The
proceedings are reported in the language in which they were spoken
in the committee. In addition, a transcription of the simultaneous
interpretation is included. Where contributors have supplied
corrections to their evidence, these are noted in the
transcript.
Dechreuodd y cyfarfod am 09:30.
The meeting began at 09:30.
|
Cyflwyniad, Ymddiheuriadau, Dirprwyon a Datgan
Buddiannau
Introductions, Apologies, Substitutions and Declarations of
Interest
|
[1]
Mike Hedges: [Inaudible.]—to introductions, apologies
and substitutions. We’ve had apologies from Gareth Bennett,
and I understand there’s no substitute.
|
Craffu Cyffredinol ar Waith Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet
dros yr Amgylchedd a Materion Gwledig
General Scrutiny of the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural
Affairs
|
[2]
Mike Hedges: Can I welcome the Cabinet Secretary for Environment
and Rural Affairs and ask if you could introduce yourself and your
officials?
|
[3]
The Cabinet Secretary for Environment
and Rural Affairs (Lesley Griffiths): Yes. I’m Lesley Griffiths, Cabinet Secretary
for Environment and Rural Affairs.
|
[4]
Mr Hemington: Neil Hemington, chief planner.
|
[5]
Mr Slade: Andrew Slade, lead director, environment and rural
affairs.
|
[6]
Mr Davies: Prys Davies, head of decarbonisation and energy
policy.
|
[7]
Dr Glossop: Christianne Glossop, chief veterinary
officer.
|
[8]
Mike Hedges: Thank you very much. If you don’t mind, can we
go straight into questions? The first question, I’ll ask. How
do you respond to recent criticism of coastal flood and erosion
risk management in Wales by both the auditor general and the Public
Accounts Committee?
|
[9]
Lesley Griffiths:
Well, I’m sure you won’t be
surprised to hear I didn’t accept their criticism. I think
we’ve done some significant work in this area. We’ve
also put significant funding into this issue. If I could just say,
over the last year, since I’ve been in post, we’ve
established a five-year capital programme for flood schemes. That
was done to make sure that local authorities were certain of the
funding they would be getting, and also Natural Resources Wales
require improved governance through the new flood and coastal
programme boards. We’ve also done improved flood-risk mapping
and I think, particularly in light of what happened yesterday up in
north Wales, we’ve already got surface water flood-risk maps.
Officials are working with NRW to combine the flood-risk maps also,
because I think it’s really important that we know what areas
are at risk of specific flooding and what the types of flooding are
and what the levels of risk are. We’ve established the
communities-at-risk register, because that’s a way of
prioritising the more at-risk schemes going forward. We’ve
also got a forward work programme for the next year, where
we’ll be updating the national strategy. We are bringing
forward a coastal adaptation toolkit, and we’re now
establishing the flood and coastal erosion committee.
|
[10]
Mike Hedges: Okay, thank you. Jenny.
|
[11]
Jenny Rathbone:
What role does tree planting upstream
from the flood areas play in your strategy?
|
[12]
Lesley Griffiths:
Well, that’s something we’re
specifically looking at. It is a big part of it.
|
[13]
Mr Davies: I know that NRW are looking at the role of tree
planting in terms of upland schemes, so they have examples where
they are looking at the viability to reduce flood risk. It is a bit
more difficult to understand the exact correlation between tree
planting and reducing flood risk, but I think it absolutely has a
role to play, and it’s been a key part of NRW’s
approach to this issue for some time.
|
[14]
Jenny Rathbone:
I’m a bit disappointed, just
looking at it. I’d have thought it should have been a
substantial part of our strategy for some time now, given that
trees absorb water and also stop boulders, et cetera, going down
the hillside.
|
[15]
Mr Davies: Well, NRW do have a tree planting programme, so, in
one sense, they are doing this and taking action to do that, and I
think the work on the rural development plan also supports tree
planting in various areas across Wales. I think one of the areas
that we need to think about is actually meshing the relationship
between tree planting and the flood programme that NRW runs into a
more cohesive whole.
|
[16]
Lesley Griffiths:
It’s also something we’ve
been looking at in the natural resources policy.
|
[17]
Mike Hedges: Okay. Huw.
|
[18]
Huw Irranca-Davies:
Can I ask, Cabinet Secretary, or your
officials, where do local flood forums play any role within Wales?
Is there a difference between what’s happening in Wales and
what’s happening in England? Now, I know that local flood
forums are not a mandatory scheme anywhere, but, as we see the
weather conditions at the moment and we see the forecast for the
weekend and we know that constituencies across Wales, including
high upland areas, where you’d never have thought to have
seen flooding on a regular basis, are now being hit—.
So, local flood forums, do they play a part at all in our thinking
in flood response?
|
[19]
Mr Davies: In terms of the way that the responsibilities
around flooding are parcelled out across Wales, local authorities
have the lead responsibility for dealing with flood issues at a
local level. Now, it is ultimately up to them to decide how they
might want to engage locally. What we have done at a national level
and are in the process of doing is establishing a national flood
committee that will bring different stakeholders—so, not only
the key stakeholders like the Welsh Local Government Association
and Natural Resources Wales, but others who have a significant role
to play in terms of flood defence, like Network Rail—Network
Rail own a lot of flood assets, as do other
organisations—also utilities and others who have a role to
play, like landowners, and the agricultural community as well.
|
[20]
Huw Irranca-Davies: I think that’s excellent at a
national level, but, actually, to focus down to the local again, I
understand what you’re saying about local authorities, and
you’ve said very clearly they are in pole position to do
whatever they want to on the ground. I’ll hazard a guess
that, if I went to any local authority in Wales, and quite a few in
England, and I said to them, ‘What are you doing on local
flood forums that do the same sort of analysis on a
street-by-street community level, area level—street design,
house resilience, community resilience?’, they’d say,
‘What the hell is a local flood forum?’ Are you giving
any guidance to local authorities? Would you consider actually
devising guidance that said, ‘This is how you can work at a
local level with residents in order to better protect them against
flooding’?
|
[21]
Mr Davies: I think it’s something, certainly, that we
can look at. I can certainly take that issue back to colleagues who
work specifically on the flood side.
|
[22]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Brilliant.
|
[23]
Mike Hedges: Can I, really, ask Jenny Rathbone’s
question the other way around? What are you doing about people
taking trees down in upland areas, which, obviously, can lead to
flooding lower down? I was confused. What you said and my
understanding were not exactly the same, so perhaps you can solve
my confusion: I believed trees sucked up a large amount of
water—there’s a calculation somewhere of how much they
take up, but they’re fairly large amounts of water—but
your view, in the answer to Jenny Rathbone, was that it was just a
minor help, if a help at all.
|
[24]
Lesley Griffiths: No, I think we know they significantly do
help. In fact, when we were out in—I don’t know if Prys
remembers, but when we were out in Marrakech and we met with Paul,
who manages our Wales for Africa programme, he was telling us how
the tree planting that we’re funding in Mbale has stopped
villages from being flooded, so I think that’s completely
accepted. But you will remember I was in front of this committee
two weeks ago on woodland and forestry, so, obviously, it’s a
piece of work that needs to be much more joined up in relation to
flood management.
|
[25]
Mike Hedges: Yes, I’m sorry—
|
[26]
Mr Slade: If I may, Chair, there are three strands to the
natural resources policy work that we’ve been discussing with
stakeholders, and two of those are around nature-based solutions to
exactly the sort of issue that you’re describing, and also
area-based approaches to things, working on a catchment level for
what the impact would be on rivers and tributaries to those
rivers.
|
[27]
Mr Davies: Just on your point, Chair, if I gave the
impression that it was a minor impact, that wasn’t,
certainly, something that I wanted to give. I think what I was
trying to convey is that, when you build a 7 ft high concrete wall,
it is more measurable for a flood engineer to assess what impact
that will have, let’s say in terms of a one in 100- or
200-year flood. When you plant trees further upstream, it is
perhaps more difficult for flood engineers to understand the impact
that will have, and perhaps a bit more difficult to persuade them
about that as a particular option in terms of mitigating flood, but
it is absolutely something that we and NRW are keen to
encourage.
|
[28]
Mike Hedges: Surely, then—
|
[29]
Simon Thomas: A lot more attractive, trees, than a 7ft high
wall.
|
[30]
Mike Hedges: But, also, it’s—. From just
personal experience—and, I’m sure, the personal
experience of most Members in here—people chop trees down and
we get flooding occurring in areas that have never flooded before.
So, what is being done to stop this chopping down of trees and
bushes, because I think bushes are underrated as a means of sorting
out water coming down hills? I live in Swansea, which is not very
different to most of south Wales: it’s full of hills. Those
hills have trees on them, and bushes. Sometimes people decide to
chop those trees and bushes down and then they get amazed by the
fact they get flooding. What are you doing to try and get people
not to chop these trees and bushes down?
|
[31]
Lesley Griffiths: When you say ‘people’, who are
you referring to?
|
[32]
Mike Hedges: I’m referring to, in most cases, private
landowners, but I’m also referring to public bodies and
developers. It’s a whole range of—. There’s a
piece of land, it’s got trees and bushes on it, there’s
no flooding lower down. Somebody decides to go and remove those,
for whatever reason, either to make it better for themselves or in
order to develop the land, and, all of a sudden, flooding lower
down occurs—what are you trying to do to try and stop that
removal of bushes and trees?
|
[33]
Lesley Griffiths: Well, looking at the national strategy
update that we’re going to have next year, we can continue to
work with private landowners, et cetera. We obviously have tree
preservation orders that we can bring in.
|
[34]
Mr Slade: Trees and hedges will be part of the
cross-compliance conditions for common agricultural policy payments
and, indeed, linked to the RDP. So, we have a number of
mechanisms.
|
[35]
Mr Hemington: Also, in addition, there’s the planning
licence process, which you need to follow if you’re taking
out a certain volume of trees as well. On the planning side,
certainly when a developer is involved, there’s a requirement
for flood consequences assessments, so you will assess the impact
of that development, not just on the development but on the
surrounding areas as well. On the planning side, I think it’s
probably fair to say one area where we call in applications quite
regularly is where there is a potential impact on flooding,
particularly on neighbouring properties. So, there are, on the
development side, controls that we can put in place as well.
|
[36]
Mike Hedges: Okay. I was just going to say that some of us
believe in a one-for-one replacement policy. Huw.
|
[37]
Huw Irranca-Davies: This is a question to do with forward
looking in your strategy towards flood alleviation and mitigation
measures. All the various things—whether it’s trees or
whether it’s a perimeter wall of an estate, or it’s a
bund or it’s street-level design and so on—do you feel
you have adequate tools, including powers of mandation—some
sort of strong legal powers—to actually say to landowners
over a water catchment area, ‘You need to do this.
