and some of the consultants as well.

Thank you.

We're going to make progress now then. We've got about 35 minutes left, and I'm sure we're going to use them. So, Delyth, over to you.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. I was going to ask you about attempts to make planning more accessible. I appreciate we've already touched on this quite a bit, but when it comes to planning consolidation Bills, could you talk us through anything extra to what you've already said on your hopes about how that will make members of the public more aware of their rights? I was particularly struck by what the Cabinet Secretary and Neil had both said about how you hope for citizens to be not just empowered to complain, but to be able to shape proposals as well. So, in terms of planning law consolidation, is there anything in there that you'd like to highlight, please?

So, Julie James has been leading on the planning law consolidation work. I believe that Neil and his team have been helping with that, so I might turn to Neil.

Yes, we've been helping with it for a little while now. So, the basic thing to remember is that it doesn't change the law in any way. It's a project purely about consolidating the law. I think one of the main benefits from this is that we're going to have, for the first time, a planning statute book that is for Wales only. If anyone watches what happens over the border, there have been numerous changes to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which has made it impossible for anyone except a lawyer to actually understand what's going on. So, we've stripped all that away. And if the Senedd votes it through next week, we will have, for the first time in many years, a clean basis to work from. It will mean that things like the pre-application consultation process, which was introduced in 2015, will be much clearer, how that relates. There's also going to be a lot of work to do to tidy up the secondary legislation, which sits behind the primary legislation. So, a lot of consolidation work will need to be done there as well, and a lot of refreshing.

What we're trying to get to is a position where the planning law is accessible and understandable, which allows people to engage fully in the process. At the moment, unless you employ a lawyer, it's very hard to do that. And even the lawyers don't get it right all the time, because it's so complicated. So, we think it's a big move in the right direction, but we don't underestimate the amount of work still to be done.

Thank you for that. I welcome the work that you're doing on it. You mentioned the secondary legislation, and I know that you've suggested that the implementation is going to be for the next Government, but what work is under way, please, to make sure that that secondary legislation goes through regardless of the fact that we have the election coming up, regardless of that slight hiccup? I was going to call it a 'hindrance', but then I thought you can't call a democratic process a 'hindrance'.

No, far from it.

So, we could do some preparatory work now, but the ultimate decision is for the next Government to make. We obviously hope that the next Government will see value in the work and will carry it through. There are some things that are more advanced than others, so we have consulted on changes to regulations in relation to trees, for example, to update the law for tree preservation orders, and things like that. There will be a need for a very quick piece of legislation to explain how the secondary legislation changes—you know, just tidying up, 'Section so-and-so becomes so-and-so', and not actually change the secondary legislation in any way. So, again, it's a sort of consequential provisions-type approach that will need to be taken. And then behind that, we will need to decide which pieces of secondary legislation need to be consolidated and changed, so things like the procedure order, how you address the planning system, and permitted development—we've made lots of changes to permitted development over the years. There are advertisement consents, there's a whole host of things, and we're looking at quite a few years' work, still, to tidy it.

Yes. I knew it was a big undertaking. You've just peeled off a whole different layer in my head, really, in terms of it being much bigger than I actually appreciated it is. Yes, okay. Thank you for that. Julie.

Yes. I wanted to ask about permitted development, which has caused some concern in my constituency, particularly the issues about removing the 3m boundary rule for air source heat pumps. So, I wondered if you could tell us what is happening with that and what is the timescale.

Yes. We undertook a consultation on a range of permitted development rights, and the plan is to make changes, or to propose changes to the Senedd for air source heat pumps and temporary camping, and to do so before the end of this Senedd term, so in the next three weeks.

So, that will be done within the next three weeks.

Yes. And the proposal on the air source heat pumps is to include the removal of the 3m rule, bearing in mind the changes that have happened in technology, and so on, you know, the actual kit itself has moved on an awfully long way.

Yes, I have had situations where people have had loans for development and have been there waiting, and waiting since last summer for the change, so that's very good news that it's going to be done now within the next three weeks. Thank you very much for that. Would that include the reverse vending machines and relaxing permitted development rights for our street parking electric vehicle charging units?

There were some areas in the consultation where the evidence was clear and the support was clear—so, around the 3m rule for the air-source heat pumps, and changes in relation to temporary camping. There were other areas, though, where we thought that the picture was less clear and that there would be a need for more work to be done. So, those areas did include the reverse vending machines and also the issue around permitted development rights for electric vehicle charging. So, those would be areas for a future Government, potentially, to take forward, because they did need more work.

So, the consultation was not clear on those.

No, the responses did suggest that there would be a need for further work and further analysis and conversation.

It was, in terms of further technical work, actually understanding what we're dealing with here, and also further drafting work—can we actually draft for it? I think we took the view, in the time available, that there were two areas that were critical, which we wanted to progress, and those areas were air-source heat pumps and temporary camping sites. If we attempted to take through the whole consultation paper, we wouldn't do it in this Senedd.

Right. So you've chosen the ones that you can do.

That have the greatest impact, that we have the technical ability to do, and the drafting to take them forward.

Right. Thank you. The UK Government has recently consulted on introducing permitted development rights for cross-pavement and EV charging solutions. So, what consideration have you given to this? I know that the Cabinet Secretary for transport has been concerned about this issue. So, what consideration have you given to introducing changes in Wales?

So, this was part of our consultation—

That was part of the consultation.

Yes, so we do have a body of evidence now. I think that this, again, will be something for the next Government to look at. But, of course, we're monitoring developments in England as well, because we know that it's something that has been consulted on there.

I think the view is that planning permission is not generally the main barrier to cross-pavement EV charging solutions in practice. Some of the main challenges are around street works licensing and local highway authority responsibilities. Permitted development rights alone wouldn't address those particular concerns. So, I think that's some of the complexity, isn't it, that was raised in the consultation.

