National Assembly for Wales

Good morning, and welcome to the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee. We are taking evidence from three Ministers today in our termly scrutiny of the Ministers and their portfolios. I welcome the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs and his officials. Before I ask you to introduce yourselves, I'll ask for apologies. We have apologies from Luke Fletcher, who's being deputised by Llyr Gruffydd today for this section, but Luke will join us in the latter part of the meeting. And Hefin David is joining us via Zoom today. There are no other apologies. I'll call for declarations of interest. I declare, obviously, my declaration of interest as a farmer for any issues that might pertain to agriculture. That interest will be on the record. Sam.

Thanks, Chair. I declare an interest as an honorary member of the British Veterinary Association.

Maybe I should do that as well. BVA, while I remember.

Maybe I should do that as well.

Anyone else in the BVA? [Laughter.] The chief vet. [Laughter.]

Obviously, all proceedings are bilingual here this morning. The Cabinet Secretary has drawn a big crowd in the public gallery, as you can see, and we're broadcasting on the worldwide web if anyone wants to tune in from whatever corner of the globe.

Cabinet Secretary, I'll kick off the questioning, if I may. And, obviously, one of the recent announcements you've made is the bluetongue restrictions that you've placed on the livestock industry here in Wales. It's now been in place for two weeks. How's it going?

I think the measures we announced, whilst they weren't met with universal acclaim, were met with significant plaudits for the evidence-based approach that we had taken to them and the fact that we are trying to keep the disease out for as long as we can; and it is noticeable that some of the responses out there have applauded the intent behind that. But we're not ignorant of the fact that the incursion of bluetongue, now that it's snapped out to an England border right along the borders of Wales, could mean that it progresses faster towards us. It wouldn't be unexpected. It can't be predicted absolutely, but it wouldn't be unexpected. So, in which case, we have to be ready for any eventuality.

But what we are doing here, just to make crystal clear as well—. And I note, by the way, that I've received correspondence from farmers who've actually said, 'Thank you for taking this approach.' Because trying to hold it back and trying to buy time while we put the right things in place is trying to avoid what's happened in some other places—on the continent as well—where the disease has overtaken our ability to prepare for it, and that has had real impacts for farmers. We've got really dense livestock in areas, particularly in the west midlands into the borderlands of Wales. We've got the highest density of sheep within probably most of the European nations as well.

So, whatever we can do, first of all, to hold it back as long as we can—and we might be able to hold it back, but I'm not being unrealistic here—but if not, actually saying to farmers then, 'Speak to your vets. Talk to them about vaccination, both for cattle, but also what measures you might want to take with sheep as well.' We're also working with the veterinary sector and with some of the manufacturing bases of vaccinations to look at the efficacy for sheep as well. But if we can get ahead of the curve here, it'll be starkly different to what's happened in some other European nations, where they had to play catch-up, where they had devastating impacts of the disease in dense livestock areas and then had to have the impacts of that, which included productivity of animals significantly and destocking. So, that's what we're trying to do here.

You've had the restrictions in now for some two weeks. What impact have those restrictions had on the movement of livestock, predominantly cattle? I mean, you should have that information readily available. The British Cattle Movement Service would be able to tell you, if you plugged into it today, as Ministers or officials, how many cattle have not travelled over the border from England and, obviously, the structural implications that that potentially could have on the industry here in Wales over a longer period. So, what sort of impact has that had?

Well, the first thing I'd say in response to that is we recognise this is dynamic, and we are monitoring, on a daily basis, the impact, not only in terms of movements, but also where the disease is going as well. It's worth saying as well, we have actually made adjustments since that original announcement. So, when we met on 5 June with all of the stakeholders, and we said, 'This is where we are going with our approach to this disease and holding it back', we also made clear that we would keep on listening and make adjustments. We've made several adjustments. One of them is actually red meat to slaughter. We're looking at other adjustments as well. But, Richard, I wonder if I can bring you in, because it is worth reflecting that we haven't made a decision, as some have said out there, 'King Canute style', trying to hold this back. That is absolute—I'll hold back from using an Anglo-Saxon term—it's rubbish. What we are doing is looking at the evidence and how this might indeed have incursions, and then working with the industry to make adjustments. But, Richard, we've made adjustments already.

Thank you, Deputy First Minister. Bore da, pawb. Good morning, everybody. As you rightly highlight, Deputy First Minister, there have been adjustments made. We've had introduction of measures in two phases, on 20 June and then in response, so to speak, when the England-wide restricted zone came into place. As you'll recognise through this committee, the flexibility to provide movement without a pre-movement test for cattle that are fully vaccinated with a product that has a 'prevent viremia' claim on the data sheet. So, that is enabling cattle that are fully vaccinated, which means two doses, as per the data sheet, followed by a minimum period of 21 days, to be able to move into Wales under licence, but without a pre-movement test. Where it comes to pre-movement testing and licensed movements, during June and July, approximately 40 licence applications per month have been made to the Animal and Plant Health Agency. Recognising that we're halfway through July, that number may well still increase, quite rightly.

What I would also just remind the committee of, to bring you right up to date in terms of the latest events with regard to bluetongue serotype 3 in England, is that at the end of last week and over the weekend, there were three new cases of active infection of BTV-3 in England. Two in sheep flocks. The affected sheep, unfortunately, did not respond to treatment, and in some cases had to be humanely euthanised, which reminds us that severity of disease of bluetongue, typically in sheep, is more severe than in cattle. For example, in the Netherlands, our colleagues over there have reported a case-fatality rate in sheep in the region of 60 per cent. So, that is quite alarming, and we've seen that severity in terms of individual animal illness in England.

There were two sheep cases I mentioned—one in Oxfordshire and one in Buckinghamshire. Most notable, perhaps, with regard to Wales was a cattle herd near Hereford that was detected with active detection of BTV-3. And, naturally, as you'll all be aware, geographically, Hereford is roughly 20 km from the Welsh border. So that case detection last Friday is of note, because, if you'll pardon the very simple metaphor, it may be considered that's bringing the wolf closer to the door. We also know, from the preliminary investigations by APHA of that case, that that stock moved on 3 July from the east of England, where we know bluetongue has been prevalent in the past, and the work goes on to understand the investigation. But, as I say, that stock moved from the east of England through the England-wide RZ to just south of Hereford in Herefordshire county, a recent active BTV-3 infection has been detected. And, crucially, the mode of detection in those cattle were through positive pre-movement tests. Those cattle had been subject to pre-movement testing prior to their intended movement into Wales, but the pre-movement testing enabled the detection of BTV-3 in those stocks. So, we prevented that movement of bringing BTV-3 into Wales through the pre-movement-testing detection method.

So, as I say, it is notable that those first cases of BTV-3 of the current vector season—you might call it the new vector season, as the temperatures have warmed—have been detected, so to speak, on our doorstep and in quite close counties of Buckinghamshire and Oxfordshire. And as the temperatures now are conducive to the vector season, we also have that concern that that BTV-3 infection may now get into the local midge population in England, if it isn't there already, as well as in that proximity to the Welsh border.

So, as the Deputy First Minister said, to conclude, it’s key that we have the time now for farmers and vets to have that crucial conversation about the role of vaccination in herds and flocks. Vaccination can protect sheep and cattle, and we need to be vaccinating where it is appropriate for business need, where the cost-benefit stacks up, so to speak, recognising a dose costs in the region of £2.50 to £3, and for farmers to have that conversation with their vet. There’s free available information through the ruminant health and welfare group, and the Battle Bluetongue campaign, to enable that decision making, with vets and farmers in close conversation, and having the time now to vaccinate ahead of this potentially devastating disease.

And just to highlight the risks of not doing this, Chair, no two circumstances are identical, but you can see the failure to get ahead of this disease, to try and do it after the disease has made the incursion, in places like the Netherlands. It wasn’t simply the impact of this, and the severity of it in densely stocked areas; there was estimated to be a €100 million impact there on the farming sector, and not only that, but a 10 per cent drop in livestock numbers as a direct result of it. So, the more we can do to actually work with vets and farmers to say, 'Let’s get ahead of this, speak to your vet, look at vaccination. Let’s get ahead of the curve, not let it hit us and then try and catch up', that's going to be very important.

That wasn’t the answer I was looking for, for the question I put to you, but it’s good information to put on the record, and I understand that’s the thinking that the Government have. But what I’d like to know is the behavioural change that has happened since 1 July, when these restrictions came in. You should have that information because, as I said, you can get it from BCMS, just like that.

Indeed. 

So, how many fewer livestock units have moved into Wales, that ultimately will structurally, potentially, change the direction of the livestock sector here in Wales? How many cattle haven’t come into Wales from England?

We can get that information for you. That’s not difficult, as you say, to actually get hold of. I don’t have it to hand with me, right in front of me now, but we can drop you a note on that.

Okay, thanks. 

But as Richard has already said, we are already having—. We’ve had 40 applications, on a licensed basis, to move herds. We’ve also made those mitigations as well, to enable cross-border transfers on farms that are owned by the same farmer as well, so we’re taking a very pragmatic approach.

But I just want to make one other thing crystal clear as well. In the engagement—and the good engagement, because we’ve had two round-tables already; we will have more going through the summer, because of the dynamic nature of the situation—in that engagement, we’re being crystal clear with all the stakeholders. Every time we make an adjustment, every time we do some mitigation—whether it’s on red markets, whether it could be on other matters, as we approach the breeding season now, which is critical for Welsh farming—every time we do it, we cumulatively increase the risk, and we cumulatively increase, unless we get ahead of this, the potential consequences of allowing the disease in. So, we’ve got to be clear on that as a sector.

This is not just a ministerial decision; the decision to go further, to adapt, to open that risk to those consequences is something that needs to be acknowledged and owned by the whole sector, from livestock auctioneers, to the sector itself, to breeders, to farmers. Everybody needs to be aware of it and to accept that if we do make adjustments as the season goes on, this is not just a Minister making a decision. We will do it based on evidence and we will do it based on buying the time to enable the sector to get ahead of this disease, but we will do it with them, and fully informed, and acknowledging what those risks and consequences may be. This is not an easy situation.

Thank you, Minister. The next questioner is Sam, if you want to ask your supplementary on this, and Llyr as well. But I would just put on the record that when we took evidence from the British Meat Processors Association some two weeks ago, they said they attended the round-table that you referred to, and they said they weren't listened to. 

Sorry, there's a difference between me listening to people and agreeing with everybody, because the voices around that round-table were very diverse. They also weren't polar opposite; there were some real nuances. And if you look at the animal health and welfare representation, the livestock organisations represented on there, if you look at the feedback from the veterinary associations and so on, they're very clear, actually, on the decision that we needed to take at that time. 

But there's a difference, I would say to you, and to everybody on this committee, between a Minister listening and a Minister making a balanced judgment that is then dynamic and can be adjusted going forward. We made adjustments as a result of what we heard at that round-table. We made adjustments as a result, directly, of the second round-table, and we'll keep on listening and adjusting, but only on the evidence. 

Sam. 

On that vaccination uptake, what is it?

Sorry?

The vaccination uptake, what is it?

Currently, the records show that 140,000-odd doses have been prescribed. Those are the latest figures. Those figures have naturally been climbing, and there's a huge amount of work being done in partnership with the sector, with the unions, with veterinary associations and our veterinary delivery partners to ensure that clear messages around the role of vaccination, the different vaccines and, indeed, the impact of bluetongue are being clearly communicated. 

You may, indeed, be aware of the Battle Bluetongue campaign that I mentioned earlier, and then also a campaign being led by the Wales animal health and welfare framework group and the Wales Veterinary Science Centre, which has the tagline, 'Do not wait, vaccinate'. So, that is all ongoing, in partnership between ourselves and stakeholders across the livestock and veterinary sectors.

How is that 140,000 split between cattle and sheep? Because cattle need two doses. If you're talking about two doses, the number of single doses in that figure would be halved straight away if you're talking about cattle, down to 70,000, as they require two doses, and then the split between sheep as well, per animal. 

I'll have to get back to you with the specific figures. I'm just checking if I have them in my note here, Sam. But, as I said, we can easily provide those figures—

Just for the record, that is a Welsh figure, is it? That's not a UK figure, that 140,000. Just for the record. 

Indeed, Chair. That is absolutely correct. That is a figure that represents dose prescriptions via veterinarians—because, as I say, it's a vaccine that has to be prescribed by a vet—and the veterinary prescription is then recorded. Farmers also have a duty to record the vaccine use as well, so we must remind our farmers that where they are providing a vaccine—. Farmers can administer the vaccine to their stock; vets prescribe the vaccine to be administered. But, as I said, we have a breakdown of figures that we can provide with regard to the species. 

If I may also just return, Chair, very briefly to the point that you made about the BMPA, we've been in direct conversation with the BMPA and food business operators to be clearly understanding, both within the round-table and in preceding and subsequent conversations, to hear their concerns about the designation conditions. And we're working directly with them to look at evidence and risk-based approaches to enable flexibility, but still manage risk in an appropriate way, but accommodating, in inverted commas, flexibility for the conditions under which food business operators can manage particularly things like lairage. 

That is ongoing work where we've engaged before round-tables, heard them at the round-tables and subsequent to address those issues where we can. And, as highlighted, following on from the round-table, as you will be very aware, the bluetongue approved red market applications are now open, which is a key part of that prime stock supply chain across the board.

Thank you. Llyr.