We’re asking you to do it, but if you refuse to do
it—’, whether that is, ‘Keep those trees planted
there’, or ‘Don’t vertical plough a hill’,
et cetera, et cetera? Do we feel we’ve got sufficient grasp
of the scale of what we need to do in a water catchment area, and
have you got the powers to do it, or are you looking to examine
whether you need additional powers?
|
[38]
Lesley Griffiths: This hasn’t been flagged up as a
particular issue, certainly not with me—I’m looking at
Neil. We’re reviewing ‘Planning Policy Wales’ at
the current time, as you know, so, if it was an issue, we could
look at it then.
|
[39]
Mr Hemington: I’m fairly confident on the built
environment side—we do have those controls in place, where
planning permission is required—less so, perhaps, on the
agriculture side and land management side, because it’s not
development, so it doesn’t fall within the planning regime.
So, when planning permission is required, yes, we can intervene,
and we do quite frequently. If I look at all of the call-in cases
over the past few years, virtually every one of those has been
where there’s been a potential impact on flooding.
|
[40]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Let me just give a really practical
example: you’ve done all of your wonderful design downstream
around the local community in the town and so on, and, up on top of
a hill, a landowner says, for whatever reason, ‘I’m
vertical ploughing this field’, and it runs off totally. The
first heavy storm we have, the water just runs off and completely
deluges the houses below. Do you have any ability to say to that
landowner, under current cross-compliance or anything else,
‘Don’t do that, please’?
|
[41]
Mr Slade: Potentially, you’re into diffuse water
pollution issues as well, so it’s not just about downstream
flooding issues. We do have powers in respect of that, although we
are looking at the moment, in relation to water quality, at what
needs to happen in the next phase of work on nitrates and
phosphates—
|
[42]
Huw Irranca-Davies: But not in terms of the
contribution—[Inaudible.]
|
[43]
Mr Slade: But we don’t, as Neil was saying,
necessarily have a suite of powers that say, ‘We don’t
want you to do this because we think that will have a downstream
consequence’ in that specific regard.
|
[44]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes. Thanks.
|
[45]
Mike Hedges: The final question from me is: can you outline
the Welsh Government’s intended timeline for establishing the
new flood and coastal erosion committee and discuss its wider
advisory role?
|
[46]
Lesley Griffiths: Yes, it’s now, really—the
Order commenced last Friday. We’re looking to start the
recruitment process for a chair next month, and the appointment of
the board members will then follow.
|
[47]
Mike Hedges: Thank you. David.
|
[48]
David Melding: I have a question on—well, close to
this area, anyway. The auditor general has criticised the Welsh
Government for the lack of a strategy for managed realignment. In
your response, I think you seem to say, ‘Well, that’s
really a matter for local government’. Is that still your
position, or will we have a national response? Because it seems odd
to reject an auditor general’s finding quite so directly.
|
09:45
|
[49]
Lesley Griffiths:
No. The national strategy update, so the
refresh that we’re going to do next year, will set out the
policy position in relation to that. I do think
it’s—
|
[50]
David Melding: But you have said in your paper to us that you think
the coastal local authorities are best placed to do this work, so
is that going to change or not?
|
[51]
Lesley Griffiths:
Well, we’re going to consider how
we bring in, obviously, the shoreline management plans. I think
what local authorities are telling us is that one size
doesn’t fit all.
|
[52]
David Melding: The auditor general first raised this point in 2011.
Your reconsideration takes it to 2018. These are really difficult
issues, obviously, about removing assets and people from high-risk
areas. I would have thought that we would have more of a leadership
indication from you about what’s going to happen.
|
[53]
Mr Davies: Well, as the Minister has explained, there are
complex issues that affect local communities around risks to
particular parts of Wales. One such community is Fairbourne in
Gwynedd, and what we have been doing there is working closely with
the local authority, doing work with the community there, but, most
importantly, letting the local authority lead, as the
democratically-elected local body, on the development of the
discussion and engagement with the local community. Now, we have
been financially supporting that whole process, gathering evidence:
evidence that, in due course, once we understand the issues better,
will help us to inform and develop a policy position more
generally.
|
[54]
David Melding: So, you will—. Obviously that’s a
particular example, which is welcome and important for that
community. You are working on a strategic national approach to
inform this one.
|
[55]
Mr Davies: Well, I think it’s fair to say we’re
working specifically on that particular area to understand about
the issues there, and out of that will come learning, from a
bottom-up approach, to think about how we approach this issue,
then, in other communities.
|
[56]
David Melding: So, it will be on a particular basis, then, in
future. I don’t see any indication, from what you have just
said, of a response to the auditor general’s central
criticism of Government policy.
|
[57]
Mr Davies: Well, this deals with local communities, so I think
you have to understand the particular topographical issue—the
communities in question—and I think there might be some
generic approaches that we could develop in terms of looking at how
to deal with these things, but the process of engaging and working
with a particular community and understanding the risks they face
and the particular solutions have to be very local.
|
[58]
David Melding: I’d rather not have more lengthy description.
Clearly, there’s a profound disagreement between the Welsh
Government and the auditor general.
|
[59]
Mike Hedges: Okay, and Sian is the last person on this
topic.
|
[60]
Sian Gwenllian: Roeddwn i’n mynd i
ofyn cwestiwn ynglŷn â chynllun y Friog roeddech
chi’n sôn amdano fo. Yn amlwg, mae’r Friog yn
agos iawn i Geredigion, felly os ydy rhywun yn mynd i’w wneud
o fesul awdurdod lleol heb yr arolwg strategol roedd David yn
sôn amdano fo, mae yna broblemau yn gallu codi. Felly, o ran
cael strategaeth genedlaethol, mae’n bwysig symud ymlaen efo
hynny, ac a fydd yna unrhyw fath o—? Neu, hynny yw,
diweddaru’r strategaeth. A fydd yna ymgynghoriad cyhoeddus
ynghylch y maes yna cyn cyhoeddi unrhyw beth cenedlaethol
newydd?
|
Sian Gwenllian:
I’m going to ask a question about
the Friog scheme that you mentioned. Evidently, Friog is very close
to Ceredigion. Therefore, if someone is going to do it per local
authority, without the strategic overview that David talked about,
there are problems that can arise. In terms of having a national
strategy, it’s important to move forward with that, and will
there be—? Or, that is, updating the strategy. Will there be
a public consultation on this area before publishing anything new
on a national level?
|
[61]
Mr
Davies: Rydw i’n tybio os byddwn ni’n datblygu safbwynt
cenedlaethol—
|
Mr Davies:
I suspect that if we did develop a
national viewpoint—
|
[62]
Sian
Gwenllian: So, ‘os’ byddwch chi. Felly, efallai na fydd yna
gyfeiriad cenedlaethol, felly, os ydych chi’n dweud
‘os’.
|
Sian Gwenllian:
So, ‘if’ you will develop a
national viewpoint, so maybe there won’t be a national
viewpoint, will there? You’re saying ‘if’ we do,
here.
|
[63]
Mr
Davies: Rydw i’n tybio bydd hwn yn dod ag amser, a mi fydd yna
bolisi yn cael ei ddatblygu. Nid ydw i yn uniongyrchol yn gweithio
yn y maes yma, ond rydw i’n tybio bydd y dysgu rydym
ni’n ei gael o brofiad y Friog yn ein galluogi ni i ddatblygu
safbwynt polisi ehangach ar sail y dealltwriaeth yna, a bydd
hynny’n dod ag amser.
|
Mr
Davies:
I do expect that this will come in time,
and that a policy will be developed. I don’t work
specifically in this area myself, but I do suspect that the
learning we’ll have from our experiences at y Friog will
perhaps enable us to develop a wider policy on the basis of that
understanding, and that will come in time.
|
[64]
Sian
Gwenllian: Wel, gorau po gyntaf, byddwn i’n dadlau, er mwyn cael y
cyfeiriad cenedlaethol yna.
|
Sian Gwenllian:
Well, the sooner the better, I’d
say, so we can have that national direction.
|
[65]
Mr
Slade: The updated national
strategy will be subject to public consultation.
|
[66]
Mike
Hedges: I’m sure
you’re going to come back to this in future meetings. Can we
move on now to nature conservation? Huw, you’ve got a couple
of questions.
|
[67]
Huw
Irranca-Davies: Yes, thank
you, Chair. First of all, Cabinet Secretary, you’re very
aware, with the SoNaRR report, the State of Natural Resources
Report, of the huge amount that we have to do to turn around many
indicators in our natural environment, and again it’s not a
Wales-only thing. This is not only a UK thing—it’s
wider than that—but it’s what we can do in Wales. There
is some frustration that we haven’t actually seen, yet, the
natural resources policy, but I’m assuming you’re going
to tell me that that is now tied up with the consultation
you’re taking forward. Would I be right?