Yes, that's correct. This is quite complicated. Permitted development rights normally go with the property to the boundary of the property. We're obviously going into a highway here as well. So, how do we draft for something like that? How does it sit alongside different regimes in terms of local highways controls as well? I understand there have been some case studies where transport colleagues and local authorities have been working with local residents to see what works and what doesn't work. So, I think it's a bit premature to introduce permitted development rights changes without having the complete picture in terms of what is and what isn't achievable.

Right, so that'll be the next Government.

Yes, that's quite a large piece of work.

Thank you.

Thank you. There we are. Okay, Janet, we'll move on to you.

Thanks. We've received correspondence suggesting that figures quoted in relation to renewable energy developments on 'homes supplied' can be misleading. We understand you've received similar correspondence. What is your response to this, and are you content that safeguards are in place to ensure the evidence supplied by developers is accurate? I am really concerned about this aspect of your work, if you like, in the fitting of this, and, of course, we've seen Consumer Energy Services have gone, leaving a lot of people now stranded in terms of developments on their homes. I just wondered what you are doing to make sure that the evidence you get in terms of numbers is not misleading.

I think that those figures are generally used by developers to express generation capacity in a way that is easily understood by laypeople. We are aware of that correspondence that you referred to, and we also had it. We did look at that, and we assessed the calculations relevant to the development highlighted, and we do think that the figures there do appear justifiable and they’re not inherently misleading. But we do also think that clarity could have been improved by sourcing assumptions and clarifying some of the language there as well. I don’t know, Ed, if there is anything else to add.

Yes, just to add, there are published data that sit behind that. I know RenewableUK Cymru, for example, have got the calculation on their website to use, and it’s using data that’s published by the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero about load factors by each generation type as the benchmark of how much electricity it's likely to produce, and then also using the average energy use of homes as well. So, again, using those two factors, you can work out the kind of a standardised number of homes that could be supplied from that facility. So, there are source data sets and calculations that developers should be using, based on that published data that’s been quality assured by DESNZ as part of their process for publishing it.

I know it’s cost them—[Interruption.] Oh, go on.

I was just going to ask who polices that to make sure that people don’t just overly inflate figures when they go out to public consultation or something.

I don’t know who polices it, but you can make reference to the published data sources from DESNZ to see whether the numbers that are published are in line with the quality-assured data that’s published by the UK Government on those.

Sure. For us, the concern, though, is that sometimes there’s a risk that people could play fast and loose with that a little bit. So, there’s nobody policing it. Okay.

Yes. And then, strangely enough—I don’t know if other Members have found this—but they’re coming in more regularly now, where people have had new schemes, and they’re actually no better off financially. They’re saying that they’re using more in certain instances. But anyway, that’s by the by.

So, we’re moving on to the infrastructure.

We are moving on now because—

The National Infrastructure Commission for Wales says its current model is insufficient for future challenges, and has set out options to become an empowered statutory body. Although a matter for the next Government, what assessment have you made of the commission’s future, including the strengths and risks of the different models?

I was really grateful to NICW for sending their document that suggested future models. I think, when you put a body on a statutory footing, you have to, I guess, ask why—so, what is it about the statutory footing that would make the body more effective, more accountable, and so on, because there are different models? So, I’m aware that the UK Government has absorbed the National Infrastructure Commission there into HM Treasury, so that there is direct advice without the associated administrative costs of an external body. So, there are different models to get the advice. I suppose, from a Government perspective, your prime concern is that you do have the ability to access that expertise and advice easily. I guess the structure that sits around it is probably secondary; you just need to make sure that it comes to you in the most effective way.

Thank you. And then, the commission has raised concerns about Welsh Government engagement with its work, including unclear responses to recommendations and a loss of technical expertise to understand its evidence. How do you respond to that?

So, certainly, some of the work from NICW is very, very technical. I know that officials do meet to discuss the specific reports. I think that, particularly with the work that’s been done recently, there’s been a meeting to discuss the climate adaptation report, with a view to providing a detailed response. But, again, that’s a detailed response that we would want to publish before the end of this Senedd term.

Okay. Thanks.

I would say that there are questions about how seriously this Government has taken the work of NICW. We’re constantly hearing that there are delays and late responses and lack of response to recommendations. I think the suggestion that it should be put on a statutory body is borne out of frustration that this Government isn’t really taking its work seriously enough.

I would disagree with that, and I know we had a debate in the Senedd on this particular point. I’ve met with NICW to talk about their work and taken a real interest in that, and I know that officials do meet regularly as well. I know part of their terms of reference also says that they should monitor their recommendations, and I would want them to be particularly proactive in doing that as well. So, it’s a relationship that comes from both sides.

But NICW have clearly told us that they don't feel that you're playing your part, if it's a game of two sides.

No, I'm aware of those concerns. But I will say that officials do take the work very seriously, and understanding, of course, that it is very technical and it does take some time to get to the bottom of that.

Just to add on that, from an energy perspective, they produced their energy report a couple of years ago, and I've engaged directly with the chair and the members a number of times, not just in terms of the initial response from the Government, but also in follow-up discussions, because this work continues to develop, continues to grow, and continues to change, as does the context. So, just from an energy perspective, we have regular engagement still with the commission about their work and their recommendations, so we're informed and developing it together.

Yes, which is good to hear, but in terms of formal responses to recommendations within certain timescales, we're hearing all the time that things are not coming back, in a way, from the Government—direct responses to recommendations from reports being promised, not delivered, saying, 'It'll come', not arriving, and then eventually getting there. Do you blame them for being frustrated about that?

