Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee

Welcome back to the committee. We're continuing with the scrutiny work of the climate change Minister, and we'll turn next to Delyth Jewell.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Good morning, Minister. We're going to be talking about rubbish now, but not in a disparaging way—about waste. Firstly, on the deposit-return scheme, could you give us an update, please, on that scheme and any timescale for upcoming regulations?

Yes. Well, this has been a bit of a saga, I'm afraid. So, we've been working with other administrations on the drafting of the legislation for the deposit-return scheme. Right up until very recently, we were working to make sure that there was interoperability within the UK, and also, obviously, that it achieved the overarching aims for the scheme in Wales. We had planned, as all four nations of the UK, to go live in October 2025, but I'm afraid the UK Government has changed its path on this, and the impact of their actions on Scotland are quite dramatic, so we're having to review the timeline in the light of the UK Government acting as the English Government in this instance in its view on this. Because it's impacting, I'm afraid, on both our ability to deliver it and the timescale.

Thank you, Minister. And exactly on that point, on the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020, have you had any discussions with the UK Government specifically about how all of that would have an effect on Welsh legislation, and have you put in—. Well, you've already answered that point in part. So, have you specifically made a request on exclusions from the internal market Act for glass?

We haven't made that request, Delyth, because we aren't at the position where we need to do so. All the way through this consultation we had glass included. It's quite clear from the regulatory impact assessment undertaken with the UK Government, and clear from the outcome of the joint consultation, that the scheme is much better if you include glass. It needs to be effective against our baseline recycling rate and it needs to maximise the carbon benefits of bringing in the infrastructure to support a DRS. You have to bear in mind that the Welsh baseline recycling rate is considerably higher than it is anywhere—you know, orders of magnitude higher than it is in England and considerably higher than in Scotland and Northern Ireland. So, it needs to work for us as well as for the others. Not having glass in it is, frankly, nonsensical; it doesn't make any sense at all. None of the outcomes of the joint consultation or the impact assessments, or the carbon cycle, or anything else make any sense of that. I'm perfectly certain, Delyth, that if I introduced a deposit-return scheme that excluded glass, the committee would rightly take me to task over how on earth I'd reached that conclusion, because the regulatory impact assessments are clear.

So, we're continuing to meet at official level almost on a daily basis with counterparts in England, Scotland and Northern Ireland to discuss the scheme. That's still including the scope of the scheme and the materials covered. I've discussed this at the various inter-ministerial groups—IMGs—at the environment, farming and rural affairs one, for example, and in individual meetings with the Minister. So, you know, this is not a happy situation. We don't seek exemptions from the UK internal market Act as we haven't diverged from the previously agreed collective position. Our view would be that it would be England that needed to seek an exemption from the UKIMA, because they are also subject to it. And the conditions on the scheme in Scotland are quite extraordinary. So, anyway, I suppose the short answer, Delyth, is it's an ongoing conversation with the UK Government. You can hear that we're very frustrated by that conversation and we're not yet at a position where we've made a decision.

Thank you, Minister. And on that point, as you say, in this context, the UK Government is acting as the English Government. Have they—? Representatives you've had these discussions with—do you get the sense that they are sympathetic in any way, or that they show any awareness of why it is that this frustration exists? I mean, do you get the sense that they think that this would actually work without glass?

Well, I mean the thing is, the recycling rate in England is so low that anything would work, whereas that's not the case here and it's not the case in Scotland, and that's causing a problem. But the outcome of the consultation and all of the carbon impact assessments—. And the sheer cost of implementing a DRS scheme, bearing in mind that you have to buy all the equipment and all the rest of it—and we know from Scotland exactly how much all of that costs—in order to not have glass in it is just extraordinary. And then the other thing to say is that the whole point of a DRS scheme is to get litter out of our environment, of course, but it's also to make sure that we can reuse, not just recycle, and glass is the best for reuse. I mean, obviously, you can wash it and reuse it again. So, the type of DRS equipment that you need if you want to be able to reuse a bottle, i.e. it doesn't break when you put it into the machine, is very different than if you're collecting other sorts. So, this isn't a kind of linear thing—you can't just start without glass and then put glass in; you have to have a completely different set of stuff. And we've got successful pilots; there's one in Brecon that's very successful that's running, and they include glass. And obviously, the manufacturers of non-glass items would be very cross indeed at the idea that they would be targeted and not glass, so the whole thing makes no sense at all without the inclusion of all of the items that need to be included. But, you know, the current UK Government is making a decision based on other considerations, shall we say, and not the outcome of any of these things, so we're just continuing that discussion for the moment, but it is delaying the implementation, there's no doubt about it.

Thank you, Minister. Saying that it's based on other considerations—I think that's to put it diplomatically. But, to move on, to extended producer responsibility: could you talk us through, please, why there's been a delay to this, and what effect you think that delay will have?

Yes. So, this is designed, obviously, to reduce unnecessary packaging and to do all the same things I've just talked about—increase levels of recycling, promote the use of more environmentally friendly packaging and to encourage the use of more reusable or refillable packaging. And they introduced the polluter-pays principle, which I'm sure the committee is very familiar with—I know you are, Delyth—so that businesses who put packaged goods on to the market are responsible for the waste that they create at the end of the scheme. So, the current position is that we've already begun the implementation. We introduced regulations to the Senedd earlier this year on new reporting requirements and amendments to data reporting requirements at material recycling facilities, or MRFs, as they're called. We reflected on stakeholder feedback and the deliverability of the timescales. Then, jointly with other Governments, we announced the deferral of 12 months in July of this year. That's specifically at the request of industry, to give them more time to prepare for the new requirements, which include a review and improvement of the packaging they use. Bear in mind that this is a behaviour change campaign—we're not trying to raise money from it. So, if that means that we have industries that will actually review the type of packaging they use and change it to environmentally friendly ones, that's an outcome that we want.

We wanted industry and our local authorities to have more opportunities to be involved in the design of this scheme and to adjust current services. We've had a long conversation with the UK Government about the way that the scheme administrator will work, the way that the funding for the scheme will work, and the way that our local authorities will be funded as a result of the scheme. We're very keen to ensure that our local authorities are not disadvantaged because of our much higher recycling rates. So, we don’t want money collected from our industrial producers here in Wales to be used to improve the recycling rates of authorities in England, for example. We want to make sure that the Welsh pound comes back to our local authorities to incentivise them, and that we get the transfer of costs from the public purse to the polluter pays. We've jointly consulted on draft regulations, and we're currently reviewing the responses. And we've got a whole series of stakeholder engagement items going on into 2024.

I hope very much that we can bring the scheme into force next year, Delyth, which would mean that the scheme administrator and the first fees and payments would be raised and collected for the 2025-26 financial year. So, that’s the current plan.

Thank you for that, Minister. In terms of the EPR and manufacturers having to be responsible for the life-cycle of the product, how confident are you that the new legislation that is coming in on single-use plastics will have that effect—that similar awareness-raising effect and behavioural change effect—both with the public, but also with businesses?

Yes. So, there are two different things there, aren't there? One is to take particular items out of the production stream altogether. We're not suggesting that there's a deposit on plastic coffee cup lids. We're saying you shouldn't have them. They just shouldn't exist. What we are saying, though, is that people would continue to produce, for example, plastic bottles, but that they would have a deposit on them, and that they might be either reused or very quickly recycled. So, there are different streams, I guess, of litter.