Thank you. To put it on the record, I'm very grateful for the additional offer, the technical briefing that was offered to Members yesterday by the chief veterinary officer. It was very useful in terms of being able to interrogate some of the stats and the figures that you've been sharing with us now. 

I want to ask further about vaccination. How far away are we from some sort of flexibility or even allowing full movement of sheep that have been vaccinated? I know that the vaccine in sheep doesn't prevent viremia in the same way as it does in cattle, or at least the Bultavo-3 vaccine doesn't. So, is the science bringing us to a point where we may soon—or sooner rather than later—have some sort of vaccine that has that kind of efficiency or effect? But also, would it not be an opportunity, if there was greater flexibility around vaccinated sheep—would that not be the best possible incentive for people to vaccinate their sheep?

I'll pass to Richard, but one of the arguments that has been put to us in the round-table from some is that, actually, if you were to more proactively say, 'We are going to use vaccination as the defence', particularly within sheep, and we were to say that we were going to move out the zone, there would be greater encouragement to the uptake of the vaccine. The question then, as you rightly put it, is what's the efficacy of that. We know that it is not as effective as with cattle, but it can reduce the impact as long as you're ahead of the game. But if we were to make any decision to do that—and again, it is a balance of judgment, but we're hearing some of the views saying that—I come back to the point that that has to be in the full knowledge of where the evidence is, the risks that come with that, and also the potential consequences as well. So, we're not going to do this in any way unsighted on that. Richard.

Thank you, Deputy First Minister. To follow on from the points that you made there in terms of cumulative risk and the consequences and impact that we recognise as bluetongue being potentially devastating, the unknown that we also have is how bluetongue may behave in livestock-dense areas of Great Britain, obviously Wales being an exemplar of that with regard to not just our sheep density but cattle density.

In terms of the vaccines themselves, there are several strands here. We're actively working with the vaccine manufacturers. We continue to engage to understand the data on vaccine efficacy, whether the vaccine manufacturers, indeed, may be doing further work themselves to develop evidence with regard to the effect of vaccine in sheep, as we also will want to understand for cattle, should further data come forward from different vaccine manufacturers, as you alluded to.

Chair, you highlighted earlier that one specific vaccine product has the 'prevents viremia' claim in the data sheet. In lay terms, that basically means that the vaccine prevents the virus from getting into the bloodstream, and that's really important because if the virus gets into the bloodstream, it presents an opportunity for the midge to take a blood meal, for the midge to become infected—it's a midge-borne disease—and for that midge to then bite other animals and transmit the infection.

But we're actively exploring those data. We're working with the vaccine manufacturers to understand what data they have, what work they are doing, and that is clearly with regard to recognising the importance of the breeding sales that typically take place in the autumn period. And as data comes forward, we will naturally be assessing that alongside what we all recognise as a dynamic and evolving disease picture, as I highlighted earlier those recent three cases within the last week or so in England. So, it's ongoing work.

The final point is that our veterinary colleagues in practice have also hosted webinars with the vaccine manufacturers attending for the vaccine manufacturers to be able to explain their products, to explain the data sheets with the technical data and information to our vets in practice as well as the work that they're doing with us, so that we have the right information for those conversations that are so crucial at this moment between vets and farmers to make the decision whether bluetongue vaccination is right for businesses, but also with regard to protecting livestock ahead of any potentially devastating disease that may come to Wales.

I want to move on to more lines of questioning, please. We've done nearly 20 per cent of the meeting on that, which is an important subject, but there are other issues we need to cover. Llyr.

I'd like to move on to TB. You've set up the technical advisory group, haven't you, and you were telling us in your paper that they're beginning to consider the role of wildlife in respect to bovine TB. Could you give us a bit more detail about the scope of that work first of all?

Yes, indeed. First of all, we've got a really good structure now with the TB programme board, but also the advisory group underpinning with an expert-led, evidence-led approach there—I think that's really welcome. The board have expressed the need to look at a holistic approach to TB eradication, bearing in mind that we still are focused on this 2041—sooner if we can—eradication of the disease. They've expressed this desire to explore a holistic approach. It's a direction I've encouraged, and I've told them nothing should be off the table: 'Look at that holistic approach'. But it's based, again, on the evidence.

We've got a standing commitment to meet the World Organisation for Animal Health TB-free country status by 2041. One of the criteria that's set out within that for TB-free country status is that mycobacterium tuberculosis—I'm reading it straight from this—complex infection levels in other animal species, including feral or wild animals, do not affect the level in bovines because measures preventing the transmission are in place and are periodically assessed. So, it actually signals that you should be looking at this in a holistic way.

The board have established three core elements in work going forward, which need to be considered in order to provide that holistic advice. It's focused on people and what farmers can do to mitigate the problem, cattle, and wildlife. Each element is being considered now as part of the forward work plan, which is being developed between the programme board and the TAG. The programme board have asked the TAG to review the available evidence and to identify any evidence gaps, because they wouldn't be saying that unless they thought there were some gaps in the knowledge base there in relation to TB and wildlife. The board then plan to use the TAG review and any associated advice to form part of a position paper on TB in Wales, which they are likely to bring forward in the spring of 2026.

Just to be clear, the TAG are—for anybody who doesn't understand—an independent group of scientific experts, quite wide-ranging scientific expertise, including on-farm veterinarians and so on, and the programme board are an independent group of industry representatives. What they include in the position paper will be for them to decide, and I certainly wouldn't wish to pre-empt the contents of the paper. But just to reiterate as well, because it is worth reiterating, we have a programme for government commitment in terms of badgers—

Well, that's where I was coming next.

—and that absolutely stands, but that piece of work is being done.

When you started that contribution, you said nothing's off the table, and then you concluded saying that the programme for government forbids the culling of badgers, so both can't be right.

No, both can be absolutely right.

Can be?

The TB programme board have asked for this holistic approach and they've commissioned the TAG group to go off and look at the evidence, fill the evidence gap, bring forward suggestions and recommendations in line with the World Organisation for Animal Health, which is that it should be that joined-up approach. We have a programme for government commitment. The TAG and the programme board will bring forward a position paper. That position paper will be brought forward; we will look at it when that comes forward.

So nothing's off the table in terms of what they can look at and bring to you.

I've made clear to them.

But you're clear that were they to suggest that there was a need to move in the direction of, say, culling badgers, that isn't something that you would do.

They could look at a range of different issues. There's an assumption in what you're saying that they might come forward and say, 'We need to cull badgers.' I'm not pre-empting at all where they might go.

I heard an interview that you did on Ffermio when you set up the technical advisory group. You were asked, 'If they brought that forward, would you look at it?' And you said, 'Well, yes, we would look at whatever they bring forward.'

We're going to look at the position paper when it comes forward. But we have a programme for government commitment that does not include culling of badgers. We do vaccination of badgers; we don't do culling. But I think it's right and proper that an independent expert advisory board and the programme board should be given the freedom to look at the evidence, look at the gaps in evidence, and consider then, in people and in cattle and in wildlife, how do we use all three vectors to eradicate the disease.

But if they bring something forward that you don't want to do, then all of a sudden, that isn't—

That is then for us as different political parties to look at and to decide where we go.

There's a contradiction there, I feel, but there we are; you know where I stand on this.

Sam.

That's not following the science, then, is it? If the scientific TAG group comes forward with a set of recommendations and politically you choose not to follow one, that's not following the science.

You're trying to lead me to pre-empt what I or a future Minister might say. And with great respect, the unscientific mass culls that took place over the border were not based on evidence, were not based on a rational scientific approach. [Interruption.] Yes, except that I would say to you if you look at the decline—we can get into the data if you want to—in herd incidence in Wales, what we do have is it's stuck within herds in Wales. So, the stuff that we're doing, for example, on the Pembrokeshire pathway, working with on-farm vets, giving autonomy to farmers, is exactly the stuff that's turning that round in Wales in a way that they're not doing in England over the border.

I was going to come on to the Pembrokeshire pathway and the Pembrokeshire project, because that's trailblazing. That's one of the reasons why I threw my own political weight behind it with your predecessor and Dr Richard Irvine's predecessor as well, to try and get something, because the feeling in Pembrokeshire was one of hopelessness when it came to TB. And to be honest with you, Deputy First Minister, I'm fed up of receiving phone calls from farmers who are losing 30, 40, 50, 60 cattle month on month, year on year, because of this disease. And I've said in the Chamber as well, I don't care who eradicates bovine TB as long as it's eradicated, because it's been a scourge on Welsh agriculture for far too long. And when you turn around to Llyr and say that this TAG will look at every available outcome and then you will make a political decision off the back of this—

That isn't what I said.

Well, that's what you're insinuating—

No, that isn't what I said.

Okay, what is it, then? If they come forward and say, 'We believe that the targeted removal of wildlife is required to tackle bovine TB in hotspot areas', you will make a political decision off the back of that. Is that correct?

Are you telling me that if you were in the position of being in Government, your party politics wouldn't influence the shape of your manifesto offer, your programme for government commitments? Are you telling me that?

Absolutely, but, then, why—?

They do. They do. Ah, I see, so it does for you.

But then you say you follow the science, you follow the evidence.

So, we follow the evidence. That is exactly why, with my backing, we have said to the programme board, 'Go off and do this, bring forward the position paper', and then it is for all of us, I have to say, not just for me, but for others to look at this and decide whether they agree with the conclusions—

Only one of you can decide to do it. I can't decide to do it. Llyr can't decide to do it.

Now, you will know that I've always been an evidence-based Minister. I follow the evidence. But I think you're being slightly unrealistic there to say that the positions of Plaid Cymru Members, or Conservative Members, or Green Party Members for that matter, or any political party, do not feed into stances, not of Government, but of party politics. That's the point I was making. It's different from what a Government decision is. Because as a Government Minister, I look at the evidence.

But then you're bound by a political manifesto that says 'forbid'.

No, I'm not.

Well, that's what you've just answered Llyr saying.

No, it isn't, but it's an influence on you, on your party's position. It's an influence on Llyr's party's position and what they take to the Government.

So, you would break a manifesto commitment.

So, we have a programme for government commitment, which is no badger cull.

Yes, and you would break that.

That was formed by, in the same way that it would be with your Members on different positions, and on, I don't know, trees and woodlands and SFS or something like that. You have a position that is guided by what you're hearing from your members as well. But I base my decisions on evidence as a Minister. That's why we've commissioned them to do this. I think you're trying to draw out a strand—

I don't think you can rationalise the two positions, Deputy First Minister. I don't think you can rationalise a manifesto commitment—

Well, with great respect—

Okay, there's a difference of opinion there, and the viewer can make their mind up as to who's right and who's wrong. I want to move on, Cabinet Secretary.

Indeed, but with great respect, we are all elected politicians as well as we're not scientists alone.

Yes, but you've had your take on it. Members have had their take on it. People can make their own conclusions. Hannah.

Thank you. I'm going to turn to animal welfare now. A slight change of tone. In June this year, you set out plans for a phased approach to introducing a national model for regulating animal welfare. Obviously, we're all well aware that the clock's ticking on this Senedd term. So, are those plans on track?

Yes, they are. We've always said that we would take a phased approach to developing this national model. So, we put out some statements recently on this as well to inform the Senedd further. My core focus for the remainder of this Senedd term will be on delivering those priorities for animal welfare, which are set out in the five-year animal welfare plan, taking us up to 2026. If you like, that area of policy was driven by the evidence and also what our priorities were as politicians, setting them out as politicians as well.

So, alongside this, we're also going to explore those proposals for the regulation of animal welfare establishments. We're going to focus on rescues, sanctuaries, rehabilitation and rehoming centres. In focusing on those animal welfare establishments in phase 1—this is phase 1—this is where there's a majority of the benefits that we can deliver for thousands upon thousands of animals. We're hoping to channel the effort to where the regulation gets the greatest benefit for the largest number of animals, taking into account the current evidence, the views and the information submitted, and the issues arising from the current lack of regulatory oversight and support within that sector.

We have got a second phase that we've indicated already. In that secondary phase, we want to move into focusing on pet grooming. As outlined, we've got clear priorities now to deliver based on the current animal welfare plan for Wales. This will take us through the remainder of the Senedd term. But this isn't going to happen overnight. I think it's right that we do it in a phased way: those areas that can have  the greatest impact first, then on to others and based on the evidence at all points.

So, taking that into account, are there areas that you think probably won't get over the line this Senedd term, then? 

It was always going to be a phased approach. So, there'll be other areas. For example, there are areas that have been talked about that we could move into in a future phase, things such as animal exhibits. There were mixed views, I have to say, in terms of animal exhibits. Whilst there was majority support for actually regulating within the animal exhibits, there were mixed views, and there was also inconclusive evidence. So, in the phasing, I think we need to look at some of those types of areas more and ground up the evidence. We do acknowledge that there are arguments for regulating other activities under a national model. So, our approach will be phase 1, phase 2 and then gather the evidence, understand the impacts of possibly regulating in other areas and bring them forward as part of that phased approach to a national model. Richard.

Yes, I'll add very briefly—

You looked slightly startled then. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. [Laughter.]

I'm very happy to come in. So, very briefly, as you'll recognise, the commitment that we have and are working to at the moment is twofold: developing a national model for animal welfare regulation, and the consultation that took place, and, indeed, the Government response to the consultation that was recently published means that we're exactly on track, so to speak; and the second part, as the Deputy First Minister rightly highlighted, is that we're prioritising the programme of work that we've already got set out in 'Our Animal Welfare Plan for Wales 2021 to 2026'. Recognising the feedback from the consultation, the first priority with regard to the further development of the national model is rescue centres, sanctuaries and those kinds of organisations and the like. And as the Deputy First Minister said, we will be developing and exploring initial proposals around what a framework might look like for those kinds of establishments. But as I say, the priority for this Senedd term is centred on the delivery of 'Our Animal Welfare Plan for Wales 2021 to 2026' that is set out, and we have the clear priorities from the consultation that will take us beyond that.