I would never blame anyone for being frustrated if timescales weren't met in the way that was anticipated. I think that's entirely fair—to be frustrated about points like that. But in terms of the latest report, as I say, we do intend to provide a response before the end of the Senedd term. 

Okay. Thank you. Carolyn.

With the election period approaching very soon, can I ask you a question? When will you be calling in the planning applications in relation to Ffos-y-fran? I've been asked to ask you that. Do you know?

I don't—

So, we have—[Inaudible.] We obviously don't comment on whether we're going to call in or when we're going to call them in.

And I don't know if I will get advice on that before the end of the Senedd term.

So, you've not decided yet whether or not to call them in.

Well, obviously, we wouldn't expect you to announce that.

We can't comment on casework.

No, no—that's okay. That's okay. 

Delyth.

I appreciate that you won't be able to answer this at this moment, but I would just like to urge you, please, if there is anything that you can do, because I appreciate, from Neil's point, that it could be seen as casework, but this is something of national significance, though. It's in the area I represent, but it's not in the area that Carolyn represents. I think that there's a lot of concern not just about this one site, but the precedents that could be set. So, if I could urge you, if there's anything that you could do, it would be something that would be not just of benefit to those residents, but to many—[Interruption.]

I think what we can ask is whether there's a timescale for making that decision.

Not at this point.

Okay. Thank you. Julie.

Yes, thank you. I was going on to Cardiff Airport.

Which is another one we need to be careful with, yes. [Laughter.]

I wondered if you could give us your assessment, really, of how Cardiff Airport has performed during this Senedd term. Obviously, there has been a slow recovery in passenger numbers since the pandemic, and I wondered if you thought the long-term plan would address this.

Again, this is an area where we need to be really careful, given where we are in terms of the legal proceedings. But I think, over the Senedd term, if we think back to where we were five years ago, with face masks and so on, I think an awful lot has happened over the last five years. Cardiff Airport has now got 39 direct routes. It's offering access to over 150 global routes via Amsterdam. It has recovered 60 per cent of its pre-COVID passenger volume, recording 985,000 passengers through the terminal by the end of February of this year. So, that's an 11 per cent increase on the previous 12 months. And we've had some really exciting announcements, haven't we, in terms of Ryanair continuing to grow their summer programme. We've had TUI basing a second aircraft now for this winter season. And also, of course, the launch of the WestJet's direct flights to Toronto was really, really exciting as well. So, I think all of that's really positive.

We know that there's significant infrastructure investment under way, including a new solar farm. Also, British Airways investment in its Cardiff facility highlights the importance of the airport as a centre for aerospace maintenance as well. So, when we think of the airport, we often talk about it just in terms of passengers, but, actually, there's a lot of important work that goes on beyond the passenger side of things as well.

That is quite an encouraging picture that you paint. That's very good. How did you evaluate the rescue and restructuring plan, which preceded the long-term strategy?

That came to an end in December 2024, and the Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Transport and North Wales provided a written statement on 22 July 2024. He said that, as with other airports across the UK, the COVID-19 pandemic presented significant challenges and its effects are still being felt at the airport. That was what he said. The Welsh Government at that point took decisive action to protect the airport through the pandemic, providing essential financial support through that three-year rescue and restructuring package. As the package drew to a close, the Welsh Government worked with the airport leadership team to develop that longer term strategy, focused on how the airport can contribute to the economic growth of the area and help reduce economic inactivity in south Wales. I think that when you evaluate the rescue and restructuring package, it did achieve its objectives in terms of enabling the airport to recover from the impact of the pandemic. That's probably all I can say in terms of that, but I would refer you to the written statements that have been provided.

Thank you very much for that. Given the Competition and Markets Authority review and the ongoing Competition Appeal Tribunal case, how is the Government managing legal and financial risk while ensuring that the airport can still progress its commercial development plan?

I think that's one of the areas that I probably shouldn't be discussing while the legal case is ongoing. 

Okay. Fine. Can you update us on the reporting process for the £206 million subsidy package?

A monitoring process has been agreed as part of the terms and conditions of the subsidy package agreement between the Welsh Government and Cardiff International Airport Ltd. The first six-monthly report on the 2025-26 allocation has been received and it will be used to evaluate performance and to shape priorities for the 2026-27 allocation. And of course, I'm sure that the next Welsh Government will be able to then provide a written update once the internal assessment process has been completed, and of course when the tribunal process is complete.

Has any of this evaluation been done yet?

The monitoring process has been agreed and the first six-monthly report has been received. 

Are there any details that you would be able to share on the strategy and evaluation reports once the tribunal process is completed?

As soon as the tribunal process is completed, it would be my intention to provide an update to the Senedd.

Do we know when the tribunal process will be completed?

No, I was going to say, assuming it's this side of the election. We don't have a date yet, I'm afraid.

You don't know. Right. 

But you'd expect whoever is the Welsh Government to provide a proper update to the Senedd.

Right. Thank you very much. 

Thank you. Okay. I don't see any further questions. 

Thank you, Chair.

That's confusing, because I've got the translation—

There is a bit of feedback on that, yes. That's okay.

I will continue in English, if you'll allow me.

Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I welcome the chance to discuss our work, the challenges we face and the actions that we're taking to serve our customers and communities. I started in my role at the beginning of January, and I've been struck by the depth of commitment, professionalism and public service ethos of our people and the pride they take in serving our customers. I've also witnessed the fact that we are not meeting customers' expectations in a number of areas, and I do apologise for that.

My 4,000 colleagues and I are working hard to improve our performance and we will continue to do so; as long as it takes and as hard as it can be, we want change to happen. To that effect, we have just set out a new vision for the company, to foster thriving communities by providing world-class water services. This vision is our why. It underpins everything we do and reflects our belief that high-quality water services are essential to the well-being and resilience of the communities we serve. My colleagues and I are all part of these communities and we want the best for them.