We know that small plastic bottles and non-alcoholic cans—so, drink cans—are 43 per cent of all litter. So, this is a huge problem, right across the UK and, actually, across the western world, in fact. So, what we're trying to do here is encourage people not to litter them but to bring them back, because there's a small deposit that can be recovered. Then, to be honest, even if that person doesn't think that it's worth it, we think it will encourage others to pick it up. I'm way older than you, Delyth—I actually remember doing that. I remember picking up pop bottles and being delighted to find them and taking them back for the deposit. So, this is an old scheme coming around again.

Sometimes it's useful to look to the past to learn from it. So, thank you for that, Minister. On the new legislation and the new regime with single-use plastics, and the impact that it will have on businesses, I know that the Federation of Small Businesses has criticised the extent of the awareness-raising that has been undertaken amongst the business community, and it has also said that the Act prohibits plastic-alternative products that could be good for the environment. What would be your response to those two criticisms, please?

Well, I'm obviously very sorry if a business feels that they haven't been informed, but we've run a big, extensive campaign on this, and it's been in the news for a long time. There's been environmental awareness of this for a long time. I would say, Delyth, that people said the same thing about the charge on the single-use carrier bag, and look at the effect that that had, and how fast it spread across the rest of the UK when, at first, it was like, you know, 'Oh my goodness. This will be impossible.' It just wasn't. I think this will just become part of normal life very quickly. We've given people a lot of time to get used to this single-use plastics ban. Again, I would emphasise that this is not, in any way, any kind of plan to criminalise people or to raise money. This is about behaviour change. So, if we did come across a retailer who wasn't aware of the ban and was still selling some of the items, they would be informed. They would be told by environmental health how to comply, and they would not be fined or in any way charged for that on a first offence, because they didn't understand. We would only be looking for egregious breaches—people who are quite clearly deliberately breaching the ban and didn't care about it—to be fined or prosecuted.

This is about behaviour change, in exactly the same way as the carrier bag charge was, and we think it will be highly effective very quickly. Quite a few of the items on that list are already quite difficult to find, so the public is ahead of us in some ways. It's quite hard now, I think, to find a plastic stirrer, for example—virtually everywhere you go has already gone to wooden ones, haven't they, which are obviously compostable.

Thank you, Minister. And—

I think Janet wants to come in on this as well.

Certainly.

Janet.

Thank you, Chair. When I was in Croatia this summer, Minister, on Pepsi or Fanta bottles, the actual tops of the bottles—because I've raised about bottle caps in terms of deposit-return schemes—were actually attached, so you couldn't detach the cap unless your unscrewed it, and why would you? So, I was just wondering whether you have any influence in the retail sector or with the manufacturing industry to try and send out innovative—whether you could persuade them to be more innovative. I just thought it was an excellent thing, because when I'm doing beach cleans, I see far too many bottle tops on the beach. So, I just think if the thing is completely intact, it makes for better recycling.

Yes, I quite agree, and one of the big issues about this whole piece of work is to encourage manufacturers to change their packaging so that they don't fall foul of the regime. So, we really do hope, Janet, very much, that that kind of innovation will spread very rapidly. You do see that in other areas. I'm sure that older members of the committee will know that the caps of plastic milk bottles have changed very radically over the last few years, because they used to not be recyclable and now they are. They've also changed colour because they were affecting the quality of the recyclate and now they don't. So, you can see manufacturers responding to the changing climate with just something as simple as that.

I wish we could go back to the Tetra Pak, though, rather than the plastic.

I noticed they'd changed colour, the tops, and I now know why. There we are. Thank you, Minister. Okay. Are we happy, or do you want to, briefly—?

Is there time for one final question?

Yes. Briefly, then, and then we'll move on.

Very briefly, Minister. Finally, on the legislation on single-use plastics, could you just talk us through the fact that it's going to be phased in its implementation? You were talking earlier about the internal market Act, what impact do you think that could have on the items in phase 2, please?

We're phasing it because the things in phase 2 are more complex. So, the later inclusions are carrier bags and polystyrene lids for cups and food containers and oxo-degradable plastic products. We just need to consider further particular evidence of needs for exemptions, for example, and other effects. I'm sure Members will be aware that there's been a conversation, for example, with the Co-op chain about whether their compostable bags are or are not impacted by this. So, there are ongoing discussions about what might constitute a banned single-use carrier bag, for example, and we just need to get that right.

Delyth, I've been really clear all the way through the passage of the Bill in the Senedd that the Government's position is and absolutely remains that, where the Senedd legislates in a non-reserved area, it does so free from the requirements of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act. So, as far as we're concerned, the ban at stage 1 and the ban at stage 2 will be fully effective and enforceable. You have to bear in mind that the UK Government could have and did not refer the Act to the Supreme Court.

Thank you, Minister.

Thank you very much. Thank you. Huw.

Brilliant. Thank you, Chair. Minister, I'm gong to turn to the issue of water, our rivers, and everything linked to that. Can I start with a slightly strange question? There is a massive public hoo-hah at the moment about the condition of our water, our waterways, our rivers, both from the ecological status and the wider issues of pollution, and diverse sources of pollution. Do you welcome the fact that there is a massive hoo-hah going on when we have people such as Surfers Against Sewage switching their focus from coastal waters, where there were real inroads made decades ago, we've had real improvements, into our inland waterways, and also people like the former lead singer of The Undertones, Feargal Sharkey, speaking out and saying we need to do a darn sight better? Do you welcome that, or is it a pain?

It's very, very welcome. Less than two years ago, we were discussing how on earth we could get this up the public agenda. We certainly don't need to do that anymore. It's extremely welcome; we want people to be very aware of it. We want them to be aware of it, because we also want them to understand their own behaviours. So, we want people to understand not to flush cotton buds, wet wipes and other things down the loo, for example. We want people to be more responsive, but we also, frankly, wanted the pressure on all of the various polluting agencies to up their game. So, I'm delighted by it, frankly. Those of you who know me well will know that I spent a very large part of my life chained to things or carrying banners, so I've got a lot of sympathy with the people who feel like that.

What we've got to do, though, is we've got to be positive, I think, and hopeful about what can be done. So, we've got a whole series of things in order. I very much welcome the outrage about this. I was speaking to one of the campaigners that you might be familiar with, the lady who floated a coffin down the Usk, for example, at an event I went to on a Thursday evening a couple of weeks ago. She's been absolutely instrumental in getting the thing up the agenda. But we've got to figure out what to do about it, haven't we? It isn't just about combined sewage outflows, although, obviously, they're part of it. It is about making sure that every single area of our economic life that contributes to this pollution looks at its own act and sorts it out.

So, we have these summits where—I don't want the house builders shouting at the water companies, the water companies shouting at the farmers, and the farmers shouting at the house builders or whatever in a circle of misery. What we want is every single area of our lives to look at their own issues and sort them out. So, we have challenged, and the First Minister was very clear that the action plan has to have actions for each section of the population and of the commercial actors that have an influence on this, they have to have an action plan in place and they have to live up to it. So, I will be chairing the next summit at the end of November. The action plan was agreed by everyone at the last summit that the First Minister chaired back in the summer, and we'll be looking at progress on that and what needs to be done, because there are large numbers of actors here; it's not just the water companies by a long way, and we need everyone to get on board with sorting it out.

