Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Diolch, Chair. Good morning, Minister, and your team. What are your priorities for forestry and woodland in Wales?

Thank you, Janet. Good morning, Chair, and good morning, Members. I think forestry and woodland creation remains of crucial importance to this Government and it's partly predicated on the advice given by the Climate Change Committee, about, of course, the clear evidence that we have that woodland and forestry can create—. It's not only just a clear and obvious contributor to carbon lock-in and carbon measures, but also the potential that is has as well in terms of creating opportunities within the rural economy as well. So, it is twofold here. It might be helpful, perhaps, to touch on some details.

One of the things that I've described when I visited recently a small family business just outside Tregaron: I was really impressed with the number of people that they were employing there within the rural economy—within the mid Wales rural economy—and their scope for expansion, if they have access to local timber. So, that’s one aspect of it—it’s the need to create what we could describe as a wood economy, but then actually using those products to lock in carbon for the long term. So, rather than use them in short-term things that last for five years, actually into house building.

So, on the work that we’ve been doing within Wales that my predecessors, Julie James and others, have been focusing on, for example within timber construction, within house building—we have specific programmes at work now within Welsh Government, because this goes right across Welsh Government, that work with small and medium-scale enterprises so that we use that timber in construction. Because then we’re locking it in for the long term.

But in addition to that, there’s the issue of what we can do with community woodlands, and this is an approach of ours throughout Wales, so trying to develop our woodlands where the community is genuinely involved with it. We’re looking at creating 30 new woodlands, by the way. I was at—. I launched, about four weeks ago, the latest six as part of the national forest, but many of those are managed or operated by volunteers as well who are deeply engaged in it.

There’s our commitment to the national forest as well, and I think that is a big, bold aspiration for Wales. We’ve got to make it work and we’re constantly thinking through live time—what’s the best way to expand that? Do we do it on a piece-by-piece jigsaw basis or do we look at something that is greater in a sort of spatial approach to it? But that ambition is great for Wales. We know how denuded we are right across the UK, compared to other western European nations in particular. We do need to do more with woodland, and also things such as strengthening protections for ancient woodlands.

So, we have massive ambitions for it, partly driven by our carbon budgets and our net-zero ambitions; partly driven by a genuine knowledge of how much woodland can create those good environments that we want to see locally as well. But we need to do this with people and with farmers as well, by the way. That’s the other important thing to say in terms of the sustainable farming scheme, whatever we bring forward as a result of the work that’s now intensively ongoing, we need to make sure—. And I’ve said this very clearly to farmers: I want farmers to have first dibs if there is the right woodland in the right place within their farm that they can contribute to, or, indeed, that they want to get into—not in highly productive farming land, but to create forestry, to get wood into that timber production south of Tregaron, or wherever. They should be first to the pile there.

When will you publish the outcome of the lean review and what are you doing to attract more private investment into woodland creation? And also, when will the timber industrial strategy be published?

So, the lean review, I think, has pretty much been put into place. That's an ongoing thing. We've already dealt with some of the aspects of making more efficient the way that we—

Is it published?

Well, Gian Marco or Claire, do we have a publication on that?

Good morning, everyone. I don't think we've published the outcomes of the review. What we've done is we've taken some of the learnings from the review and built it into, in effect, our grant management processes, including working with Natural Resources Wales, but what I would say is it's a constant process. Basically, what we're doing is looking at what is the most efficient way for us to manage the—

How can we see evidence of that, then?

I'm sure, if the Cabinet Secretary agrees, we can write to the committee just to show some of the changes that we've made, if that's helpful.

Yes.

And then the final one on this: can you provide an update on the governance arrangements for implementing a national forest? When will you achieve the connected network of high-quality woodlands running throughout Wales?

That, again, is an ongoing task. Since I've come into post, about eight or nine weeks ago, one of the things I've been presented with is options for taking the next stage of the national forest forward. That ambition that's been developed over the last year, two years, where we have actually joined up pieces developing towards a national forest, the question is: how can we go further and faster? So, one of the things we're exploring at the moment is whether we can do this on a larger spatial footprint, and there is tied into this, I have to say, those other strands I mentioned earlier on about how we develop community woodland, buying from farmers or landowners as well—the right woodland in the right place, all of that.

So, the governance: there isn't a formal governance; there isn't a board that sits over this. This is directly answerable to me and to the First Minister. It remains a priority in the programme for government to take it forward. But what we can report on on an ongoing basis—I'm happy to come back to this committee—is to show what the next stage of thinking will be, and we're currently going through that, deliberating on that, as I turn my head to where we go next, and we should be able to report as we go forward, periodically, on how we are not just putting that jigsaw together, but what our strategy going forward is to expand it, because we know it's got a big buy-in from the Welsh public as well on this. But the governance—there isn't a formal governance board as such.

Okay.

We skipped over the question about the timber industrial strategy, because that was something we were supposed to see. While it was originally intended in 2022, it's now, we're told, being published in 2024.

Yes.

Are we on track?

My anticipation—. If I recall correctly from all the various briefings that I've seen, we're intending to consult going into the autumn and then to bring forward something in the early part of next year, then, with a full timber industrial strategy. But I've already, Chair, just to reassure you, been fully involved with officials in how we take that forward, and it remains a firm commitment of ours, because we recognise, as I mentioned in my remarks to Janet then, the importance of this to the rural economy, as well as to what we can do with woodland creation and forestry.

Given its importance, it is rather disappointing, then, that it's delayed further, if you like.

Yes, but I do think it's important that we get it right and we've been consulting on this; we've been engaged with stakeholders extensively. I don't know whether my colleagues want to add to some of the work that's already been done on this to get to this point.

So, I think, just to reiterate what the Cabinet Secretary has said about engagement, there's been a lot of work with the forestry sector around what they're, I suppose, looking for from the strategy, and I think really positive feedback. So, we're really hopeful that, when we publish it for the formal part of the consultation, it's very much a sort of shared set of objectives and ambitions around the role that timber can play in the rural economy, but also in driving jobs and skills and a range of other things. So, we would have liked to have been able to move forward more quickly, but I think we're in a good place at this point.

Okay, thank you. Julie, you wanted to come in.

Yes, I just wanted to ask about the development of community woodland in urban settings, which I think is very important. In Cardiff North, in my constituency, which is almost totally urban, there are small pockets, such as Flaxland Avenue in Gabalfa, where we've got small woodlands looked after by the community. What are you able to do to encourage that sort of development?

I think there is scope for that. We've created six new posts for woodland liaison officers. Now, I don't know to what extent they're engaged in our urban areas as well—I might turn to colleagues on that—but that has immense potential. If you look at the biggest NRW investment in community woodland creation, it's in the south Wales Valleys, it's in the Spirit of Llynfi, just above Maesteg in my own patch there. So, I think there is immense potential. But the advice and support within urban settings—.

So, the woodland liaison officers are focusing particularly on bringing things into the national forest, but the concept of the national forest is it should be in all parts of Wales, including in urban areas. Programmes like the tiny forests—we've got a number of those around—really have offered, I think, some really great opportunities in quite densely populated areas for small areas of woodland that communities really engage with. There's a number of those projects, many of you will have them in your constituencies, and we want to continue to build that kind of programme.

Okay, excellent. Thank you. Very briefly, Carolyn, and then we'll move on to Delyth for our next subject.

[Inaudible.]—said. Will local authorities still have to produce tree strategies?

Sorry, I beg your pardon, I missed the start—

So, will local authorities still have to provide urban tree strategies, where they calculate where the trees are, where they're going to plant—?

I do not know the answer to that, I'm afraid.

Okay.

We can come back to you on that.

Yes, come back to us on that, because, effectively, you're saying that they used to. So, it would be interesting to see whether that still is a requirement. Okay, diolch yn fawr iawn. Right, we'll come on to Delyth, then, for our next subject area.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Bore da. Please accept my apologies that I'm not in the room with you, I'm suffering with the remnants of COVID, and I'd hate to pass on any horrible cough to anyone. So, it's lovely to see you on the screen. I wanted to ask you about clean air, Cabinet Secretary. I know this is something that you feel very passionately about. The clean air Act has been passed, but by another name, of course, the Environment (Air Quality and Soundscapes) (Wales) Act 2024. Could you outline, firstly, please, what work is taking place to set an air quality target for PM2.5 as required by the Act and whether you're confident that that will happen within three years?

Yes, I think we're on target. The work that we're carrying out, as committed by my predecessor in the role, to develop the PM2.5 target, Delyth, I think is on target. As you know, we set two duties, actually, for Welsh Ministers to set targets for pollutants: fine particulate matter by February 2027; there was also bringing forward additional targets, then, by 2030. There is a lot of work to be undertaken to get that right, so determining the scope of the targets, the options that set the right level of ambitions, but that are also, as my predecessor said, feasible, deliverable, and also that we do the proper engagement and consultation. But we're well on track with that work, so we're set to deliver on that duty by 2027 for the PM2.5 particulate.

Thank you for that. In terms of the other pollutants, would you be minded to follow what this committee had recommended during scrutiny of that Act, that we should follow World Health Organization guidance in terms of what the other pollutants should be? Could you give us any information, please, about what other pollutants, at the moment, you are minded to include in terms of setting any targets?

Yes. I'm conscious now that this is real poacher turned gamekeeper, having been on this committee—[Laughter.] So, excuse me for putting my other hat on for a moment. Sorry, Delyth, one thing I forgot to mention as well, in terms of PM2.5, it's worth committee knowing that we're hoping to bring forward public consultation on the target options that I described to you in my answer there in autumn 2025, and then to consider the advice and determine the next steps for those, then, as we take that forward. That's in line with the timing, then, as set out while the Bill was going through as well.

On the WHO issue, committee members will know that the WHO guidelines are based on health considerations; they're not meant as recommendations for legal standards, per se, but they're focused on health recommendations. What they do do is provide quite compelling benchmarks for consideration in that broader context of regulatory target setting within Wales. So, it's a little premature at the moment for me to start setting targets without giving due consideration to, again, this issue of practicality and the types of measures required to deliver them—that will take a bit of a time. And what I don't want to do as well—and I realise that I'm echoing here the views of my predecessor in this post—is set unrealistic targets that could lead to actions that are neither proportionate nor achievable nor feasible. So, we've got to get this absolutely right and that doesn't mean that we shouldn't be ambitious, but we've also got to be able to achieve those targets as well. So, that's why there was a focus on setting these out in the secondary legislation. But, again, we will take this forward based on the evidence, with cognisance of the WHO recommendations as well, but with proper consultation. I'm glad you prodded us on it, but that's part of our schematic now, going forward.

Thank you very much. Finally from me on this—. If you could keep the committee updated, please, as your thoughts on that progress, that would be really useful.

When we talk about anything to do with air quality, particularly if we're talking about pollutants and things that aren't going to be visible, there is that gap between what we know needs to happen, and what experts tell us needs to happen, and where the public might be in terms of how engaged they will be, how on board they will be with having to make quite substantial changes to lifestyle and to habits. How will you want to see work taken forward to ensure that the public is engaged, that it's not just kind of frightening people, but that people truly can understand the differences that changes in their behaviours can make in terms of children's health, in terms of the health of unborn children? You know, how badly air quality can affect people's health and that we can all make a difference in that. So, how do you want to see that behavioural change work happen, so that people feel that they're part of the solution, rather than things being demanded of them?

We're really focused on this. This committee has been very good, over a number of years, at focusing not just on the hard data and evidence and technical analysis of what drives the improvements that we want to see in air quality, but also the behavioural science, and that's critical, because we need to explain to people why we're doing this.