Dŵr Cymru's not-for-profit model is one of the defining features that attracted me to this role. It aligns with my personal values of working for the public good, in a fair way. It also ensures that every penny we generate is reinvested for the benefit of our customers and the environment. 

There are many challenges that Dŵr Cymru and the wider UK water industry are currently facing. We're clear that we must tackle these significant challenges at a price that remains affordable to our customers. Difficult decisions need to be made on scale. The pace of change and the customer voice will be key to achieve that. This is why we will embark on our largest ever customer engagement programme this year, to help us shape this new strategy. 

The pressures we face are not unique. I know from my international experience in the sector that companies across the world are struggling with the need to upgrade ageing infrastructure, to deal with rising customer expectations, and the impact of climate change. 

As a sector, and I should say as a community, with anyone who plays a role in water policy, delivering or simply using our services, we have a golden opportunity to reshape how water services are planned and regulated in Wales, with potential new legislation in Westminster and the Senedd over the coming years. This is an opportunity we cannot waste, and we want to work collaboratively with all parties involved in making it happen. 

But this change is also needed at pace, to drive maximum benefit for Wales, and for our communities. I look forward to your questions and a constructive discussion this morning. 

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you for that. I know Members will want to pick up specifically on some of the points that you made, but before we come on to your vision and the opportunities that you see around you, you will be aware that there was quite a bit of coverage surrounding your appointment and the nature of your departure from your previous employer. Is there anything you want to tell us about that, just to set the record straight from your perspective?

Things in the media are not always reflecting of the reality. I know that there were posts in the media about my relationship with the unions. I want to say that, during my tenure at Sydney Water, employee satisfaction improved consistently over the years. I think discussion with my former colleagues at Sydney Water would be the best way to ensure what the reality is. 

The Australian Services Union, when you left, and I'll quote from their press release, hailed your departure as a victory for workers, calling it

'a long-overdue opportunity to reset the workplace, end wasteful spending, and restore fair treatment for workers'. 

They went on to say that your tenure saw an explosion of outsourcing, relentless attacks on workers' rights, and a workplace culture that reached breaking point.

I want to say that there was no outsourcing at all—

Why did they say there was, then?

Well, I don't know. As I said, employee satisfaction improved regularly. The relationship with our people was very good. Usually, in these sorts of situations, unions have less membership, and that may have triggered these sorts of positions from the unions.

You say that relationships are very good. It doesn't sound as if that's the case. So, what you're saying is that the ASU is a relatively small section of the workforce—is that what you're saying—and not representative of the wider view of the workforce. 

Again, I think there is a difference between the unions and the members of the unions and the employees at Sydney Water. If you go today to Sydney Water and you ask the employees, including union members, the perspective that they would give would be very, very different. 

I want to say that I've worked in the water industry for a very long time. I've worked for about seven years in eastern Europe. I've always had, in my different positions, a very good relationship with unions. And that's something I intend to continue—

Not always, clearly. But in the main. 

With this specific union, I accept that. I intend to do exactly the same in Wales. I've met with the unions here. We are building the relationship. It's been extremely constructive so far, and my intention is that it continues because they are a key part of how an organisation like ours operates. So, the dialogue needs to be open, needs to happen, and that's something I'm completely committed to doing. 

There we are. Thank you. I felt that we needed to address that at the start. Carolyn.

So, given your experience, do you have any insight into Dŵr Cymru's recent performance failings?

Look, as I said at the beginning, I am sorry about the level of performance that we have been delivering to our customers. The level of performance that we want is something that satisfies our customers. And that's why we are embarking on this long-term strategy that we want to build with our customers. The reason why I'm saying that is because operating a water organisation is always about finding the right balance between the level of service that we provide to our customers, the level of risk that we're taking on their behalf—so, for example, how many breaks or how many water interruptions per year—and the level of affordability, the level of money that they can afford. Finding this balance between these three aspects is something that we need to discuss with our customers. They need to decide what is good for them. And that's why we are embarking on this development with our customers. We will have many workshops across the nation engaging with customers, developing the ideas, testing the ideas, but also testing the cost of ideas, so that it's not a Dŵr Cymru strategy for our customers, but it becomes the water strategy that our customers want.

So, you've got a long-term strategy. Would you commit to a timeline?

We will, absolutely. We will commit. The strategy is the first part, so this is setting the direction. And then there will be a long-term capital and operational plan, which is going to say that we're going to do this sort of investment by that date, this sort of change in operation by that date, and that will bring the improvements by a certain time. This is exactly what we need to discuss with our customers because, well, nothing can be done in one day, but you can actually pace the delivery of the improvements depending on what the customers want and what they can afford. This is the discussion that we need to have.

How are you responding to allegations that Dŵr Cymru activities are causing pollution in our rivers Wye, Lugg and Usk, and their tributaries?

Look, when it happens, we hate it. I can tell you that my 4,000 colleagues are working night and day, and they are out 24/7 when something like this happens, to clean the pollution. The pollution doesn't happen because we want it. It happens because we've got an asset failing, for example, or because we've got a very high level of rain. Therefore, the systems that are designed to overflow when there is too much rain, overflow. So, this is really something that we hate. It's very simple to understand. We live in the community. So, the feeling that our customers have when they see a river polluted is exactly the feeling that we have when we see a river polluted, and if we are responsible, we want to make it good.

Would you commit to working with NRW and local authorities? In the past, we've had passing of blame, and what we need is a commitment to work together to find a solution.

Yes, absolutely. I've had a number of meetings with NRW already. I'm committed to working with NRW. What I was saying to the chair and the chief executive of NRW is that we are serving the same customers, we are serving the same communities, so, if we work together, we will be doing a much better job.

Thank you.

Janet wants to come in on this.