|
[68]
Lesley Griffiths: I wouldn’t say it’s
necessarily tied up; it’s all, obviously, interlinked. So,
we’ve had the designated landscapes report, we’ve had
the natural resources policy, and we’re out to consultation
on sustainable management. So, the three things are obviously
linked, but I wouldn’t say the NRP is tied up. So, where we
are with the NRP—. If you remember, when I was in front of
committee two weeks ago, I said we were doing the last ring around,
if you like, with stakeholders. The NRP is now with my Government
colleagues. So, it’s with all ministerial colleagues. So, I
very much hope I will be publishing the NRP over recess. It will
certainly be published before the end of summer recess. So,
that’s where we are with the NRP.
|
[69]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Right; interesting. So, you’re not
going to wait on the outcomes of ‘Taking Forward Wales’
Sustainable Management of Natural Resources’—
|
[70]
Lesley Griffiths: No. I’m not going to wait in
relation to that. That consultation doesn’t finish until the
middle of September—I think 13 September. So, I’m not
going to wait in relation to the NRP, mainly because, obviously,
the NRP is a requirement of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, and
I’m very aware it was delayed. It was delayed because of a
little thing called Brexit, because I think that’s having a
significant impact—obviously, right across my portfolio, but
in relation to the NRP. One of the reasons for going out to
consultation on sustainable management was to get
stakeholders’ views and the public’s views around what
legislation will be needed.
|
[71]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Very good, okay. So, the natural
resources policy, if you bring it forward during recess, which is
not ideal, but you’ve explained why, with Brexit and
everything else—it’s not ideal, but at least it will be
there; that’ll be some reassurance for people—that will
not necessarily need to be revised or amended in the light of what
the consultation throws up.
|
[72]
Lesley Griffiths: No, I don’t think so. I think
we’ve always accepted that we would need further legislation.
So, the sustainable management consultation is specifically to look
at what stakeholders and members of the public think Wales
specifically requires in relation to legislation to manage the
risks and challenges of Brexit, and also to look at the
opportunities.
|
[73]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Okay, and that helps because
you’ve clearly indicated that that natural resources policy
will clearly anticipate the implications of Brexit.
|
[74]
Lesley Griffiths: Yes.
|
[75]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Well, that’s excellent. Could I go
on to something that’s related to the consultation that
you’re doing at the moment? It’s one part, but it is in
the—and I know it’s a controversial area, but the issue
of improving access to the outdoors, and it relates to previous
consultations that the Welsh Government has done. It is a difficult
field, this. I don’t think the committee underestimates it;
there are competing interests. But where are we on the idea of
bringing forward proposals for improving access to the outdoors for
all different users? Are we going to see it now within this
consultation going forward, and then something coming forward, or
are you going to bring that out? Is there something coming out in
the recess on that?
|
[76]
Lesley Griffiths: No. Nothing will be coming out in recess
on that. The NRP, I think—I accept what you say. I try not to
bring anything out during recess, but, because it’s been so
significantly delayed, and because we are nearly there, you know, I
want to do that. But, in relation to access, obviously, my
predecessor, or it might even be my predecessor’s
predecessor, had the consultation around access back in—I
think it was 2015. So, it was obviously decided at that time that
we needed a much fairer and better approach to access. I think the
message that came through was that people really value the access
that we have. You’re quite right about conflicting—
|
[77]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Are you going to give us a hint what
might be coming forward?
|
[78]
Lesley Griffiths: No. You’re quite right about
conflicting interests. I remember sitting on this committee myself
back in 2007-08, and I remember the Assembly bus coming to Wrexham
as part of the committee going out, and I remember
the—what’s the word I should use, I’ll be
careful; not ‘fracas’, but I think you’re getting
my drift, between two competing groups of interests, shall we say.
So, I do realise it’s very controversial at times, but I
think we need to make sure we have an approach that absolutely
maximises the benefits of improved access.
|
[79]
Huw Irranca-Davies: I genuinely don’t intend to try
and trap you in any way on this, but, of course, the big, polar
discussion around this has been between the Scottish model of
access and, of course, there have been issues between canoeists and
waterway users, and so on as well. But it’s the big issue
between the Scottish model and something else. Can you hint at
whether we’re looking at a something else, or a Scottish
model? Is it a classic Welsh way, of some—?
|
[80]
Lesley Griffiths: A classic Welsh way.
|
[81]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Okay. [Laughter.]
|
[82]
Lesley Griffiths: I like that phrase.
|
[83]
Mike Hedges: I don’t think you can always give the
Cabinet Secretary a way out in—[Inaudible.]
|
[84]
Lesley Griffiths: Thank you, Chair.
|
[85]
Mike Hedges: —but I’m sure the Cabinet
Secretary’s very pleased you did so.
|
[86]
Lesley Griffiths: I’ve just written to Fergus Ewing,
actually, to meet with him to discuss. Because I think you’re
right about Scotland and, again, going back to the forestry
evidence I gave, if you remember, we were talking about a Scottish
model and what they’re doing with farmers with tracks and
planting forestry, et cetera. So, it’s something that I want
to discuss more fully with the Minister.
|
[87]
Huw Irranca-Davies: Okay.
|
[88]
Mike Hedges: Sian, do you want to ask questions on
designated landscapes?
|
[89]
Sian Gwenllian:
Ie. Diolch. Fel rydych chi’n
gwybod, ym mis Mai fe gyhoeddwyd yr adroddiad,
‘Tirweddau’r Dyfodol: Cyflawni dros Gymru’, ac
mae yna dipyn o drafodaeth wedi bod ynghylch hwnnw, yn benodol
ynglŷn â’r egwyddor Sandford. Beth ydy statws yr
adroddiad yna erbyn hyn, a beth ydy eich barn chi am egwyddor
Sandford?
|
Sian
Gwenllian: Yes. Thank you. As you know, in May the
‘Future Landscapes: Delivering for Wales’ report was
published, and there’s been quite a lot of debate about that,
and specifically about the Sandford principle. What is the status
of that report by now, and what’s your opinion about the
Sandford principle?
|
[90]
Lesley Griffiths:
Unfortunately, I think the whole debate around the designated
landscapes report was focused on the Sandford principle. I think
people were incorrectly whipped up around the Sandford principle,
because I’m absolutely committed—
|
[91]
Sian Gwenllian: We would dispute that.
|
[92]
Lesley Griffiths: You would
dispute it.
|
[93]
Sian Gwenllian: I would dispute that people were whipped up
around the Sanford principle. There were a lot of concerns
about—
|
[94]
Lesley Griffiths: There were lots of concerns, but I think
they were unnecessary, to be frank. I think I had about 100
e-mails—all very similar—around it, but I think, if
people had just taken a step back and looked at what we were
saying, that wouldn’t have been the case. If you remember, in
the debate—I think it was actually in answer to Huw
Irranca-Davies’s point, which he raised during the
debate—I actually said we were looking at Sandford principle
plus plus, not even plus, because I’m absolutely committed to
ensuring that we have areas that are absolutely valued for their
beauty. I think it’s really important that, in the declining
ecosystems and biodiversity that we’re seeing, we have
these vibrant and very resilient areas. So, I was a bit
disappointed that one organisation brought forward such
a—
|
[95]
Sian Gwenllian: Well, it was much more than that, but there
we go, yes. If you’ve moved on from that, that’s fine.
So, what is your clear position now, going forward, around
designated landscapes?
|
[96]
Lesley Griffiths: Well, that does link in. First of all, I
hope I have reassured Members and members of the public in the
debate that we had around that principle. I want to be very clear:
there’s no intention to dilute the protection of areas of
outstanding natural beauty or national parks, and I reiterate that
here now.
|
[97]
Sian Gwenllian: Okay. Thank you.
|
[98]
Lesley Griffiths:
Obviously, the current consultation on ‘Taking Forward
Wales’ Sustainable Management of Natural Resources’ is
very much linked to the designated landscapes report, so
we’re going to look at if primary legislation is needed. I
mentioned that that consultation runs till 13 September, and that
will link in very much to the report that came forward from Dafydd
Elis-Thomas’s group.
|
[99]
Mike Hedges: Okay. Simon.
|
[100] Simon
Thomas: I think you have still some way to go to convince
people on this. I’ve just received, dated 13 July this year,
a report from the UK assessment panel of the International Union
for Conservation of Nature, which concludes as follows:
|
[101] ‘The
Marsden report was a ground breaking report in the UK context,
showing how Protected Landscapes could meet international standards
whilst adapting to contemporary requirements for sustainable
economic and community development.’
|
[102] ‘The new
report’, it says, ‘is a big step backwards’. And
the UK assessment panel concludes:
|
[103] ‘If acted
upon, the recommendations in the Future Landscapes report would
make it impossible for the panel to continue to accord
international recognition to Wales’s NPs and AONBs as
protected areas.’
|
[104] That’s a
damning indictment of your standpoint on this.
|
[105] Lesley
Griffiths: Well, I haven’t seen that. I’m very
happy—. Have officials seen it?
|
[106] Mr Slade:
I’m not aware of it, no.
|
[107] Lesley
Griffiths: You’re not aware of it. I’ll be very
happy to look at it because, as I say, that’s absolutely not
the intention. I’ll have a look at that report over the next
couple of weeks, and I will write to the committee.
|
[108] Simon
Thomas: I will certainly send—. I literally had this
report last night myself, so I will send it on to you,
obviously.
|
[109] Lesley Griffiths: Okay.
|
[110] Simon
Thomas: Can I just ask, though, for you to consider that
what’s happened in this context hasn’t really been one
organisation whipping up—? I know the organisation you might
be referring to, but I had much wider concerns expressed to me
about a lot of people working in this area, including private
concerns from people who are very closely associated with this work
but were not happy with the way that the whole progress had been
made. Really, if you’re going to convince us that this is
Sandford-plus, then I think there’s going to have to be some
kind of restatement of the principle of Sandford, but in the modern
context—in the modern context, which is what, of course,
Terry Marsden had tried to do. We really need to understand how
this report builds on Marsden’s report and takes us forward.