Now, some air pollution is much more clear and obvious than others. You go down certain stretches of motorway, you go down certain stretches of urban highways and people can taste it; others are less obvious, but equally insidious and damaging to people's health. But trying to explain that narrative to people and then bring people with us, particularly, by the way, as we look at what other targets we might bring forward in future, which might not be those obvious particulates that people have a good understanding of—. But I might turn to Claire here, in terms of some of that work, to explain better to people and the behavioural analysis that we need to do to do that. And it isn't just for the public, of course, Delyth—and I know you know this; it's also with wider stakeholders. It's how we affect people's lives, but also how we affect the decisions of stakeholders. So, for example, at some point in the future—and I've had these discussions with some in the farming community—if we turn our attention in future, for example, to issues around ammonia, actually explaining and bringing farmers with us to say there's a reason why we need to do this, as well. But, Claire.

There's quite a lot of work going on in developing our communication strategy and the public engagement piece around this. We've been really lucky, during the work on the development of the Bill, to be able to work really closely with a number of partner organisations that are already campaigning on this issue. And I think one of the things we'd recognise is that Government can be effective in this space, working alongside other organisations, some of which may be more trusted sources of information. So, that's going to continue to be a really key feature of our approach. Also, making the connection with the very well-developed climate change communications work. There are—what's the word—mutually beneficial actions that can be taken that have both a good carbon benefit, but also an air quality one. I think there are some real opportunities to build on what's a really strong behavioural-science-based approach and get more value for our impact across those multiple benefits. There is quite a lot of work already going on, but, again, we'd be able to provide some further detail on the specifics to the committee, if that would be helpful.

Yes, it's always helpful to have any additional information that's available. Diolch. I'd like to move on to waste now, if I may. 

Can I just ask a little question?

We're very short on time—I did explain—so very briefly.

Okay. Regarding air pollution, the biggest issue is idling cars in traffic. We passed the Bill, didn't we, so what are we doing regarding publicity on this and enforcing it, or trying to do something about it?

Yes, indeed. Idling is part of the proposals that we are taking forward. This is definitely one of those areas where we're going to have to work with the data, but also to explain to people why this is a necessity to deal with it, as we see those cars, taxis, buses, still parked outside, still with their engines running. There's a real piece here to persuade people of the importance of doing this, for young people who are passing by, for elderly people, or for parents with pushchairs that are hanging around those stops there. Claire, the work ongoing within idling—

That is part of the communication, because it's a really obvious, as the Member said, simple behaviour change that we need people to embrace. That's a key area for action within the communications plan.

Thank you. Okay, we'll move on to waste, if we may. Before we maybe get on to other things, I just wanted to reference the Dispatches programme, which has caused great concern for many, if you look at some of the allegations made in that programme. You've subsequently asked Natural Resources Wales to review what action it took to investigate the complaints raised there. Can you tell us a bit about the scope of what you asked them to do and whether that includes maybe consideration of whether they have sufficient resource to act in a timely and effective manner when these kinds of issues arise?

I don't think, in terms of the recent ask we've made of them to do a review, we're asking them to look at the issue of resource because—. By all means, they can look at that, and if they come back to me and say there's an issue of resource—. But, I'm not convinced it is that, Chair. What I've asked them to do is, since the concerns were first raised a couple of years ago now, to look at all the actions that they've taken, in both regulatory, investigatory, et cetera.

I have to be quite frank with the committee that, on some of these, they will not be able to share with me the full details, because if there are investigations ongoing it's not for me to be party to them, because I also have, potentially in this and in other situations, an appellate role, where things can be elevated to me if necessary.

However, I've asked them to review all the actions that they've taken. This is not to say that I suspect that there is a gap or a deficiency in the actions they've taken, but I've asked them to go back in and look at everything to see whether there's something that has fallen short, that they've missed, that they've omitted. I think that's the right thing to do, particularly on the back of the Dispatches programme. 

There is, Chair, a wider issue as well here, I think, which I'm very cognisant of. In the Dispatches programme, which I take very seriously, and there's a role for really good investigative journalism, it didn't simply look at one site, it looked at the wider issue of quite serious allegations of not only collusion, but deep criminality within waste and recycling. We have a really positive story to tell about recycling here in Wales: we were on the floor of the Senedd last week, looking at the fact that we've moved to second in the world, and that is absolutely brilliant. But we absolutely need to make sure that that is not jeopardised in any way, not just here in Wales, but in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, by anything that would undermine our drive to drive down landfill. We've made massive inroads here within Wales in reducing the amount within landfill, to drive up our recycling, and so on. But where there are issues, where there are allegations of criminality, et cetera, those need to be properly investigated. 

What I can do, if it's of any help, is to write to the committee with almost the A to Z of the work that's going on between NRW and other agencies, and the work that's being done on a multi-agency basis across the UK in terms of investigating and tackling criminality within the waste industry—which won't come as a shock to some people. It's not simply the Dispatches programme; there are programmes going back many years that have investigated this. But I think there's been a real acceleration between measures, between the investigation agencies, the police, serious crime agencies and so on, to get behind this. I think we could almost spend a whole session on this, but if you're happy, I'll write to you with detail of what's going on, because I think, at the moment, there's a perception out there that nothing is happening. Well, actually, I'm very aware of the extent of the close working that's going on on this big issue of how we drive criminality out of the sector. 

And I'd be particularly interested in the relationship between Natural Resources Wales and the Welsh Revenue Authority as well. It's those kinds of, as you've said, different agencies and stakeholders, how they come together and at what point in the process, and all of that really, so—

Very much. And just to give reassurance on that, not only have I met on an ongoing basis, and very recently as well, with NRW, who fall under my purview as Minister—. They have their role to do as a regulatory body, but I have spoken to them about this, and I've brought them in, along with Public Health Wales as well, in terms of the Withyhedge site. I am looking as well to sit down with both NRW and the WRA, and other Cabinet Members going forward, to make sure that we are completely across this, and nothing is being missed. Because we have such a good story to talk about—the overall headline issues on recycling, what we're doing on waste and what we're doing on landfill—and we do need to drive out, wherever there are—. We need to investigate properly, wherever there are allegations of criminality. We also need to drive that out. And that is a hard piece of work, because that's been, I think, an issue that's been ongoing for quite some time, but what I've seen, since I've come into the post, is the extent of the engagement on this, not just in Wales, but right across the UK as well. And I'd be happy, as much as we can, to share with the committee, perhaps in writing, what is going on.

Thank you. Yes, that's great. Thank you. I appreciate that. So, more generally then, looking at the headline issue, do you believe that Wales is on track to meet the 2025 target set out in 'Beyond Recycling', and what are you doing to support those local authorities particularly that aren't meeting the target, either currently or the 2025 target projected?

Thank you for the question, and thank you for writing to me in advance as well. My officials kindly set out in far more detail than I can, in the response, some of the things we're doing. That was a challenging ambition. We know the strain we've been through. If we look at some of the local authorities that are currently being highlighted on the floor of the Senedd or whatever, every authority that's been through the task of helping us get to these targets, I've got to say, are to be commended. There are difficulties in getting there, but, my goodness, the support is there to help them, and that includes the—. We've laid out some of the things within there. We're supporting local authorities to help improve their performance. We're sharing best practice. We're linking local authorities to local authorities. I met with the Welsh Local Government Association last week, and we discussed this and the way in which local authorities, through the WLGA network, support each other, because we are at the point now where we have a significant—. I think it's four local authorities are meeting the 70 per cent target. 

Six.

Sorry, six. Six—thank you very much. We have quite a number now who've passed the 65 per cent, and we've got others that we are helping to uplift there. Part of that is targeted capital funding, part of it is the waste management grant, part of it is the work that we're doing with the models to support local authorities, and that is genuine support as opposed to hitting with a stick, to get all boats to rise together, and we're working on that very steadily.

So, it's an ambitious target, the one that we're currently set on, let alone where we might go next, but we're getting there. We really are getting there. And I just want to say a genuine heartfelt thanks to not just the local authorities, but the members of the public, the depots, the people who work on the collections, and everybody who's helped us to do this, because getting to second in recycling in the world is, from where we were before, which was embarrassing, a hell of an achievement, and everybody should have a pat on the back for that.

Indeed. I'm sure we'd all endorse that. Carolyn.

I welcome the targeted funding to help, because I think targeted funding, as well as policy, will help, especially when you've been struggling. I know some of the guys and they walk 12 to 13 miles a day collecting recycling—it's a tough job—and if you have a vehicle breakdown, it sets it all back, but it's a really good story to tell. So, are there any additional policies that you'd like to put in place to increase recycling rates, as well that targeted intervention?

Yes, absolutely. Some of the headline ones are what we did most recently with the workplace recycling, which I know had yourself included—and thank you for doing that—raising some issues on the floor of the Senedd with the practical implementation of it and so on. But what struck me, Carolyn, was, relatively speaking, because of the support that we put in place and the guidance that we had for different sectors and so on, how that progressed in a much smoother way than some of our initial forays into household or kerbside recycling that we had done some years ago. Because people are now in the mindset. That thing about bringing hearts and minds with us—people are now, ‘We get it, why we have to do this.’ And we've had to re-emphasise that on the floor of the Senedd this week: the reason we're doing this is because we need segregated rubbish that is clean, that is not messed up, because that affects the quality of the materials that we have afterwards. So, things like the workplace recycling, I think, are very important, but it's also where we can go next as well.

And then we are into the territory of things such as the extended producer responsibility that we have coming down the track very, very soon. Indeed, it's where we go on DRS as well—deposit-return scheme—and the reuse as well as recycling. All of those will help.

But we're also doing a lot with our research community. So, things such as the circular economy innovation communities programme, which is looking at that circular economy, run by Cardiff Met University. What we can do on sustainable public sector procurement, where we've got a real focus on that. We have good teams here behind the scenes who are really focused on it. We've got, of course—. On DRS, we just trialled in Brecon very successfully the world's first full-town digital deposit-return scheme—very successful. We might bring something forward subsequently on the back of that as well. But, ideally, what we'd want, Chair, is to do DRS on a Wales basis with all in, but we're working on that.

Can I just come in on that, on your DRS? A lot of it ended up back on the kerbside. What I'm really concerned about is two things: on-the-go waste, which you see piled up in the public bins, and it's that litter that's an issue, when people have bought while they're out or taken products out with them and dumped them, basically. So, how do we deal with the on-the-go waste issue?

There are a number of ways in which we can deal with that. One is the emphasis that we've had, both in terms of some of the campaigns that we've run, but also the regulatory measures we've taken about moving away from single-use products into either recycled products or cups and stuff that you can actually bring with you and so on. I think there's more to be done within that space. We'd be interested, actually, in whether the committee has any thoughts on this. But it's also what we can do with the extended producer responsibility, because if you put it on to the producers of the packaging, the waste, et cetera, that the cost lies with them on a classic polluter-pays principle, and local authorities get a revenue stream of it, there are two impacts with that. One is we will see that local authorities have a revenue stream to deal with picking up the stuff downstream, which we shouldn't have to do. But, secondly, it pushes it upstream, so that more of these producers for takeaways and everything else, and supermarkets, start thinking, ‘Well, maybe we can do with less packaging, less waste, at the start.’ So, I think it'll drive innovation. But, Claire, I don't know if there's any—

Can I just add—? So, you're looking at DRS. So, I think DRS for on-the-go, but I know it's going to be difficult to put these sorts of collecting receptacles into stores. But I think, for the on-the-go waste, if it's there, you know, where people can take them in the stores or near where they bought them from, it could be an issue. Are you looking at a fly-tipping plan and litter—fly-tipping and littering? Because I read in the report in the last session that there was a plan coming forward that an non-governmental organisation referred to. So, can you tell me more about that? Because that might also do it. So, we've got we've got the carrot. What about the stick?

Absolutely. Claire.

So, just briefly on the extended producer responsibility, so as well as the DRS for the drinks containers, the extended producer responsibility scheme for packaging will have a litter element, and, as the Cabinet Secretary's mentioned, that is about encouraging people to think about whether the packaging is necessary in the first place, and, if it is produced, then the producer is responsible for the costs required in collecting and then processing that material.

And I guess—. So, if there's a barcode on it, they've scanned that when they bought it. Mind you, they might not then know who it belongs to.