Just a quick one. In my own constituency, I am sick of the number of pollution incidents in our seas. So, for swimmers, wild swimmers who go swimming, a tourism resort, my own town of Llandudno, and you can't go swimming. And also our rivers. I've had about nine incidents where—. And it's been all Dŵr Cymru over the years, yet the farmers across Wales have been blamed for pollution incidents. And really, for me, that's one big problem I have with Dŵr Cymru at the moment. The other one is leakages. The number of times people report leaks and nobody does anything. There's water gushing down roads and things, and that's just wasted money, in terms of that water has been produced, cleaned, and then it's just flowing down the roads. So, those, for me—I think most Members would say the same—the pollution, the water breaks. We had one last—. And it was absolute chaos when we lost water in my constituency last year, and they're popping up all the time now. I'm getting villagers saying, 'Oh, this has broken.'

[Inaudible.]

Yes, a break in the water supply.

Let's address the question.

So, there are three issues there. If you sort them, you'll get a good name from me.

As I say, this is something we don't like and we want to make it good. We've got very long assets. So, if you take the water network, it's about 26,000 km long. The waste water network is 37,000 km long. So, if you put all the parts together, it's enough to go around the planet and come back here. So, it is a long network. We know that things are breaking from time to time. When they break, we have teams trying to make them good as quickly as possible. The reason why, sometimes, a break, a burst is not repaired straightaway is simply because we've got something more urgent and more impactful to our customers to do. I'm coming back to the discussion with our customers. So, you would be saying, 'Yes, but just increase the number of gangs that you've got to repair the breaks', and that would be a natural answer. Now, the reality is that if we increase the number of gangs repairing the breaks, it means that we also need to increase the bills of our customers. That's where we need to have this discussion with our customers, because this decision needs to be shared between Dŵr Cymru and the customers and communities.

So, when we talk about increasing bills to pay for infrastructure improvements, people will come back about, 'Well, how about the chief exec's wage?' So, do you plan to address the trend of increasing executive baseline pay amid worsening performance and increasing bills? This is something we get asked about—it's high profile. Has there been a further increase in the CEO and/or the chief finance officer baseline salary as a result of recent recruitment?

So, my salary is definitely linked to the performance of the company. Look, the reality is that I'm not expecting any bonus to be paid in the coming years because of the current performance of the company. So, that's simply a reality.

Okay. That was my second question about one-off bonus payments that we hear about in the press as well. I just want to ask another question, if that's okay.

Could I just ask, then, on that? One-off bonus payments relate as well to your predecessor. Could you confirm whether a golden goodbye—a significant golden goodbye—was paid to your predecessor when he left?

Can I ask you to repeat the question?

Well, I'm just wondering what the package was for your predecessor when he left, because we understand that a significant payment was made as a sort of golden goodbye.

I'm not aware there was any package.

Okay. Any package at all.

No. No, no.

Okay. Thank you.

Another high-profile programme recently screened was the Channel 4 drama Dirty Business. It's been raised with a few of us that the CEO of the Environment Agency was unable to give satisfactory answers in Parliament. He left the agency in 2023, and in February 2025, he was appointed as a non-executive director of Dŵr Cymru. So, the question is, really: what due diligence is carried out when making appointments? Did he meet with Ofwat to head off that appointment? It's before your time, but I was wondering if you would know the answer to that.

Look, I've looked into the recruitment process. It was a thorough recruitment process done by the company at the time, including references and discussion with all the regulatory bodies.

Okay. Thank you for your response. 

Okay, thank you. Janet. 

Thank you. You were talking then about it needs more staff and everything to do things quicker. Now, you've also said that 250 staff have been identified through voluntary redundancy, yet you’re still looking to reduce staff numbers by around 500. How will you make further reductions to staff numbers? Will staff be made involuntarily redundant? And are you or will you be looking at cuts to front-line staff?

What's coming with the new vision that we have set for the company is also a change of organisation in the company, and this is something that we are doing at the moment. Now, we are also very, very clear that we don't want—. Well, we want an impact on the levels of service that we are providing, but we want a positive impact, not a negative impact. So, the whole objective of this reorganisation is to make us a more efficient structure. Now, it's pretty obvious that if we reduce the number of people at the front line, we're not going to improve things. So, the objective is to reduce the number more at the top of the organisation, rather than the people in the fields.

Good. 

I can tell you that the new executive team that I am going to have, starting from 1 May, will have 30 per cent fewer executives.

Wow. A lot of organisations could learn from that. That's marvellous.

This is what we're doing. 

Can you clarify whether there is an impact on staff pay or terms and conditions as a result of the Trawsnewid programme or otherwise?

No. No. 

Good. Can you provide an update on savings being found through procurement efficiencies? Where are savings being found, and are they still expected to be proportionate to the staff reduction changes and savings? 

The straight answer is 'yes'. I think, when you look at an organisation like this one, finding the right structure so that we are as efficient as possible is one thing, but we also need to look at our supply chain and how we're delivering works. So, we have a number of areas where we have probably some progress to do in the way we manage our purchase process. I'm going to talk about one very briefly, but the energy space is one of them. We've seen the price of energy increasing across the board in the last few years and months. It's the same for us. If we are better at not only controlling our consumption, but also producing energy, because we are actually producing energy with gas and hydro—

I was going to say, the hydro bit, there's so much scope in my own constituency—

Exactly.

—where lay people, members of the community, go, 'Why on earth isn't there a hydro scheme there? Look at the speed of that water.' And I've seen the hydro schemes in progress, and they're just amazing.

Absolutely. So, instead of buying power from the grid, we can actually produce more, and that's a way to reduce our costs. So, there are a number of initiatives that are basically starting now.