And that's where Richard and his team, now—. The resources are focused to deliver that.

So, just taking that into account, it's not been in your recent statements, but I was wondering if you were able to update the committee today on any progress on the Natural Resources Wales proposals to introduce licensing to regulate the release of game birds in Wales.

Yes, that's still under consideration. I think we're waiting for ministerial advice to be floated up on that. So, when that comes, I'll be able to look at the evidence and make a decision.

My final point, Chair, is just on the proposal to phase out greyhound racing in Wales as part of the things you've touched on—the licensing of animal welfare establishments, activities and exhibits. I know there wasn't a specific consultation on that or White Paper, but I know you've got a stakeholder group that you've got together, so how confident are you that the developed legislation will take into account those stakeholder views? And will there be an economic assessment of the ban on it? Is there any detail that you can share with us today?

Yes, I can give you some detail. And you're right in saying that the implementation group has met. It's up and running—the new chair is in place and the membership is in place. We might bring on a couple of additional members as well to strengthen it, to look at related issues within the local area, local environment and so on. But it's good that it's up and running. As we take forward the proposals, there will be further opportunity for interested parties to contribute as we bring the committee stages of legislation forward.

And on the economic impact assessment, there will be an initial regulatory impact assessment as part of the development of the Bill, and then we'll do a further economic impact assessment through the integrated impact assessment as well. But simply to reflect, in the consultation that we carried out in 2024, there were two questions related to greyhound racing, and the majority of responses were supportive of moving towards a ban. So, whilst there hasn't been a White Paper, it's very clear that there is sufficient public and cross-party support for moving to a ban to warrant the action. So, I brought forward the oral statement on 18 February, which updated Members on animal health and welfare, including the announcement to move to ban greyhound racing in Wales as soon as practically possible. And I've also issued a written statement, on 24 June, on the Welsh Government response to the consultation we've just discussed on the licensing of animal welfare establishments, and that also included reference to greyhound racing and our next steps. On 11 July, I put forward a further written statement, which put forward the details of the implementation group and the guide in the transition towards a ban on greyhound racing in Wales. So, key stakeholders have been invited and have taken part now on that implementation group set up to assist Welsh Government in mitigating the impact on the industry and ensuring that the welfare of dogs is not compromised as we move forward to a ban.

Jenny.

I wanted to talk about trees. Obviously, you've announced new targets this week, and we've debated that a lot in the Plenary sessions. But I want to look at the outcomes of reducing these targets from the original 38,000 hectares, because it reduces our capacity to absorb flooding from intense rainfall, reduces the availability of shade for animals in increasingly hot summers, and reduces the opportunities to improve our food resilience against catastrophes elsewhere in countries we import food from. 

So, I'm having difficulty understanding that you don't plan any further action until the end of 2028, because it feels like that's just watching while disaster accumulates. So, (a) how do we overcome the aversion of many farmers to see tree planting as an asset to increase the value of their landholding? At the end of the day, we can set what targets we like, but it's the outcomes. This is an important way in which we are meeting our net-zero climate goals. What else are we going to have to do if we don't achieve any of this?

A really good question. We think we've got a very good way forward now. You're right in saying you can set whatever targets you want, but if people don't actually want to deliver on them, you will see the resistance to it, and we will not get anywhere towards achieving whatever targets we put in place. The difference that we've done now in taking the SFS forward—. The reason the SFS is important is because of, as we all know, the sheer proportion of land within Wales that is farmed. Now, on that basis, we don't need to take primary productive land out of production. And we also don't want to do, by the way, the other side of this, which is taking really good, biodiverse-rich land that we should not be planting trees on—or that they should be planted very sympathetically in the right place and so on. That can be done. We know there is potential. You've rightly identified, however, that one of the challenges here is actually working with winning hearts and minds to say, 'This is good for farmers. It's good for climate resilience on-farm.' The heat waves that we've seen recently, which all the meteorologists are saying are going to be more frequent, more intense, as every year goes by—we know the damage that that does to the productivity of livestock. Actually, if you've got shelter belts on farms, and woods and coppices that sheep and livestock can shelter under, it's good for their productivity. It literally increases the value of the beasts to market when you sell them. But it's also good for locking carbon in, and carbon sequestration, and all the wider—

We agree on that, but what are we going to do about this, because others don't seem to realise this?

The way we've designed the scheme is, rather than what was previously in place, which was 10 per cent per farm, on every farm, regardless of the specific circumstances, we've now agreed a scheme headline approach that is based, by the way, just to remind everybody, on 17,000 hectares, with an aspiration to actually achieve 21,500 hectares. Why are those figures meaningful and important? For two reasons. One, they go above and beyond what 10 per cent per farm would have taken us to. But, secondly, the Climate Change Committee, in May, did a revised climate projection for the uptake of trees. Some on the floor of the Senedd this week have criticised that and said they're wrong. Actually, I think they've been really pragmatic. What they've said is, 'Your ultimate trajectory has to be the same. You need to plant more trees in Wales, both on farmland, on the forestry estate and other places. You need to get more.' So, they've kept that, but what they've said is, 'We recognise that, to overcome some of these real barriers, but also conceptual and perceptual barriers, we need to bring people with us on it.' So, they've said, 'You can get to'—they've said—'22,000 hectares.' We've suggested it's 17,500 we can land with the approach we're taking now in the scheme—probably 21,500, which will take us in spitting distance. Then we'll need to work with, having won hearts and minds, to go even further. I think, by that stage, we will have farmers that go, 'I can actually see the benefits of this.' We will also have farmers—we know they're out there, they're the quiet ones—who actually want to move into agroforestry, who want to do silviculture, who want to actually use some of their non-productive land. We know they are there, but they're not the loud ones. So, what we've done is, we've put in place the incentives to do it. So, for the first time ever—it wasn't in the basic payment scheme—in the universal layer, in year 1, a management plan has to be produced for hedgerows and trees. Then they need to draw it down from the optional layer, where the money is pushed into those—. There's more. We've deliberately put an additional quantum in, and it's ring-fenced for the first three years, so it's attractive enough, Jenny, for a farmer to go, 'Yes, I can see the sense of this and plant.'

Okay. It's all good, but I want to ensure that we're equitably sharing the burden here, or the challenge. You're asking farmers to plant at least 0.1 per cent of a hectare of trees, or 250 trees. That's maybe challenging for a small farm holding, but, for a large farm holding, how are they going to be doing the heavy lifting? They're richer, they have more land. We need to get everybody on board here.

Exactly what you say. The 250 trees per farm we think is a reasonable level to set as a minimum of where the planting can be done. There may be exceptions, but they'll be few and far between, where a farmer, based on our officials going and looking at the farm, will say, 'Look, I simply cannot do more, or the environment I can do'—they'll be rare. But for most farms, they will be able to do that. For many farms, they not only will be able to, but will want to do more, because we know, from the conversations we're having with farmers, they are the quiet ones who say, 'Actually, you put the money in place, Minister, we will draw that money down and we will plant.'

You're trying to reassure, but how do we know that we don't reach 2028 and nothing has happened? 

You never know for certain. And you wouldn't know for certain, by the way, if we'd have put a nominal 10 per cent, 20 per cent or 50 per cent on every farm. In fact, remember when we had that, there were surveys at the time suggesting that as few as 6 per cent of farmers would enter the scheme on the basis of that one element. So, can we be absolutely certain? No, because what we're trying to do is a very subtle but well-informed piece of work that balances the right quantum of financial incentive, the mandated element of saying, 'If you enter the universal layer, you must map out the opportunities for trees and hedgerows', and then actually working with the behavioural sciences. And this is the thing that does frustrate me that so many people sometimes miss, which is working with farmers to say, 'We understand that you have some concerns over the asset value of your farm. We understand that there has not been a conventional traditional approach in Wales for generations—there was years and years ago—on agroforestry, but you can turn that round. You can change that mindset.' And then, when our chairman is planting some more wood on his farmland and then he walks down to another Vale farmer and says, 'Hey, I can do this, and it's worth while for me', by example it starts to spiral.

Good luck with that. [Laughter.] Hannah, you've got a supplementary.

Thanks, Chair. Just a quick question, if I may, Deputy First Minister, on the agricultural advisory panel. I was wondering if you would be able to confirm the Welsh Government's commitment to retaining the panel. If I remember rightly, I think it's coming up to a decade when it's been in effect now. Is this a good time, perhaps, in the next year or so, to perhaps look at its effectiveness and see how it potentially could be strengthened—the purpose of it? 

We've got no plans to scrap the agricultural advisory panel. And by the way, just to say, it does exist in other nations as well, including Scotland and elsewhere, and there are good reasons why it does exist. The land workers are as much a part of this as the farmers themselves. It's actually standing up the social justice piece within this—the value of those people who work on the farms in very different roles. That's what the panel does.

Going forward, we're not planning to do any review; we simply don't have the time within this last—. There might be, and I've heard this from some of the people who are involved with the panel themselves, are involved with some of the unions—. Sorry, I should note that I am a union member myself of several unions; I refer you to my declaration of interests. But some of the unions themselves have said, 'We wouldn't mind having a look at this and seeing it refreshed.' Some of the panel members have said that. But we're not planning to do it in these few months ahead. It might be something for the next Government to look at.

Chair, I should probably chip in at this point and also declare that I'm a member of Unite, just for the record.

I was just about to say, the way these declarations are going, you won't be able to walk in a corridor before long—. [Laughter.] That's just a general point, that is, from someone who's been on the whipping end of this. Hannah, have you finished your point? Llyr.

On the sustainable farming scheme, why did you change your approach to the transition period, because it's left a bitter taste in the mouth for many people who've been involved in some of the round-table stuff, but also out there? Would not allowing that extra 12 months to smooth out the transition somewhat help take people with you on this journey?

I do understand that. Genuinely, this is a judgment call that I've made, and I do understand that. Would it have made life easier over the last couple of days? Yes, it probably would. However, I can give you the reasons for doing this, and it's not to cajole or force farmers in, but it is a recognition—. You will know that, as well as some of the push and pull we've had with the farming sector and different parts of the farming sector, there are also the environmental organisations, who’ve been very clear in their response to this. Some have expressed some disappointment, some have said, ‘Well, on balance it's right, but what are we going to do with the optional and collaborative layers?’ So, within the way that we've designed this, we've said we have actually taken forward that £238 million from the BPS across into the SFS. So, we've once again, for the third year, curiously, since I've been in position—. I've only been in position for 18 months, but immediately I walked through the doors, I nailed down the BPS for that year, then I subsequently did it for the year ahead that we've been through this year of intense discussion, 15 months of discussion, and I've now, at risk, said we will guarantee this going forward. Some people have said, 'We'd like it more.' I'd like it more as well, but the reality is now, in the post-EU landscape, this is a discussion amongst Cabinet about where we get this, and will be going forward. But having said that, the big push, you'll note, from those who've probably written to you as well is, ‘Well, yes, but what about the optional and collaborative?’

So, the 40 per cent taper does a couple of things. One is: we are 12 months further down the line. We are 12 months further on. If we'd have started the scheme a year ago, as was originally intended, we would be at 40 per cent—

But we didn't, did we?

We didn't, but that is where we would be. So, from that respect, I have to say that that's one of my factors in considering this.

Secondly, it's because if we had more farmers coming in from the word ‘go’, and I'd say this scheme is good for them to get into—'Look at the ready reckoner that will be available, look at it for your farm, this will be the scheme that is right for you and the wide objectives that it's delivering'—. If farmers come in earlier, and 40 per cent is a signal saying, ‘Please come in earlier. Please come in earlier’, but it's got to be an individual farmer's choice, that will release additional money from the old legacy BPS. Its time is limited. And it will really sit, and I've made very clear, into those optional and collaborative layers.

Now, some of the discussion that happened a moment ago was about how do we get that investment, let's say in the upper catchments of river areas, more money into farmers so that we can do landscape planting along river corridors and so on. So, that's what the collaborative can do as well as the optional.

You touched there on the fact that the BPS money, as you transition into the SFS, won't follow you into the universal, then, it will go into the optional and collaborative. 

Correct.

So, the universal pot is diminishing, and the more people that come across, the less money there will be in the universal pot, because that money, the BPS equivalent money, is going across into the optional. 

No. No.

Explain that to me, then, because I'm getting that back from a lot of people as well.

To be crystal clear, 70 per cent of the funding we've made available is going into the BPS into the universal layer—70 per cent. There are many organisations out there who did not want that. They wanted less in that universal layer, far more where the nature, environment, climate, resilience piece will do far more within the optional and collaborative. I've said it's important to actually manage that transition going into the first year of the scheme in particular, and that is bolted down. So, that is bolted down.

That 70 per cent.