Yes, and then, on the litter strategy, we have been working on a plan. I'm not—. As you'll be aware, there is a general emphasis on trying not to publish too many more documents, but whether or not we actually publish it in terms of a plan of action, we will be communicating what we're proposing to do and the timescales by which we're proposing to do it. 

I think that would be welcomed by local authorities because, if we're clamping down on recycling, and those authorities to get to that target might have to move to four-weekly collections if they've not, they're concerned about the extra bags that get left by the side of litter bins. Maybe removing bins from public spaces and lay-bys, which is what we did, so they have to recycle—. But I think there's something that needs to be done there for the on-the-go waste and littering. And my last— 

It's may be worth mentioning, Carolyn, as well that in the debate we had yesterday on the floor of the Senedd, I made reference there to the sustainability clusters. Those are the sorts of innovations that can drive change as well within these sectors, including the takeaway and the reuse with those. But also Business Wales, it's worth mentioning, has a package there that is aimed at small and medium-sized enterprises to help them develop circular economy thinking around their businesses.

So, there are numerous ways in which we can keep pushing this forward and driving the innovation, but you are right—it needs to be carrot and stick. People who fly-tip, or whatever, and some of this was picked up in Dispatches—. It's amazing the myriad complexities not simply of criminality, but devious undercutting of legitimate systems. So, I think some of the work—. We're doing some interesting stuff, for example, on digital, moving away from the current manual system of tracking waste and mapping waste to digital mapping of waste and so on. And again, I can put this within the letter that I'll write to you. There are probably 101 interventions that we need to change behaviours of producers and consumers. 

Local authorities would welcome this, and also the costs of fines and the cost of taking somebody to court needs to be looked at as well, if possible. Just the last one, really, is food waste. So, again, a lot of food waste is still going into bins. We've got the regional consortiums in place, which is really good, working with Welsh Government. So, how are we going to be tackling food waste from going into the residual stream? 

I'm so glad you mentioned this, because this is really a changing of the culture that we've had around food waste. And, as everybody will know, there are a lot of criticisms of the current system that we have, where people are almost incentivised to over-buy prepackaged products and then it ends up in waste, and then where does that waste go as well? There are a number of things that we can do on this. Part of it, by the way, is the separation of food waste. That's the starting point. All of the tricky stuff we're currently going through with our local authorities, that is part of it, so we separate out food waste. It's now been successfully rolled out by all local authorities in Wales. Workplaces are now being required to separate food waste as well. That's challenging, but it's working. I do it in my own office at the moment with my suppliers. 

FareShare Cymru now we're funding, as you know, and have been for some time, looking at the distribution of surplus food to organisations, and not only food banks, but food pantries as well. So, the emphasis is not simply on the issue of hunger, but also on the issue of dealing with food waste and food surplus and redistribution. I and my family regularly go to a food pantry, because of our commitment to make sure that we don't have stuff going to landfill, or to other uses. 

The sustainability food clusters are doing work on this as well. The Climate Action Wales campaign that we've been running includes tips on how to reduce food waste and to make sustainable food choices, because there is a piece in this about helping people inform the ways in which they can avoid waste: shop wisely, store their food appropriately, use it well as well. We've got a 'Be Mighty. Recycle.' campaign as well—Welsh Government's 'Be Mighty', which is focused on food waste prevention, and, of course, WRAP Cymru are doing their Love Food Hate Waste campaign as well. So, there's plenty within that space that we're doing.  

But, with all that going on, to have just seen a 5 per cent reduction in food waste levels since 2007 is quite disappointing, isn't it? 

It shows the stickiness of this issue, and, if we look even at one aspect of that, the part I mentioned about retailers and the propensity to provide for consumers packages of food, often heavily wrapped, that allow them to over-buy, with incentives to over-buy. Now, I'm reinstigating the fortnightly—. Sorry, fortnightly; I'm reinstigating the regular—don't tell them fortnightly, for goodness's sake—meetings with retailers, and this is the sort of thing that I want to put on the agenda with them, to say, 'You've got a role in this; how do we make it easier for people to buy wisely, use the food properly and minimise the waste that they have?' So, it's those sorts of interventions. But you are right, Chair; it absolutely shows how sticky this issue is. We've got to make it easy for people to do this, and there's a role for all of us within that.

Please can you tell them to put doors on the chillers, on the fridges, rather than just—you know, impulsive purchasing, as well to save the energy? Thank you. I'll just put that there in quick.

If this committee has any suggestions, going forward, as to what I should be discussing with retailers, I'd be really interested.

There we are. Well, there are two there. Okay, thank you very much. We'll move on now then to Janet.

Thank you. How are you working with the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice, and other members of your Cabinet, to ensure that sustainable development is embedded across all portfolios?

Well, the good thing is, I would say, on the upside, we're in a better place than most other nations of the UK. Because this is embedded now, 10 years on, within our well-being of future generations legislation, sustainable development rides right across Government. So, it's not simply me and it's not just the Cabinet Secretary for social justice, it is all of us. But, if I am nimble enough here with my fingers here for a moment, I might be able to give you some—. I've already met, by the way, with the Cabinet Secretary for social justice to—

What about, say, like health? We need sustainability in our health boards and things.

Yes, entirely. So, it goes right across every portfolio area. But, last year, we published a plan with over 50 actions to deepen the understanding and practice of sustainable development principles in the Act into how the Welsh Government works. So, this was our substantive response to the report and recommendations of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales. We've published, in May, an update of our progress against the actions in the plan. So, I know that the Cabinet Secretary for Culture and Social Justice, because I've discussed this with her, met and discussed this with the future generations commissioner in the stakeholder forum back in May.

But how are they applying it in their everyday work, if you like?

So, it's rooted—.The principles of sustainable development are embedded now within everything that we do within Government. That is the signal difference between us and other Governments, curiously, across the UK, and most other Governments—that's why so many people are keen on learning the lessons from us. In fact, we'll be at events later this year discussing this as well. It's our tenth anniversary of that Act this year, of course, so we're keen to see what more we can do. But, Claire, do you want to add on on how we take this right across Government? Because I know that I meet in bilaterals with Ministers, including with Jane Hutt and others, and Lesley Griffiths.

So, there are just, I suppose, a couple of examples that might be helpful. So, starting from the top, the well-being objectives that the Welsh Ministers are required to set out that explain how, basically, the steps we're going to take to deliver against the well-being goals are at the head of the programme for government. The actions that then are set out to be delivered in the programme for government are in that framing, so everything that we do, in any policy area—my former policy area or in this one—has to consider how it is maximising its contribution to those objectives and therefore the goals. And then, alongside that, it's putting into practice the sustainable development principles, so taking decisions that don't jeopardise future generations and applying those ways of working.

So, when we put advice to Ministers, for example, we will have to set out how we have undertaken that consideration in producing the options and the advice that goes forward. And we also have a very comprehensive suite of impact assessments that we apply to all of the policies and programmes we develop. And the first part of that is thinking through how, whatever it is—that thing we're working on—might contribute to the well-being goals, and then that informs the option development, and that should be an ongoing process through the policy development. And just in the case—. I know that you referenced health boards; they're one of the bodies that are captured by the Act. They have their own separate duties on it—under it, rather. They set their objectives, and there is a process of dialogue, as Ministers meet with the bodies they're responsible for, to talk about that, and also they come together with other public bodies with similar duties in public services boards to identify things that can be done together to progress sustainable development in their localities.

And we added to that list in the Senedd yesterday, which has a resource implication, I'd imagine, as well, doesn't it?

It does have a resource implication, but I think it's a signal as well of the fact that we're constantly evolving. And in the application of the Act, we also have—. I've forgotten the name of it, but in responding to the recommendations from the future generations commissioner earlier this year back in May, we also have a part of continual learning within Government about how we can go further—so, not just extending the duty, but how we embed it deeper and make sure that it is happening.

So, if I was to ask you a question now—. In terms of our health boards, for instance, how are they looking to, like we've done here in the Senedd Commission, in terms of sourcing local produce and sustainable food rather than huge carbon, bringing in food—? How does that feed back to you as the Minister responsible? Do you know whether health boards are actually increasing their amount of sustainably sourced local produce?

These are exactly the asks that go to the Cabinet Secretary for health in order to extend the extent of local and fresh procurement and good, healthy nutritious food, and similarly across—

And for schools as well.

Yes. And similarly across other portfolio areas, so they know that they have their statutory responsibilities, but they also have to work in concert then with the other public bodies, including those that we've extended to. And there is a resource implication, of course, but it's the right ask to make, to say we're all in this together.

Cabinet Secretary, if I may, just to add a bit of colour to that—

Breifly, and then we'll have to move on.

I don't know if you've had an opportunity yet, but the previous Minister for Rural Affairs and North Wales, and Trefnydd actually met with some of the key people in the NHS procurement chain, as well as representatives of some of the local authorities on this very point about food procurement, both in the NHS and in education. So, it is one of those areas where you will also want to have those conversations.

Thank you. The other UK environmental governance bodies, the Office for Environmental Protection and Environmental Standards Scotland, were initially set up as shadow bodies in preparation for their statutory powers. This committee recommended the same for Wales. Do you intend to establish a shadow body prior to the relevant legislation coming forward in terms of the governance Bill?

It's probably worth saying that we don't rule it out, but we're starting from a different base here from where some of the other nations are. As you know, Janet, we have the interim assessor established, with limited remit and limited resource as well—and my thanks to the interim assessor for the work that they have been doing—but it isn't a shadow body. But we've also appointed now, recently, two deputy—. I think that's in the public domain.

Yes, it is.

I was going to take a pause then and think, 'I know I definitely appointed them.' So, good, that's reassuring. Because the feedback from the interim assessor was that there was additional support and help that was needed, some additional resource. So, we've done that. But it isn't quite a shadow body, and it doesn't have the functionality of it. We don't rule it out entirely, Janet, but, looking at the chronology of this, of bringing forward the legislation necessary before the end of this Parliament, then the period to put that in place—. If we thought there was a role for putting in place something that looked like a shadow body, we wouldn't rule it out. It would mean, actually, putting in place something with additional functionality. It may be that there's a simple transition from where we are now to actually putting in the environmental governance body. We'd want to see that up and running as soon as possible, subject to the legislation being passed with the Senedd's approval. So, I don't rule it out, but it's not something that we're actively considering at the moment. We're focused more—

Sorry to interrupt you. I think we're all just keen to see that governance body in place. Why waste resources, in a way, setting up another thing, if we've got the interim assessor? Go straight in, get that legislation sorted. We've been calling for it, haven't we?

But if the legislation doesn’t happen until very late in this Senedd, the organisation won't be in being until the next Senedd, I presume.

If we're looking at bringing forward the legislation, bearing in mind we're well advanced—. Just to reassure you, we're well advanced. There's a heck of a lot of work still to do, but we're well advanced on the process of engagement and bringing forward this legislation. If we're bringing that forward as for the programme for government commitment during this Senedd, which still gives us a little time—and we want to get this right, and we don't want this to be absolutely last minute—then actually getting the right things in place so we can put the body in place, that will not be, realistically, Chair, this side of the Senedd elections. But we can put the legislation in place and put the timescale in place then for setting that body up. I would like to see it moving rapidly to the establishment of that body. If a shadow body or some functionality was a worthwhile part of that, great. If we didn't need it, and we could seamlessly transition from a certain date, then that might be preferable. But, again, I'm open to further discussions with you as that legislation comes forward.

Can I just pick up on the appointment of two deputies? Obviously, they're three-year fixed terms, which suggests that they'll be in role until 2027. So, we're looking at, potentially, that additional 12 months into the next Senedd before maybe—. Unless you expect them, potentially, to move across into this new organisation.

We had to pick a date that was a best guess, and to give them the certainty, but—

So, that suggests that there is some sort of timeline in mind. 

Yes, but it's not cast in stone that that is the date. 

No, I accept that. 