Brilliant. And the final one, I know it's been touched on by our Chairman, but how is staff morale? When you are taking 500 people out of an organisation, it must have some impact. What support is in place for staff well-being during such a huge period of change for your organisation? 

This is something we're taking very, very seriously. The risk when you're going through this sort of reorganisation is that we lose morale, but also that all our people don't understand why we are changing. So, there is a lot that is actually on our shoulders as leaders of the organisation. I can tell you that, the week before last, I spent a week in the north of the country, and I spent days in the mess rooms of the different offices, treatment facilities et cetera, et cetera, simply to talk to our people and to explain what we’re doing, but also to listen to their concerns and have a discussion about what it meant, why we were doing it and we needed to do it. The feedback that I got was constructive. Some people are concerned about their own jobs, which is—.

And you've been clear—. Do they know now who's going and who's staying yet, or—?

So, we have—. I announced the structure, I think it was on 13 February, the structure with the six executives, and the next level, and then asked—

More on the front line, I'm interested in.

Yes. And then what I asked is I asked the leaders in the organisation to cascade down the details as quickly as possible. So, the following week, when I was in the north, most parts—not all, but most parts—of the organisation already knew exactly what it meant for their business units or business groups. And a few days after that, it was completed for the entire organisation.

To be completely transparent, we still have one or two places in the organisation where we're not in a position to give this detail, because there's still work ongoing. So, there's still work about how do we need to organise ourselves to do it. But the fact to go public with the entire organisation about this new structure was also to bring a number of people under the tent and be able to discuss the detail of what we should be doing for these very few places where we still have a piece of work to do.

It's those on the very front line that I'm—. Because, as with any organisation, they're the ones that really matter. They're the ones that, without them, we might as well all go home.

I agree—completely agree.

Well, we're not going home yet, because we've got another half an hour, I’m afraid. Julie next. Julie.

Yes. You've said the structure will be in place by 1 May. When will you be able to evaluate it and see what the result has been? And can you say a bit more about what you think the results of doing this will be?

Yes. We've started to put in place—and, actually, it's already in place—what we call a performance framework, which is a way where we measure the performance of the organisation every month as an executive team, but also do that with all our leaders. So, this performance framework is what is going to tell us that it's progressing in the right direction. We don't want to wait years to see the performance improve. It's a matter of months.

Now, the reality is that if we look at all the compliance obligations that we've got from Ofwat, for example, or from Natural Resources Wales or the Drinking Water Inspectorate, some of them will require investment. So, if I take the example where a waste water treatment plant is not designed to treat to the standards and we need investment to do that, then, in that case, that may take some years before we get the investment delivered. But, at the same time, there are also a number of improvements that we can put in place straight away, and that's in terms of reaction to situation, to bursts, as we said, or to an overflow. This is about how can we control the volumes of storm water getting into our network so that it doesn't overflow. So, there are a number of things that will bear fruit in the next few months.

The important thing is that we are completely transparent about all these different milestones, and, again, that's why I want us to have this discussion with our customers, so that we agree on the milestones of delivering this improvement for the company.

Thank you. My next question was about customer engagement and this programme you'll be undertaking to do the long-term strategy and the associated long-term capital and operational plan. How are you going to engage with your customers?

In the next few—. It's a big programme; it's the largest we've ever done. In the next few weeks, we're going to have a number of regional workshops with customers, and a regional workshop is a situation where you've got 60, 70 customers in a room on tables of eight or 10, and there is a third party—so, not Dŵr Cymru but a third party—engaging with customers. And this third party is asking the customers what it is that they expect from Dŵr Cymru, what are their pay points, what is their willingness to pay for this service or that service. So, this is a way for the customers to express exactly what they're not happy with, what they would like to have, how much they would like to pay, et cetera, et cetera. We don't do it straight with our customers, because we don't want to influence our customers, so that's why we're asking the third party to do it.

Then, from this, we are taking all the feedback from our customers and we're working on a number of options, a number of solutions. And then, the next session, the third party is coming back and saying, 'Okay, so you said you wanted this. So, this is possible and this can be done this way or that way, which one do you prefer?' If customers prefer that way, they'll be told, 'Okay, so if we do it that way, or if Dŵr Cymru do it that way, that's going to cost this much, are you okay for that?' And customers say, 'Oh, I didn't realise it was going to be that expensive, is there another way to do it?' And that's the sort of discussion that we're going to have with the different regional workshops. But there will also be a national panel, where we will have about 100 customers that will be on this panel and will be also contributing from their side about exactly the same thing—[Interruption.]

Carry on.

And the overall objective of the session is that the final product, which is the draft strategy, is a document that has been designed by our customers, that they are comfortable with and they are also able to finance it, which is always a critical, critical question when we do these sorts of things. Once we've got the draft strategy, then we're going back to the community to say, 'That's the draft—what do you think of it?' And we take the feedback from the community again and if it's validated then it becomes the strategy, and then we start working on the implementation plan, which is to say, 'For the next 25 years, we will build this here, that here, et cetera, et cetera.'

And how do you select the customers?

[Interruption.] Oh, was that the question you were going to ask? Okay.

So, a critical question. So, we are not selecting the customers, but we are asking the third party to have customer panels that are completely representative of the community.

So, you would have older people, businesses—

Absolutely. Really, we want a representation of the community. That's what we need. To create something that is really what customers and the community want, we need a full representation of the community.

Carolyn, you wanted to come in on something.

Yes, please. Are you looking at digital mapping of the network? We've discussed here about having a national underground asset register, which is huge. The UK Government were looking at it as well. I know a lot of pipes were in people's heads and they were on bits of paper, but that's the first question. And the second one, you talked about ensuring that water doesn't go into the network in the first place. So, will you be working with Natural Resources Wales, local authorities, to try and capture that water in the first place through the drainage systems, highway drains, to ensure that it doesn't go into your water supply?