Thank you for that, Minister. I think we're clear now that if you weren't sitting in the position in the ministerial chair today, you'd be out manning the barricades and campaigning hard, which is good to hear. Let me just ask on one of those aspects you touch on, because I think it's probably one of the frustrations that we share, that the topicality of some of these things means we switch from a focus on chickens and chicken manure, to a focus on sewage outflows, to a focus on whatever. Actually, there's a heck of a lot of things that we need to tackle with urgency all in one go. But, on that basis, are you surprised at where we are on one of the cross-cutting agendas of Government, river quality, which is to do with nitrates and agricultural diffuse pollution, because we're once again in a situation where things have been slightly delayed? I was surprised that there wasn't a bigger uproar on that, that there weren't greater submissions put in on this from some of the environmental NGOs in Wales to say, 'Stop dithering. Get on with it.'

Yes. So, you're absolutely right, Huw. We need to address all of the issues, and we do have a slight media thing of going round the various actors and focusing on different bits of them, depending on what's in the news. But the truth is, as I just said, we've got to sort all of it out, and we've got to sort all of it out in a way that means that our rivers are maintained in their high quality, where they already are of high quality, and recovered where they are not.

We also need to be realistic about where we are as well, and I'm very keen that we don't have an approach of despair and throwing our hands up, but one of hope and action. So, the action plan is a really important part of this. I'm sure the committee knows that we've got a better river water quality taskforce running, and as part of that, we have a series of nutrient management boards and nutrient management plans for all of our SAC—special areas of conservation—rivers, and we're developing nutrient management plans and a unified nutrient calculator so that we can have like compared with like. We've made about £1.5 million worth of funding available to enable the nutrient management boards to do this, and back in May of this year, we appointed consultants to produce a calculator for each catchment with associated guidance and training materials on how to use them, and we're hoping to bring them into use in December. We wanted to delay production to incorporate the June agricultural survey so that we had more robust data in the model to approve the assumptions used, because otherwise the assumptions would have been generalised and based on data from France and England. So, we think we will have a really robust set of data as a result of the work of the nutrient management boards, and I’m extremely grateful to them for all of the very hard work that they’ve done, and we’ll be able to take it forward from there.

And then, the other thing I should tell the committee, and I should apologise for the timing of it, but it just has worked out this way, but we have a storm overflow evidence for Wales report and that’s going to be published today. It’s going to be published at 2 p.m. after this committee, so I apologise for that, Chair; I would have liked to have done it before the committee but it hasn’t been possible. That report isn’t a report with recommendations; it’s a report that compares the costs and benefits of different policy options for combined sewage outflows to help inform the better river quality management taskforce to develop achievable and affordable targets for the waterways. So, I just wanted the committee to be aware of that, because I wouldn’t normally appear in a committee and then publish a report on topic, but it’s just how it’s worked out.

We'll forgive you this time, Minister, because we do have many of the relevant stakeholders coming in after half term, so at least it will help inform our discussion in that meeting.

Yes. It's really helpful to know. Thank you for that, Minister. And it's clear that there is a lot of work going on, and it's clear that your focus is bringing together all the diverse stakeholders to tackle water quality, river quality, and so on. And I think we recognise this: you're not sitting there twiddling your thumbs, you're really getting on with this, and the First Minister is involved as well.

Let me just turn with my final question, though, to the issue of Dŵr Cymru environmental performance reviews from both NRW and Ofwat. It shows that in the PR24 business plan, that customers' bills could go up £120 a year. I wonder if you could comment on that, but in commenting, could I ask you also to reflect on the exchange we had yesterday on the floor of the Senedd, where WildFish—and I should declare an interest here as Atlantic salmon champion; I take it really seriously, and WildFish are one of the organisations that nominated me in that position—they have put this legal challenge down, and part of the legal challenge, Minister, is that, actually, it should not fall on water bill payers, taxpayers, that it should be found from the water companies themselves, not just Dŵr Cymru, but across the UK from other water companies for enhancing their environmental performance? It's an interesting position. Now, Dŵr Cymru would say that's impossible, maybe the regulator would say, but I know you have focused on saying, 'We need a different approach from the regulator to make sure that this is fair to bill payers as well'. So, on their performance environmentally, and also on what this means for bill payers, what's your take?

So, I have a series of meetings with NRW and Dŵr Cymru scheduled. I have a two-hour meeting with them tomorrow morning, for example. The meetings were scheduled already, not as a result of the media response. We meet very regularly with them. The meeting is to discuss something called PR24, which is the price review mechanism that will come into effect next year. The price review mechanism sets the amount of money that the water companies can spend on infrastructure and what the bill increases will look like as a result. Dŵr Cymru is in a very different position to the rest of the water companies. And can I just say for the record, I do not control Dŵr Cymru, I have not very many powers over them, they are not nationalised, but they are a not-for-profit private company, so they do not pay dividends to shareholders?

Much of what you've just said, Huw, is about not paying dividends to shareholders in circumstances where the water company could use that money for investment. Well, Dŵr Cymru doesn't pay shareholders. I have had a very robust discussion with them and with the regulator about their reserves and whether they should be spending more of their reserves on infrastructure spend; that's a conversation that will continue, as, I have to say, I think there's a difference of opinion between the regulator and Dŵr Cymru about that, but we'll get to the bottom of that. But the bottom line is we need billions of pounds spent on infrastructure, and they don't have billions of pounds in their reserve, so the only way they have to raise money is through bills, and that's the way that the regulator is set up. And the UK Government, let's be clear, sets the remit for the regulator; I don't do that. We set out our expectations of the water company, and we do that through Claire's team. We put out a letter that states our intention very, very clearly—we've done that. We've been extremely plain that we want a good social tariff and that we want high drinking water quality, high river water quality, and good environmental improvement on that. So, I'll be continuing to do that.

The Cardigan wastewater treatment works, for example, we know that there's £20 million going in for new treatment works at Cardigan. The enforcement action by NRW requires them to commit to that programme of work for their next investment period. They weren't fined because NRW took the view—and it's a view that they can take—that taking money off Dŵr Cymru in order to get them to invest more in a particular project was counterintuitive. I agree with that, for what it's worth, but my opinion doesn't matter; I don't have a say in it, but I do agree with that.

So, these are about striking balances between the effective action of keeping water bills affordable, especially in this cost-of-living crisis. And I very much regret the fact that the UK Government wouldn't put a social tariff in right across the UK, but Dŵr Cymru has done very well here in Wales with their social tariff, as have Hafren Dyfrdwy as well. But water companies are supporting in Wales 145,000 households through those schemes, so it's substantial, because people are really struggling in the cost-of-living crisis. So, it is about trying to get the effective balance. But there's a political point here, there's no getting away from it.

[Inaudible.]—we need to get to, I'm afraid—

I can see that the Chair is talking, but I can't hear you, Chair.

Okay. I was just asking for you to be brief, because we have another two Members wanting to come in on this and we need to move on to other areas. So, maybe, Huw, do you want to come in briefly, then Joyce?