Absolutely. Now, going forward, it will release additional quantum to go into optional and collaborative, and for those people out there who say, ‘Now, let's work through the summer and the autumn to make sure the scheme really delivers, not just for farm business sustainability, but for wider environmental sustainability’, that's where the value added comes. And bear in mind, one of the interesting discussions we have internally in Cabinet, but also within the Welsh Treasury and with the chief economist, is: where's the value for money in this? Remember that I've described this accurately as the first time ever we have a whole-farm approach, doing all of the sustainable land management objectives and responding to the nature and climate emergency. It's the first time we have a whole-nation approach, looking to deliver those on a national basis. Okay? So, the value for money argument here is key. Where do the elements, where in that triple layer of the scheme, the triple tier, deliver the greater benefits for climate resilience for farmers, for nature, for biodiversity and so on? It's in the optional and collaborative. So, it's very purposeful that, as we transition and we come away from BPS, that will go into the optional and collaborative. Then we've got a job of work to do with the round-table again, because this is just the end of the beginning, to actually work out how do we make those optional and collaborative layers work, the elements within them, for farmers and also for nature and climate.

But you're sharing that pot in the universal more thinly, the more people that come across into the universal. 

No, we've bolted it down. So, we've pinned that down.

But there are more people coming across.

The BPS will release money. The question is into what tier does it go? 

So, it's a new form of modulation, if we use the old language.

Yes, indeed. In effect, yes. So, there will be additional quantum going in. It doesn't reduce the universal layer, but there's more going to be going into, as each year goes by, the optional and collaborative, which is, by the way, where people like the nature-friendly farming groups and others have been saying we should put it, because they want to reward that nature-rich, environmentally focused style of farming. So do we, because that's actually where a lot of the smaller upland farms are, where those farmers who have got rich pastureland are, and they've got livestock on as well, and they're doing really good soil enrichment as well. They're doing all the right things. That's where we should be, actually.

A great tour de force, Deputy First Minister, but I'm conscious that time is beating us. Sam. 

Thank you very much. This is a vast change from last year and there's some improvements in the SFS, and I think everybody does welcome those changes that have come, but there still remains a number of questions on it. And not to labour the point on the economic impact assessment, but we're due that in September?

Yes. 

Yes. So, I won't press on that too much. 

And the wider assessment. 

Yes, that's the point I was coming to. What does this do for food productivity and food security within Wales? 

We strongly believe that this will improve not only food production, but food security as well. Because if we can increase productivity within the sector—. One factor is things such as livestock numbers. Another one is efficiency and productivity.

So, you think this scheme will increase livestock numbers.

Yes, absolutely. And the reason being, if we get the balance right with the type of rich pastureland, the right tree in the right place, alongside food production, then we're going to have healthier beasts. I could bring in Richard in a moment to wax lyrical on this.

Healthier beasts, I agree, but you just said more of them as well.

And with more market value as well.

And more of them. 

Sorry? 

More animals. More heads of livestock. 

We specifically, like other nations, don't have a livestock target. I don't think you're advocating for a livestock target.

With respect, Cabinet Secretary, in response to the question, you said there would be more livestock on the ground due to these proposals. That's what you replied to Sam.

We will check the transcript, but that's what I heard. 

Sorry, my apologies. That's not what I meant to say. So, if I misspoke—. What I'm saying is that the future of livestock on our farmland is guaranteed within this scheme, because it appeals to that type of farming. It is designed for that sort of farming, which reflects the type of pastureland that we have. So, you will have good livestock in the right conditions, doing the right thing for the environment as well.

Right, so in clarification of your point where you did say that you think there'd be an increase in livestock numbers, you've now said 'No', if you've misspoke. So, do you think there'll be a decrease in livestock numbers?

Neither, because you work—. So, for every single farm business, every farmer that I speak to, they will make very well-informed, rational decisions on their individual farm. So, one of the—

Sorry to cut across, but that means, then, levelling it out across Wales. So, some farmers will decrease livestock and some will increase livestock. If there's a net no gain and no loss of livestock numbers, that would be what you imagine will happen.

Sorry, I'm trying to unwrap the question that you've just asked me here.

So, some farmers will decrease and some will increase their livestock numbers, so that there's no net change to livestock numbers in Wales, which you've just said.

So, each individual farmer will make a decision on their farm. One of the challenges that's been put to the design of the scheme is, if you're going to enrich nature, biodiversity, thicken hedgerows a little bit et cetera, then, clearly, that's going to shift livestock off.  My argument would be that that's not necessarily the case, because there are parts of Wales where, actually, grazing would be more beneficial in areas that currently are not being grazed. When I speak to farmers out there, they go, 'Well, actually, if the incentives are right, we will displace cattle grazing into areas that have really needed it for a long time and we haven't had the right incentives to do it.'

So, in our design of the scheme—. That's why you're asking me, 'Is it going to go up or down?' What I'm saying to you is, we've done modelling so we can get some idea of what different scenarios say, but they're not predictions, because you cannot predict the behaviour of a farmer on a farm who will say, 'This is a well-designed scheme, but, actually, do you know what? There's a bit of land down there that I've never grazed, and it would really benefit from it, and the flora and fauna will be better for it, and the Minister is going to actually allocate funding for me to do that. I will move the right type of cattle down to there. I will take advice on how to do it', because we'll be putting the advice in place as well.

So, you're looking—. Yes, I could get into this for hours on end.

Sorry, Gian Marco, yes. 

Just to give an example, the 10 per cent habitat is a good example. What we've done in the scheme is that we're setting conditions for that habitat. In the past, we've had stocking restrictions, for instance. We're not saying that now. What we're saying is, 'This is the condition that the habitat should be in.' So, we're trying to set an outcome, and that would include grazing. So, maybe to achieve that condition, you need to graze that habitat. And that's quite a difficult thing to model at a macro level, because that will depend on what happens on individual farms. So, that's just an example of how the scheme might play out at that individual farm level.

No matter how good the modelling is, you cannot model individual farmer behaviour. I know from my long experience in this role, and previously as fisheries and agriculture Minister in the UK Government, the one thing you cannot do is double-guess what an individual farmer will do. That cumulative impact of those individual farmers will be what makes this scheme work.

The previous modelling indicated that there would be a reduction of 130,000 cattle and 900,000, give or take 1,000, sheep, if that scheme was adopted. You say you've got the modelling. Does the modelling show—? Because we haven't seen it, but I appreciate you're saying we're going to get it in September. So, to round off this section, does the modelling show a decrease or an increase in livestock numbers?

We'll bring the modelling, including all the scenarios, forward. We've just seen a decade and more, we've seen generations now, of falls in livestock numbers. We've also seen over the last decade 9,000 jobs in farming communities in Wales being hollowed out. So let's not pretend that the previous schemes were saving agriculture, because they weren't. What I'm saying to you is this scheme has the potential to build a much more resilient, much more sustainable future for farming. But individual farmers will need to step into the scheme and then make the decisions about how they manage their land.

But my question was does the modelling show a reduction or an increase.

We'll bring forward the full modelling, not just the economic modelling, but the environmental modelling—

So I can't get an answer.

—in September. No, because we've said we'll bring it forward in September. Rather than individual things being plucked out of context, Chair, with all respect, I would suggest that the committee needs to look at, as everybody else does, the full modelling and all the different scenarios. And you cannot scenario model the individual decisions of a farmer.

Thank you, Minister, and to your officials as well. That was an interesting session. I hope Members had the chance to put some of the questions. We would like to have you back at the earliest opportunity in the new term. I appreciate your diary is very busy. There were two points outstanding. One, you said you'd come back on numbers traded since bluetongue, coming over from England. And the second point I'd make reference to is the greyhound Bill. You said there'd be scope for consultation. It is a very tight scope, from the letter that we've had from the Business Committee and the Llywydd; I think it's only a three-week period for consultation. It would be really helpful to have that Bill published prior to its introduction, so that it could have the fullest scrutiny possible.

There's Bill scrutiny on the greyhound Bill, just to be clear.

Yes, Bill scrutiny. Sam.

Thank you, Chair. There was also a point from Dr Richard Irvine to write back on the spread of the vaccinations and how that figure is broken down.

We can absolutely provide animals vaccinated by species—so, for cattle, sheep, and other. It's something we can certainly provide to the committee.

Thank you very much. I think you're staying with us, aren't you, Cabinet Secretary, after our commercial break.

I am. I might go out and come back. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We'll now go into private session while we change the deckchairs on the Titanic. 

Hello, good morning, and welcome to the second session of general scrutiny of the Welsh Government and the Cabinet Secretaries that have joined us today. In the last session, I forgot to formally ask you to introduce yourselves, but I'll do it this time round. That's not reading my brief properly. So, I'll ask colleagues in front of us to formally introduce themselves, before I ask the first question. If I could start with you, Helen, first, and we'll work down the line, if that's all right.

Bore da, bawb. I'm Helen John. I'm the deputy director for border controls, amongst other things.

Huw Irranca-Davies, Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs.

Rebecca Evans, Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning.

I'm Emily Hole. I'm head of trade policy.

Thank you very much. What influence do you have as a Government on the UK Government's trade strategy? How are you influencing it and do you feel that you're getting a bang for your buck? I'll put that to you, Rebecca, first, and then if the Deputy First Minister wants to join in as well.

Historically, I would say we've had good engagement with the UK Government on matters of trade, but I will say, in terms of the trade strategy itself, the engagement and information sharing was disappointing. There were expectations that were quite high at the start of the process, but they didn't live up to what we'd anticipated, I think, in terms of how we were going to be engaged.

From the UK Government's perspective—and I wouldn't want to speak for them—I know that they would see trade as a reserved matter. But, of course, many parts of the trade strategy will intersect with devolved responsibilities, and that's the area that we really wanted to have those conversations in. Discussion on the trade strategy particularly was disappointing. There was some discussion at the inter-ministerial group on trade on 2 June. I had the opportunity there alongside my devolved colleagues to set out our disappointment with the level of engagement thus far, but also set out some of our priorities for that. Following the publication of the strategy, there was an official-level meeting, and I met with the Minister, Douglas Alexander, on 1 July, to give some of our initial responses to the strategy.

That said, we were pleased with what we saw in the strategy. We did feel that it reflected the Welsh Government's priorities, particularly in areas such as respecting human rights, ensuring that we are a responsible nation on that global stage, addressing the climate and nature emergency, for example, and also safeguarding our public services. So, in terms of the strategy itself, we were very pleased. There were some specific aspects also that we'd been pressing the UK Government to deal with, such as consulting on joining the pan-Euro-Mediterranean convention, and some of the aspects around trade remedies. Those are things that I directly raised with UK Government Ministers. Engagement on the actual detail of the strategy wasn't good, because it wasn't shared with us, but there were opportunities to set out our priorities, which were, in the end, reflected. 

It's probably worth reflecting, because, from a Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to Welsh Government perspective, there's always been good channels of communications because of the intensity of joined-up working in this area. But on the trade strategy, I'd reflect the comments made. We don't have a direct line into it. We engage very closely with my Cabinet Secretary colleague, but what we do is through DEFRA, and in the run-up to trade negotiations, we reflect directly to them what the priorities of the Welsh farming, food and drink sector are in order that they can be better reflected in their discussions with their business colleagues and the Cabinet Office and others; but we also do it directly with Rebecca. And it's probably fair to say that, in the trade negotiations that come forward, even though I'd absolutely echo that, it is the UK in the pole seat, but we can, in that limited engagement, seek to make clear our priorities, things that are really important to us, and make sure that those are reflected in the way that they come out. We do recognise that the UK is in the pole seat on this, but we want to make sure that they understand the Welsh priorities.

Are you a devolved administration or a Welsh Government in that type of relationship, then? Because you give the indication—

We are Welsh Government.

Because one thing that used to frustrate me when discussing with colleagues in London was that it was always 'the DAs'. So, I'm just wondering if that sort of mentality—. You've given quite candid evidence to us this morning on this particular point, so, I'm just wondering, does that mindset still exist? Are you a Government in some mindset or are you a DA? I think there's a distinction between them.

I think we always carry very proudly and boldly the fact that we are a Government. We are a Government and we have devolved competences, which do impact, by the way, on trade, including within the food and drink sector significantly. So, whether it's to do with issues around labelling, whether it's to do with our export priorities and so on, we're very keen that it's Government to Government actually talking, not, as you say, a sort of second-order devolved administration.

I would say as well there's work that we've done on the UK-EU sanitary and phytosanitary agreement, there's also this separate but related piece of work on the wider UK trade piece as well. We, and the other devolved Governments, and also Northern Ireland colleagues, always have very frank engagement. And that aspect, I have to say, has been very refreshing over the last year, having the regularity of inter-ministerial group meetings and having agendas on those meetings, where we are free to say, 'To make clear, in your negotiations on X, Y and Z—'.

We know that DEFRA isn't in the pole position either; it's going to be other colleagues in other departments. But just to be clear, Scotland will say, 'Here's our position as a Government', we will say, 'As a Government, here's our priorities.' Sometimes there's synchronicity—not always—but we have those frank discussions. And it's as Government to Government, not as some sort of second tier.

As ever, the clock is very tight with us on this particular session, but my final point on this, if I may, is this: if there was one thing you could change in the relationship to make it a more dynamic relationship—. Accepting that the UK Government is in pole position, but if you could change one thing to make the views more pronounced and clear in the discussions that you have prior to entering these discussions, what would you change in that relationship to make it more succinct and clear?

Just to be really clear, the disappointment in engagement was only in relation to the UK Government's trade strategy. Actually, when you look at the engagement that we have on free trade agreements—and I think India is a really good example—it's exceptionally good engagement at official level particularly, and we do have the structures in place to be able to share really confidential sensitive information about trade agreements and those discussions between the UK Government and the devolved Governments. The level of engagement, I think, on India, was excellent. If I were to have one wish, if you like, as to how things could be in the future, it would be that those discussions around all trade matters followed the way in which we engaged on India, because that was exceptionally good.