At the moment, it seems to have taken a turning left or right, but
not forward, if I can put it that way. So, clearly, you’re
not going to do it in two minutes in a committee meeting, but I
think we need a better understanding from the Government than we
can get in a debate even—a statement of how you’re
going to take this work forward.
|
10:00
|
[111]
Lesley Griffiths:
Okay. If I can just say that the 100
e-mails I had were definitely from one
organisation—
|
[112]
Simon Thomas: If it helps at all, I had 300
e-mails—[Laughter.] They weren’t all from the
same—but 100 were from the same organisation, yes.
|
[113]
Sian Gwenllian:
The ones I had weren’t from
the—[Inaudible.]
|
[114]
Mike Hedges: Can we let the Cabinet Secretary reply?
|
[115] Lesley Griffiths: I didn’t have
many—. We all know, as constituency Members, you receive a
campaign and you know, don’t you, when they’re all from
one organisation or they’re a standard letter? I didn’t
have—. I mean, I can look into it, but I had probably a
handful of letters of personal concerns. So, that’s just what
I had as Minister, what I received. I’d be very happy to
return to the Chamber to do a further statement around this, once
we’ve had the consultation on the sustainable
management—once that’s come to a conclusion,
we’ve had time to look at the responses and we can link in
with designated landscapes. I’d be very happy to come back to
the Chamber and I’ll make sure that that is timetabled in
Government time.
|
[116]
Mike Hedges: Thank you very much. Can I just say to Simon: you
tell me off in another place for making statements rather than
asking questions? [Laughter.] If I move on to marine fisheries
and the UK’s exit from the European Union, Jenny.
|
[117]
Jenny Rathbones:
On 2 July, Michael Gove suddenly
announced that the UK was going to withdraw from the 1964 London
convention, and I just wondered if you’d already had
discussion of this in the Brexit working parties that were set up
in March.
|
[118]
Lesley Griffiths:
The short answer is ‘no’. As
a Minister, I had no prior knowledge. I think it was in the press
all over the weekend before I received a letter from the Secretary
of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on the Monday. I
think officials got the heads-up—
|
[119]
Mr Slade: Late on Friday.
|
[120]
Lesley Griffiths:
—late on Friday evening. I was told
by officials then, but there’d been no discussion with Welsh
Government. I don’t think it was a surprise that that
happened and I think, obviously, in practical terms, nothing will
change until we leave the common fisheries policy. However, I do
think it’s a worrying indicator of the level of consultation
between the UK Government and the devolved
administrations.
|
[121]
Jenny Rathbone:
So, what are the implications,
potentially, for the Welsh fishing industry? And what’s to
prevent English, Scottish and Irish fishing boats from raiding the
Welsh, mainly shellfish, resources that we both export and consume
ourselves?
|
[122]
Lesley Griffiths:
Well, as I say, nothing will change until
we exit the common fisheries policy. So, you’ll be aware
that, in the Queen’s Speech—again, we didn’t have
a heads-up—there was an agricultural Bill and a fisheries
Bill. We’ve said all along that we will have a Welsh
agricultural Bill and a Welsh fisheries Bill following exit from
the EU. Obviously, the withdrawal Bill that was announced last week
puts a different perspective on it, but we’ll leave that
aside for a moment.
|
[123]
Leaving the 1964 London convention is a
necessary step so that we can consider access arrangements to our
waters post exit from the EU. I think that what the Welsh fishing
industry is saying it wants is to realise its Brexit aspiration of
an exclusive 12-mile limit adjacent to Wales. So, we have to look
at that going forward for our own specific fisheries policy,
because we know at the moment that it’s not fair. Welsh
fishermen are telling us that it’s not fair that the quotas
are—[Inaudible.]
|
[124]
Jenny Rathbone:
Okay, but given the messages coming from
London at the moment, there isn’t a huge amount of comfort
for Welsh fishermen that these powers will be devolved to Wales
rather than exercised by the Westminster Government.
|
[125] Lesley Griffiths: Yes, well, as I say, the Bill that was announced last
week, the EU withdrawal Bill, puts a completely different
complexion on things now in relation to the constitution. Those are
obviously discussions that will take place, but we will keep
trying to talk and engage with UK Ministers. I am seeing Michael
Gove for the first time on Monday at the Royal Welsh Show;
I’m having a bilateral meeting. There are lots of warm words
coming from not just DEFRA Ministers but the Prime Minister et
cetera about consultation. Well, they need to back up those warm
words now with some action.
|
[126] Jenny
Rathbone: Okay. Of the £600,000 that has been dispersed
so far in the European maritime and fisheries fund, how are those
projects supporting the resilience of the fishing industry in the
future, given the uncertainties?
|
[127] Lesley
Griffiths: Yes, well, there are lots of uncertainties, as you
say, and we’re making sure that we use all the funding. I
think there’s still significant scope to help the industry
prepare itself, if you like, for a future outside the EU, and we
need to make sure that we make best use of EMF funds. So, we need
to help them. One area they want to do is increase processing, for
instance. They want to develop value-added products. They need to
focus more on domestic markets. So, that’s one way—or
several ways—that we’re using funds at the moment.
|
[128] Jenny
Rathbone: And what progress do you think has been made on
making Welsh shellfish a distinctive brand? Scotland’s very
good at that. You less-often see Welsh shellfish in the shops, and
I’m not aware whether that’s sold in Europe as
distinctively Welsh.
|
[129] Lesley
Griffiths: I recently met with the seafood advisory committee
and it’s an area that they’re very keen to build on.
We’ve recently been out to—I think it’s called
Seafood Expo Global in Brussels. I wasn’t able to go, but
Rebecca Evans went in my place in April. One of the ambitions of
doing that is to make it more Welsh-distinctive. Next month,
there’s a delegation of officials going out to Shanghai.
I’m not quite sure what the event is—it’s an
expo, I think—
|
[130] Mr Slade:
It’s another expo on seafood.
|
[131] Lesley
Griffiths: —to ensure that we are able to expand our
markets.
|
[132] Jenny
Rathbone: So, do companies now brand their shellfish as
Welsh?
|
[133] Mr Slade:
We use our food and drink Wales brand in support of that.
There’s a lot of work going into the brand generally, and
also in relation to seafood. We think it’s a really important
sector for us, potentially, going forward. It is inevitably tied up
in all the discussion around access to markets, and most of what we
produce in Wales gets shipped straight across, unprocessed, onto
the continent, and that would be put in very significant jeopardy
if we had either tariffs that we’re not currently subject to,
or non-tariff barriers that would hold up that sort of transport
process. So, we’re very alive to those points and feeding
those in at a UK level. But there’s a lot more, as you say,
that can be done around the branding of our shellfish. I think
I’ve told the committee before: a third of the Menai’s
production of mussels would satisfy all of UK demand, which gives
you some sort of sense of the scale of what we do here in Wales,
and we should be making more of it.
|
[134] Lesley
Griffiths: I think there’s also the potential to use the
Year of the Sea next year. You’ll be aware that Ken Skates
has announced that next year is the Year of the Sea. So, I think it
would be a good opportunity to use that to promote our seafood even
more.
|
[135] Jenny
Rathbone: Okay. Because I’ve never ever seen Menai
mussels in my local shop, branded as such.
|
[136] Mr Slade:
Beyond the very local market, we tend not to see that—that is
true—and the Scots have undoubtedly stolen a bit of a march
on us in that respect. But that goes back also to the
Minister’s point about processing capacity in Wales. In order
to be able to do that, at least in part, you’ve got to have a
downstream supply chain arrangement, which helps you add value to
the product, including in relation to the branding work.
|
[137] Mike
Hedges: I don’t see Swansea cockles branded, even around
Swansea, as Swansea cockles. Am I looking in the wrong place?
|
[138] Mr Slade:
Chair, we’ll look into that for you.
|
[139] Lesley
Griffiths: Do you mean being sold—
|
[140] Mike
Hedges: Yes.
|
[141] Lesley
Griffiths: —or in restaurants?
|
[142] Mike
Hedges: Either. But certainly some of the more expensive
restaurants that I don’t attend probably do, but just in
supermarkets—they sell cockles; I’m yet to see them
branded as Swansea cockles, unless I’m missing something.
|
[143] Lesley
Griffiths: I think we need to sort of expand the market,
because, certainly, thinking about Menai—. When we go to
Halen Môn, they sell Menai mussels, certainly. But it
certainly is an area where we need to do more to promote, but, as I
say, there are steps to do that, and I do think, next year, we
should use Year of the Sea.
|
[144] Jenny
Rathbone: So, before next year, we’re going
to—[Inaudible.]—and the processing organiser
that we’re going to hit the ground running with—
|
[145] Lesley
Griffiths: Well, I’m not sure about next year. Certainly,
I would hope to do it before we exit the EU.
|
[146] Mr Slade:
There is a project that we’re helping fund—work under
way at the moment in and around Bangor to try and increase our
processing capacity up there, including a tie-up with the
university and other partners, so that we’re getting the
maximum approach in terms of the value of the scientific input.