Yes, very briefly, Minister. Sorry you can't hear us when we're trying to chat back to you. What I was going to ask was, one of the arguments that's been put to me over the last few years is that there should have been a dividend that comes from Dŵr Cymru, being a not-for-profit company, which could well have been invested over a prolonged period in the sorts of things we're now catching up with. So, because of their very structure, they should have had perhaps 5 per cent or 6 per cent more than other companies to invest. Do you challenge that with the regulator? As you say, you don't have control, but is that a discussion that you can have with the regulator to say, 'Is there a dividend that is more than in other companies, and, if so, where has it gone over the last 10 years? What's it been invested in?'.

Briefly then, please.

So, I can answer that, actually, because I asked that question of Dŵr Cymru myself. So, there is a dividend, and it has been invested in social tariffs.

Right.

So, those are the answers there. I would suggest to the committee that Dŵr Cymru would be very happy to come and talk to the committee about how it invests its dividends.

Yes. Thank you, Minister.

[Inaudible.]

There we are. Okay, fine. Thank you. There we are. Sorry to curtail things slightly, but we do need to go on to another subject area. Janet, I think you're going to lead us on the next area.

How are the outputs from the independent review of reports into extreme flooding events being taken forward? We know what we've seen on Friday and over the weekend, and I know you answered yesterday, Minister, in Plenary, that you've been looking into those post-flooding incident investigations, like those section 19 things. But I've often criticised those as being too long; it can quite often take over 12 months to get those. So, my residents are asking me already, 'When will we know what happened and how we can avoid it happening again?', so a faster method than what's there at the moment.

Yes, absolutely, Janet. So, the review that we commissioned with the co-operation agreement was an important part of a jigsaw where we're looking at wider flood-risk management reporting. So, we've got two other pieces of work taking place: we've got the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales also looking at this and we've got the flood and coastal erosion committee looking at it. The flood and coastal erosion committee in particular are looking at the wider legislative and policy change resources and skills in the flood management sector that we need to implement to change the system. I don't think that there's any argument with you, or with anyone else, that we need to change the system. That's the easy bit, though. The issue is how to change it and what should it look like. Who should have what powers and where should they sit? What powers should the regulator have? What powers should the local authorities have? What should the Welsh Government be able to do, et cetera, et cetera?

So, we've got an extensive piece of work going on on that, and we're obviously hoping to get that sorted out. We'll probably ask the Law Commission to do a piece of work for us on what the very complex set of regulatory frameworks in this area are as well. Bear in mind that we've had a large number of these come back from the EU as well. So, have they gone to the right place and to the right people and have people got the right powers? Is the jigsaw, if you like, properly located? I think the easy answer is that it is not—we agree that, and that's why we've got all these reviews going on. But we need to let the reviews do their work and then we'll be able to report back to you on what the change necessary is. No doubt there is a change.

Just in terms of the very localised stuff, though, Janet, we will be asking for a shorter term view of that from the blue-light responders and from NRW, in particular whether flood defences have failed or were over-topped, and I think there's a combination of the two of those things in some areas of Wales, and whether communities who did not think they were at flood risk are now at flood risk, so that they can be incorporated into the wider programme.

And then could you give us an update—thank you—on the work of the flood and coastal erosion committee, in particular the findings of the committee's report into the need for wider legislative and policy change and resources and skills in the flood management sector? And I'll tag onto that: when will we have the storm flow reports?

Yes, so I've responded already to the resources and skills report that the committee put out. We acknowledged the extensive list of issues and challenges, and we've asked the committee to do some key areas of significant work on some of the areas that they outlined, and we've got a draft response to the—it's called 'The case for change in legislation and associated policy on flood and coastal erosion risk management in Wales', and it will be formally issued to the flood and coastal erosion committee in early November.

And also do you feel as a Government you are on track to provide additional flood protection for what we believe to be 45,000 homes this Government term—or could there be even more now?

Yes, so we've got good work going on with our risk management authorities across Wales. Last year we agreed a three-year capital budget, which is £101 million for them, and that plans our investment from 2022-23 to 2024-25 across the three years. We needed to do that because lots of the programmes are big capital programmes and they couldn't be done in a single-year programme. This is the final year of the coastal risk management programme, for example, and all schemes on that programme will commence by March of next year, and then we'll have invested £200 million in key coastal infrastructure. That protects 15,000 properties all by itself. And then we've got several ongoing this year. We've got a couple that are ahead of schedule. So, two major schemes in Newport and Ammanford, which have 2,000 properties in them. So, you can see we're making pretty good progress towards it.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, we'll move on, then, to Joyce.

I just want to ask, before I go on to the next bit, about the prevention of flooding playing a major part in your key policies. And, of course, I would be talking about surface water, but how all those things are marrying up. I also asked earlier questions about using forestry and trees in terms of prevention, because to my mind those things can happen to take that water away from the areas that are now being flooded and have to be incorporated, and I'm sure it is, within your policies.

Yes, absolutely, Joyce. So, we've asked the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales to look at prevention as well as the committee, which also looks at prevention. I'm sure you heard me say as part of the new Welsh housing quality standard yesterday that we're including water butts in that. I don't remember off the top of my head, I'm afraid, how many tens of thousands—the volume of water that removes—Emma might remember—but it's substantial. And that's the whole point, we need to—. You've been working on this for years, Joyce; I know you have. It's been a campaign of yours for many years. But to try to get people to understand that the run-off from their homes and gardens is very much part of what goes into the combined sewage outflow problem is one of the big behaviour changes that we want. So, if we can encourage people to have water butts—it doesn't matter if you're in a little terraced house, you can still get a water butt under your drain and it will help you in times of drought. The summer before last, for example, I was very delighted to say that I could keep my vegetables going out of my water butts, although they did eventually run out. These are important. They might seem small, but they're important parts of flood prevention, as are, of course, the remeandering of rivers, the tree and natural flood defence programmes that we have, and a number of other things.

Thank you. I'm going to move on now to the retained EU law. Have you got an update on inter-governmental discussions on whether to save the national emissions ceilings regulations from automatically being revoked on 31 December?

Well, Chair, I'm going to defer to Claire here, I'm afraid, because this is intensely detailed, and her officials have been working on it for us.

There we are. Claire, would you like to enlighten us?

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister. Yes, we're continuing our discussions with Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs colleagues about what will replace the regulations. They are still scheduled to be revoked, as set out in the Act, but what we're working on is a cross-UK alternative arrangement. There isn't yet a final proposal, though, on what exactly that will look like. The discussions are ongoing. We've been clear that the benefits of having that framework at UK level are really positive and would support and, I suppose, nest, then, the Environment (Air Quality and Soundscapes) (Wales) Bill that's currently before the Senedd in Wales within that wider framework. So, we're pushing for something that would provide an equivalent structure to the current arrangements that will be revoked.

I just want to know whether the Welsh Government intends to use its other powers under the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 to preserve or replicate the national emission ceilings regulations in a Wales context. We know we've got some legislation coming forward.

You're right, the Bill that's before the Senedd replicates part of it, but I suppose the point of the national emission ceilings regulations is they provide that UK framework, so that isn't something we can replicate exactly on a Wales basis. The bit that we want to preserve is that joint working across the UK and common expectations, which isn't something we can replace ourselves in a Wales context. But the targets, the framework, towards reducing pollutants obviously is precisely the purpose in Wales of the air quality and soundscapes Bill that the Senedd is considering.

Okay.

Jenny.