I think we were just wanting to—. I suppose 'flexibility' is not the right word, but recognise that there is a process in the Senedd that needs to be completed, and, then, a process to establish the body itself. And we wanted to make sure that we had continuity. So, that's the reason for the appointment length. It's not that that precise date was what we had in mind; it was trying to sort of not be, 'Aargh' at a certain point later in the future. 

But it is an indication that we might need them until then. 

That's what I thought, yes. Thank you. We'll go on to Julie. 

On the biodiversity deep-dive, the biannual update is overdue. Can you tell us when it will be published?

I'm going to turn to my colleague here about the update. I know we're in the process of producing an update on the actions. I think I'm right in saying that we're looking to publish it this summer, if I'm correct. Yes, this summer. You're going to ask me now, 'What does that mean?'

It will be before the summer recess. 

Oh, in the next four weeks. 

I'm glad my senior official said that. [Laughter.]

Well, that's good news. And can you tell us what progress has been made towards implementing the biodiversity deep-dive recommendations?

Yes, I can. And just to say, I'm continuing to chair the biodiversity deep-dive, the core group as well, so continuing where my predecessor left off—the reports that they produce, the expert groups, the recommendations towards 30x30, and our international obligations as well. Over the last 12 months, one of our key priorities, I have to say, within the department has also been the environmental principles, governance and biodiversity targets Bill. That's part of taking this work forward as well. So, we're looking forward to bringing that forward very shortly as well.

We're not standing still. We've continued to invest as well, of course, in the Nature Networks programme, investing in the resilience of Wales's marine terrestrial protected site networks. We announced in March the funding of £8.2 million for 39 projects right across Wales, and we're shortly going to be opening the fourth round of the Nature Networks fund. I'm going to turn to Claire for any further detail on taking forward the other recommendations within the biodiversity deep-dive.

The Bill is a key area in terms of providing that legislative framework to support targets and progress, and the practical delivery is embedded in things like the Nature Networks programme, but also, as we think about the sustainable farming scheme, and Habitat Wales, and some of those other programmes and their next stage of development and implementation, ensuring that they deliver the kind of practical support that will enable condition improvement. And I suppose the other thing to briefly reference is the connectivity between that biodiversity and things like water quality—so, the work that we're undertaking in relation to SAC rivers, but more broadly in terms of river water quality. Those also are really significant contributors to improving the condition of sites, but also biodiversity more broadly. So, I think we're trying to think about it holistically and that's part of what the deep-dive was looking at, at all those things. Air quality is another area.

There is a frankness here, Julie, as well, in the answers that I'm giving you. We keep having to have internal discussions about prioritising getting on with actions that have been flagged within the biodiversity deep-dive, producing reports on the updates, at the same time as bringing along one of the most major pieces of legislation this Senedd will have seen. There is a real pull across what is a constrained team, a very expert team, a very passionate team—they believe in this stuff, as do the stakeholders out here. But I'm saying this because I know that's a similar discussion that I'm having—understandably, as somebody who's been passionate for the environment as well—with some of my environmental friends out there, who say, 'Yes, but can we just keep on doing everything?' and the reality is we're having to prioritise. But this Bill that is coming forward will be a significant step forward in those issues of biodiversity restoration and embedding principles and so on, and that's part of the 30x30 approach as well, driving forward.

So, are you saying that some of the recommendations you haven't been able to take forward as you would like because of having to concentrate on the Bill as well?

It's mainly the production of the annual report in a timely way. I understand why people want it, but diverting my team to say, 'Take your mind off the Bill for the moment, let's do that' and then—. What I don't want to do is to miss the opportunity to legislate within this Parliament, so I'm really fixated on that now, and on getting that right. So, it has meant a slight lag in the production of the report. The actions are being taken forward—the stuff on the ground. And that's another thing, and you'll find this is a theme within Government, and heaven knows as a recycled Minister I'm really keen on this: it's getting on with stuff rather than producing new stuff to do—getting on with what we said we would deliver. So, we're taking forward the actions. It's just the report has had a slight lag in it.

Thank you.

Carolyn.

You talked there about focusing on certain elements. Local nature partnerships have been doing a lot of great work, working with local authorities, NGOs and volunteers creating local places for nature, managing verges and amenity grasslands as well. I hope that will continue, because change takes a while for biodiversity to come, and to get residents on board as well, with that change. They assume something is looking messy, but actually a wildflower isn't necessarily what they perceive it to be. It can be knapweed or whatever, and they might see that as weeds. Mind you, it's in the name. Or oxeye daisies—really beneficial for biodiversity. So, how are you taking residents along with us and people along with us? And I'm hoping that you will be continuing that funding. When it gets to the end of summer, into September now, people start to complain—. It's the same with waste. There's change. It's partnership working.

And also, my question, really, which is written down here—that's the one I thought about before—is that you mentioned the SFS, so how are you working and taking forward the biodiversity targets into the SFS? We had problems before when we were doing the SFS. We've got biodiversity targets with the NGOs and environmentalists. We've got farmers. So, how are we going to bring them together now we've got this year? Is it education, bringing them together, working together, showing examples of how it can be done, and even an understanding about nature? I've got farmer friends who think, 'I've got a lot of nature, it's fine', they see rabbits and things, but they don't understand that every insect, bee, butterfly is all part of that. It's not just seeing rabbits running around, and foxes.

Everything is connected, across Government but also in nature and our ecosystems. I just want to pay tribute to you and others in the Senedd who've pushed very hard on those local nature interventions, like Local Places for Nature. They're really critical, because they do two things. They provide a direct enhancement of the local environment, as well as improving biodiversity, and so on, but they bring people with us—they really do. It matters, it makes sense. It's not thinking about something on the far side of the world; it's their local corner of their local community. In the past, decades ago, I used to lecture in the Swansea Institute of Higher Education, and I used to tell the students about a book to read by a guy called Jost Krippendorf called The Holiday Makers, and his essential theory within this was that what we need to be focusing on is creating better local spaces for people as opposed to flying all over the world on a regular basis. If you actually have those rough edges, unfinished areas, that's really important for people—for children to play in, as well as for communities to enjoy. But, there's bringing people with us and bringing also local authorities. A lot of good work has been done with that as well.

The sustainable farming scheme is a key thing. These are not silos. With my two colleagues here and the teams that sit underneath them, from the moment that I came into office, what impressed me was that we were sitting down together and discussing the way forward, not rural affairs and agriculture over here and biodiversity and environment over there, but actually together in the same room. And that has been the ethos for going forward, including with the SFS. Having that slight pause now to work it through, it's not a pause to sit back or a pause to rerun; it's what we've described as a preparatory phase, and in that preparatory phase, it is intense. It is intense, and we have sitting around the ministerial round-table not only farming unions and others with a stake in land management, from that perspective, but we have the environmental non-governmental organisations. We have the Soil Association, and so on and so forth, as a real mix, to make sure that, as we develop the SFS, to make sure that it's good to go from the moment that we take it out of the preparatory phase and launch it, it does all of the things we need. So, it does the sustainable food production, it does the sustainable livelihoods, it recognises the social value of the type of farming, but it also addresses the imperatives of the nature and climate emergencies and what we want to do with biodiversity restoration. But, my expert in this is sitting to my right—and to my left, actually. Gian Marco. 

I'm happy to add to that. I'm in your hands, Chair. 

Well, we're coming to the sustainable farming scheme in a moment, so shall we come back to it in greater detail in a moment? I want to go to marine first, because I know Joyce has been very patient. Those are the two final areas and we have half an hour, so we should be okay.

We need to dip into the water now—[Laughter.]—while keeping our feet firmly on the ground, as you've just said. You've announced a marine Cymru fund, but I'd like to understand how it's going to operate and what the structures are for that operation.

We're really quite excited about the marine fund, because it might point a potential direction of travel here and how we lever in additional funding but with real integrity, as well. So, we've announced, as you know, that the Welsh Government is providing funding to the marine Cymru fund to get it up and running, to make it operational and to draw in—let me be categoric about this—high-integrity sustainable investment. So, what we're hoping is that the fund will be a real exemplar of how you bring together partners to develop a project to achieve those shared outcomes we were just describing for the marine environment. 

Now, the fund is going to be voluntary. It is not linked to marine planning or consenting. It will be supported by NRW's mapping of marine ecosystem recovery opportunities and priorities. It should help accelerate our efforts to achieve that vision that I know committee members share that our seas are clean, healthy and safe, and productive and biologically diverse. I think it has real potential here, bringing together partners, with a bit of assistance from the Welsh Government. And what's interesting about this is that, if we can develop it into that exemplar of real, cast-iron, high-integrity sustainable investment, it might flag up other areas that we can actually apply this thinking to as well.

I look forward to it, as you well know. You've got an independent review of marine planning methods ongoing. When is it going to conclude? 

I think it's on an ongoing basis with our marine planning. We've recently consulted on strategic resource areas, SRAs, for tidal stream energy, in order to identify and safeguard those areas with potential to support future use by the sector. Lots of people fed in their views as part of that consultation. We're considering them; we'll publish a summary of responses in due course. But then, on the basis of that, subject to the outcome of that consultation, we'll then work with others to develop other SRAs within other sectors. So, for example, floating offshore wind as well. And then, there's the big task of working with stakeholders and NRW to develop the marine planning guidance on the opportunities for ecosystem enhancement and restoration.

So, we are going to commission an independent review of marine planning, and this will help us to develop our thoughts further on how the marine planning framework can provide what a lot of people have been asking for, which is that greater spatial direction within our marine environment. So, we’re working also with the marine management organisation on the cross-border aspects of this. I’m old enough and ancient enough to remember the establishment of the MMO way back when. There is a job of work to do with that as well, and on the UK-wide marine planning through the six-nations network. One of the great achievements of establishing the marine planning back in 2010 was that it was a UK basis, with Wales in there firmly and Scotland, but on a UK basis. I don’t know if we have anything else on the timing, specifically, that we can add to that.

I don't think so. The review hasn't been commissioned yet. So, it's a reflection back on how things are working. It builds on, in the consenting space, the end-to-end review, which was published a couple of years ago and has actually led to some quite significant improvements in the approach to licensing. When we issue the tender, we can inform the committee, if that's helpful, so that you can see the scope of it.

It is. It isn't just my view; it's other people's views that the sea is somewhat being taken for granted as always being there and that it's always going to produce and is always going to work for the good of people to do whatever it is they wish to do with it. So, I'm particularly looking forward to the proposed sites of the marine protected area network, because if we don't start protecting it, it certainly won't be there and the sea is warming up—5 degrees, I think, last year.

Yes, I think you're absolutely right. The challenges and the opportunities in the marine environment are now being well rehearsed and they’re much more in the public conscience, which is good, and they’re part of the debate that we have here in the Senedd, but also we see it frequently and much more often, I’m glad to say, out there in our broadcast media as well. I think there’s a rise in public awareness of this.

On the marine protected area network programme, the idea behind that is that it will support the delivery of the biodiversity deep-dive recommendation on that 30x30 to transform the protected sites so that they are bigger, they are better, more effectively connected and managed well as well, and that’s the key thing as well—it’s not just the identifying and destination and mapping; it’s then actually the management of it. So, we have, with the MPA network programme, completed pre-consultation engagement back in May 2023. NRW and the JNCC—Joint Nature Conservation Committee—

Yes, that's right.

—are in the process of developing their conservation advice for us. My officials are currently seeking to progress the regulatory impact assessment that underpins this. Now, this is critical because it's the understanding that we then develop of the potential implications of any designations, which will help support decision making that I have to make. It's also key with this, as with everything else, that we do this with stakeholders as well. So, we've got to follow a proper process on it. So, that conservation advice from our nature conservation bodies will be coming forward shortly. I don't know what 'shortly' means in terms of timescales, as I'm not familiar with this, but that's only one element of the package. That regulatory impact assessment then of the designation of sites is also going to be critical to my decisions. It'll also be critical in terms of the availability of people to do this work as well outside of Government, so we're cognisant of that, but the work is well in hand.