Thank you. Do you concur with that, Deputy First Minister?

I would say exactly the same. We've got some really good examples of engagement, we'd like that to be just commonplace. There's nothing standing in the way of getting there, I think it's just the evolving relationship here. Sometimes it's the speed at which some of these things happen as well. But, certainly, I would concur with you. It's getting what we see as the really best examples of engagement—open, frank, enough time to engage as well, and respect between the Governments on what finally comes forward. So, yes, I would say the same.

Thank you, Deputy First Minister. Time is of the essence. Jenny.

How does the new trade strategy align with your 2024 trade policy paper? I look particularly at how we want to see trade policy through a well-being of future generations lens, but clearly, the UK Government is not a signatory to that. How do you manage to navigate that?

There's really good alignment between the UK Government's trade strategy and our own Welsh Government trade strategy, which we published in 2024 as the trade policy paper. The accountable trade chapter within the UK Government's own trade strategy really aligns closely to the approach that we set out in the paper, and particularly it had a strong focus on sustainable economic growth, as well as standing up for labour rights and also supporting developing economies. So, we feel that the paper there definitely reflects our own values.

I'm also really supportive of the parts within the UK Government's trade strategy in relation to reducing the burdens on business as well. So, those businesses that are trading internationally and exploring ways in which those burdens can be reduced, again, I think, is really positive. So, actually, there's so much to be welcomed within this strategy; it was just a shame that engagement wasn't better than it was.

Okay. So, yesterday, Oxfam gave a briefing to Members about, obviously, the breaches of international law that are being conducted by Israel, and one of the things they weren't clear about was whether Wales continues to invest in companies that are selling to Israel, particularly armaments. Have you done any analysis of whether we are investing in any companies who are selling to Israel in pursuit of their illegal war in Gaza?

Yes, we have checked, and we're not providing any financial support to businesses who are exporting in that space. I'll check with Emily that I'm correct there. That is correct.

So, we're not making any public investment in any company that is investing in armaments to Israel.

Any direct. We can write to you on this, if you would like.

So, what is this indirect then?

Well, okay. To be clear, not a trade policy issue, but we obviously fund a lot of businesses; we can't look at their entire supply chains.

But none of the investments we're making in Wales to companies that are based in Wales are involved in any way in supporting this illegal war.

Not that we are aware of.

No. We have done some analysis to be sure of that, and we can write to committee with that confirmation as well, but it's something that we have explored.

Okay. In the interest of time, I think that's going to be all.

Okay. Thank you, Jenny. Hannah.

Thank you, Chair. The common understanding between the UK and the EU was formalised back in May, and by its very nature it will probably differ from previous agreements because things like sanitary and phytosanitary are largely devolved. So, are you able to update the committee on how that is shaping the UK's approach to the negotiations?

In terms of the SPS?

Yes.

Did you want to take that?

Yes. In terms of the financial contribution, the financial contribution mentioned in the common understanding paper is subject to negotiation as and when the negotiations take place. So, at this stage, ahead of the negotiations, I don't think we will be able to provide further information on this because the negotiations are ongoing, or to confirm, frankly, whether devolved Governments will need to contribute. So, that's work to be done.

But we have been engaging really closely, particularly at official level, in terms of the EU reset. So, on the SPS in particular, Welsh Government officials all across Government have been providing information to support those discussions. There has also been really good ongoing ministerial engagement. So, I represent the Welsh Government on the inter-ministerial groups on trade and EU relations, and then Huw sits on the Inter-Ministerial Group for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs as well. I think that met recently.

So, I met with my counterparts yesterday, in fact, on the IMG group. So, that's been an area where there has been really good engagement. So, there's been regular official engagement, both in the run-up to the EU summit, but also post that and at a ministerial level as well.

So, one of the things we can say with all confidence is that the UK Government are very aware of our priorities for these negotiations. It would be wrong of me to go into detail on these ahead of those negotiations, but I'm confident that the UK Government will reflect our priorities going forward.

We recently had a joint committee trip to Brussels, and we were touching on many of these matters. When we were talking about the role for devolved nations in shaping, perhaps, the UK's position on this within the EU negotiations, the term used quite a bit was 'in the room next door'. I don't know whether they meant metaphorically or literally, but I wonder are there any formal mechanisms for the devolved nations, devolved Governments, to actually influence those negotiations, perhaps at a UK level, before they even get to those EU-UK discussions.

It's probably fair to say that, in the discussions we have had at the IMGs, Welsh Government has been the most forthright on this approach of a contemporary version of that 'room next door' approach. You on committee will understand what that means, but, from a layperson's perspective and as a former EU council Minister, again, it's recognising that, at that final point in that room, it's the UK Minister trying to reflect not only the England, but the Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales priorities in discussions. But there is a real benefit to having, literally or virtually, a room next door where they can speak to Rebecca or speak to me and say, 'We're in some hard end of these negotiations. What would your view be, between the devolved Governments, on some give and take on this?' So, that is something we've been pushing hard for.

It's fair to say that DEFRA colleagues are very keen to make that happen, and we're trying to work with other Government departments now to make that happen, because we think it's a real benefit. It's not an obstacle to effective functioning; it's a way in which you make the effective functioning happen. Now, that doesn't negate, by the way, all the officials' work that's gone on; it's all in the detail. But when you get to that moment, where the hard end of negotiations are being done, I've always found it, formerly as an EU council Minister, the ability to actually walk out to, in those days, Alun Davies, and say, 'Alun, we're in a tricky situation. Where can we agree with you and Scotland and Northern Ireland that we can have some give and take? We can win a bit here and so on.' So, we're pushing very hard on that. We think we are being heard.

Okay, so you're confident about that?

Yes, I'm confident we will find a mechanism. It won't be the identical one, because we're outside the EU now. But I think the UK Ministers are very seized by this idea of having us on tap, so we can help them with the negotiations. That's what a 'room next door' is.

Just finally, I think this is more to the Cabinet Secretary for economy. So, you've spoken to this committee before about how important EU trade is to Wales in particular. Obviously, it's our largest trading partner, more so perhaps than other UK nations. So, would you say that an SPS agreement is really important to that trade recovery for Wales?

Yes, I think it's absolutely critical. And you're right that the majority of our Welsh exports do go to the EU. In fact, we have a greater exposure, if you like, in that space, particularly in terms of food and drink. So, 77.8 per cent of our exports go to the EU, as compared to 57 per cent for the UK as a whole. So, it really does show that we're more dependent on that EU market than the UK is as a whole.

I'm really glad that we do have really good representation from the agri-food sector on the trade advisory group, which I chair. And that's a really good opportunity to talk to all sectors, really, but including the agri-food sector, about their needs in terms of the agreements that come forward, and their response to the recent developments as well. So, those forums are really useful.

And for Wales, it's more important than other parts of the UK—just to be crystal clear on this. So, Welsh goods exports as a whole to EU countries is just short of 63 per cent, compared to 48.9 per cent for the UK as a whole. So, we're more dependent on those markets. The latest data shows that the value of food and drink, which is a real success of Wales's story with the EU, was £1.3 billion in the year ending March 2025. That's the latest data we have. So, it's really significant.

And the other thing is, we need to focus on those non-tariff barriers as well. And that's been part of our discussions with the UK Government, and we're now focusing on a priority for the EU. If I give one critical example—I'm very pleased to see this has been reflected, we're in the space now where we're talking about this—which is the issue of bivalve molluscs. It's curious how—

Enlarge.

Mussels.

Yes, mussels, et cetera. We have a great industry, and a greater potential sustainable industry in Wales on that. But the non-tariff barriers have absolutely devastated that industry, because it's a fresh-food product. You cannot wait for days on borders to wait to access market. But one of the outcomes of the EU-UK SPS approach and the current negotiations has been that we're in that discussion now about breaking down those barriers. That would be a huge win. So, it's not only the importance of the market, it's something about a modern way of working, based on the productive discussions currently going on between the UK and EU, that can help some of our areas with the greatest potential, including shellfisheries, to get into the European market again.

Sam. 

Thank you very much, Chair. Moving on to the domestic implications of EU trade, if I may, I’m just wondering, Deputy First Minister, did you take the decision to pause the border control post development jointly with the other UK Governments?

It's a decision for me to take, and it was my decision entirely. However, it was informed by discussions amongst other devolved Governments, and with the UK Minister as well. We're kept very well informed at the IMGs, and the reason for that is the importance of this, in terms of those border controls, for the UK as whole. What you want is consistency across the piece. But the welcome advances and the optimism that there is now around the SPS EU-UK agreement is great. So, that [Correction: the Holyhead border control post] does not need now to be stood up at this moment, but it could be used in future, so we are keeping it ready in case it does need to be used.

So, just on that answer, it was your decision to make, but you made it in parallel with other UK Governments.

We made it through informing, and in discussion with, the UK Government, but it's entirely my decision to make. 

Thank you for that. And you’ve confirmed to us that the border target operating model will likely be rolled back, and that you anticipate significant legislative changes as a result. As a committee, we’ve considered a significant amount of legislation to put these agreements in place. What is your overall view of how this post-Brexit trade regime has developed?

So, I think, to date, it’s probably worth saying that it’s been a bit of a mixed bag. So, moving forward, we welcome the commitment to put in place an SPS agreement; we think that carries huge potential benefits between the UK and the EU, significant improvements, and can help deliver our key priorities as well. I touched on them a couple of moments ago.

But it was pretty clear—it was pretty damn clear—that Brexit was always going to mess up our trading relationships. Many people said this in advance. It happened. But we recognised very early on, with the UK Government, the need to work together to build a coherent regime across Great Britain, not just in the interests of biosecurity, which is an important factor in this, but also avoiding unnecessary complications for traders and supply chains as well, competing between countries, diverting flows as well. So, obviously, the BTOM did create a complex framework for goods from the island of Ireland particularly, whether qualifying Northern Ireland goods entering Wales via the Republic of Ireland; equally, trying to avoid incentives for goods from the Republic of Ireland to avoid Welsh ports, which carries consequences, and travel via Northern Ireland to other places to achieve favourable status. But that’s as much about Brexit and the Windsor framework as it is about BTOM.

So, we’ve always been clear: BTOM should be implemented in a predictable fashion, transparently, with adequate warning to traders, with sufficient resourcing, but always while respecting devolved competencies and the jurisdictions as well. So, there is the possibility now, I have to say, of this SPS agreement. I think things have moved on remarkably in the last few months, which is really welcome. We want to avoid unnecessary divergence from the EU, so I’ve asked DEFRA Ministers to share their plans for legislation that might be forthcoming, and I know that they’ll want to do so when they work through the full implications.

Okay. So, how does this fit in then with what your colleague in Cabinet, the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales, is leading on in the Irish sea’s taskforce, to ensure the viability of the three ports connecting Wales with ROI, EU? How does this fit in, if it’s part of your portfolio and there are elements of the Cabinet Secretary for economy’s portfolio, and the Cabinet Secretary for transport’s portfolio? How does this all integrate around the Cabinet table?

Yes, listen, that is the critical point, because it's not one port, one entry point on its own; it's the whole integrity of the UK. That's what we're talking about. And we know we have a role to play, and so does the west coast of Scotland, so do the existing ports in the south-east of England. So, part of the discussions we have with the IMG, which we reflect, all of us together, is how do we make sure that, not just when the SPS comes forward—which we’re optimistic about, but there’s a lot of work still to be done—but right now, in the transition, how do we effectively work together across all those points of entry, with the biosecurity issues, as well as the trade issues, to make sure that it’s as smooth as possible, and without compromising biosecurity and safety at the same level. Because we have concerns, as do the Scots.

The thing I can reassure the committee of is: these are frank and very honest and open conversations that we have, and they’re informed, by the way, by people like our chief veterinary officers across the UK as well, in terms of biosecurity and phytosanitary measures as well. So, there's the transition we have to manage as well.

Okay, thank you. Thank you, Chair.

Luke.

Diolch, Cadeirydd, and just to put on the record that I sit on the Port Talbot steel transition board, and that's an indication as to where I'm going to be asking some questions, which is specifically around steel. Could I ask the Cabinet Secretary for economy whether or not the Government is happy with the current progress of the UK steel strategy?

Yes, so, I'm really grateful for that question and particularly the opportunity just to put on record how pleased I was that we were able to have the ceremony to mark the starting of the construction on the electric arc furnace this week. Luke will know as well as I do that there had been a lot of scepticism as to whether that day would actually come and whether the electric arc furnace would be invested in and see its way through to delivery. Well, we're on that journey now and it should be up and running by the end of 2027, so I do hope that that gives the community some confidence and some reassurance now that these things are really happening.

We work really closely with the UK Government in terms of the steel strategy and our response to the challenges around Port Talbot, and we both attend those transition board meetings together. I think that there's a really strong focus within the steel strategy on scrap, which is going to be absolutely critical, I think, for the success of the electric arc furnace, and I think that there's lots of opportunity now for us to stop sending our scrap off to other parts of the world. So, in terms of having that circular green economy as well, I think it's really positive in that space. But I think that we are getting to a much better place now in terms of where we are on steel, particularly around Tata, with the recent progress that we've seen.