The key issue here is around legally binding emission reductions for the five air pollutants. What exactly is stopping Wales from embracing that in its entirety in our air quality and soundscapes Bill?

Well, I guess, Jenny, I would say that we can embrace our own, but we're part of the UK, and some of the things that happen in Wales are not things that we control, so we don't site large gas-fired power stations, for example, and we don't control some of the other things, so we need a UK framework in order to operate inside them. We will do everything we can do to do the things that we can control here in Wales. I know you've been very much part of the scrutiny of the air quality and soundscapes Bill, but there are some things, as Claire has said, that require a UK view. The air doesn't know where the boundary is. So, if you live along the border, we'd quite like people along the border to be protected in the same way. It's an obvious case for having an overarching framework.

Okay, but at the moment there's no possibility of getting that at the moment—is that right?

As Claire very tactfully said, discussions are ongoing.

Thank you.

Okay. Well, I think that concludes our scrutiny session with the Minister this morning. Can I thank you so much for being with us, particularly given that you're feeling slightly under the weather? It's been a thorough session, I think. We've covered many bases, and we're grateful to you and your officials for being with us, so diolch yn fawr iawn once again for being before us. You will, as always, be provided with a copy of the draft Record so that you can check that for accuracy. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

The committee will now break until 11.30 a.m., and we'll look to reconvene, if we can, slightly earlier than expected. We can break for a good 10 minutes at least.

Can we try and—?

Yes, we'll try and be ready to start at 11.30 a.m., depending on the Deputy Minister's availability.

Welcome back to the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee. We move to item 4, of course, and the second part of this meeting, which is a scrutiny session with the Deputy Minister for Climate Change regarding the 20 mph speed limit. So, I welcome Lee Waters, the Deputy Minister for Climate Change—thank you for coming—as well as his officials, Christopher Warner, deputy director of transport strategy and policy with Welsh Government, Phil Jones, chair of the 20 mph taskforce, and Kaarina Ruta, who's a transport assistant and lead for 20 mph from the Welsh Local Government Association. Welcome to the four of you.

Time is tight, so we'll keep questions quite focused. But I will ask, first of all, if I may, whether you as Deputy Minister could report back to us on the meeting you had with the councils yesterday, and how that went, and what is the plan in moving forward.

Of course, and thank you for the welcome.

Yes, so we issued a written statement late yesterday, which I wanted to get out before the committee met this morning, to reflect on the meeting that Julie James and I had on Tuesday with council leaders. And it was a very positive meeting. The general feedback was that they had noticed that complaints had reduced and tailed off, which has certainly been our experience too, and that there were issues of vandalism, which is a concern, and we've agreed to work with them to address that. There are some concerns about some anomalies locally, which we said we don't think need to wait. Officers are keen that the changes are given a year to bed in, and I think that's generally sensible. However, where there are clear examples where, with the benefit of hindsight, roads were reduced to 20 mph, and there's a feeling that that maybe was a mistake, there's no reason why we should wait a year to put those mistakes right. There has to be a local traffic regulation Order passed, and that can take anywhere between 11 weeks and 11 months, depending on the local authority's committee cycle and appetite to move at pace. But we'd expect these to be small in number, but there's no reason to wait for that.

Beyond that, a degree of confidence was required—and I notice the research that the Members' research service has produced on the local variation around Wales, which is quite striking. And that suggests to us that (a) there clearly is a lot of discretion within the guidance, and there isn't a blanket ban, otherwise how could Swansea have issued so many? But the fact that Denbighshire has issued so few at the other end of the spectrum also shows that there is a lack of a consistent approach here, and you'd expect that to a degree with 22 different local authorities—some have different legal advice.

So, we want to get to the bottom of that, and why that is. These are obviously local decisions, but we do want to have a degree of national consistency. So, we have offered that we'll work with local authorities to share experiences, to share good practice, to understand why some might be reluctant to use their discretion, and others more so, so they can talk to each other and share that experience. And where they want a sense check, Phil Jones, who I've not yet had a chance to introduce, who's sitting here by me, who led the taskforce work, and has led the process of drawing up the guidelines, will be happy to work with them to give his view on whether or not the judgments made are within the spirit of the guidance.

Okay. Thank you. We will be pursuing some of those points that you made individually. So, I'll bring in Delyth first, and then I know Huw wants to come in and I know Janet wants to come in. So, we'll start with Delyth.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Good morning, Minister. What are the main lessons that you've learnt from implementing this new change, please?

Well, I think, as expected, there has been a degree of opposition. We knew that would happen. It happened when the Belisha beacons were introduced, when 30 mph speed limits were introduced, when 70 mph speed limits was introduced, when the breathalyser was introduced, when seat belts were made compulsory. So, that didn't take us by surprise.

I think one of the key lessons we learnt from the pilots was the importance of consultation and engagement in advance of the change being made. And for various reasons, I don't think that has been as full as we would have liked, and we completely understand the pressure local authorities are under. But I think we knew that was going to be the case, and that has proven to be the case. And we did raise this with local authorities a number of times in advance, but I don't think we should underestimate the capacity constraints they are under, and I think that explains that. I think there's also a broader issue we should reflect on, and the committee might wish to reflect on as well, in terms of active travel, because we've seen this before. When the active travel consultation maps were put out to consultation, there was enormous variation to the extent to which local authorities genuinely consulted and engaged with communities, and I think there's a skill set and culture issue within highways departments, which tend to lead on these, where, I generalise, they are generally engineers, and their comfort zone is not community consultation. So, I think there's a broader lesson for us all—I think local authorities and Welsh Government—about how we help them to get consultations right. So, I think that's probably the main lesson, but I'm not sure if—. As I say, I'm quite keen to hear from—. So, just so that I can briefly introduce, Chair—Kaarina Ruta is leading the local authority engagement, Phil Jones has led the expert panel, and Chris Warner is the official in the Welsh Government who's overseeing it too. I know we're pressed for time, but I'm not sure if any of the others want to add anything to that.

Yes, briefly, if there's anything to add.

I absolutely agree with Lee. I think we always knew that this—. In some ways, this is a really simple change and, obviously, it has very far-reaching consequences. This is a change in the default, but it doesn't affect any of the abilities of local authorities to set local speed limits. It's simply changing the starting point. But I think we always knew that that was a difficult concept to get across and the ramifications of that were quite difficult.

So, I think communicating that to the public was always going to be a challenge. We know that the way that the law has always worked is that streetlights meant 30 mph, but not many people knew that. So, we had the double challenge of explaining to people that streetlights meant something and that it now meant something new. So, I think that communication with the public is a challenge with local decision makers. So, yes, it's a complex problem, and I think, obviously, it was a challenge. The resources meant that only so much could be done, but I think it went reasonably well, given all those circumstances.

Sure. Delyth, did you want to pick up?

Just very briefly. Do you think that some of the negative campaigning has had the perverse effect of making more people aware of the change and so more people have actually responded in a positive way to the change, which is the opposite of what that campaigning would have sought to achieve?

I think that's probably right. Some of the communications budget was set aside for raising awareness, and I think we've got no doubt that the Welsh public are aware that there has been a change. So, I think, in some ways, it has made that task a little easier. But what we now need to do is demonstrate the benefits and, almost, potentially, congratulate the Welsh public for responding positively when, as we expect, speeds do come down and that it has made a difference, and we celebrate the benefits.