But we're behind the curve in Wales in terms of protecting our waters, which I find hugely disappointing, so I'm hoping that we're going to not be behind the curve for much longer. My real concern here is that there's potential here in moving forward to exploit the marine environment as we move into the new transition of industrialisation. People talk about the industrialisation of the land with wind turbines, but I don't hear anybody ever talk about potential industrialisation of the sea.

Yes and, do you know, I really think we need to strenuously avoid any suggestion that that's what we're going to do. The concept of sustainability when applied to the marine environment has to do with sustainable use of the resources, and we know that, over many, many years, whether it's fisheries, pipelines, extraction or whatever, we've used the marine environment as a source for economic potential and jobs. But what we haven't done previously is this mapping, this planning forward, sector by sector, piece by piece. And the problem is, as this committee well knows, unlike the terrestrial environment, where we have extensive data and mapping as well, what we're doing is building this piece by piece as we go, and there's a finite amount of resource that we can throw at it. I've been sitting where you are previously and pushing, 'Well, can we do greater data sharing amongst all those that are keen to be out there sustainably making use of these resources?' And I think that is a piece of work that we can take forward as well.

But we cannot be in the place of, if you like, industrial exploitation of our marine environment. Where we need to be is in true sustainability, which is the driving forward what we need to do on habitat protections and conservation, and identifying those areas where you can sustainably make use of the rich assets within our marine environment as well, but not to the degradation of that marine environment. Now, that does mean taking forward the work on the MPA network that does mean taking forward the marine planning, and, if I had a magic wand, I would double, treble, quadruple the amount of funding we could throw into this and accelerate the work that we're doing. Realistically, what we have to do is work with all our partners, including with the environmental NGOs, but also with those potential developers. The marine fund, curiously, is part of this, which we talked about earlier on. How do we utilise the enthusiasm that is there to make sustainable use of this marine asset, but do it without a way of degradation and working with partners to bring all of these things together and forward as fast as we can? But I do share your frustration; I'd like to have done this now. I am the Minister who signed off on the marine planning back in 2009, 2010 in the UK Government. I'd love to have accelerated even further. But I do realise, not just sitting on this side of the table, that it is the perennial complaint of Government that we just don't have enough to do everything that we want in one go. But thank you for the pressure you're putting on us, genuinely. We're trying—we really are trying.

Okay.

Thank you very much. So, will the marine protected area network management framework and action plan be updated? When will they be updated, because I think they're out of date now?

Claire, is there anything you can add to that?

Yes. So, I think we announced a new call for actions in March for input into the updated plan, and we're working through the suggestions people had for inclusion, to then develop a kind of updated, expanded list of actions. And the MPA network management grant scheme provides funding for people to actually take forward those actions practically, and there has been some progress on that.

Okay. Thank you. Right, we'll move on to the sustainable farming scheme now. So, Carolyn.

Regarding the industrialisation of the sea, I just want to say, regarding carbon capture and storage, storing offshore and possible acidification of the sea, this is of huge concern to me and environmentalists, yet it's been pushed forward by industry, by huge businesses, through HyNet, and that's something that I think we need to look at from an environmental point of view. Thank you; just got that in.

So, regarding the SFS, can you give me an update on the carbon sequestration evidence review panel that was intended to inform the SFS development? Which organisations are on the panel from the ministerial round-table, and would you expect this carbon sequestration panel to draw on evidence from the UK CCC? What's 'UK CCC'?

Climate Change Committee.

Thank you. And we talk often about carbon sequestration, but we've lost 97 per cent of our wildflower meadows, okay? We've got some ancient wildflower meadows left, but we also need to have regard for—. 

Okay, let's—

So, I'd like you to include that as well.

—answer the question. Yes, sure. Thank you. I think there were about four questions there, sorry. [Laughter.]

No, it's great. So, the point we've got to is I said we would go at pace on this. We've just had the second meeting of the ministerial round-table. That ministerial round-table—I think we've published the organisations that are on that ministerial round-table. Of those, there's been a self-nomination process from those members of—I think there's about—

Eight.

No, how many are on the ministerial round-table? Sorry, we're not making these things too large. We're not doing the classic Welsh Grand Committee approach here; this is at pace, real focus. But there are eight members of that ministerial round-table who have agreed to come together on the carbon sequestration panel. So, we've had two meetings of the ministerial round-table and we're working at pace on that. The carbon sequestration panel is established with those eight members; it's a good cross-section of people on that as well, with really good experience. I've said to them that they need to work at real pace, so whilst the ministerial round-table, I can perceive, will be going through the summer into the autumn—there'll be no holidays for anybody—the carbon sequestration panel will absolutely have no holidays—I've told them this already, and my poor officials—because they will be crunching through the arguments that have been put forward for other methods of carbon sequestration, carbon storage, to be explored and examined.

But the very clear steer, Chair, and Carolyn, is that they need to be things that can work right now, as well as looking at areas that might be in the future. So, what we need to get to is a point very rapidly where we say, 'These are the areas that actually have potential within the SFS. These ones may do some way down the line, but maybe not, and they might merit some further exploration and examination and so on.' So, they've been tasked with a job of work through the summer and to come back and report up to the ministerial round-table, where, ultimately, it will be me. I've had this question asked at the ministerial round-table. It's not an executive body; it is a ministerial round-table, but, ultimately, I'll have to take decisions on it.

Before you come to the other questions—

But what organisations? Can we have a list of what organisations?

Yes, maybe a list would be useful.

Can you e-mail them to us?

Yes, include them in.

I'm always interested to know who they are.

So, the ministerial round-table organisations are already published. We can send them to you though, as well, and I think we're at the point of signing off—. I don't know if we have agreed with the eight members of—with the publishing.

Yes, so the eight members of the sequestration sub-group are there. They've met for the first time. Just to be clear, as well, their role is basically to invite experts to come and present to them and to look at evidence from experts. What that sub-group will then do is, in effect, through the chair, report back to the round-table from what they've heard—

Okay, so there are wider consultees. Okay.

Yes, absolutely. I guess the important thing for the sequestration sub-group isn't so much the eight members—they're acting on behalf of the round-table; it's the list of experts they're going to invite. They've had an initial discussion on who that list will be. I think there needs to be a further discussion, just to hone it down, if I can put it that way.

It would be nice to have that list, though, because there were so many different organisations, just so we know, if we can.

Well, for transparency, I think that's important, but also are minutes being published, or will there be a note of meetings being held? Just generally, how is that going to be—? How are you opening the blinds on all of that, so that people know what's going on?

We've agreed that the ministerial round-table—. The deliberations and discussions—. We have internal notes that are being taken—

I'm asking because people are asking us as Members—

Yes, no, I fully understand.

'It's all gone very quiet. What's happening?', you know.

And there's a deliberate intent behind that, as well, because one of the things that we've discussed at the very first meeting is the way that we will work as a ministerial advisory group and the carbon sequestration group beneath it. We need to work with that collegiate approach, but also with some frankness and honesty amongst each other, and being able to say things that are difficult and challenging and have those conversations. So, this won't be a running commentary, the publication of minutes and whatever. What we will do, however, is when we come to decision points and we say, 'This is what we're doing', or, for example, on the publication of the members, we'll put that out in the public domain with the agreement of all that are sitting round that round-table. It's a slightly different way of working, but it's deliberately designed, Chair, in order to give the trust of all those people there within that that we can speak honestly and frankly and crunch through this at pace, rather than a committee session—

Sure. No, I wouldn't expect it word for word, but certainly, I think people would appreciate knowing who's listening to whom giving evidence on what, you know—

Yes.

—it doesn't need to be the finer detail.

We can take that away and explore that with the members.

Okay. And you've used the phrase 'at pace' a number of times today and previously, what does that mean, because, surely, you give them deadlines? I'm not asking you to tell us what that deadline is, potentially, but, you know, I mean, 'at pace'—.

Yes, we have. We have. So, for example, we know that there's going to be a significant amount of evidence that the carbon sequestration group want to look at, but what we don't want to do is set them off on—. For example, if they had the luxury of saying, 'Let's look at this for the next 12 months', well, that's no good; we actually need it to deliver the SFS in a time so that farmers and everybody else know that they've got some certainty. So, we've said to them, 'You've got a hell of a task ahead of you this summer.' We haven't given them a date, Chair, but we have given them a broad timescale to work into and to report back to the ministerial advisory group.

For the ministerial advisory group, yes, I can assure you, without going into detail, that we have milestones that we're working to, because some of this stuff that we're discussing, we will, I anticipate, be able to agree on before we get to more tricky areas, such as what's lifted up from the carbon sequestration group. So, we are working, within the ministerial advisory group, to clearly understood parameters, remit and also, if not specific dates, pretty clear timescales that we have shared with the group.

But you'll understand why some of the work that we're doing—. Whilst I get the frustrations outside, we're just not doing this by a sort of Welsh Grand Committee approach here, what we're doing is—. What we learnt from the SFS, from the consultation, is that it was pretty clear where the points of agreement were and the points of disagreement were and where the concerns were, and so on. What we're clear on—and I made that clear when I came into the role—what we actually need to do is lock ourselves in a room and work through this with all the stakeholders involved, and that means not doing a running commentary. But we will, Chair, for this committee and for others, when that ministerial advisory group and the sub-group actually have something to report on, we will report it.

Can I just ask—? What came across, quite often, from the farmers was that it's not just about planting trees, it's about managing the wildflower meadows, carbon peatland restoration and the other things that they're doing as well. So, is that what you're looking at, roughly?

All of those things and more.

Thank you. Okay, great.

Gian Marco just—

Well, it's just that people need to hear that, as well, you know.

Yes. All of those things and more.

Great. Thank you.

So, we are. And I think, just coming back to the point you made earlier under the biodiversity discussion, if you look at what our approach is in terms of the habitat requirement, it's very much about trying to build habitat into the productive farming system. So, one of the things we said in the consultation was that, where there isn't sufficient habitat on farm, what we want to see is creation of temporary habitat. So, we don't want to see land taken out of productivity; we want to see habitat created in a way that works with the productive system. The classic example is multispecies swards. So, you can have multispecies swards, which are great for biodiversity and wildlife, but also great for grazing and give you that extra resilience through drought and wet weather, et cetera. So, we are very much trying to do that and work in tune with the environment. And again, I would expect one of the conversations that will happen under the sequestration panel is that role of trees or other ways of sequestering carbon—

Hedges.

—hedges, yes—which are part of the farming system, so they provide shelter thereby reducing input costs, thereby making your farm more efficient, et cetera. So, those are some of the discussions, but as the Cabinet Secretary said, we've deliberately given the carbon sequestration panel—and the terms of reference, actually, were agreed by the round-table at the last meeting—quite a narrow focus to help us input into the scheme design, particularly at that universal layer. Because, potentially, this could be a discussion that could go on for a long time, and we want that focus to help us feed into the scheme design.

Thank you. We've got five minutes left. I know Julie has a number of questions. Joyce, very briefly, if you just want to come in.

It's a very quick one, and you can write to me. Climate change, we know, is happening. The Institute of Biological, Environmental and Rural Sciences have invested heavily—we've invested in IBERS—in alternative plants and methods. So, if you could give us an update, because we haven't got time now, on your work with IBERS on producing things on the land as the land is changing. That's a very short version of my question.

Yes, happy to.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. Julie.

Diolch. Given the delays with the SFS, how are you going to support farmers in the meantime with their environmental practices?

A really critical question. Not only the year ahead, but last year, we committed to extending the BPS. They didn't do this in England. We've given farmers in the farming community, which is so integral to the structure and the richness of our rural communities, the certainty that the BPS would continue, last year. We've also given them the certainty that, going ahead into the preparatory phase, that will be there as well.

But, in addition to that, last year, even though there were elements of concern and controversy around it, the Habitat Wales Scheme we did take forward. Now, we're constrained by the budgets that are available, as there was less within that budget than we'd have liked to have put. However, what was interesting was it went beyond those people who were in Glastir. The uptake was more significant in terms of the number of people who've joined it, beyond those who were in Glastir originally. We did lose some people who were in Glastir, but others joined who were outside it, and the uptake of land within the HWS is more.