Do you think it focuses enough on the primary steel element? It is welcome with the arc furnace, and scrap steel has an important part to play, especially in decarbonising the steel industry, but I'm just thinking now, with the discussions we've had around floating offshore wind and the role of the free ports, especially the Celtic Freeport, in potentially manufacturing and supply of the materials for those offshore wind turbines, that we're still in a position right now where imports of steel into Wales are soaring. We know that there have been conversations that have been going on for a number of years now, potentially around a plate steel mill, which could help with some of the capacity and assembly ambitions that I know the Cabinet Secretary has. Does that strategy touch enough on the primary steel making element, especially how it might factor into the Port Talbot setting?

So, I think, from that perspective, there would be, I think, huge opportunities, were there to be that rolling mill available. We've talked a lot about the potential for floating offshore wind, which is now going to be realised in the Celtic sea. I've recently had some interesting meetings with Japanese businesses around steel-framed housing, for example. So, there are opportunities, but I think, from a commercial perspective, Tata, or any other business, would need to have a really significant volume of orders that they would need to process before they could even consider making that kind of investment in future. So, it's something that I know is a discussion that has to be had—it's ongoing—but I don't want to pretend that that is on the horizon, as we sit today.

Just a supplementary from Jenny, if that's okay, Luke, on this point.

I really want to focus on this as well, because, if you look at what Sweden's done, they've had a Government-approved strategy and road map in place for green primary steel production for the last 10 years. It just seems that we're just going around talking about it and we're not actually doing anything to develop green steel options, which is what we absolutely need if we're going to become a leader in offshore wind and, indeed, improving our rail services. We need primary steel for these things. I just wondered what conversations you've had, or indeed what strategy there is, for a just green transition, ensuring that Port Talbot, with all the tidal possibilities there are around there—. To ensure that we turn that corner with green hydrogen or whatever is the latest scientific recommendation.

So, I think the electric arc furnace in itself is going to be a huge step forward in terms of the overall picture for green steel here in Wales and the UK. But, again, in terms of that primary steel making issue, this isn't something that the Welsh Government would have the finances to support on our own. It's something that would need commercial investment and, potentially, support from the UK Government. But I don't believe that there are discussions ongoing with any maturity in that space at the moment, so I wouldn't want to mislead.

That's really worrying, because there's all of this discussion going on about increasing our defence budget and we're still not even getting to grips with the primary issues around green steel. If we're going to import it all from another country, which may or may not be possible in the future—.

But if you were to have this—. So, we're talking now specifically about the Tata site—

Absolutely, the Tata site, because it's very close to the tidal lagoons that could provide us with the green energy. Obviously, we don't have the sort of green electricity from hydro that Sweden has, but we have to find another way of doing this. 

But you would need a commercial partner to take forward the ideas around that rolling mill. It's not something, under any circumstances, that the Welsh Government would be able to invest in with the resources that we have. So, you'd need an interested commercial partner, and there just isn't one in that space at the moment.

Okay. So, what are the discussions that are being had with the UK Government, then, because it seems like everybody's got their head in the sand here?

I would absolutely disagree. I think that the Welsh Government and UK Government, through the transition board and through the steel strategy, and through the individual meetings that we have with the UK Government Ministers, don't have their heads in the sand at all. I think that the sheer progress that's being made around the electric arc furnace is something to be really recognised. 

I'm not saying—. Listen, I'm absolutely happy with the recycling plant that is starting to be built, but that doesn't get away from the need for primary steel. The recycling of steel cannot be used for these sorts of intensive activities, like offshore wind and rail lines.

So, I don't disagree with that; the point I'm making here is that we're asking about what progress has been made. I've set out the progress that has been made on the electric arc furnace, and there is no progress in terms of a rolling mill at the Tata site at the moment, because you need a commercial partner to deliver that. There is no commercial partner at this point to deliver that. 

But if we're not looking for them they won't come forward. There are certainly people nibbling in the territory, but surely this needs to be a primary focus of both the UK Government and the Welsh Government.

So, my understanding is that no commercial companies are making rolling mills anywhere in the world without having at least, I think, 1.5 million tonnes-worth of orders a year coming through that mill. That's not the place that we're in at the moment. 

Okay. But at least Sweden seems to be in the advance guard here, and if we aren't investing in the technology required to do this we're simply going to be dependent on fossil fuel-intensive emissions from elsewhere. 

Luke.

I think that Jenny and I are both on the same wavelength in terms of the questions that we were going to ask. It's not just simply Sweden as well; we've had, in terms of, particularly, hydrogen steel, investment from the German Government for the last 11 years now. And I completely accept what the Cabinet Secretary says, by the way, around Welsh Government not having the fiscal firepower to be able to make the investments that are necessary within this industry, because we know that, in this industry, investments have to be within the billions. So, it's a fair point that the Cabinet Secretary makes. But that doesn't take away from the fact that alarm bells should be ringing right now, when we're seeing the level of imports of steel into the UK, specifically into Wales, soaring. If I take a figure from here, imports from India are up by 674 per cent. Now, in a world where things are completely up in the air at the moment, that isn't a position that we should be in. Primary steel and green primary steel, particularly through hydrogen, will require some investment from Government. So, what I'm really keen to understand here is: how far is the Welsh Government pushing this with the UK Government, because we can't continue on this course?

So, we've been making this case to the UK Government. So, even before Tata closed the blast furnaces, we were saying that the UK needs that primary steel making capacity. So, those are arguments that we've been making for a long time. What I'm trying to respond to here today is what the Welsh Government is doing within our own powers. We can make those representations, and we do, but what we're doing within our own powers is about supporting the community through the transition at the moment and working with Tata to ensure the smooth delivery of the project that it's currently working on at the moment. There's no disagreement about the need to be able to make primary steel, but I suppose there might be some disagreement in some quarters about what the Welsh Government is able to do to support that. Of course, we can convene, we can bring partners together, we can explore interests, but, realistically, when it comes to funding those projects, it has to be a commercial developer—potentially with Government support, but it would be beyond what we're able to provide from the Welsh Government.

So, I think the Cabinet Secretary has been clear on the ability of Welsh Government to come into this. I don't want to stick on this particular issue because of that, but the reality of the situation remains, that, if we don't see action, particularly on this element of steel production, then things that are within Welsh Government's powers and ambitions—like, for example, the offshore wind projects and the ambitions that the Welsh Government has set out around assembly and manufacture—will be massively affected. And we have these massive investments being made in ports elsewhere. We are fast approaching a situation with the benefits of offshore wind, which we've been telling our communities are going to be coming their way and that they should start training and getting into those jobs ready for that project to get off the ground—. We're going to be in a position very quickly where those benefits have completely gone outside of Wales, and where we see investments in ports in Bristol, investments in ports elsewhere on the continent, like France and the Netherlands. So, I take the point the Cabinet Secretary says, which is that there are very limited things that Welsh Government can do specifically on steel, but, if we don't see action on this, then the things that Welsh Government do have responsibility for are going to be massively affected.

So, I don't think that the success and the jobs to be created through the Celtic Freeport, and the recent announcements in terms of floating offshore wind, rely solely on our ability to produce primary steel here in Wales. So, I think it relies on the investment that the UK Government is now making of £80 million into the port. I think that's going to be really important. We've said all along that that has to be the first step in terms of unlocking those opportunities in the Celtic sea, and then it involves making sure that we're ready for the supply chain.

So, the Crown Estate has already put in place a fund for the supply chain for businesses that are already up and running, or those that see opportunities here in the future, to start exploring what support they might be able to access through the Crown Estate to pivot their operations, if you like, to maximise the opportunities from floating offshore wind. So, all of that is happening, which I think is really important.

We've had the recent task and finish group report, which looks at skills—making sure that we do have the people with the skills able to take advantage of the jobs that will come; I think that's crucial. And the task and finish group also had that work stream on the supply chain specifically as well. So, that's where the benefits will come to us: it will be in the supply chain, it will be in skills and the jobs that come in that space, and those things don't rely on primary steel making.

In terms of the increase in imports of steel into Wales, what assessment has the Government made of what effects that is having on the supply chain within Wales?

So, there have certainly been increases of steel—sorry, increases of imports—into Wales, and partly that's to do with where Tata is at the moment. So, it is the case that they've had to secure imports of slab and hot-rolled coil substrate from India, and also from the Netherlands as well, to service their downstream operations. And then, of course, lots of that, or a significant amount, is exported to the US. So, it's natural that the company would want to source those substrates from within its own wider group, for example, in India, rather than looking to other suppliers, from China or from Russia, for example. But, as the electric arc furnace is up and running, you would expect those figures to reduce dramatically. So, at the moment, Tata's domestic self-sufficiency is around 10 per cent. You should see that then increasing to around 75 per cent in due course, and we would then expect to see those imports fall significantly as a result. 

So, in this intervening period then, while we're waiting for the electric arc furnace to come online—. I'm going to move to the negotiations between the UK and US and focus specifically on what has been said about steel. The argument that the US are putting on the table is that, because the majority of the steel that is coming out of Port Talbot has been originally imported and, essentially, it's just the end processes that are happening—. What's your understanding of the UK Government's position on that and how that might affect Tata Steel in Port Talbot? Obviously, it's very concerning to hear the level of tariffs that would be put on steel coming out of Port Talbot because of that import of steel.

Yes, and these are live negotiations at the moment, but we do understand that the steel products currently being produced may be unable to meet those stringent rules around melt and pour. So, essentially, it's the rules of origin requirements. At the moment, they look at the place of origin as being where the steel was first melted, as opposed to where the final product was made, so that could be problematic. Officials are engaging regularly with the UK Government to make sure that they understand that, and they do understand the challenges around that, so we would hope that that would be part of the negotiations, because it's obviously, clearly, important for Port Talbot particularly, or Tata particularly.

Great. Thank you. I'm just looking at the time, Chair.

Yes, go on.

There were a couple of questions around the India free trade agreement and the emissions trading standards, but I'd be happy for—

Go on. We're into injury time, if you want to ask them.

Okay, fine. So, I actually will focus on the emissions trading standards, and I'm just interested to understand whether Welsh Government will know, or has some understanding of, what the effects might be if the agreement exempts steel from the carbon border taxes.

I'm going to give my colleague a little breather for the moment, because—

That's why I came to that question.

Yes. The importance of the UK ETS at the moment is the fact that it can help drive us towards that net zero, not only in supporting climate change, but actually green economic growth as well. But there are real possibilities here, if—. The discussions currently going on about the alignment of the UK ETS and the EU ETS, that will give us real potential for benefits for the steel sector here within Wales, within Port Talbot, within Wales, within the UK, because that would allow us, if we could get that alignment, to drive down costs, but also to drive up investment in some of the low carbon technologies as well, which I know you've spoken frequently about.

So, back in May, at the UK-EU summit, UK Government and EU agreed to work towards now linking the UK ETS and the EU ETS. Those negotiations are still going on there, but the text that accompanied that summit stated that the agreement to link these schemes, if we can make it happen, will create the potential then for mutual exemptions from the UK and EU carbon border—CBAM—adjustment mechanism. Now, that has real opportunities, because that'll be benefits then for businesses such as steel, because it'll take away high administrative costs that otherwise would be there, additional charges on exports to the EU, once the CBAM comes into place as well. So, we're really hopeful in that space, and we're encouraging, from a Welsh Government perspective, the negotiations that are going on. But it is great to see that those discussions are ongoing, because that carries real potential for our steel sector and others.

What's the deadline on the negotiations?

There isn't a specific deadline on it. I mean, Helen, I'm not sure if we are aware. Our feeling is that there is a desire to get this done as soon as possible. It's tied up within wider negotiations as well now.

Yes, definitely no deadline, but everybody is working hard to get it done as soon as they possibly can, because, obviously, there are major benefits once the deal is done. And as well as the negotiation, there'll then be an implementation period to be agreed, so we care about both. But at least, once the negotiations are done, everyone will know what the rules will be and can adapt.

I'm conscious the clock has most probably beaten us, so any other questions we'll try and follow up in letter form, if that's all right with you.

Just one final point from myself. There was news this morning that there's been a breakthrough in the discussions with the USA to zero tariffs for steel. Are you sighted on that at all? I heard what you said, economy Secretary, that there are discussions on a regular basis, but have you had any update or progress on those discussions with the US?

So, Emily would normally be our official involved in that, but I think she's been in committee, and I've been prepping for committee all morning, so—[Laughter.]

This was on the wires about 07:30 this morning, this was.

I was prepping at 7:30. [Laughter.]

So, there is engagement on the US with UK Government regularly, particularly at official level, but we are very limited in what we can say about what we do and don't know, unfortunately.

I just thought I'd offer that opportunity, as it's currently press speculation. 

Thank you all very much for your evidence this morning, it is greatly appreciated. A transcript will be sent—that was another thing I forgot to tell you, Deputy First Minister—a transcript will be sent over to you, so you can have a look at it. Any problems, please liaise with the clerking team, but that will be the official record of today's events.

We'll now go into private session while we swap the deck chairs, and, obviously, you're coming back to us again, Rebecca, with your officials for the final scrutiny session on your portfolio. Thank you.

Good morning and welcome back everyone. We're into the third panel session of the scrutiny of Welsh Government this morning by the Economy, Trade and Rural Affairs Committee. We have before us the Cabinet Secretary for the economy—welcome—and her officials and Jack Sargeant, Minister for skills. What I'd like to do first of all for the transcript is ask you to introduce yourselves and your positions within the Welsh Government and then we'll go straight into questions. It's about an hour 20, the question session is, and all Members have a series of questions they'd like to ask. So, if I could start with you, Jo, please, we'll work down the line and finish with Liz and then we'll open the question session. Jo.