It’s an absolute partnership between the scientific community
and the fishing sector, which is great, but it’s a small step
along quite a long road, and the difficulty for us, going back to
access to European markets, is that you can’t put large-scale
processing capacity in place, even if you had the money to do it,
in very short order. Just getting the skills up in the area, the
land that you’d need, the planning permissions for the sites
and so on—that’s not the work of weeks, or even months;
it’s longer than that.
|
[147] Mike
Hedges: David.
|
[148] David
Melding: I wonder if I could go slightly sideways, but not to
change the subject.
|
[149] Mike
Hedges: It would not be the first time you’ve done so
this morning.
|
[150] David
Melding: Well, indeed. Before we leave this specific point,
though, I’ve long argued that the Irish sea is the Chesapeake
bay of Europe. It’s just the most remarkable resource and
it’s nearly all directly exported without any sort of
processing or use, for example, in our own food culture, and I do
commend you for looking at this. I think it’s an important
area to develop.
|
[151] Cabinet
Secretary, the last time you were in front of us, it was to help
with our inquiry into marine protected areas and you may recall
there was a whole issue about NRW’s statutory duties and
whether they’re funded at a realistic level, as many people
who have given evidence have suggested we question that. You did
give us a reassurance, and then NRW have written to the Chair of
the committee, and that letter’s been copied to us. I just
wonder: how reassured are you, specifically in terms of the
evidence base and monitoring of MPAs? I quote from this letter
we’ve received:
|
[152]
‘NRW’s marine monitoring programme is, however,
currently a minimum service and resources are
challenging.’
|
[153] It’s not
directly contradicting you, but I think, as hints go, reading
between the lines, then it is urging us to press you on this a bit
more strongly.
|
[154] Lesley
Griffiths: I think it is contradicting me, actually. It’s
very difficult, isn’t it? When the purse is empty, the purse
is empty. I fund NRW to the very best of my ability, and I expect
them to fulfil their statutory duties within that funding. I do
understand funding is challenging for them, and, certainly, in
every monthly meeting that I have with the chair and chief
executive of NRW, I think, funding comes up. However, the
expectations that I have are that they fulfil those statutory
duties. You will remember when I—your memory is probably
better than mine on this, David, but, when I was in front of this
committee on marine, I mentioned that we were having new
enforcement vessels. Andrew’s got some very nice photographs
here. Is that the one that we’re launching in the—?
No.
|
[155] Mr Slade:
No, that one is coming a bit longer—
|
[156] Lesley
Griffiths: That’s next year.
|
[157] Mr Slade:
That goes out further to the sea.
|
[158] Lesley
Griffiths: So, that will make enforcement—it will
certainly improve enforcement. I was very concerned—I’m
not sure if I said that when I came before committee last
time—when I came into post last year and I went on our
enforcement vessel, which I know you have been on—but it
really was not fit for purpose. So, I made sure that I put, I think
it was, over £6 million aside to ensure we had those new
enforcement vessels. As I say, the first one will be launched this
autumn.
|
[159] David
Melding: I appreciate your candid remarks.
|
[160] Mike
Hedges: Thank you very much. Moving on to rural development
programme spending and the Well-Being of Future Generations (Wales)
Act 2015, which I think Simon Thomas wants to ask some questions
on.
|
[161]
Simon Thomas:
Diolch, Gadeirydd. A gaf i jest, yn
gyntaf, fod yn glir, achos yn y papur rŷch chi wedi ei
ysgrifennu at y pwyllgor rydych chi’n sôn am y rhaglen
datblygu gwledig 2014 i 2020, ond, wrth gwrs, oherwydd yr etholiad,
mae sôn y bydd yr arian Ewropeaidd yn mynd i gael ei ddiogelu
am flwyddyn ychwanegol bellach, i 2021—a ydych chi mewn
sefyllfa i’n diweddaru ni ynglŷn â’r rhaglen
datblygu gwledig? A ydych chi’n ystyried nawr y bydd y
rhaglen honno hefyd yn cael ei hestyn tan 2021?
|
Simon
Thomas: Thank you, Chair. Can I just, firstly, be clear on
this: in the paper that you’ve submitted to the committee,
you talk about the rural development plan for 2014 to 2020, but, of
course, because of the election, there is mention of that European
money being protected for a further year now, to 2021? Are you in a
position to give us an update on the RDP? Do you think that that
programme will also be extended to 2021?
|
10:15
|
[162]
Lesley Griffiths: Yes,
you’re quite right. We were given assurances from the
Treasury that we would receive funding until 2020. Obviously, the election that we just had last month
now means it’s 2022, and I have committed that funding till
2021, i.e., the lifetime of this Welsh Government. I have already
committed over the full amount of RDP funds, through a combination
of projects and ring-fencing of funding. It’s prudent to
oversubscribe, as you know, just in case there’s
slippage.
|
[163]
Simon Thomas: It’s the EasyJet way.
|
[164]
Lesley Griffiths:
The EasyJet way, indeed. You can tell
it’s the last day of term.
|
[165]
Mr Slade: Having recently experienced flight difficulties, that
has a particular resonance for me. [Laughter.]
|
[166]
Lesley Griffiths:
So, whether we’ll extend it to
2021, because all of the funding is committed—. I hope it
would be done by 2020.
|
[167]
Mr Slade: We await clarification on this. The 2022 commitment
is essentially around direct payments, as I understand it—so
that’s CAP pillar 1—less in relation to the rural
development programme. At the moment, we’re working on the
basis that Treasury will stand behind anything that we have
committed with a signature by the point that we leave the European
Union, which, effectively, in planning terms, means we’ve got
to get this done by spring of 2019. The programme would ordinarily
have run on to allow us to make commitments till 2020, and then
we’d have had three years to spend that money out. So, the
degree of flexibility that we’ve actually got around the RDP
in the aftermath of the general election, I’m less clear on
at the moment. I think the intention of the UK Government in
relation to CAP direct payments is to run it out to
2022.
|
[168]
Simon
Thomas: Mae’n anodd gwybod, felly, a fydd yna estyniad, fel
petai, i’r RDP ei hunan. Mae’n anodd gofyn y
cwestiwn—mae’n anodd i chi esbonio hwn, rwy’n
gwybod, ond rwy’n mynd i drio gofyn y cwestiwn beth bynnag.
Pam ydych chi’n meddwl bod cynifer yn y sector yma yn teimlo
nad ŷch chi yn gwario, felly, yn llawn ar y rhaglen datblygu
gwledig, a bod cwynion—rydw i wedi’u clywed nhw, yn
sicr, ac mae Aelodau eraill wedi’u codi nhw—nad
yw’r gwariant yn mynd i fwrw’r targed? Ai dyma’r
gwahaniaeth rhyngoch chi’n ymrwymo i wario a’r
actual gwariant sy’n cael ei wneud? Ai dyna beth
sy’n esbonio hyn ar hyn o bryd?
|
Simon Thomas: It’s hard to know, then, whether there’ll
be an extension, as it were, to the RDP itself. It’s
difficult to ask the question—it’s difficult for you to
explain this, I know, but I’m going to try and ask the
question anyway. Why do you think that so many in this sector feel
that you are not spending fully on the RDP? I’ve heard some
complaints, and I know other Members have raised them as well.
There are complaints that the spending is not going to reach the
target. Is this the difference between you committing to spending
and the actual spend being made? Is that what explains this
currently?
|
[169]
Lesley Griffiths:
I have heard those concerns, and I
certainly mentioned it to the farming unions when I met them last
week, because, as I say, we’ve actually overcommitted, which
I think is right, so I don’t really understand. I think
perhaps we were—the beginning was a bit slow, maybe, to get
the funds out, but, certainly, I don’t understand why there
are concerns, and I have asked the farming unions for specific
reasons why they think that, and I haven’t received any
concrete answers. I don’t know if Andrew has.
|
[170]
Mr Slade: Well, it’s a sad reflection of time, but
I’ve been delivering European programmes now for about 20
years—programmes of one sort or another—and, where
you’ve got a long multi-annual programme, usually it’s
to be expected that actual spend, cash out, is slower in the early
stages of the programme, and then that picks up as you go through
the programme period. To date, we’ve spent about £100
million, but, as the Minister has said, we’ve committed
pretty well all of the programme to key blocks of expenditure, and,
in fact, slightly overcommitted, mainly to allow for project
slippage, and precisely to ensure that we spend the money in the
limited time we’ve got available.
|
[171]
Mike Hedges: Is the spending in line with the spending
profile?
|
[172]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes.
|
[173]
Mr Slade: Pretty much, because we profile on the basis of a
slower start.
|
[174]
Mike Hedges: I know you profile. I just wondered—sometimes,
yes, you have a slower start, and you speed up towards the end, but
are you making the smaller amount—the amount you expected to
make at the beginning?
|
[175]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes, we are.
|
[176]
Mr Slade: I think so. There’s a small issue around our IT
link-up with the European Commission’s systems, so
there’s a few months’ backlog there. I reckon, once
that’s cleared in a few weeks’ time, we’ll be
able to spend about another £32 million, £33 million.