I think the exception to that rule is that the idea spread that this was a blanket limit that applied across a whole area has caused some confusion. We've certainly had anecdotal experience of people travelling at 20 mph in a 40 mph, for example, because they're confused about what the speed limit ought to be, and I think the deliberate misinformation there has been very unhelpful.

Okay. Thank you. Huw.

Thank you very much. The blanket thing has definitely caused confusion, without a doubt, and I think it's probably worth putting on record that some of the read-across in wider parts of Wales, while, actually, in Bridgend, over 100 exemptions have been put in place—. We've probably got a very good highways department of a more conventional, traditional highways thing, but they did think through—where are the residential areas, where are the non-residential, what are the gaps between them. So, the challenge we're getting is, actually, well, it goes from 20 mph to 50 mph to 30 mph to whatever, but, actually, they've interpreted the guidance that is there in a sensible way.

But I wanted to ask about where you go now on the exemption guidance, because my personal feeling is this does need bedding in. It would be the worst thing in the world to say we need to rewrite the guidance. It just amazes me, the variation. So, you've got Bridgend somewhere in the middle, you've got other authorities that have done more, you've got some who have done nothing—no exemptions. No wonder there's kickback in their area, frankly. I'd be kicking up about it. But that kickup in their area has affected my local public’s perception of how this is working. So, are you going to rip up the guidance now?

Well, I'll start briefly and ask Phil to add to it. So, my feeling is, I don't want to be dogmatic about it. I want to understand the constraints local authorities feel they're under, and if there is a genuine issue of interpretation of the guidance or the guide itself, let's look at that. I think our strong feeling as a starting point is the guidance is that flexible, hence the example you've given. So, I don't think the guidance needs to change. I think what needs to change is for local authorities to have a more consistent understanding of how far they can interpret the guidance to local circumstances. So, one of the things we've been discussing is whether or not we need to reinforce the guidance around how it's used, to make the point that this is to be applied when people and traffic mix. Where people and traffic do not mix, then twenties are not appropriate. But, Phil, do you want to add briefly to that?

Yes. I mean, the intention originally was that the guidance would be part of a more general refresh of guidance on speed limits across the board, but that didn't prove possible, so we had to bring forward just a piece of guidance around the decision on twenties and thirties. But going forward, I think the intention is to update the guidance, which is called 'Setting Local Speed Limits in Wales', which has been around since 2009, and there is already a piece of work, and that's already kind of running in parallel. I think that will help. So, that will need to be updated next year, and that will obviously reflect the new default 20 mph. That's an opportunity then to refresh things, to learn from experience, and also to bring in those things like the buffer limits, so where twenties butt up against fifties, there's a more general review of speeds. So, I think that's how we have to go forward with the guidance. But in the short term, as the Minister said, the Welsh Government can act as a bit of a clearing house, allow local authorities, now that the dust has settled, to exchange views and come to, perhaps, a more balanced view as to how best to interpret the guidance that exists at the moment, but not rushing to revise it until we've got this more comprehensive piece of guidance.

So, we'll come back to Huw, and then we'll come to Janet. Huw.

So, linked to that, if we can get this to bed in, and a sensible approach being taken by all local authorities—I don't want to revisit what's gone on—I think there are questions over why local authorities didn't work together better. There was a long lead-in to this and so on, and you've been very fair and very diplomatic and understanding of some of the capacity issues and the expertise and whatever. But going forward, there's something interesting. Phil Jones, you've also been dealing—. I should declare an interest here as chair of the active travel group. One of the many aspects we've been looking at is how we can increase the calmness and safety for pedestrians, with some of the work that you've been involved with, on things such as innovative approaches to road crossings and so on—not the traditional ones, but other ones. Surely, if we can get this 20 mph default limit, with exceptions—not blanket; it's never been a blanket—then that allows some of those innovations to come forward on top of this so we have really safe, walkable townscapes.

Yes, very much so. I think there's an opportunity here to build—. I always saw—I think we all saw—20 mph as an enabler; it's not an end in itself. It changes the default, it changes what is expected as the speed, and that then allows other things to happen, whether they be these place-led, community-led interventions to make our streets more liveable, slower, more accommodating places, more attractive, and encourage more people to walk and cycle. So, I think that's exactly what the next steps are, really, and to build on the foundation that 20 mph gives to Wales.

Okay. Thank you. Janet.

The feedback I've had, Deputy Minister, from my constituency, is that when they've approached the local authority, the local authority has stated, 'The guidance is very inflexible', and they're almost nervous about making exemptions. Now, I will put my hands up and say that there are certain roads in Aberconwy that needed to be 20 mph, and, naturally, we don't get any concerns raised about those. But there are others, and I just wonder whether you could do more work with local authorities, because my main question is: have any lessons been learnt for this particular policy, given the massive public response? And also, Deputy Minister, we all know that, in March, there will be this petition, which is already standing at 460,000 signatures, and I have great respect for petitions and petition signees because I used to be the Chair of the Petitions Committee. So, how will you—? In terms of that petition and the questions I've already asked, how will that shape any future decision making on your part, with the amount of public discord that has arisen as a result of the policy?

Chair, could I ask Kaarina Ruta to talk about the experiences of local authorities, please?

Yes. Well, I'll certainly answer the first part of the question. So, the sessions with the local authorities and highway authorities who are the trunk road agents are already happening as we speak, and all of them have been invited to come and talk to us, to understand how the guidance has been applied differently, and look at how we can clarify it, how we can make it so that it works for everyone and that we can understand those differences. So, that is already happening, and the invitation is open for all the authorities to participate in that.

And could you just remind me again what that's called, because I'll ask my leader whether he is participating?

Well, we met with the leader of Conwy on Tuesday, as part of the overall meeting, and he is very supportive, I must say. So, they are now, as a result of that meeting, going to be working through officers, in the first place, to learn lessons and to share experiences, and then we'll come back to leaders with any outcomes from that. I don't—

So, the initiative that's just been mentioned, what's that called?

Talking to each other.

Yes. It doesn't have a specific name, but we are—

It's not like a liaison board or—? No, okay.

No.

No. Okay. Thank you. Right. Jenny wants to come in. Jenny.

Yes. The pilots were deliberately trying to test different methodologies, different ways of doing things. How much do you think the disagreement over this has been pushed by particular pilots that people didn't like? For example, the one in Buckley, in Flintshire, is a village that is regularly used as a rat run. I'd be interested to know how much the people of Buckley were opposed to it, as opposed to those who were using it as a way of dodging queues on main roads.

So, perhaps Phil can briefly answer on the broader experience of the pilots, but specifically on Buckley, that was a very challenging site to have chosen, and we've made life difficult for ourselves for going for one of the harder ones. But, in a sense, it is useful because a pilot is to test things and what works and what doesn't work. Buckley, for those of you who don't know it, has a large road running through it called Liverpool Road, and when you do a Google Street view, or if you go down it, you will see that some sections are surrounded by trees and grass and some sections are surrounded by houses, and it moves in-between the two. It's a really tricky example. We took the view, with the officials at the get-go, not to have exemptions within Buckley, but to take an area-wide approach within Buckley. Now, as I've said before, I think that probably was a mistake, but what we wanted to do was just test that exemption process on the area-wide approach. Now, Flintshire County Council I think will agree that not enough consultation in advance was done around that, to prepare people for what was coming. So, I think that was the second lesson learned from that. And then, of course, there was then mobilised, as you say, a large campaign, including lots of people who drove through Buckley. And, as we know, Jenny, from the research and experience, typically what we find is, when you ask people who live on a street, 'What do you want the speed limit on your street to be?', they often want it to be slower. But if you ask those same people what the speed limit should be on the roads they use to drive to work, they don't want it slower. So, inevitably, we're all a bag of contradictions, intentions, and that is at play here as well. But, Phil, I don't know if you want to say anything more.