Jo Salway, I'm director of social partnership, employability and fair work. 

Jack Sargeant, Minister for Culture, Skills and Social Partnership. 

Rebecca Evans, Cabinet Secretary for Economy, Energy and Planning. 

Duncan Hamer, director, economy. 

Liz Lalley, director, economic strategy and green growth. 

Thank you all very much. Cabinet Secretary, at the end of the year, the Government have announced an inward investment summit/conference, call it what you will, at the Celtic Manor. What are the aims and goals of that summit and how will you measure success? 

The investment summit really is an opportunity for us to invite some of the leading decision makers from businesses that are in specific sectors that we would like to grow in Wales to come to Wales for them to experience for themselves what we have to offer, particularly in areas such as tech, life sciences, advanced manufacturing, renewable energy, for example. So, it's really about raising the profile of Wales, but then also setting out some potential investment opportunities in Wales as well. We'll also have the opportunity to showcase some of the successful businesses that have decided to make a home in Wales and that are contributing hugely to our local economy but are also seeing growth. They can talk then about the positive experience they've had and why they chose Wales and why they decided to stay. 

I think the First Minister's on record as saying that the invitees will be companies that are halfway through the process, so they're nearly there in confirming their investment. Is that the level of company we're likely to see at this summit, or is your ambition as the economy Minister to invite as many potential inward investors as possible? And how will you measure—I ask the question again—how will you measure the success of the conference? It's one thing having a conference, but how will we know it's been successful?

So, some of those businesses will be businesses with which we have existing relationships and where there might be some commercial opportunities being discussed with them, investment opportunities under way. There will be others that we are targeting because we know that Wales has an awful lot to offer them, particularly through our expertise in some of our world-class industries. So, we would want to showcase those, so it'll be a combination of businesses with existing relationships, existing potential investments, but also target businesses for the future as well.

And then in terms of measuring success, obviously, the investment summit isn't an end in itself. You would hope then to see investments come to Wales as a result of the engagements made at that. I would say that those personal opportunities to experience Wales or to have contact with Welsh Ministers or other Welsh businesses can't be overstated in terms of the importance, because I look at the investment showcase that we held in Japan earlier this year in April—we invited around 200 Japanese businesses to come and hear from myself and then from businesses such as Sony, who have made a home here in Wales, as to why Wales is a great place to invest—and, just in the last couple of weeks alone, I've met with two chief executives from Japanese businesses who were at that investment showcase, who've made the trip over to Wales to have some further conversations about opportunities here. So, I think that, although you won't see immediate results from that, you could potentially see future investments as a result of those opportunities, really, to showcase why Wales is such a good place to invest.

One of the things that Welsh Government used to benchmark itself on success was the Qatar Airways link into Cardiff, because that showed Wales connecting to the world, it did. Sadly, since the COVID pandemic, Cardiff is the only airport that has not attracted Qatar Airways back. All the other airports that it served in the UK have. Is that likely to happen prior to this summit, to show that Wales is open to business and is attracting inward investment, or is that something that the Welsh Government don't prioritise anymore? Because at one time, it used to be Welsh Government—. First Minister, the economy Minister and transport Minister—there was a massive push from Welsh Government to attract that as a sign that Wales is open for inward investment. Can you give us an update on that?

I think, if you want to see the Welsh Government's support and commitment to the airport, you'll look very much to the investment package that we have proposed to put in place. Clearly, I'm limited now as to what we can say, because of the challenge from Bristol Airport. But what I can say, of course, is that the airport is hugely important to the economy of south-east Wales and we see that it has significant potential for growth and to contribute even more to the local economy in south-east Wales. So, our commitment to the airport is very clear, we're very proud of it, we know it's much loved amongst people in Wales as well. I probably won't say any more about the airport, because of the legal challenge at the moment. But it is very much the case that we're showcasing Wales as a fantastic place to invest, and we've got amazing companies who have been here for a long time.

But where are we at with Qatar Airways? Because, as I said, that used to be a benchmark that Welsh Government, from the First Minister down, used to promote as showing Wales open for business. The First Minister has put a lot of capital, rightly so, into the conference or summit—call it what you will—in December about inward investment into Wales. The symbolism of being able to attract Qatar Airways can't be lost on you as the economy Minister, surely. Now, we've been told that it's pending, so are you able to confirm the status of how that route might proceed in the future?

So, the—.

It's separate from, obviously, the decision by Bristol Airport. I'm asking—

It is separate from—

—specifically on the route that Qatar Airways had going out of Cardiff and whether it's coming back to Cardiff Airport or not.

So, it's always been the case that the airport has been run at arm's length from Welsh Ministers and it is very much for the airport and its board to be having those discussions. But I'll see if Duncan can provide any more detail on that.

So, as the Cabinet Secretary says, it's a commercial negotiation, ongoing. It is tied, actually, to the future position of the airport and the aid that's going through. But I am aware that the CEO, as in the acting, is in active engagement with Qatar. But, as always with these deals, they have to consider value for money and how that operates within that space. So, I would anticipate, particularly once we see a settling with the position with funding, there'll be an ongoing active conversation with those partners, including Qatar.

Okay, thank you. Luke.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. If I could just focus on apprenticeships and work-based learning, and start with the recent fall that we've seen in the statistics around construction apprenticeships of 48 per cent, could the Minister outline how the Welsh Government will look to turn that around?

Yes. Thanks, Luke, for those questions on construction. Firstly, I think I should say just how important a role construction plays, and the importance that Welsh Ministers place on the sector itself. It goes all the ways to meet the ambitions of the green economy that we have. I think there's a number of ways in which we'll look to support the construction sector through apprenticeships—so, through our degree apprenticeship programme, which was launched for the sector in 2024, and we've had successful starts on degree apprenticeships, and then through the apprenticeship programme more generally, so, the more traditional route through the construction sector, and there are still people who are engaged in those apprenticeships there, and then through our further education provision as well. 

You mentioned a downturn in starts. It's not the only way in which people can be trained within the sector. We saw an increase in provision from courses in FE, so qualifications in construction increased from the year 2022-23 to the year 2023-24. But I take strongly the views of industry themselves. I've had many conversations with stakeholders across the sector, particularly around the role of a level 2 apprenticeship. I've asked Medr and Qualifications Wales to engage in conversations with my officials on the need for a level 2 and what it might take to introduce it again in the future. And I've written to both Qualifications Wales and Medr to press them on trying to find a solution to having a level 2 apprenticeship, which, I think, will go some way in meeting that gap, but still having the provision at level 3, and then still having that provision even further up the system in the degree apprenticeships as well. 

You've pre-empted my follow-up on the construction apprenticeships specifically. But I would appreciate if you perhaps would be able to give us a rough timeline as to when we can expect an announcement around that, or how the conversations are going with Medr.

It's not just Medr's responsibility; it's the responsibility of Medr and Qualifications Wales. What I'm keen to do is make sure we get that qualification right, so that it's what the industry wants, it's what learners need, and it's what the training providers can also provide at that level. I think those conversations to date have been very positive between those groups and my officials. As I say, I've written to formally request both Medr and Qualifications Wales take a piece of work forward, particularly on level 2 apprenticeships. I will have a formal response back to me on that, but I am sure they will look to try and support that ambition. I can't give a full timescale of when that will be. But as soon as it's practically possible to reintroduce a level 2, then I would hope Qualifications Wales and Medr would be able to support that, because that's what industry tells me, and the review that Medr themselves have done has heard similar stories from stakeholders. So, I'm keen to progress that as fast as we can, but there is a process for creating new qualifications, and it has to follow that process.

So, it's a matter of waiting for that formal response before we can get that timeline.

I don't have the timeline now. I'm happy to share with colleagues when I do have more of a timeline and the proposals in front of me. I'm more than happy to share that with the committee and Members of the Senedd when we do that. But as soon as is practically possible I want to see movement on that issue because of the importance we place on that.

Thank you for that. Just looking at the overall apprenticeship agenda, Medr statistics have noted that there have been 73,795 apprenticeship starts since 2021-22. Thinking about the Welsh Government commitment of 100,000 apprenticeship starts, and, of course, that being a revised target, what is the Minister and his department doing to realise that revised target of 100,000?

We're very committed to the 100,000 target. The 74,000 figure was published in June, but it shows the starts from January, so there is always a lag in real-time data. I think you could all a hazard a guess as to where that perhaps is further down the line in real time. But to go with the 100,000 apprenticeships, we're very committed to supporting that. Again, in this year's budget, we had a budget of £144 million, so that goes a long way, it's a big sum of money in supporting apprenticeships. But we've had discussions with Medr around the target. I'm very keen to make sure that we do hit the target, and I'm confident that we will.

I think I said in this committee in my first evidence session, Chair, that Medr have recently been established and it is for them to look at how they maximise the value of the money that they receive, and I'm asking them to do that now. We're going to be utilising contract management tools to look at effectively diverting resources where we can get the maximum benefit for the learner and the maximum out of the funding to go ahead and meet that target. I'm in discussions with Medr now about further possibilities of reprioritising funding within their existing budget to go towards apprenticeships because of the importance of that for the economy.

Would you say that the funding is the key barrier to realising the target? I'm just thinking ahead to the next Senedd term. We've seen various figures come out now about potential targets. Obviously, the Government hasn't committed to a target and nor would it before an election, but there are going to be some challenges over the next few years around reaching those targets—is funding the primary one?

I think funding is part of the package, isn't it? I think there's lots of things that we can do. So, just to touch further on what we will try to do, you'll have seen Apprenticeship Week and all of the effort that the Government put in, particularly this year. We’ve supported Apprenticeship Week for a long time, and I know that the Member has himself with his cross-party group. In the next year, and the next Apprenticeship Week, we'll look to do that again. So, it's about promoting apprenticeships as a viable option, making sure that all-age apprenticeships are there as an option, whether that's retraining in a new field or whether that's leaving school or college to go into industry. I think it's about promoting that from a very early age and right the way through, and we'll go on doing that.

Of course, funding is always welcome, and we invest a lot of money—so, it's £144 million that we put in here—and then, obviously, having the provision of teachers available and lecturers available to be able to deliver the need, and then businesses that want to engage in that way. So, I don't think funding is the only problem or solution; I think it's part of a package of various things. I'm aware of discussions that are being had elsewhere from external organisations. I think we will all have a job to do, won't we, to put our offer out to the people of Wales, and we in the Welsh Government and Welsh Labour will put out a target for apprenticeships that we think is viable. But we'll do the working out to make sure that we can deliver on what we pledge to the people of Wales, and I would encourage all parties to do the same.

On junior apprenticeships, of course, this would be work that would be done with the Minister for Further and Higher Education, and her role specifically, but what discussions have been happening around rolling out junior apprenticeships more broadly, and ensuring as well—because I think the Minister is completely right: I think there is a need for a change in attitudes towards apprenticeships and making it a viable option for people—that cultural change? Part of the problem we see with junior apprenticeships is that they are currently seen as something for those kids in school who might not be as academically able or are causing problems in school—that is the route that they would go down. So, what I would be really interested in understanding is, firstly, how we address that, but then how we actually roll the junior apprenticeship agenda out more broadly as well.

I think you would have to ask the Minister for Further and Higher Education. Junior apprenticeships are the responsibility of Vikki Howells in the Welsh Government, but I take his point on the importance of junior apprenticeships. I took part in a 14-16 school link when I was in college. It was day release at the local college on a Friday, and that gave me the insight to go into industry and beyond. There’s no reason why junior apprenticeship programmes shouldn’t offer the same for anyone who wants to go into that route at whatever level they are and whatever ambitions they have.

If I remember the final budget round of this year, I think the investment from the Welsh Government into the junior apprenticeship programme doubled, but I would, Chair, perhaps ask the Minister for Further and Higher Education to give a fuller response to that in writing. But I certainly take his point on the importance of them.

Could I just ask Jenny to ask a supplementary?

Just specifically, there has been a significant fall-off in enrolments at Cardiff and Vale College in junior apprenticeships. It would appear that schools aren’t sending young people there, yet they’ve had the money. Is this not something that you discuss with Vikki Howells? Because, clearly, it impedes their ability to move on successfully into work.

Of course we have regular discussions about the link between schools, colleges and employment. We've recently just established a ministerial board—between myself, the Cabinet Secretary for economy, the Cabinet Secretary for Education, and Vikki Howells as Minister for Further and Higher Education—where we'll particularly be looking at vocational education and the routes that you are seeing there. The responsibility for junior apprenticeships is with the Minister for Further and Higher Education, so it's really a question for her, but of course we want to have a cross-Government approach and a cross-portfolio approach to vocational training. That's exactly what we've set up in the last few weeks, and we'll be meeting again. We're on the last day, Chair, of this term, but we'll be meeting in the first few weeks back in September, when we'll reconsider some of the important things, and that might be one for a future agenda.

One final question from me, Chair, and this is to do with the flexible skills programme. It's recommending phasing out sectors such as exports, tourism and hospitality, based on the sectors' needs. The written evidence that the Government has submitted highlights tourism and hospitality as a key sector for the national occupational standards. What I just wanted to get is an understanding of how the Government identifies key sectors and how that then influences or factors in what the flexible skills programme is recommending.

First, the flexible skills programme is a really good programme. I think it proved its weight when it was first announced, and that's why we've increased the budget by six times this year. It's a £7.5 million programme now. It does what it says on the tin. It's flexible because that's what employers want, and employers can use it to their advantage to reskill or upskill their staff.