Yes, so, in terms of what we call the GIS, the geographical information system, we do have one. The system that we have is accurate. So, on the public side, so our side of the network, we've got a pretty good record. It's not perfect; we absolutely agree with the fact that it's not perfect. So, that's something—. Every time we've got people in the field operating pipes or repairing pipes, then they check that it is up to date. What we don't have very often are the pipes that are on the private sites of the network, and what we don't have very often is—. So, back in 2000-something, a number of waste water assets were transferred back from local government to Dŵr Cymru. And on this one, we still don't have all the records of the assets. So, we are definitely working on it.

On your second question about the—

Sorry, can I just interject on that? But that was back in 2000-something, so you had 20 years to try and get that record of transferred assets up to speed.

Yes.

It hasn't been yet, you're saying—

No, it has been done, but we know that it's not completely—. We still have some situations where we've used the knowledge that was in the heads of people, and our people have told us, 'The pipe is here. I remember. It was 50 years ago. I remember it was here.' Now, at one point, something happens and we realise that the pipe is a metre away from where it is on our map. So, it happens. The system is not perfect. We are perfecting the system as we go.

As you go along.

Yes.

Yes, okay. Thank you for that. Sorry, you were going to respond to the second point.

Yes, so, the second one is a really important one. We've got about 60 per cent of our waste water network, so that's the 36,000 km of waste water network, that is what we call the combined network. So, it means that you've got the storm water going into it and the waste water going into it. When it rains, the system is designed so that, if you've got too much rain, instead of overflowing inside customers' properties, you've got overflows outside, and, most of the time, it goes back to rivers or to the coast, which is not a good situation. The solution to that would be to completely deconstruct the combined system and to build two systems, one for storm water and one for waste water. In terms of affordability, it is a massive, massive, massive investment. So, that's not something that's possible.

That wasn't what I was asking. I was really looking at natural, nature-based solutions, making sure you work with local authorities to ensure that drainage ditches are kept up to date, that it doesn't go into the highway drains—you know, capturing it at source, working with those, rather than it all just going into the same system.

So, that's exactly what we're doing. We're working at both ends. So, to avoid the water getting in, and, sometimes, it's for us to replace network or to refurbish network because water is coming in. So, we need to put another pipe inside the pipe or we need to change the pipe or—. All sorts of technical solutions we have. And we're doing that. But we're also working on the other side. And I want to take the example of what we've done in Pont-y-felin, which is where we've got a storm water overflow. There, we have built a nature-based solution. So, in the past, when it was overflowing, it was going into the river. Now, it goes into a large reed bed, where the water is treated, and we've taken the opportunity also to build a public garden with playgrounds and a very, very nice area for the community. But we've got now these reed beds that are taking the overflow, filtering the overflow, before it goes back to the river. Those are the sorts of solutions that we want to implement a lot more across the network.

Okay. Thank you very much. Right, we'll move on now then to another big focus of your time and, certainly, the next Senedd's time, and that's water reform, water sector reform. So, Delyth, you're going to lead us on this.

Diolch. Bonjour et bienvenue. 

Merci.

De rien. I wanted to ask you about the Green Paper that the Welsh Government has published, and any reflections or response that you initially have to this, particularly the areas about company performance and enforcement.

I think the Green Paper is a very good paper. In terms of direction, this is exactly where we should be going. It’s about creating a system that is designed for Wales and designed to increase the level of performance.

In terms of scrutiny, we as Dŵr Cymru don’t have any issue with that. You know, we're doing an activity that is essential for the community, and having scrutiny from the regulators is part of the way things are done, and there is no issue at all. What is really important in this Green Paper is that we have something that is designed for Wales, where the system that we’ve got today is designed for England and Wales. Now, the situation in different parts of England and Wales is completely different, because the geography is different, the culture is different, the amount of water available is different—there are all sorts of different reasons why having a system that is designed for Wales makes a lot of sense. 

So, the solution that the Government has suggested in the Green Paper is a good solution. Having a regulator—an economic regulator—that is looking at what we’re doing here in Wales, rather than across the board, makes more sense, because it will give more drive and control to the Welsh Government to say, 'This is how we do things in Wales, and this is how we want you, regulator, to look at what Dŵr Cymru is doing', rather than having something that is a blend between England and Wales.

Thank you for that. Are there any concerns or worries that you have about anything that is in the Green Paper, particularly around the timescales that are being envisaged, the transition periods—do you think that they’re right?

Look, it’s not a concern; it’s probably more a discussion that we want to have with the Government about how quickly we can do that, because the quicker we do it, the quicker we’ll be able to make the change happen. So, as it is currently in the paper—because we’re always talking in terms of regulatory periods, and the regulatory period is five years—it means that every five years we’re going to the economic regulator with a plan, which is the plan that we want to build with our customers now, to go to the regulator in 2029 for the period that will be 2030-35. So, it’s a sort of cycle where we’re producing a plan—this time it’s going to be done with our customers—we’re going to the regulator, the regulator will challenge us on the plan, and that’s absolutely fine. And, at the end, there will be a decision, which is called the final determination. This final determination sets the investments that we will be making between 2030 and 2035, and also sets the level of tariff for our customers for the next five years.

The Green Paper, at this stage, is talking about a change that will not happen before early 2030, or the 2030s. So, it means that this change will not happen before the period 2035-40. So, the discussion that we want to have with the Government is how much can we already do in the current context, for the submission that will be in 2029 for the period 2030-35, and bring forward, basically, all the milestones of this change so that the change happens quickly.