That will bring us absolutely up to profile.
|
[177]
Mike Hedges: Okay. Simon.
|
[178] Simon Thomas: There is one particular area
where you definitely haven’t made the spend, though, and
that’s the organic area, because you haven’t opened an
organic window. Does the fact that you have nearly
committed—you say today that you’ve more or less
committed 100 per cent, or even further. Does that mean that we
will never see an organic window opened in Wales?
|
[179]
Lesley Griffiths:
I’m not able to open an organic
window at the current time because I have committed all that
funding. I met with the organic forum and I know they’re
disappointed about that. But, yes, because I’ve committed it,
I can’t open a window.
|
[180] Simon Thomas: I
understand you’ve committed it, but do you feel that
you’re losing an opportunity here? Because organic farming in
Wales is one of the areas where we have traditionally been at the
forefront of development, and, coming out of the European Union,
it’s one of the areas where we may make something of
ourselves, if you like. So, we’re going to portray ourselves
as an area of fresh food, of local food, of sustainable food, high
animal welfare, and organic really ticks all those boxes very
successfully. So, shouldn’t this be something you re-evaluate
in light of this?
|
[181] Lesley
Griffiths: I have told the forum when I—. I met them
about three weeks ago, and I’ve told them it’s
something that I will look at.
|
[182]
Simon Thomas: I hope you do, certainly from our point of view. I
will move on to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act
2015. I think organic farming contributes very nicely to the
outcomes of that Act, I would say.
|
[183] Lesley
Griffiths: Yes, it does.
|
[184]
Simon Thomas: And, really, I think we’re still struggling
with this Act, many of us, in the sense that we understand what the
Act is for, or at least we understand the principles behind the Act
and support those, but how it’s making a practical difference
in the way you’re delivering Government programmes is a bit
more difficult to discern at the moment. So, perhaps I’ll
start with a specific question, if I may, because it might be
easier to try and answer it in a specific way. You’ve got the
future generations Act. We’ve also got the commitment to
carbon budgeting by 2018. How are these now working together so
that we are on line to achieve this? What are we likely to see
emerging from these two strands now?
|
[185]
Lesley Griffiths:
Okay. So, we all have to think about, as
you say, the principles of the well-being of future generations
Act. Thinking about, in preparation for this committee, how
that’s shaping my policies and my decisions, I suppose the
Brexit discussions really highlight, to me, the well-being of
future generations Act. Can I just say, Chair, I think we’ve
just been joined by a delegation of Department of Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs officials who’ve come to spend time with my
officials to look at how devolution is working, and I think
that’s really to be encouraged? And, obviously, we have the
well-being of future generations Act, so it’s very good that
they’re here to hear about this. [Interruption.] I’m sorry?
|
[186]
David Melding: You’ve blown their cover. [Laughter.]
|
[187]
Lesley Griffiths:
Sorry. But I think it’s really
good, and I wish that different parts of Whitehall would engage in
such a way.
|
[188]
There are several areas where we can see
this working, and carbon budgeting is a classic example. So, I
think, if it wasn’t for the legislation that we’ve got
in place, it would be much harder to make that carbon budgeting
more cross-Government. I hold my hands up here; when I was health
Minister, thinking about carbon budgeting probably wasn’t top
of the list, but, unfortunately, now, every Cabinet Secretary has
to think about carbon budgeting. We have these time limits; as you
say, it’s 2018. We’re already in the first period of
carbon budgeting, and Prys and I have met with all ministerial
colleagues to discuss the impact of that on their
portfolios.
|
[189]
Climate change is another area.
It’s a massive challenge, probably the biggest challenge that
we’re all facing, and you have to have that joint working.
So, the ways of working under the well-being of future generations
legislation do guide our programme. They make us think about
long-term targets, the need for collaboration and the involvement
with stakeholders. So, that’s why I go back to Brexit being a
good example, because I think our engagement with our stakeholders
is exemplary in relation to Brexit, and certainly isn’t being
seen in any other part of the UK. Colleagues will know that
we’ve had the quadrilateral meetings, which,
unfortunately—we now haven’t met since April. But,
again, having that legislation there, I think, has shown them
what’s missing in their legislation, if you like, that
we’ve been able to engage with our stakeholders in that
way.
|
[190]
In relation to climate change, I recently
met with representatives from the UK Committee on Climate Change.
Again, their call for evidence—they referred to the
well-being of future generations Act as one way that we’ve
been able to look at our long-term targets. I know officials are
working very closely with Sophie Howe, the commissioner, and the
commissioner’s office, in relation to the work that
we’re doing. It also fits in, I think, with planning. I
think, again, the way that we look at our planning system, making
sure that that’s sustainable, is another way.
|
[191]
Mike Hedges: Okay. Simon, we’ve got 20 minutes left. I
really do want to get on to building regulations and fire safety,
because I think it would seem odd if we were rushing that at the
very end when it’s probably the most topical of topical
discussions. So, if you’re okay, can we move on to that?
Jenny.
|
[192]
Jenny Rathbone:
Can we come back to that?
|
[193]
Mike Hedges: If we’ve got any time at the end, we can, but I
think that having fire safety and building regulations falling off
the bottom of our agenda would be embarrassing and would be a
serious problem for this committee and the Assembly. Sorry.
Jayne.
|
[194]
Jayne Bryant: Thank you, Chair. Following the tragic fire at
Grenfell Tower, and with 38 high-rise block across Wales, will you
be reviewing the fire safety measures contained within the current
building regulations?
|
[195] Lesley
Griffiths: I certainly expect that we will be reviewing them,
but I think it’s too early to say how we’ll be
reviewing them. Obviously, my colleague Carl Sargeant is leading on
this, but I’m working very closely with him because,
obviously, building regulations are in my portfolio. I think
we’re going to have to find out what the interim findings and
feedback from the inquiry—. There are clearly issues over the
choice of cladding, and the evidence that it complied. I believe
there will be other issues. So, certainly, I would, in answer to
your question, expect to have a review.
|
[196] Jayne
Bryant: Okay. Thank you. Can you clarify the extent of your
power and responsibilities in relation to the building regulations?
I think we’d be quite keen to know what you are actually
responsible for and how you can effect change in that area.
|
[197] Lesley
Griffiths: Okay. I’m responsible for exercising certain
functions under the Building Act 1984. That includes making
building regulations. Carl Sargeant’s responsibilities are
around fire safety policy. That includes the fire and rescue
service and the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005. That
deals with ongoing fire safety in workplaces, and that actually
includes common areas, such as apartment blocks like Grenfell
Tower, but not the apartments themselves.
|
[198] Jayne
Bryant: Okay. Can you say a little bit more about the newly
established expert group and how you see that going?
|
[199] Lesley
Griffiths: Yes. Obviously, again, Carl Sargeant has set up the
expert group. I would certainly expect them to have input into
discussions with my officials. Any proposed changes to building
regulations or any review that we would have would be, certainly,
informed by advice from that committee, and, again, I would imagine
it would be subject to public consultation.
|
[200] Jayne
Bryant: So, are building regulations in the scope of the group,
the expert group?
|
[201] Lesley
Griffiths: Of the one that Carl Sargeant set up?
|
[202] Jayne
Bryant: Yes.
|
[203]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes.
|
[204]
Mr Hemington: Yes, they are, but building regulations are
also—there is also a statutory advisory committee as well.
So, BRACW, the Building Regulations Advisory Committee for Wales,
they will be involved in that process as well. So, that will be a
group of experts within the field.
|
[205]
Mike Hedges: David.
|
[206]
David Melding: Cabinet Secretary, you know that last week the
equality, communities and local government committee—I think
I’ve got the title right—had a day inquiry into fire
safety and matters related to the Grenfell tragedy. It’s
clear that the focus has been on social housing, and witnesses from
local government and housing associations were present. I am a bit
concerned by the number of high-rise buildings that are now in the
private sector. In Cardiff, we see that very
extensively.
|
[207]
Mike Hedges: Even out of the window here.
|
[208]
David Melding: Indeed. Cardiff Bay is a case in point. As your paper
notes, you have little influence over private buildings and getting
them to undertake checks. I just wonder what sort of engagement the
Welsh Government is undergoing with that particular sector, because
it does seem to me important that that’s not overlooked, even
though, in many ways, it is more difficult, presumably, to get a
hold of lots of different management companies or whatever
organisational structure is used to run those buildings.
|
[209]
Lesley Griffiths:
I know Carl Sargeant did a statement, I
think it was last week—or a topical question, I can’t
remember which it was—and he referred to the difficulties
that he was having in engaging with the private sector. I
don’t know if my officials have done any specific
work.
|
[210]
Mr Hemington: No, we haven’t. We’ve been working as
part of that group; it’s been a group set up across Welsh
Government, so we are inputting to that process. There was also, I
believe, a written statement on 18 July, so that sets out some of
the action that is being taken, both with private sector but also
with other public sector buildings as well. So, obviously, there is
potentially use of this material on schools and on hospitals and
elsewhere. So, I know the Cabinet Secretary concerned has written
to Cabinet colleagues as well, so there’s action being taken
at a number of levels, which also, I believe, includes going to the
Land Registry to identify the owners of some of these buildings as
well. So, although we can’t compel, we can encourage people
to submit any cladding for testing in the same way as the
social sector.
|
10:30
|
[211] Lesley
Griffiths: I think also in that written statement on Tuesday
there was reference to the extensive work now the Cabinet
Secretary’s undertaking with public sector buildings, because
I think that was another area of concern—around universities,
hospitals, et cetera.
|
[212] David
Melding: I commend that work, and I think it needs to go on. If
we look at building regs, and we will shortly have complete control
of these, I think there has been some criticism of the complexity
of the information, even beyond what is required
technically—obviously, these are matters that do need a
certain level of detail. But I wonder: are you looking at the way
information around building regs is presented—I think there
was some frustration amongst the tenants as well in Grenfell that
trying to scrutinise all of that was very difficult—but also
with those who are responsible for complying with those
regulations? To develop that point, are you going to examine the
whole enforcement regime? At the moment, it does rely on a
compliance approach. Do we need something slightly stronger that is
more robust and consistent? I don’t know if you’re
likely to review that.
|
[213] Lesley
Griffiths: You’re right; it is a very complex, technical
area. So, for instance, if we ever have any changes in our building
regulations, we always ensure that we run training sessions for
people—industry and building control bodies. There’s
always room for improvement. So, for example, we’ve recently
republished the suite of approved document guidance for Wales. One
area where I am concerned, and I’ve just started to talk to
Mark Drakeford about in his role as local government Cabinet
Secretary, is the resilience of our planning and building
regulation departments across our local authorities, because I
think that is an area of concern. So, as you say, our building
regulations reflect the Department for Communities and Local
Government ones, I would say, but we could look to, obviously, if
we had the powers—when we get the powers—review them.