One of the benefits of that, Julie, is that there were concerns over some of the mapping that was being used. Well, the good thing is that we now have mapping. It may be imperfect. I suspect a lot of people out there in different parts of Wales would say, 'That's not right, it doesn't reflect that patch of my field.' Well, that's great, because this summer we can now go ahead and work with the farmers and with the farming unions' support, and others, to say, 'Here's what we've got, improve it now', so that when we get to taking forward the SFS, we can say we've got proper mapping that's informed by farmers and landowners on the ground.

We also, by the way, of course, still have the woodland creation grants in place. So, those farmers who want to—in the right place, with the right tree—can actually choose to opt into woodland creation as well. We still have other forms of grant mechanisms available. So, we're not standing still on this at all.

We're also keen, depending on what we learn from what comes out of the carbon sequestration group, what comes out of the ministerial round-table, to prove by doing on the ground, in this preparatory phase, some of those things such as using different crop leys, et cetera, to do with soil enrichment and so on. All of that work will continue to go on in these months ahead.

Right. And then, just quickly, the committee has heard strong evidence that the proposals didn't go far enough to protect the management of sites of special scientific interest. Will this be addressed?

Gian Marco, if I can.

Yes, absolutely. Just to reassure the committee, we are absolutely keen to do what we can to protect SSSIs. I think it's one of the priorities for the sustainable farming scheme. What we consulted on was a way of trying to do that within the scheme design, which is to say that we pay for action above the regulatory baseline. But, as the Member said, we had widespread feedback from all sides of the debate that we needed to do more.

So, without pre-empting discussions that are going to happen at the round-table, because it's probably one of the first things that's going to come to the round-table, I think it's fair to say that, at a policy level, we are fairly close to finding a way of making sure that, in the development of the SFS, we will have sufficient support at the universal layer for those farmers who farm or who have bits of their farm within a SSSI to be able to take those management actions above the regulatory baseline, and therefore be rewarded for it under the habitat element of the universal layer.

So, those concerns are being addressed.

They are absolutely being addressed. I said to the NFU a while back, it's definitely in my top three of things that need to be addressed. I'm pleased to say—again, without pre-judging discussions—I think we've made good progress internally on trying to find a solution.

Thank you. Can I ask, is there a working date in your mind for the conclusion of all this detail, so that you can move to an implementation phase, or a broad, you know—?

Having given the certainty of the BPS for the year ahead, and to give to all the stakeholders the certainty of when we do this, then we have to be looking to launch the full, all together, from 2026. I can't give you a firm date at this moment. I have in my head when I'd like to, but some of this does depend on the delivery—. But we know we can't slip, because, if we slip, we're into another year of uncertainty and another year of finding funding to support the existing structures. So, it will be 2026.

And the sector will need time to absorb and understand—

Exactly.

—the opportunities they have within the scheme, and all of that.

Very much.

Okay. Well, on that note, can I thank you for your attendance this morning, Cabinet Secretary, and your officials? You will, as always, be sent a draft copy of the transcript, to check for accuracy. We've cantered through a lot of the portfolio there, and we haven't touched other parts, I appreciate. But we will, obviously, revisit as much as we can regularly over the coming few months. So, with that, diolch yn fawr iawn.

I look forward to engaging with you all going forward. Thank you very much.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Diolch yn fawr. Can I ask Members to remain in the room for a moment? We'll break now, but can I ask Members just to stay here for a moment? Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch, Chair. Good morning—well, yes, we are still morning. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary and team. After your comments in Plenary on 17 April, it's fair to say media coverage reported the 20 mph policy was being reversed. Can you clarify for the record that the 20 mph statutory speed limit on restricted roads will remain, and whether you personally support this policy? 

Yes and yes. I mean, the media—. I've got no control over how the media report on issues. I think, by and large, the media coverage was really accurate. If there were stories that said that we were conducting a u-turn or dropping the policy, then that perhaps is not so accurate, but I think, by and large, the accuracy of the coverage is to be commended.

If I can just give a bit of background to my position on the policy, I think there are three key factors in making sure that we safeguard the policy and make it a success. One is that, where 20 mph is implemented, we have to make sure the environment is suitable for it—the built environment and the natural environment. That means that it applies largely to the more urban areas and routes, roads, where pedestrians and cyclists are close to vehicles, motorised vehicles. Also the traffic already has to be moving at a comparatively low speed, i.e. between 20 mph and 30 mph. Then thirdly, and perhaps the most important, so far as I'm concerned, is to make sure that people support it and that you win hearts and minds. The statement on 17 April was about, and all of the work that we've done in listening to people and listening to people's concerns has been about making sure that we win people over on this policy, that we listen to concerns, that we adapt the guidance and make sure that it can be implemented in a way that brings people with us so that we can safeguard the future of the policy.

Okay. You've just said the magic word there: ‘guidance’. Now, if you look across Wales, there's a very inconsistent approach. Right from day one, I said to the previous Deputy Minister, I said where I think this is all falling apart is that some local authorities have taken it quite literally—I think my own authority could be—and then others have actually been more reasonable. Now, for me, whenever I wrote, the local authority kept saying the guidance wasn't clear, the guidance wasn't clear, and I did ask the previous Deputy Minister: please can you ensure that the guidance, that local authorities are able to interpret it correctly? Will you be doing anything now more on the guidance to almost spoon feed the local authorities into saying, ‘Well, look, if you get’—. We've got a road past Llandudno technical college, so it's half in mine and half in Darren Millar's constituency. When I learned to drive, that was 60 mph, and I think some used to do 70 mph. Then it dropped down to 40 and people thought, ‘Oh, that's very slow’, and it’s now at 20 mph. It's just weird that that road is 20 mph. But trying to make—. Other people have written in and they're saying, 'When are the local authorities going to actually listen to this?' When will you be putting this really easy-to-understand guidance out? 

Shall I just give the timeframes and just outline some of the work on the guidance, if that's all right? So, there are three phases to the work that we're undertaking. The first phase is about listening to people, and then the second phase—and it runs in parallel—is about making sure that we look at the guidance, we work with local authorities. And we've also got a panel of County Surveyors' Society Wales helping us as well in looking at the guidance and creating a framework that enables local authorities to have the flexibility and the confidence to make changes where they feel necessary, so that we have consistency across Wales. 

It is about confidence, yes.

Yes. So that we can have consistency across Wales. Now, that will end in July, the process of listening to the public, the public being able to make suggestions on specific routes, and the work that we've conducted with local authorities and the County Surveyors' Society Wales. From July then onward to September, local authorities will be able to look at the roads that the public have recommended for consideration for moving back to 30 mph. They'll also be able to look at the routes that they'd already identified as potentially reverting back to 30 mph. And then, from September, there'll be the process put in place for routes to move to 30 mph, and indeed there may be some that move to 20 mph. There are members of your own group, actually, who have made very strong and I think commendable cases for some routes seeing a speed limit reduction. 

So, that's the process that will be followed. My hope is that, through the statutory processes from September, we'll see changes taking place, certainly within this financial year, but my hope will be that, by the end of this calendar year, we'll see certain routes change. And I hope that, by this time next year, the policy will be settled, and, as a result of the way that we've engaged with the public, made sure that the citizen's voices are at the heart of what we're doing, right at the centre of consideration that's taking place in 22 local authorities and by the Welsh Government, we will have a policy that has widespread popular support, because that's crucial, that is, in making sure that people adhere to the policy, to the new speed limit. If people don't believe it, buy into it, embrace it, support it, they're less likely then to adhere to it. So, I want to be in a position by this time next year where we have this settled.  

But there will be instances where the rules deem somewhere to be 20 mph and the local community will not accept that. If you're saying their voice is at the heart of this process, you're not saying they have a veto on this process. 

Well, when you say a veto, there's never been a veto in place for this sort of change; it's all been conducted through local authorities engaging with citizens. And we've also—

Yes, but if the criteria demand that it is 20 mph and the local people don't accept that, then obviously there's an issue there, isn't there? 

I'll bring Peter in on the criteria, because there are some really important changes that are being made. 

So, I think the best way to summarise this is that the two things we are looking to introduce to revised guidance are a greater sense of pragmatism and a greater sense of local authority discretion. I think our biggest point of learning from this exercise is that there was insufficient opportunity in the first set of guidance for local conditions to be taken into account, and when I say 'local' I mean 'hyperlocal'. It will vary street to street, even in a similar area, and this is something that cannot be a desktop exercise; it has to be done by people who know the area best. That is not Welsh Government. But what we need to do, in response to the prior question, is a very, very clear framework so that local authorities understand the discretion that they are working to, because they as highways authorities have a very important legal role, and they need to have the confidence that they are following a process that, nonetheless, allows them to make a judgment. 

Sorry, just really one important point I must raise as well is that we've asked town and community councils across Wales to make their views heard as well to the local authorities, and they are perhaps best placed of all to engage with people within their respective communities. And there is a vast number of town and community councils across Wales as well. So, I think we've done all we can to ensure that the citizen's voice is at the centre of this policy as it moves forward. 

Okay. Two observations I have—

Very briefly then, because I have a number of people. 

Yes. Two observations I have are—I'm having lots of people asking me now—there was the cost of implementing it; who's going to pick up the cost for putting it back, any roads that need to go back to 30 mph? And also, in terms of where there is this dispute, there's confusion out there—people don't know whether to come to me, whether they should go to their county council, whether they go to their town council. I do think more work needs to be done by you, as a Government, to try and highlight—use social media—that people have got their say now and that things have changed.

We've been trying to do that by creating not just a Welsh Government e-mail address, but we're also able to signpost people to the 22 local authorities as well, to their dedicated e-mails for making comment. So, we're trying to do that to make sure that we've got the direct route for people to have their say.

On the cost front, I've already stated that it'll be the Welsh Government that pays for any changes. But we do not expect the cost of changes to amount to anywhere near the original implementation cost.

Okay. Thank you. Very briefly, then, Carolyn.

I welcome the fact that you're looking at introducing an element of pragmatism and discretion. From my experience, some highway authorities like to have black-and-white legislation, like planners, so that if you do not make a road up in a certain area and there are objections from residents, because they want to have it at 40 mph or they want to have their area from 40 mph to 30 mph, that way highway authority officers are able to defend why that decision has been made. That's why they need this black-and-white legislation. I questioned this, when we were looking at 20 mph roll-out, but I understood that, under the current legislation, there is some area of discretion, based on the character of the road. So, there is already some discretion, even though they needed that black-and-white legislation. So, I just wanted to get that across. And also in areas of north Wales, we have a lot of inter-urban development, and the density element of your criteria—. So, when there were 20 more houses within 1 km, unless you could prove that it wasn't used by walkers and cyclists—it didn't specify how many walkers and cyclists, that was the main issue. So, if you can look at the density criteria of that element as well, as part of the discretion, that would be really useful.

That's a really good point, and that has very much been a focus of our attention.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, Carolyn. Delyth.

Diolch. And, Cabinet Secretary, please forgive me that I'm not with you in the room; I'm still dealing with the after-effects of COVID and I didn't want to pass a cough on to anyone either.

I wanted to just take you back to what Janet had referred to at the start, actually, about the effect, maybe, of how the media has reported on this change or this development of the policy. Because behavioural change really requires public buy-in with a really bold and quite brave policy change like this, are you concerned that the way that some elements of the media reported your comments on 17 April—the fact that they had reported it as though it was a reversal—about any effect that that could have on people's sense of willingness to comply with the changes? And was any attempt made by the Government to correct that possibly inaccurate reporting?

I did not contact any media outlets about their reporting, and I don't do that as standard practice. I find it actually quite offensive when people try to interfere with reporters. As a former reporter, I didn't like it when I was in that position, and I wouldn't seek to correct journalists now unless it was on a very, very factual basis. And I think, in terms of the media reporting, often it's about comment, it's about interpretation of fact. So, I didn't reach out to any media outlet.