I don't think the evaluation did recommend for that to happen. I think it was a possibility that could come from that. It wasn't a 'should do', I think it was a bit more, 'This could be done, because of the changing circumstances, post COVID.' We still support tourism and hospitality through the increased flexible skills programme. I'm aware of two businesses to date who've actively sought interventions from that programme since April, since the new programme has been established.

I would encourage more businesses in the tourism, hospitality and exporting sector to consider what the flexible skills programme could do for them. Indeed, if the committee could help encourage that message to your constituents and further afield with the stakeholders that you speak to, then I think that would be very welcome, because there is money available to upskill the workforce. In those particular sectors that you mentioned, there is a route for that to happen as well.

I think the question was how do we choose the priority sectors within the flexible skills offer and the other interventions that we can make. We do that through lots of different ways. Regional skills partnerships are one of them. The conversations that we have with businesses generally, and through official level, are another way of identifying. There are other metrics that we use: the labour market intelligence, occupational statistics, and so on. They all feed into the offer.

If you look at the flexible skills portal, you will see the sectors that should be on there, and they fall in line with what the Welsh Government's ambitions for the economy are. In terms of key priority sectors, advanced manufacturing is on there, digital is on there, green technology is on there, AI is on there, tourism and hospitality—because we recognise as well that that is a sector, in certain areas, that offers real value to people.

The flexible skills programme is a very good programme. I'm proud that we've been able to deliver more. I think there have been 8,000 interventions, Chair, since April. We have a lot more to come, and there's money there to be available. We could all encourage businesses in our own areas to take advantage of that, and I think we should.

Diolch.

Thank you, Minister. Before I ask Jenny, could I just ask you a question on rail degree apprenticeships? How are they progressing and how many are starting in the new academic year?

I should have that figure in my head. I think Hefin David asked me that question last time. Chair, I don't have that number in my head. I will happily write back to you with the number of rail degree apprenticeships. They are, again, important to us. I'm more than happy to follow up with written confirmation to you on that point, if that's okay.

And not just the numbers, but the progress on implementing them as well. That would be really helpful.

I'm happy to do that.

Thank you, Minister. Jenny.

I'd like to start off with the Jobs Growth Wales+ programme, which I've seen in action at the Heath hospital in Cardiff, in collaboration with Cardiff Council, taking in young people who have additional learning needs, talking to the individuals who then go on to get jobs as a result of these work experience placements. But clearly there's uneven offer. From the evaluation, we see that a young person aged 16 to 19 in Torfaen is eight times more likely to enrol on Jobs Growth Wales+ than in more rural areas, but it isn't just that. Obviously, we need to get more organisations, particularly those who are signatories to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, to give these young people a chance to show what they can do and to explore and identify what's the best fit for them. So, I wondered what consideration you have given to taking forward that recommendation around the accessibility, and including online engagement, where there are transport issues in a rural area, or things like that.

Thanks, Jenny, for that. The Jobs Growth Wales+ programme is a positive intervention that we've made from the Government. It's a flagship programme and part of our young person's guarantee across Wales. But the evaluation is there to be seen for everyone, isn't it? There are some areas in which we can improve, improve our offer for young people, and we want to be able to do that.

Chair, we're currently going through the process of consulting on and developing our next employability support programme, and I think that is an area where we can take the best from Jobs Growth Wales, and the best from other programmes that we have, and then create a programme that does what it needs to do for the people of Wales. That's happening now. It is a long service. The Jobs Growth Wales programme is a procured service, and the timeline for procuring a new service is 2027.

Your point, Jenny, on rural elements of people accessing services is a well-made one. We've seen in north Wales that, where there's been a change in location for one of the services, some participants have found it quite difficult to get there. What's happened then is the services themselves have put a minibus on to take people to and from. So, there are ways round some of the challenges that you describe, transport being one of the key issues.

I think the new £1 fare that the First Minister and the Cabinet Secretary for Transport and North Wales introduced a couple of weeks ago now will help. All contractors in the Jobs Growth Wales+ programme are aware of that new announcement, and we're encouraging them to make sure they tell their participants, or future participants, about that offer, so they can take up the programme, if that's the key barrier. That won't be the only barrier, and we'll look to address that through the next phase of the employability support programme.

Because it's a procured service and because there's no opportunity to revise the arrangements until 2027, how difficult is it to get the adjustments that are needed to ensure that we're widening the numbers of people who can take part? 

The people taking part is probably where we are for the budget that Jobs Growth Wales has, so it's been successful in that way. It's meeting the capacity that we have. It is a procured service, so that does make things difficult. As I say, in the north Wales example, where there has been a workaround within the service they provide, things can happen, but it's more difficult to do that more broadly and make the fundamental changes to programmes.

We want to see, in the next iteration—. And it is important that we get that right. We have engaged extensively with stakeholders—I think there were over 500 stakeholders that we spoke to—to do those things, to get the best from Jobs Growth Wales+ and the other programmes, and to do some learning from elsewhere as well. I look to colleagues in Manchester and other places where perhaps they are doing better things than we currently are, and we would like to do that, but that takes time.

There’s no quick fix for that and we will get over the line, but where there are elements where we can support further, like the example in north Wales, then it is encouraged to do so and we will encourage all service providers to do that. Again, to go back to the other interventions the Government can make to make things easier for people to access that type of programme, the £1 ticketing scheme is a way through that. If there are any other opportunities, we will look to promote those as well.

Can I come in and add to that? Procurement does not mean that you have a totally fixed service. There is a trick in how you procure and how you build the level of service you want. One of the key things that is really important in all of the employability programmes is the ability to target the support to the needs of the individual. That is particularly the case with Jobs Growth Wales+. The length of time people will be on the programme varies depending on their needs. The kind of support provision we put in varies around that. So, just because something is procured does not mean that we cannot build in the flexibility.

That's welcome, but it is clear that there is some way to go to ensure that the young person's guarantee is for everybody. We have not, probably, got that much time to go on about this, which is something that I am passionate about.

Chair, I'm happy to move on, but I was going to make the point that it has been very successful, though. We have still provided that training and that intervention to over 45,000 people in Wales, so it is successful, but I do take the point that we can always do more, and we should always look to improve our offer. That is exactly what we are doing now through that exercise of the employability support programme.

Thank you. I just want to move on now to, if you like, the importance of having the qualifications we need for our green transition. To what extent do higher education institutions have a role in addressing gaps in green skills and actually meeting those shortages? If we do not have the people with the right skills, we cannot deliver on the programmes.

Higher education plays a crucial role in meeting those challenges. There is a real emphasis now on green skills in this Government. The First Minister has made that very clear since she has been First Minister. Jobs and green growth are key priorities for the sector, and the higher education sector will need to play a role in shaping that, and they do play a role. I think they play a role in a number of ways. The research that universities, for example, undertake helps us realise what the next skills will be, and the high-level thinking about what the next technology might be, and the skills that we need to try and draw up elsewhere.

There's the role that Medr play in apprenticeships as well and reviewing the current framework. They will be looking at making sure that the apprenticeship system is set up in a way where we can take the benefits of net zero. Again, Vikki Howells has the responsibility as the Minister for Further and Higher Education, and has asked Medr to do some more work around the skills system and the current offer and to report back to the Government on that. They do play a crucial role in what we need to do, and it’s a collaborative effort. It’s not just them. Industry plays a role. The Government plays a role. We all have this shared ambition.

But we need to be nimble in this regard because there is obviously a huge emphasis on getting a lot more solar panels onto people's roofs, and therefore we need to retrain people, and also a lot more emphasis coming from the UK Government about the need to make that transition away from gas heating to air-source heat pumps. If we have not got the people with the skills to do it, it is very difficult to persuade householders to get on with it.

It is very important. I was at a housing development in my own constituency a couple of weeks ago where they have solar panels on every single roof and air-source heat pumps in every single house. I had a conversation around the skills there and that training needed. I think it is reskilling and upskilling the sector for those particular areas, and I think the intervention that we have described already with the flexible skills programme offers industry a way to do that.

That could be done through a college or through the university sector or it could be done by an independent trainer provider as well. It offers that flexibility. It is our response to those types of challenges. The wider role that the HE sector, I think, plays is looking again not at the technologies that are here now, but looking at the future technologies, so technologies like floating offshore wind and all the benefits that can bring. We've done lots of work recently on that, led by the Cabinet Secretary, and I think that's where the higher education system will certainly play a key role.

Then we will look to the apprenticeship system and the work that Medr can do now on the overall offer in the system. We have things like apprenticeships, but that's not the only route. When you go to college and get a qualification like the ones that they have in construction, or if you go on to university, we need to look at the transition then into employment. I think the industrial strategy also helps us from the UK Government as well in realising what the skills are, where are the future potentials for Wales, and I think they are pretty much aligned exactly with our Government's approach, and we want the skills system to support that.

We may come back to this when we're discussing city and growth deals a bit further on. Just lastly from me, in your paper you say that there's going to be a report with actionable recommendations on green skills that is going to be provided to you and the Cabinet Secretary before the end of the summer term. That's this week. Have you had it yet and are we able to know what they're recommending?

I haven't had it yet. I haven't had the report yet. We're waiting for the report. I don't know what they're recommending, but obviously—

Because of the pressure on time, Minister, you've confirmed you haven't had the report, it would be good to have a follow-up note, if you can, when you get that report to, obviously, fill in the blanks. Cabinet Secretary. 

Just to offer some clarity on that point, it is the intention, when we come back in the autumn, to publish a statement that includes all of the short-term reviews we looked at. So, we looked at SME productivity, AI, green skills and floating offshore wind, so there will be a number of reports all published at the same time. One of those was around the green skills.

Good bedtime reading. Hannah. 

Thanks, Chair. You may recall in answer to a written question to my committee colleague Luke Fletcher way back in February, Minister, you said that discussions around the devolution of non-Jobcentre Plus employment support funding to Wales were in the early stages. Are you able to update the committee on any progress?

Thanks, Hannah, for that. I think there has been good progress on the non-Jobcentre Plus devolution. Certainly, there was lots of work between the time the Member put the written question in to the short time frame to get that over the line, which we had. Officials in the Welsh Government worked really, really hard with colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions to make sure that happened. We have had further conversations with colleagues in the DWP about non-Jobcentre Plus. The First Minister met with the Secretary of State a few weeks ago, back in June, around that particular item about what that looks like. I have then written to the Secretary of State about the next steps.

Where this falls in line is the good progress that we have made to date about the potential of what does come across, the process of the employability support programme and the new programme that we're procuring from 2027. There is a timeline that matches there. So, there has been good progress. There is more to come, but we are having good discussion. That is just not only at my level. That is at the First Minister's level too.

When would we expect to have it? Will the answer be in civil service seasons or something, or 'in due course'?

No, I would not give that. There's a good timeline of events where that could happen, and it would make sense to naturally co-design with the employability support programme. All of the work we are doing now from April 2027, I think we will start that journey of non-Jobcentre Plus-type devolution at that point. But we're having further conversation now. I would be very happy to keep the committee updated more regularly as those conversations progress.

If you could keep the committee updated, I'm sure we would appreciate it. Can you give us a flavour then of what perhaps that Wales-specific support would look like, and the impact it might make in practice?

That's the process that we're doing now. The consultation that we've engaged with what we directly fund already will go into shaping the non-Jobcentre Plus-type support that will come across as part of the commitment from the UK Government. I can't go into detail of exactly what that might look like. We've had over 500 engagements from colleagues who have engaged in that process. So, we are working through that detail now, and then we'll go out to procure what that looks like. I would imagine there would be a type of support, like supported employment—so, helping people through employment, where they need additional support and so on. And then, again, taking the best bits of Job Growth Wales+, that will be in there—we will be able to do some more things as well—and taking the best bits of the current programmes that the UK Government already have. But we want to help shape that. We're not in the position where we can share with the committee exactly what that is, because I think that is very much in the development phase now, but, the more we hear, the more we want to shape it to what the needs of Wales are.

Thanks. So, you touched on employment support schemes there, and, obviously, what you hope to be able to do should that extra devolved responsibility come down the line. But are you able to share with the committee today how the Welsh Government intends to use the devolved levers it does have now to support disabled people into employment and learn from projects that have come before, such as Engage to Change?

Yes. Engage to Change is a very good project. Again, Hefin David speaks about this regularly, doesn't he, about the importance of Engage to Change. I've visited that project, and I think Sarah Murphy, as the Minister for Mental Health and Wellbeing, has also visited that project. I'm committed to making sure that we learn the lessons from Engage to Change. I think the vehicle to doing that is through the employability support programme. We offer employability support through Jobs Growth Wales+. However, learning the lessons from Engage to Change, and making sure that fully fits in with our offer going forward, I'm very committed to making sure—. Whatever the outcome of the consultation is, there will be lessons from Engage to Change that we will want to include in the future offer of employability support. It's very important to us.

On projects like Engage to Change and Jobs Growth Wales+, obviously, I recognise the need to target that support, so there's usually a cut-off in terms of age. But, in the conversations I've had quite recently with a Flintshire councillor who you will know, Gina Maddison, about—. She's involved with a Turner syndrome friendship group in north Wales. There are a lot of women involved in that group who are disabled and want to work, but, obviously, they fall outside those margins of that age-limited programme. So, is that something that perhaps Welsh Government could consider in the future, how actually it could be targeted to support these groups of people as well?