You’ll be aware I’m reviewing Part L at the moment, so
we could certainly look at that.
|
[214] David
Melding: I think it’d be useful for you tell the
committee as well the Government’s thinking in terms of
retrofitting sprinkler systems. I should say that last week the
local government committee did look at this. There are many
challenges with effectively retrofitting, because you can actually
end up, if you’re not careful, compromising the
compartmentation of tower blocks, which, of course, is still the
principal fire safety mechanism that is used. But there may be
ways, in common areas, for instance, and the way refuse is dealt
with—those areas may be the ones where some sort of
retrofitting could take place safely. So, any views yet?
|
[215] Lesley
Griffiths: It is early, because we don’t know what the
review is going to tell us, but it is one of the areas where we
might want to consider standards for renovation work, for instance,
and then, as you say, it could include questions over retrofitting
sprinklers. I should also say—I don’t know if
colleagues will have picked this up—the European Union
(Withdrawal) Bill as it is now would have a significant impact in
this area and our ability to make our own regulations and
legislation.
|
[216] Mr
Hemington: It’s also important to recognise that in some
of the recent renovations that we’ve seen by social landlords
they’ve actually independently decided to install sprinkler
systems, so it can be done. Of course, in Wales, we have sprinklers
now for all—
|
[217] David
Melding: We are ahead of the game in terms of new
buildings.
|
[218] Lesley
Griffiths: We are. I remember, when I was housing Minister, so
it must be a couple of years ago, I went to look at some renovated
houses—they were Cardiff Council owned—and they
renovated and put a really good sprinkler system in. So,
you’re right, it can be done, and I’ve encouraged other
local authorities to have a look at that for better practice.
|
[219] Mike
Hedges: Thank you. We got through that much quicker than I
thought. So, we move back to the Well-being of Future Generations
(Wales) Act 2015. Simon.
|
[220] Jenny
Rathbone: I’m sorry, I have a question on Part L, which
is—. I’m glad that you’re looking at the building
regulations. Clearly, the level of self-compliance is a cause for
concern, in that contractors can appoint their own inspectors, and
I hope that you will consider ensuring that local
authorities’ building inspectors are the people doing the
inspections of buildings, because we clearly need good standards
throughout private and social landlords, and that seems to be a
problem as regards the level of control you have over private
buildings. But can I just ask you about Part L? Because it seems to
me a matter of urgency that we ratchet up the standards we expect
of new builders, because we are still producing, frankly, very poor
quality. Most of our contractors continue to produce buildings that
aren’t of the standards, in terms of energy, resilience, and
I just wondered how ambitious you’re planning to be and when
we can actually see these revised regulations.
|
[221] Mr
Hemington: Okay. So, we know at the moment there are issues
around the performance gap. So, we have the previous improvements
to Part L, which we suspect aren’t being reached in many
cases. So, in terms of what you see on the plan, it’s planned
and designed to achieve the requirements, but what happens on the
ground is less than compliant with that. So, we know there is a
performance gap at the moment. So, where we are, there’s a
performance gap, and we do have regular meetings with the volume
house builders in particular, and it’s one of the issues that
we have got on the agenda for the next meeting. So, before we move
on, we’ve got to make sure that buildings we’re
building now are actually compliant.
|
[222]
Jenny Rathbone:
Yes, but compliant with very low
standards, with only 8 per cent. Originally, we were setting out to
ratchet it up to 40 per cent.
|
[223]
Mr Hemington: Exactly, but we need to understand why we’re
not achieving that. Because, as we move on, we are looking at
potentially more and more difficult, more technical, solutions. So,
if we can’t do the basics right, we need to improve that so
we can move on. So, we are starting work on that process now, but
there is also a potential link between Part L and any changes we
may need to make in terms of the fire aspects of building
regulations as well. So, how far we can progress one ahead of the
other, I don’t know at this point in time, because,
obviously, a lot of the retrofitting we saw on Grenfell and
we’ve seen on other high-rise blocks has been linked to
improving the thermal performance of those buildings. So far, a lot
of the changes we’ve made to building regulations have driven
that as well, so we need to understand the relationship between the
insulation and what happened with that particular tower block. So,
there is a tie-up there, which we hadn’t, obviously, planned
on when we looked at the announcement on Part L, but we will
consider that as well. So, we’re at very early stages at the
moment.
|
[224]
Jenny Rathbone:
Okay. But, clearly, it’s super
urgent in terms of, if we have any ambition to meet our 40 per cent
target by 2020, we need to get on with it.
|
[225]
Lesley Griffiths:
Yes.
|
[226]
Mike Hedges: Okay. We’ll move back to the future generations
Act, then, Simon.
|
[227]
Simon Thomas:
Diolch, Cadeirydd. Mae yna gyswllt, a
dweud y gwir, achos beth roeddwn i’n trio ei wneud o’r
blaen oedd trio cael enghreifftiau penodol gennych chi o’r
ffordd y mae Deddf Llesiant Cenedlaethau’r Dyfodol yn newid
polisi ac, a dweud y gwir, mae’r hyn rydym ni wedi ei
weld—newydd fod yn ei drafod—yn enghraifft o hyn.
Rydych chi’n mynd i’r afael â, a cheisio gwella,
perfformiad adeiladau o ran ynni a chadw ynni, ac mae yna sgil
effeithiau posib yn deillio o hynny. Wrth gwrs, mae’r Ddeddf
i fod i’n galluogi ni i wneud hyn yn y cyfanswm, so nid ydych
chi’n newid rheoliadau jest at un pwrpas, heb ystyried y
pwrpas arall. Mae i fod yn ffordd o’i wneud e. Felly, dyna
beth roeddwn i’n trio cyrraedd ato gyda’r cwestiynau
blaenorol: ble ydych chi nawr yn newid yr hyn rydych chi’n ei
wneud yn eich adran eich hunain yng ngoleuni’r Ddeddf i
sicrhau eich bod chi’n cydymffurfio a gyda’r golwg ar y
targedau cenedlaethol? Nid ydw i’n credu ein bod ni’n
eu galw nhw’n ‘dargedau’. Nid ydw i cweit yn
siŵr beth yw’r gair amdanyn nhw erbyn hyn—yr
indicators, rydw i’n meddwl ydyn nhw, ie?
|
Simon Thomas: Thank you, Chair. There
is a link, of course, here, because what I was trying to do
previously was trying to get specific examples from you of the way
the future generations Act is changing policy, and what we have
just been discussing now is an example of that. You are trying to
improve the performance of buildings in relation to energy and
conserving energy and, of course, there are possible side effects
to that. The Act, of course, is supposed to enable us to do this in
the round, so you don’t change regulations for one reason
without considering the other implications. There should be a way
of doing it. That’s what I was trying to get to with my
previous questions: where are you now changing what you’re
doing in your department in the light of this Act to make sure that
you are conforming and with an eye on the national targets?
I’m not sure we do call them ‘targets’, do we?
What is the word for them by now? The ‘indicators’ I
think, yes?
|
[228]
Mr Slade: Goals and indicators.
|
[229]
Simon Thomas:
Goals ac indicators, ie, yn hytrach na thargedau.
So, rydw i jest eisiau deall cwpwl o enghreifftiau. Roeddwn i wedi
dechrau gofyn am y carbon budgeting fel un—jest cwpwl
o enghreifftiau o le mae hwn yn digwydd nawr—dim pethau sydd
wedi digwydd yn y gorffennol, ond pethau sydd yn digwydd
nawr.
|
Simon
Thomas: Goals and indicators, yes, rather than targets. So, I
just want to understand a couple of examples. I started asking
about carbon budgeting as one, but maybe you could give me some
examples of where that’s happening now—not what’s
happened in the past, but what’s happening now.
|
[230] Lesley
Griffiths: Okay. I suppose one area, to give an example, is
around aligning ‘Planning Policy Wales’ with the
well-being Act around certain themes that have the same well-being
goals in common. So, as you know, we’re currently reviewing
‘Planning Policy Wales’, so I think that’s one
example where we’re aligning with the legislation.
|
[231] Mr
Hemington: So, in ‘Planning Policy Wales’,
we’re looking around the things that come out of the Act: so,
how we can join together housing, retailing, and communities for
sustainable communities, how we can think about places rather than
just discrete topic areas. It’s also impacting on our
decision-making process, so, if there’s a ministerial
decision on a planning application, that is considered against the
goals and the ways of working and, similarly, local authorities are
doing the same. So, it is driving planning decisions and planning
policy to look at a whole suite of issues, not just a discrete
issue.
|
[232]
Lesley Griffiths:
So, we are currently testing that one out
with the future generations commissioner.
|
[233]
Simon Thomas: Does the Act trump other Acts in this
regard?
|
[234]
Lesley Griffiths:
Does it trump it? Well, it’s
just—
|
[235]
Mr Slade: It’s the framework for—
|
[236]
Lesley Griffiths:
It’s the framework, yes. I was
going to say. It doesn’t trump it.