Only to say I think, generally—. Obviously, there were eight pilots, and we heard such a lot from Buckley, which is one of the eight, and I think there doesn't seem to be much evidence that I've seen that the other seven pilots had the same level of controversy. So, actually, you might say that, well, seven, out of eight did pretty well. But, obviously, there was a lot of noise and, of course, the way that the media works always focuses on the one location where there is controversy, and maybe it amplifies the negative voices, which may have been the majority or may have been the minority—it's difficult to know. What I would say is that, obviously, we were asked, with Transport for Wales, to have a look at Buckley, and we did help with some interpretation, and I understand Flintshire has made some changes post pilot, pre the national roll-out, to exempt further roads that are perhaps more appropriate, and passed the what you might call the sniff test, as to what would be appropriate for 20 mph or a 30 mph.

But what I will say there was a similar issue in one of the other pilots, in Caldicot in Monmouthshire, where there was a section of road that was locally described as a bypass, where people thought it was absurd to be 20 mph, and the local authority responded to that quickly and changed it within the time period of the pilot. So, again, different local authorities have different levels of risk appetite.

Okay. So, Huw briefly, and then Joyce.

So, in the Flintshire one, just so I understand, because I haven't kept a full forensic analysis on that one: after the pilot, which you've neatly explained—probably that no-exemption approach was challenging—did they then change, when they went for the wider roll-out, and then put exemptions in?

Yes, they did. So, the Liverpool Road in particular was—

It hasn't happened yet, but it's about to.

Oh, it hasn't happened yet.

Hasn't happened yet.

So, Phil did an extra piece of work for them to give them confidence of where to apply the exemptions within the settlement of Buckley, which they are in the process of doing. However, they haven't really applied that same methodology beyond Buckley.

It's fascinating, the extent to which the Buckley challenges have coloured the whole debate.

Indeed.

Yes. I mean, to be fair to the local authority, Buckley—. They have particular challenges within Flintshire, so they do have a history of litigious former highway officers who challenge them on everything, and so, as a result, they've become very cautious about moving beyond the letter of any guidance, even though they're able to. So, there are always individual circumstances here as well. We are working with them to try and get to the best place.

And if you were too prescriptive, then you'd be damned for that as well, wouldn't you? So, there is an element of that, in fairness.

'You can't win' is the general rule in these things, yes.

Yes. Okay. Joyce and then we'll come to Janet.

I want to move the debate a little bit wider. What's happened as a consequence of this in my area, a rural area, is people questioning the national speed limit on very small roads, and I've had quite a lot of correspondence in that regard. I'm sure you've had the same correspondence, Minister. So, is it the case that there is nothing stopping local authorities, if they so wished, to amend those speed limits on those roads? And the other bit of correspondence I've been having is on the trunk roads, where there have been some cases where people are arguing that they've been omitted and felt they should have been included. So, are you reviewing any correspondence that you have to that end, particularly on the trunk roads, because that's where we have responsibility?

I could answer but Phil's come a long way, so I'll let him answer.

On the point of—. It's a 'yes'—it is open to local authorities to set local speed limits. The way the law works is that on any roads without streetlighting, the speed limit is automatically 60 mph, and that's the problem that we have. It is open to Welsh Government or the Senedd to change that also in the fullness of time, if you chose to, but let's leave the law change. But, in the meantime, there's nothing to prevent local authorities setting a different speed limit. They would have to pass a traffic regulation Order, they would have to put up signs and repeater signs to make drivers aware that there is a different local limit appearing. So, yes, and trunk roads—. The trunk roads agencies are highway authorities separate to Welsh Government, so, again, they can make their own decisions about the speed limit that they choose to set in certain situations.

But are they going to review—?

So, as part of the setting local speed limits review that we've announced we're going to do, that's one of the things we're going to look at. So, just to respond directly to your point, Joyce, I've also had correspondence from people who live in villages that are on the trunk road that are currently either 60 mph or 40 mph. When they look at the test applied in the guidance for twenties in other areas, they think, 'Well, that applies to us too, so why doesn't that apply here?' And that's an anomaly of the trunk road versus the local road, and we've generally taken the position that for trunk roads, we'll only change the speed limit where there's an evidence base of accidents and deaths, which is clearly the wrong approach because you wait until bad things happen before you respond. But we've fallen behind that defence because we want some consistency. So, that's why we're going to review the speed limits. What I'd like us to see, I think, is a willingness, where there are villages along trunk roads, we apply a consistent approach to where villages are not along trunk roads, but that's what we've got to consult on and go through that process.

And that's going to happen.

It is in process, yes.

Okay. Thank you. Janet and then we'll come to Jenny.

What guidance has been given on signs? And the reason I ask this is that in my locality, there have been signs removed, not replaced, and so there's an assumption that it's down to the driver, then, that if there are residential properties, if there are streetlights, then you are doing 20 mph. What monitoring are you going to do, Deputy Minister, on the spend, the money you've provided to local authorities to roll this project out? If they're just removing signs and not communicating well with residents, it begs the question, doesn't it, really, how sure are you that the money you've allocated is going to be spent on that, not used for other things in a local authority? Because, so far, we've seen a lot of 30 mph signs removed and no 20 mph ones go up. Some twenties have, but they've removed more than they've taken down.

Could I ask Phil to answer on the guidance on the signs, because he wrote it, and Kaarina to talk about the experience of local authorities?

Fine. Okay.

So, on the signs, it is a difficulty. Again, let me tell you the way the law used to work, and still works in England, is that highway authorities cannot, by law, put small repeater signs on 30 mph roads with streetlighting, and the reason for that is twofold. One is that we would have to, potentially, clutter the whole country up with signs to make that apparent, and if you put 30 mph repeater signs in some locations, in some streets with streetlighting, but not in others, it would lead to confusion. So, since 1936, I think, the law has been that if there are streetlights and you don't see another sign, the speed limit is 30. Now, Welsh Government could potentially have changed that and, in the move to 20 mph, retained the ability to put 20 mph repeater signs, but then we would have fallen into the same problem. Wales would have to be covered with hundreds of thousands, probably, of 20 mph signs to make that change. And it was felt better to stick with the system that we'd had since 1936 of the default national speed limit is indicated by the streetlights, and you should not have repeater signs, to avoid creating the distinction, or the artificial difference, between some streets with signs and some without. In effect, Welsh drivers will have to get used to the idea that the national speed limit in built-up areas where there is streetlighting is 20 mph, as it was until recently with 30 mph. So, that's—

Thank you. And Kaarina.