One thing I would say about behaviour, though, is that, if you are going to embark on a major programme of trying to change behaviours, you have to make sure that the public are with you. You have to ensure that there's recognition of the benefits of pursuing that behavioural change, and that means listening. The value of listening cannot be overstated. I'm minded to quote St Francis of Assisi on this, actually:

'Where there is patience and humility, there is neither anger nor vexation.'

And I think the process of listening to people as well is actually about being patient, about recognising that there are concerns, there were concerns, about taking account of that, and about putting up our hands and saying, 'If you're angry, upset, or you want to challenge us, we are here to be challenged, and we stand to be corrected, and we will put in place changes that are necessary to address your concerns.' In so doing, it's trying to draw out the heat from the policy, to make it less divisive, to draw it out from the culture wars as well, so that we can actually unite in the middle and recognise that the policy, where it works, it works really well. And, actually, although we're at the early stages, it's already demonstrating, through the data that's been published, that there are fewer collisions. So, ensuring that there's behavioural change, actually, requires a huge amount of listening and empathy.

Thank you. I think that's probably the first time that Francis of Assisi has been quoted in this committee's proceedings, so thank you very much that. And, sincerely, the points—. I agree with you about what you've been saying about the need for empathy, the need for there to be listening, and this is, as well as any kind of science—as you say, this has to have the backing of the public for it.

You referred to the fact that there is data now suggesting—not suggesting but proving that there has been a reduction in collisions, probably as a result of this policy. What's your response been to those data, please? And have those data points, in any way, affected your implementation of the review?

No. We welcome the data, but I would place a strong caveat on the fact that this is the first point at which we've been able to ascertain the beneficial impact of the policy, and data does fluctuate. So, this is a snapshot. I think what we need to do is look at the emerging trend. The next round of stats will cover the period of January to March of this year. That will give us a better picture. But I think we need to give ourselves a much greater length of time to be able to judge what the trend is and the extent of the benefits.

In terms of whether the data has affected the review—it hasn't. We embarked on the review process before the data was published. We couldn't guarantee that there would be fewer collisions, but we were confident that the policy would result in fewer collisions and fewer casualties. That's the principal policy objective of it as well. I know that there are certain benefits that people have debated whether they actually can be realised—the impact on air quality and so forth—but my position on the policy has always been that, first and foremost, it's about reducing the number of collisions on the roads, and, in turn, helping to make places safer and helping to make people feel safer as well in their communities.

Thank you. Diolch.

Thank you. Janet.

Can you comment on the trend in road accident data overall, for all speed limits? For example, while total fatalities has decreased slightly in 2023 compared to 2022, the number of serious injuries has increased by 99 to 891. How do you rationalise this?

So, this is my point, actually, that figures do fluctuate, and it's for a number of factors. I think, overall, though, 2023 to 2022, there was a reduction, wasn't there?

Overall—

Overall.

—but, as you can see from the quarterly series, it is not uncommon for the quarter-to-quarter to fluctuate by even over 10 per cent. And that 99 would be within that 10 per cent bound. So, that reflects why, with a policy such as this, you probably can't judge the success of it at a macro level until you've seen about two to three years of data, and we have—

Sorry. I was just going to say, the long-term trend, though, is in the way that we would wish it to be—it's going down in terms of the number of collisions. And there are huge advances being made in terms of vehicle technology and safety as well.

So, how are we getting so many higher serious injuries? A question to you on—

It could be down to a number of factors. I'll identify one, perhaps. At the time of the year, when Easter comes or autumn half-term comes, if there's an early Easter that happens before the clocks change, then the Easter holidays are during a period when it's darker. That can have an influence in terms of the number of vehicle collisions. So, there are a number of factors. I'm no expert, I'm afraid, in terms of the data.

I've just seen that there's been a lot of rah-rah about the reduced number of accidents, but, you know, the reality—

Fundamentally, the point is valid, isn't it? You have to take a longer period into account. It's like carbon emissions. You'll have certain weather meaning that there's a spike, but if you still look at the the projected longer timescale, then there's a trend that you can look at there, isn't there?

Yes, and that was why, Chair, I was keen not to make a major issue of the stats, because, from quarter to quarter, there will be fluctuations, and I think the key thing is that we recognise that we have to look at the long-term trend. 

And it works both ways, doesn't it?

It works both ways. 

Sometimes it's up and sometimes it's down. 

Yes. 

Okay, thank you. Carolyn. 

Earlier you outlined that the approach to reviewing 20 mph exceptions includes specific changes. So, how many roads do you think might be made up, approximately, in each local authority? We've got 22 local authorities, and I know some have done more exceptions than others. So, for example, in north Wales, there were maybe six, and in, I think it was Swansea, there were 135 exceptions. There was quite a big difference. And I believe that Denbighshire have got 25 sitting there, to be made up, hoping that the new guidelines will mean that they can—hoping that Wrexham and Flintshire maybe have about 25. But it's these arterial routes, really, isn't it? So, how do we get across? And talking to bus operators like Arriva, they really need these arterial routes to be made up.

Yes, that's right. 

So, how do we capture those as well, when we have a lot of the ribbon development—the inter-urban connectivity? Will that be captured, do you think, under this new having flexibility and pragmatic—?

I'll bring in Peter, but before I do, I should just say, I would love to be able to speculate all day on how many roads there are. [Laughter.] Because it's not for me to say, it's for local authorities. I think it would be improper for me to speculate, and I can't put a figure on it. But I would say that it will vary, I imagine. 

But there is expectation out there that it will be substantially reduced. 

It depends on the area. 

And it comes back to what was being said earlier about coverage and managing expectations. People are expecting things to change significantly. Potentially, some may go, but others may come on board, so—

Yes. I'll bring in Peter in a moment, but just to that direct point, it really does vary quite incredibly, not just from one local authority to another, but also at a hyperlocal level as well. 

Yes, indeed, you're right. 

And what's striking is that—. We're in a period now when many of us are on the doorstep a lot of the time, and what's really striking is that people identify the same routes time and time again. So, actually, it might not be so much that people are expecting a huge proportion of roads to change, but that the impact will be noticeable. I think that's the key thing. But Peter. 

I think you've made the point, Cabinet Secretary. So, the first thing to say is the numbers you are quoting, they feel in the right ballpark from the things that we are hearing. But as you said, Cab Sec, not all roads are created equal, so we should expect the vast majority of built-up residential roads, for example, within a classic housing estate, to not change. And that is why the cost of revising the policy is going to be significantly below the cost of implementing it, because the vast majority of road signs are in that type of place. 

But if you can have an impact on, I think the phrase you used was 'key arterial roads', which could, for example, be along that ribbon development, then, whilst in terms of sheer number of roads, that's quite small, in terms of percentage of traffic movements, that could be much greater. And so that's quite often where we are seeing the focus in our work with local government at the moment.

And to use hyperlocal as an example—. Just to adopt an example, because a number of us will be familiar with Wrexham, if you look at Wrexham, and, say, Caia Park, I couldn't imagine, within Caia Park, seeing 30 mph routes reinstated, because it's a very, very densely populated area. It's a housing estate—lots of children playing, lots of pedestrians and cyclists. However, a key arterial route might be through Gwersyllt, for example, and I think the local authority are looking at that route. So, whilst the volume might not be huge, the significance in terms of the routes that people have identified could be very, very significant. 

Okay, thank you. 

Can I just ask a little one, just very small?

No, sorry. Joyce. 

Tough Chair. [Laughter.]

Well, we're up against time, sorry. 

You did mention a housing estate, and I'm particularly interested in the effect on deprived areas, because their voices might not be as well reflected as other people's voices within those same communities. And, of course, if you look at collision and injury data, it disproportionately will show that people who are living in deprived areas will feature quite highly. So, how are you going to manage a socially just transition?

It's a really, really good question, and, actually, I think what we're doing with the policy will actually enhance it, in terms of making sure that it's socially just. I've just talked about Caia Park as an example. What is quite clear from all of the evidence is that levels of deprivation are higher in the more urban areas, the more inner-city areas. As you reach places that you might consider ribbon areas, and in England it would be middle England—I'm not sure whether we've got an equivalent in Wales—that's where deprivation barely exists. But the changes that we're most likely to see will be in those areas where there is least deprivation. So, actually, we're going to make this policy that is even more strongly focused, I think, on social justice.

Good. I'm really, really pleased to hear that, because I think one of the first things I ever, ever came across was fatalities on a road of children under five in a very deprived area, and called for reduction of speed.

And that's where you've got a lot of people who are in close proximity to moving vehicles, motorised vehicles, and that's what the policy is going to protect, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Janet.

Can you outline the engagement process that will be followed, particularly how you will ensure that the residents living in those areas subject to speed limits are fully engaged?

Well, there's been a huge engagement programme. The listening exercise that's been undertaken has resulted in a very significant number of responses from the public. As I've already outlined, we've also engaged town and community councils. We've engaged directly with bus operators, who have been incredibly helpful in—

What volume of responses have you had?

Well, to the local authorities, is it 7,000 we've had so far?

It's definitely in the thousands.

It's in the thousands. I believe one authority might have had in excess of 1,000 just in its own right. So, it has resulted in quite a huge volume of responses. If this was a public consultation, we would consider it a major success with that number. So, people have already been engaged. And from September, the statutory process will require notices to be issued. So, there will be a further opportunity for councils and for the public to make their views known.

Okay, one last question on this to Carolyn, and then we'll move on.

Yes. So, when all the local authorities have got the roads they want to be made up, are you hoping they can do it under one TRO, under one traffic regulation order, to save cost and time?

I think we're looking at being able to—. Is it—? I forget what the term is that local authorities use. Is it 'bulk' them, or something?

So, there are various administrative options, and that will be down to the local authority. Some local authorities, for example, have used temporary TROs as a way to streamline. But given that we would not be expecting changes to take place again, it would probably be the case that this would be a more permanent administrative arrangement. But we're always happy to work with local authorities on doing things in a streamlined fashion.

Yes.

Okay, there we are—

And I've spoken with a number of officials, actually, about the potential to be able to package—whatever the term is, the official term—or to bulk them, or package them together, for a single TRO, rather than doing it on a street-by-street basis. 

And in the long term, this policy will lead to fewer TROs, because there was a very significant number needed every time a housing estate was built to take the default 30 mph down to 20 mph, whereas now we approach it in the opposite way.

And it has not really often been said that that was one of the main reasons why the policy was introduced, because the process of introducing individual TROs was becoming so bureaucratic and so costly that it had to be cheaper to do what we've done—less expensive, for sure.

We did it in Flintshire, but it was challenged by a highway officer, and it was fine. I was just wondering if that would save time. Thank you.

Just regarding the roads policy statement, you were critical of the road review report when it was published. What's your current view, and do you intend to change the roads policy statement? Do you believe that transport decisions should be devolved to north Wales, as the Minister for north Wales?

I think I've already said that in the past, that they should, and I remain committed to the process of devolution, to making sure that decisions are made at the most appropriate level. We have in place now CJCs. We've got the regional transport plans that are taking shape. I'm looking at how we can use the overall envelope of funding for local authorities in a more flexible and empowering and enabling way, giving decision making to local authorities and CJCs, whether individually or through the CJCs, to make sure that north Wales and, for that matter, the other regions of Wales have a greater say over investment in transport. And that applies not just to road transport; that applies also to active travel decisions. I want to be less prescriptive, and direct less and enable and empower more, and also engage local authorities through the CJCs and, again, individually in decisions around rail investment and rail services.

On the roads review, right, it depends how long I've got and how far you want me to go with it.

Well, we'll give you some time on this.