|
[237]
Mr Hemington: Because it doesn’t give you an answer in terms
of the Act itself. It is a way of working, so there are other
considerations that come into the process as well.
|
[238]
Simon Thomas: I thought Prys might want—.
|
[239]
Mr Davies: I was just going to suggest some examples. You
mentioned specifically the work on carbon budgeting. So,
we’ve been working very closely with the future generations
commissioner’s office around the development of our policies,
so we’ve done some significant decisions around the
accounting framework. We’re now moving into interim target
and budget setting, and that’s the call for evidence that the
Minister alluded to a minute ago, but we’ve also been, as
well as putting the framework in place, trying to accelerate
change. So, we made a recent announcement around a call for
evidence across the public sector, which is a change, I suspect, in
the way that we’re approaching our thinking and our
expectations about the role and the contribution the public sector
across Wales can make. We’re also, for instance, working not
only across Government on a whole range of policy areas, but also
with the finance Minister’s officials, thinking about how we
really mesh carbon budgets and financial budgets together, so that
they talk to each other and that the financial budget-setting
process takes account of the carbon-setting process. That work will
continue as we put the framework in place.
|
[240]
Mike Hedges: Jenny, you—
|
[241]
Lesley Griffiths:
Sorry, can I just say—? The other
example that I mentioned initially is around the Brexit
discussions, so that long-term vision working with stakeholders,
the collaborative approach, the involvement of stakeholders. I
think that probably wouldn’t have taken place without
thinking about that legislation. So, again, it doesn’t trump
everything, but it just makes you think in a different way, and,
certainly, what Prys was saying about carbon budgeting and
financial budgeting, Mark Drakeford is very keen to align those two
much more closely, and I’m sure when we come back after
summer recess and we’re all in front of committees on our
budget scrutiny, that will come through very clearly for the first
time.
|
[242]
Mike Hedges: Thank you. Jenny, you wanted to ask
something.
|
[243]
Jenny Rathbone:
You mention in your paper, Cabinet
Secretary, that the UK is about to issue a new draft air quality
plan, which is obviously good, because the one produced in May was
pretty unimpressive. It was a plan for a plan. In the context of
Wales, what work are we doing to clean up our air, and particularly
around things like—? England has a clean bus technology fund,
which local authorities can apply to. I’m not aware that we
have anything similar in Wales, but this is a major contributor to
the poor quality of our air in our cities, and I just wondered if
that specific, No. 1—and, No. 2, technology is moving at
speed in terms of the development of electric cars, and the grid is
already screaming anxiety about surges in demand, and I just
wondered what Government is doing (a) to ensure that we have
electric points across Wales, because at the moment you can’t
get beyond Brecon, and (b) to ensure that we have the community
energy projects throughout Wales to ensure that people can plug
their electric cars in, that the electricity exists in the places
where it’s needed.
|
[244]
Lesley Griffiths:
Okay, so there were several questions
there. Starting with guidance to local authorities, I wrote to all
local authorities on Clean Air Day on 15 June issuing new statutory
guidance to local authorities, because I think—. Certainly,
in my discussions with local authorities, they regard local air
quality management as something to be carried out primarily as a
sort of public protection function within their organisation, but
obviously it depends on local and regional transport policies for
instance, so we’re trying to encourage local authorities to
look at it more holistically.
|
[245]
If I can just pick up your point first
about electric points: Prys knows this is a really sore
point with me, because, I think you’re right, we don’t
have enough in Wales, and if you look across Wales—because
you can access on a website the number of charging points—it
would be really difficult to get from north to south—
|
10:45
|
[246] Jenny
Rathbone: Impossible, I think.
|
[247] Lesley
Griffiths: —or east to west, and it’s going to have
an impact on tourism. So, I’ve had that conversation with Ken
Skates, because it’s not going to be long until we’re
not going to have diesel cars and petrol cars. So, we really need
to be thinking forward. So, a discussion I’m also having with
the public sector—. So what I’ve done—.
We’re just procuring it at the moment, which has caused me a
few headaches, but we’ve got some funding to put—.
We’re going to put one electric car charging point in every
Welsh Government building, and then I want to roll that out to give
a little bit of funding to local authority just to try and
kick-start it and make them realise that this is something
that’s going to overtake us, unless we—pardon the
pun—grasp that now.
|
[248] In relation to
the grid, I met with National Grid about two weeks ago to discuss
this, because, clearly, again, it’s another issue in making
sure that we’re ready for what’s coming. I would very
much like to set a target for when we can get rid of diesel cars in
Wales.
|
[249] Jenny
Rathbone: Do local authorities have the powers to ban diesel
cars from areas where the air quality is a public health
danger?
|
[250] Lesley
Griffiths: Well, that’s something they can certainly look
at, and, again, it’s about the way they manage their
developments, because, again, that can have an impact on the
developments.
|
[251] Mike
Hedges: We’ve managed to go over time. If the Cabinet
Secretary will give us an extra four minutes to take us to 10:50,
I’ve got two very short questions, I’m assured, by Sian
Gwenllian and David Melding. Sian, do you want to go first?
|
[252] Sian
Gwenllian: Mae eich papur
chi’n sôn am y gwaith rydych chi’n gwneud i
gefnogi ynni adnewyddadwy lleol, ond mae yna fygythiad i gynlluniau
hydrogymunedol ar hyn o bryd, sef y cynnydd anferth mewn trethi
busnes. Roeddwn i jest eisiau gwybod pa gamau rydych chi wedi bod
yn eu cymryd er mwyn helpu’r sector yma yn yr argyfwng maen
nhw ynddo fo ar hyn o bryd?
|
Sian
Gwenllian: Your paper talks about the work that you’re
doing to support local sustainable energy, but there is a threat to
community energy hydro projects, which is the huge increase in
business rates. What steps are you taking in order to help that
sector in the crisis that they face at present?
|
[253] Lesley
Griffiths: Did you say community ones or just—?
|
[254] Sian
Gwenllian: Yes.
|
[255] Lesley
Griffiths: Community ones—because, as I say, this is
something that’s been raised with me by the British
Hydropower Association, and I was due to meet the local government
and finance Minister yesterday to discuss this, but, unfortunately,
I had a topical question so I had to pull the meeting. So, I think
non-domestic rates are an issue that’s been raised with me by
them. We are ensuring that we are supporting community energy
projects, but, clearly, if it’s going to have a backwards
step in relation to business rates, we need to make sure that we
are much more aligned with that.
|
[256] Sian
Gwenllian: So, you’d consider a rate relief scheme
for—[Inaudible.]?
|
[257] Lesley
Griffiths: Well, it was a discussion that I was going to have
with, as I say, Mark Drakeford, yesterday—
|
[258] Sian
Gwenllian: That’s a step that you could take.
|
[259] Lesley
Griffiths: It’s a step we can look at, and I certainly
hope to meet over recess.
|
[260] Mike
Hedges: Finally, David.
|
[261] David
Melding: Thank you, Chair. Your Brexit stakeholder round-table
is giving you advice. Do you chair that round-table, or does the
civil—?
|
[262] Lesley
Griffiths: I do.
|
[263] David
Melding: You do.
|
[264] Lesley
Griffiths: No, I chair it.
|
[265] David
Melding: And then the working groups that have been
established: are they chaired by civil servants or by—?
|
[266] Lesley
Griffiths: They are, yes. They’re chaired by civil
servants.
|
[267] Mr Slade:
Yes, heads of division within the team.
|
[268] David
Melding: Thanks for just giving that clarification. In
paragraph 7 of your useful note to us, you say, and I quote:
|
[269]
‘Agriculture has been fully devolved for nearly two decades
and I am clear and resolute it must stay that way.’
|
[270] And then a
little later in the paragraph, you say, and I quote again,
|
[271] ‘There is
a need for UK frameworks where we have areas of
commonality’—
|
[272] presumably the
need to maintain the UK’s single market and a way of managing
externalities and setting common standards. You know, if this was a
peace and reconciliation exercise, you would have thought those two
statements could be reconciled, and the UK Government also has
emphasised that devolved decision making will not be impaired. But
this seems to be very, very contested territory. I mean, are you
slapping on the war paint, or do you think the Welsh Government and
the UK Government are working to what we all need, which is a
reasonable way of managing these needs, especially over some form
of common governance arrangement, I suppose?
|
[273] Lesley
Griffiths: We’ve always made it very clear that we would
have a Welsh agricultural policy. As I say and you say, agriculture
has been wholly devolved to this place for 18 years, and I
didn’t see last year’s EU referendum as a row back on
devolution, and I know that you didn’t either, David. We also
said that we accepted that there would be UK frameworks. Certainly,
there are examples of that now—animal health and welfare is
one example where that works very well. Going back to my first
fisheries council last December, the collaborative work that was
undertaken across the four UK Governments was a really good
example. So, I don’t think they’re contradictory.
However, I will absolutely fight against any row back on devolved
powers.
|
[274] David
Melding: Chair, I think this merits further discussion, but
perhaps not this morning. [Laughter.]
|
[275] Mike
Hedges: Well, as we’ve gone five minutes over, which I
think the Chair will be criticised for, can I thank the Cabinet
Secretary for coming along today? I thank her for engaging with the
committee and for bringing her officials along as well in order to
help. Obviously, you’ll have a transcript of the meeting to
check before publication. Again, thank you very much.
|
[276] Lesley
Griffiths: Thank you, Chair.
|
10:51
|
Papurau i’w Nodi
Papers to Note
|
[277]
Mike Hedges: We’ll move on to the next item, which is a
letter from the Llywydd regarding the implementation of the Wales
Act 2017. If you wish to discuss it, we will discuss it after the
break. Okay, noted.
|