I would just add that, obviously, there was also a flexibility given to the local authorities, in the sense that, in the second piece of legislation that was passed, traffic signs and general regulations, certain signs were given a savings period, so if they were not contradictory to the new signs they could stay up longer. So, for example, the 20 mph zone signs might still be up in certain places, and they can stay up for up to a year. And the 30 mph repeater signs are being put up, but, again, the law allows—and this isn't a new thing; this is since 2016, I think—flexibility around the placing of repeaters. So, it's quite technical.

Thank you.

Chair—

Very, very briefly, then, because I have other Members wanting to come in.

That has just confused me, so how do I cascade that down to—

Yes, okay—maybe we can ask for a note on that, then, just for clarity, if you're content to reiterate the point on paper.

Yes.

A very brief answer—it is confusing, Janet, because it's a big change, but essentially we've tried to take a pragmatic approach, because local authorities can only do so much in the time available. So, we're on the movement to a default assumption that it's 20 mph unless you see a sign saying 30 mph. In the meantime, there are still some old twenties up from the 20 mph zone period. We didn't think it made sense to pull them down immediately, so we've given authorities time to do that. Similarly, where there are signs on the road that have been spray-painted on, there's a grace period that they have to move those as well, just to try and work within the grain of what's possible with the resources available.

Thank you, Deputy Minister. Jenny.

I want to talk about enforcement, because I've had several constituents contacting me who follow a pattern. These are people who are careful drivers, who've always adhered to speed limits and have known through the 40 or 50 years they've been driving what 30 mph is. Now they're looking obsessively at their speedometer because they don't want to break the law. But they are being aggressively tailgated by people who are neither complying with 20 mph nor 30 mph, and they are making their views very clear in a very dangerous way, because they are passing people at junctions, they are passing people on bends where they can't see round the corner, and they're not adhering to what was a previous 30 mph either. So, at what point are we going to get much more robust with people who are driving dangerously and even more dangerously now than they were before?

Can we give Chris a chance to come in, because we've all dressed up in suits today—[Laughter.]—so it would be a shame for him not to have his chance?

Thank you, Deputy Minister. Well, we're working very closely with the GoSafe partnership, which we fund to the tune of about £2.5 million a year, and we've provided them with some additional funding this year, about £600,000, for roadside engagement, and that's the first phase, if you like, of the enforcement piece, which really recognises that drivers will take some time to get used to this change, and the police will clearly continue to enforce dangerous driving in the way they always have, but there is the option of engagement to help drivers adjust to the new limit. I've been a personal victim of tailgating, as I'm sure many people have, and I know that the police are looking out for that as well, to the extent that they can within their resources, clearly. The GoSafe partnership also has routes for communities and individuals to report behaviour that they've seen, which we can send to the committee if it would be useful, to distribute that—including Community Speedwatch, which I think is a key part of this.

But if they're doing 40 mph in what was a previous 30 mph, surely we should be fining them now.

So, the behavioural search we had done in advance of bringing this in showed there were three categories of people. One they called 'champions', who would stick to 20 mph come what may, because that was the law and they were fully supportive of it; another group, who did not want to comply with the law—and we saw this during the COVID regulations—there are some people who just obdurately will not comply, and you can't do very much to influence them other than to enforce; and then you have a middle group, and those are the ones we are really trying to influence—those who will adjust their behaviour if others are doing so.

So, again, this is going to take a little while to bed in, we're only six weeks in. The evidence already is that people are, generally, adapting their behaviour. So, what we don't want to do is to go in feet first and create conflict. We want human relations to work and for people to adjust, but we're now reaching the stage where the enforcement will begin; we've given people a grace period and we will now start to enforce, but we'll do it in the way we enforce other speed limits, by exceptions.

So, is there a specific timeline for that, then, or is it just sort of see how it goes?

Well, the 'Ugain' campaign is starting now, I think. Kaarina, do you want to say something briefly about that?

Yes, just briefly. So, that's the roadside engagement we were mentioning. So, it's going to be GoSafe working together with the police forces and the fire and rescue services, doing roadside engagement, where drivers who are going over the speed limit are offered the opportunity to come and listen to a presentation there and then rather than having a fine. So, that will be for a period of one year, hopefully. But GoSafe, as such, will return to their normal way of enforcing limits. So, they've given a three-month kind of bedding-in period and, after that, they will start looking at adopting new sites. So, they will continue, and they continue, obviously, enforcing other speed limits in the meantime, and, also, they will be more present in places where they can—they are not necessarily enforcing new twenties, but they might be enforcing on mobile phone use or seat belts, so there will be more coming.

And it's all set out on the GoSafe website. It's quite clear on the approaches.

Thank you. And final question, then, to Delyth.

If those presentations are going to be more of what the Deputy Minister's talked about with the children, I think that's a fantastic idea; so, I'd really like to see more of that. Finally, then, there's been a lot of—. A lot has been made about the costs of the policy, and I know that the methodology that underpins that costing is tricky. Could you talk us through, please, how you'll be evaluating the costs, but also the economic benefits of the policy?

Do you want to talk about that, Phil?

I guess you are perhaps referring to the so-called £4.5 billion cost to the Welsh economy. I mean, that is very much a theoretical figure. Just to explain, that is almost a construct of putting a value on time. What would people pay to get to their destination, or their willingness to pay to get there a little bit earlier? And it's simply an accumulation of 30—or is it even 60, I can't remember now—of very small slices of time, and then putting in this notional value of that and coming up with a figure. It doesn't really represent anything, so it is quite misleading. The real valuation is in terms of—. The cost of it is, yes, £33 million, but what would it have cost to roll out the extent of 20 mph that has happened under the old system—it would have required repeater signs and traffic regulation Orders, and it would have been far, far greater and would have taken far, far longer. So, actually, this is a kind of a one-off cost, very cost-effective, and the real benefits of that is something like a benefit-cost ratio of about over 50 in terms of the reductions in casualties and to the NHS and so on. So, the real economic benefit is very clear. This, if you like, theoretical disbenefit is simply traditional highway economics, and is, we think, inappropriate in this situation, and contrary to emerging Welsh Government policy on transport evaluation generally.

Thank you.

So, is there a point in your mind at which you think that you can meaningfully sort of evaluate that being realised?

It will take some time, and there is—. So, Transport for Wales have set out an evaluation—. They're monitoring. Obviously, it will take time for this to bed down, for the data to come through, but, yes, I mean, the taskforce was very clear: this is a change of certainly national, even global significance. There are very few countries around the world that have done this. So, it is very important that Wales learns lessons from it, and we talked about an up to five-year evaluation process to really understand how this has worked. So, yes, there is a commitment by Welsh Government to do exactly that.

There we are. Okay. That was a short, sharp session. We appreciate, Deputy Minister, that you've been fielding a lot of these questions in other fora as well, but I think it was important for us as a committee to engage with you on this. Clearly, we will keep an interest, as I know you will, in this matter as things evolve and bed in and develop. So, diolch yn fawr iawn to you and your officials for being with us. You will be sent a copy of the draft transcript to check for accuracy, but we really are appreciative of your attendance here this morning. Diolch.

Diolch.

Okay, we will move on to the fifth item, then. We have a number of papers to note. Are Members happy for us to note those collectively? Yes, happy to do that. There we are. Thank you very much.

So, we are now going into private session. So, in accordance with Standing Orders 17.42(vi) and (ix), I propose that the committee resolves to meet in private for the remainder of the meeting. Are Members content? Yes, everyone is content. So, we will wait until we move into private session, then. Thank you.