Right. It was Mark Drakeford, a few years ago, who once reminded me that political parties often fight the last election, and that's so true. And I think also there's a risk that, as a politician, as a decision maker, you're making decisions on the basis of the problems that existed yesterday, probably exist today but might not exist tomorrow. And it's absolutely vital that you're making decisions that take due regard of emerging trends, technologies, behavioural changes. And insofar as roads are concerned, I think that, actually, whilst it's a helpful filter to have the tests and the statement, we need to make sure that it's fit for purpose, that it operates as an effective framework for investment in high-quality roads that do meet the needs of citizens, but which also pay due regard to the climate and nature emergencies. And I think that we can do that. I think we definitely can do that through embracing those new and emerging trends and technologies and materials, for example.

I'll be at the north Wales construction forum tomorrow, in fact, and I'll be there with Jeremy Miles. And I'm keen to learn about how, within Wales, we're utilising and embracing some of what we're seeing taking place away from Wales. There's a really interesting road being built—it may even have been completed now—in Durham, which uses ACLA. I don't know what's in ACLA; they're not letting on, because the company that has developed it rightly are protecting it. But it's a really interesting new material for road surfaces that actually draws in more carbon than is embedded. And that's the sort of thing that I want to see utilised in new roads. So, rather than stop the problem, actually solve the problem and be a world leader in solving the problem.

So, you will be changing the statement, then.

Well, we're looking at that at the moment, and I'll be coming forward with—. Anything that we do on it, I will come forward with a statement in the Chamber. 

There's a theory, and it's a proven theory, actually, that electric cars are harder wearing on road surfaces. Have you taken that into account with any new—

Yes, again, this is why I asked how long I've got, because I could talk for ages about this. So, EVs are really interesting because, actually, Toyota, it looks like, have cracked the problem with trying to develop dry-cell batteries. Now, if that's the case, that could be hugely beneficial in terms of range, in terms of charge time, but also in terms of the weight of vehicles. DHL were telling me the other day that if HGVs could operate with dry cells, rather than wet cells, then it would vastly reduce the weight, and that in turn would help in terms—

But what about the cars that are on our roads now, the EVs?

Yes, okay. Briefly, then.

Yes, you're right—you're absolutely right. Current EVs are heavier than cars with internal combustion engines, and that's something that we've talked about, actually, for years. We were talking about it when I was last in the role, and how that would impact on the long-term maintenance of the road network. And the other thing that it's worth considering in all of this is that, when people talk about EVs being the solution, yes, to a great extent, EVs will result in fewer carbon emissions from the operational perspective, but actually, because of the weight, it may well be that we get more brake dust, we have more tyre wear, which creates another problem. But, that said, again, advances are being made at such a pace—at such a pace—that that problem may be solved as well.

Okay. Thank you. Do you want to go?

Is the Welsh Government—? You told North Wales Live in April that you'd consider putting the Menai crossing and other road schemes back on the table. How would this approach be consistent with the Welsh Government's climate obligations? North Wales Live reported that you intend to look again at the roads review recommendations in light of new sustainable construction methods. Can you outline the new construction methods that have emerged in the 16 months since the roads review report was published?

You've just done that, in fairness. 

I can identify more, but—

It's the third Menai crossing that I'm interested in. 

Yes, I think it's the first point, the first part of the question. 

Yes, I do want to look at the third Menai crossing, particularly given the prospect of a new nuclear reactor on Ynys Môn. So, it's very, very much part of our consideration. That said, we're taking forward recommendations from the North Wales Transport Commission, because they are 'no regret' recommendations, as they will improve—particularly the wind deflectors, for example—. Installing wind deflectors will help in terms of resilience, so we're going to take that forward. But in terms of an additional crossing, and sometimes I prefer to call it a 'dualling' of the crossing rather than a third crossing, I think it's very, very much a case if Wylfa Newydd happens, then we have to ensure that the island is resilient.

The other things that we're looking at concern the Britannia Bridge, and I've asked officials to look at the rail lines that operate beneath it and whether one of the rail lines could be used purely for emergency vehicles in the event of huge tailbacks on the road itself. Now, it may well be that, because of rail safety regulations, we will—

Yes, but at least you're looking into it.

We're being as creative as we can. But projects like the third Menai crossing, certainly, was never taken fully off the table, because there was a recognition that Wylfa Newydd might well go forward. So, we're really, really serious about looking at road resilience, particularly in the event of a new nuclear reactor being constructed on the island.

Thank you. Julie.

Thank you very much. How can more road building be consistent with the Welsh Government's target of 10 per cent reduction in car miles per person by 2030?

Entirely, I believe, and I'll outline why I think it's consistent. If we're going to get people out of cars, we're going to have to make sure that we get people onto public transport. Public transport first is my view. And we're not going to get people onto buses, which is the primary public transport mode, unless we can make services reliable, affordable, and, actually, through the bus Bill, make sure that they exist in all parts of Wales. Now, you can't have a reliable bus service if you have congested local roads. And the whole point of the strategic road network is to ensure that local roads operate in an efficient way. So, actually, new roads, through inducing traffic from local roads, free up local roads to be able to operate effective public transport and in so doing, in conjunction with a fairer fare regime, you can then draw people out of their private vehicles and meet that 10 per cent target, I believe.

What about evidence there's been that induced demand from road investment does exist and may be significant?

Yes, it does exist, but it's not always bad is the point I'm trying to make. If you're trying to make sure that you have an effective public transport system—a bus system that can operate reliably, on time—you have to have the road network for it. And so, particularly with stuff like freight, you need to draw as much freight as you can off local roads onto an effective and efficient trunk road network. So, actually, induced traffic is not always a bad thing if it then leads ultimately to a net reduction in the number of people who are using private vehicles for journeys that they could undertake either through active travel or on buses. 

But then, all the evidence points to more roads equals more traffic—it's a vicious circle, isn't it? I mean, is there international evidence to show that more roads mean less traffic?

I'm talking about making sure that you target, and this is what we want to do—we want to make sure that this policy is finessed sufficiently to ensure that you are drawing from local roads traffic that should be on a strategic road network—

I can give an example.

Yes, an example.

It could be useful to give an example. This is why we're looking at the roads review tests because we've been living with them for over a year now and we've been using them in practice, and we think there are ways to clarify what they imply in terms of new roads. So, for example, it would be entirely consistent with the roads review tests to build a new road that's, let's say, a low-speed relief road around a community that allows for modal shift on the main road that currently goes through that community. So, as the Cabinet Secretary says, at a macro level you have not induced any more traffic; what you have done is you have moved in particular the freight movements, for air quality and carbon reasons, out of the community. And with the road that you are left with, if you left that as a normal road, yes, it would induce traffic overall, but if you took the opportunity to put active travel and bus priority in place, then, on a net basis, looking at that geography in the round, you have facilitated mode shift with a new road, which, if constructed with low-carbon technologies, can be consistent with the climate obligations.

Let me just identify a few more examples as well, if that helps. What is wanted in Llanbedr is a good example, I think. There's the Mold bypass. Okay, we're going back a few years now, but before the Mold bypass was built, freight had to go through the centre of Mold—on the A494 trunk road and then through the town centre. Building that road then removed that freight, removed a lot of traffic, making Mold town centre safer, enabling more active travel in Mold, improving air quality in Mold as well and ensuring that there are routes within the town that are freed up for bus transport. So, actually, I think it's a far more complex debate that's to be had on this.

It's also made it easier for people to drive into Mold.

Well, it has, but in the past people still would have driven into Mold; it's just that they would have waited slightly longer and contributed more carbon to the atmosphere.

We're not going to get much further on this, but I feel a piece of work for committee coming on in this area, so it's something that I'm sure we will revisit. But it's very interesting, and food for thought.

Newtown is a great example as well.

If we can go on to highway maintenance now, do you support the Lugg review of the approach to strategic road network maintenance and the Welsh Government response, specifically the position that maintenance should maximise modal shift, benefit diversity, climate change resilience and emissions reduction?

Yes. I think the Lugg review is a grand piece of work, I really do. It's not that well publicised, but those who know something about it, I think, recognise that it was a superb review.

Thank you.

Carolyn.

I'd like to ask some questions regarding maintenance of the existing network. The Welsh Government provided additional funding, over £60 million over three years. I remember asking you about it when you were Minister. What's your current estimate of the maintenance backlog on both the strategic road network and local authority roads and how can you address this going forward?

I'm going to bring in Peter to explain some of the nuances around this. On the strategic road network, we're looking at in excess of £1 billion. But that figure needs to be explained more fully, because that relates to a gold-plated maintenance programme. On the local road network, I can't give a figure, I'm afraid.

The last County Surveyors Society report, which I looked up, said it's a £1.6 billion backlog. That's for roads, pavements and structures under the local authorities such as small bridges. And they have asked if the county surveyors could do another report. They used to send a vehicle along the network just to assess how damaged it is, and it's not been done for a while, and so they're asking if that can be done again, working in partnership.

As you say, Cabinet Secretary, these are essentially engineering estimates that are benchmarking tools in order to estimate how much it might notionally cost to take, in particular, a major structure back to, as you described, a gold-standard set of standards. It's worth reflecting back to the Lugg review. The way you described the Lugg review was really good and it's all about making a virtue of necessity. If you're going to have to do something, you might as well do something else with broader benefits while you're there. But the other big story of the Lugg review is don't assume you replace like with like. So, when we say gold standard, we don't mean that that is what is necessary for safety and anything less is not safe; what that, for example, can talk about is how many lanes, how much run-off, how much hard shoulder, the drainage. There are lots of choices when you come to road design, and if, for example, you reduce the speed of a road, then you can use a different type of standards, and that can dramatically change the cost of replacement.

So, yes, the numbers on the backlog are significant. They're significant in every part of the United Kingdom; they have always been significant. The story at a macro level is that we should expect more of our capital budgets to go towards capital maintenance and asset renewal in the future than in the past. If you think about reinforced concrete in terms of demographics, a lot of this was built in the 1960s and 1970s, and we are now in the baby-boom retirement generation of those structures. So, there's a very significant amount of work that is needed in order to work out how best to renew those structures. And we're not making any assumptions about replacing like with like—that's what the Lugg review told us—but we are very much expecting a greater proportion of capital budgets to go towards that.

On local authority maintained roads, that's 95 per cent of traffic, and it's two thirds, according to the report, of vehicle movements. They had that £20 million each year, which was so beneficial. It worked out as an average of £1 million per authority. They didn't have it this year. You said earlier that you're looking at devolving some of that funding so that each one can bid into it. I know active travel is really important, but that has trebled to £70 million. They only had £20 million for highway maintenance—I'm just saying proportionately. You're saying you're looking at devolving some of that money so that local authorities can decide, proportionately, whether it's active travel, safe routes in the community and maybe some highway maintenance. Because they're bidding for active travel funding so they can repair that road, basically—

There's a lot of bidding going on.

—and the pavement. So, given that flexibility, it sounds like you are looking at doing that, and that will be really valued, because £70 million is a lot of money, when they only had £20 million for one year's maintenance. It would be so valued. And it's not all getting spent on active travel.

It's the whole envelope that I'd like to—

It's the walking as well. The pavements are getting so behind, but active travel should include walking, not just cycling. 

It does, and I agree entirely that the state of a lot of pavements is not acceptable. This is why I want to make sure that councils have more freedom and flexibility.

That'd be really valued. If you're looking at, proportionately, what can be done if they had even that £20 million added to that £70 million for highway maintenance and pavements— 

It's worth saying, as well, that roads aren't just used by motorised vehicles—

And cyclists. You can't put designated active travel routes on a lot of the roads, but they are used by cyclists and motorbikes, and I know many people are scared of going on their bikes at the moment, because of the state of the locally maintained roads, especially in our hilly areas. When you're going down those hills, it's dangerous. Most of the water goes to the side of the road, and you get your dropped gullies, you get your potholes where the cyclists and the motorbikes go—

Which then relates to the whole climate change resilience programme on roads as well.

Yes. Thank you.

This brings us to active travel, actually. Were you going to ask questions about active travel, or shall we go to Joyce? Joyce can pick up on that.

Active travel hasn't increased to the levels of your predecessor, and you were just discussing some of that now. Will there be an impact on meeting the 2030 target set out in 'Net Zero Wales'? How will you mitigate that reduced spending?