Okay, merci. Well, my final question is quite a large question, in terms of being struck earlier that you said that one of the reasons that you had come to Dŵr Cymru is because the model aligns with your values. I wonder what your priorities would be, what vision you would hope to see fulfilled not just for Dŵr Cymru, but for future regulation of the industry. We've been talking about the tension between the necessary investment and the necessity of keeping customer bills as low as possible, and you were talking about getting the right balance. Where do you think that right balance should be?

Well, I think it is where our customers decide it is. And I think it is really important to bring the customers into the tent and have this discussion with customers and regulators so that we've got an agreement about what is best for the community, for the country. I think this is really important. And today, it's not how it works. Today, you've got regulators deciding what needs to be done and water companies trying to deliver on what regulators are asking them to do.

And we're getting to situations that are not fair for customers. So, we really want, and I really want, the customers to be in the discussion, to really have a say about what it is that they want us to deliver: is it more important to fix this problem first or that problem first? Is it this sort of money that they're prepared to pay for this or, actually, they don't want to pay and they understand why it's not done? But today we are in a situation where customers are not involved, so they don't understand why things go wrong sometimes. They don't understand why suddenly there is a big price increase, as we have had last year. They don't understand because they don't know. And they haven't had a say in what is important for them. So, my ambition is really to bring the customers into the discussion, so that they can tell us, 'This is what we want you to do.' It's not only for us, but it's also for the regulators to listen to it and have this balanced outcome that is good for the community.

Okay. Merci beaucoup.

Diolch yn fawr. Julie.

This is a follow-up, really, to that, because the Green Paper is based on the principle that the polluter pays, and assuming full recovery from the industry. So, obviously, this differs from the current regulatory funding model. Do you have any concerns with this approach? And, again, you'll be getting to the balance about whether this affects the bills for the customers.

I think this principle is really good, and I'm going to talk about one specific issue here. If you think about something that has been in the media for some time, they're called the perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances. The PFAS are all coming from what we've got in our frying pans, in all sorts of clothes, et cetera, et cetera. This is causing problems to the water quality and to the environment. We've got two options. One option is to let it go and to treat the water and the waste water so that we get rid of the PFAS. This is extremely expensive—extremely, extremely expensive. The other opportunity or solution we've got is to say, 'Well, actually, we invite the PFAS producers or the PFAS users not to do it.' And if they still want to do it, then they have to pay for it, because we need to treat it at the end. And that's a way to say, 'Well, actually, instead of asking the community to pay for something at the end of the pipe, we are actually asking all the producers and the users not to do it, before it's done, so that we don't have to pay for it at the end.'

Another topic is all the issues that we've got with wet wipes. So, wet wipes are costing us millions every year. Is that fair, because at the end of the day, it's not us, Dŵr Cymru, but it's our customers who are paying for it? Is that fair? Well, probably, if we asked the wet wipes producers to produce wet wipes that can be properly dissolved in water, then you wouldn't have the problems. And that's a way to say, 'You are the polluter, you are responsible. You've got the control over improving the situation', instead of letting it go and having the customers paying for it at the end.

And are you confident that you can make progress in this way?

Look, it's a long way, but we need to start. We need to have this discussion because, again, as a community, we can't ask customers to pay for everything. We have to have this discussion at a community level and say, 'This is how it works and the people are paying for it at the end. Is that fair?' I'm pretty sure that the community would be saying, 'No, that's not really fair. What can we do?' And, for me, these are really important community discussions that we need to have.

Thank you. And then, finally, what do you think would be an appropriate penalty for poor performance for a company like yours, particularly with the way it's set up?

Look, it's a really good question. We are a not-for-profit company, so all the money that we've got to fund the operation of the business is coming from our customers. So, when we are paying a fine, it means that this is money that we are not investing into assets or that we are not investing into salaries or not investing into social tariffs et cetera, et cetera. I'm not saying that there should not be a mechanism to punish us if we don't do a good job. That's not what I'm saying. I'm absolutely comfortable to be held accountable, but it's more the way we do it. And you've got solutions to do it where, instead of paying a fine, if you can use the money as an undertaking to invest into assets, then that's a much better solution for our customers and the environment at the end. So, there are ways, actually, not to just simply pay a fine that goes back somewhere in the system, but rather to pay money that is going to be reinvested into assets and the environment.

Thank you.

Yes. Carolyn.

We recently raised in the Senedd lifelong chemicals—polychlorinated biphenyls and PFAs—and we were told by the Cabinet Secretary that the UK Government are looking at a PFA plan. I didn't think about them being in water as well. So, will you be part of that consultation with the UK Government on PFAs?

Yes. Look, we will be, absolutely, part of the consultation. We are testing for PFAs in our water. It's not in the drinking water. I can confirm that that's not the case. We are in situations where our catchment is not impacted, which is absolutely fantastic.  

Okay. A final question, if that's okay. Given the recent increase in the annual leakage rate and ambitious leakage reduction targets for 2030 and beyond, do you think more could be done to address leakages identified on privately owned supply pipes? And I'm saying this in relation to metered properties on caravan parks, such as park homes. We've had an issue on a few of them where there has been leakage—a lot of leakage of pipes—but because it’s privately owned land and there aren't separate meters, it was about actually finding out where the issue was. It’s unfair for each caravan owner to have to pay that massive bill. The only reason why the park owner actually did the work in the end was because the local authority threatened to take the licence off them, which made him do the work. But there's another leak now and they're all having to pay this bill again. So, they want individual water meters, for accountability, basically.

This one is not a simple issue. On the private leakage, I would encourage all our customers to have a meter, because that's a way to control that there is no leakage, and that's a way also to know when there is a leakage, because the meters that we're installing have got this alarm on them that will tell us that there is a leakage, and then we can talk to the customer and say, 'You've got a leakage on your side—you need to do something about it.' I think that's a really important part of what we're doing because when customers have got a meter, it gives us the possibility to help them, and that's a really important way.

Okay, thank you.