The following amendments have been selected: amendments 1 and 2 in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

The next item is the debate on the review of designated landscapes in Wales. And I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs to move the motion, Lesley Griffiths.

Motion NDM6321 Jane Hutt

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Notes the publication of the report Future Landscapes: Delivering for Wales.

2. Agrees Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty and National Parks play a vital role:

a) as valued places for nature and providing public and private benefit through a wide range of services; and

b) in the sustainable management of natural resources and supporting vibrant rural communities.

3. Agrees that all landscapes have a special value, as expressed in the sense of ‘bro’, which is at the heart of community identity and the way many people in Wales express their distinct sense of belonging to a particular place.

Motion moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. This debate is about the contribution our areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks make to Wales. Together, they cover nearly a quarter of Wales, and the debate is about how they can, and must, deliver more. All landscapes have a special value to people. They create and sustain a sense of place for our communities, for the people who live and work in them, and for those who visit them.

On 9 May, I published ‘Future Landscapes: Delivering for Wales’, on behalf of the broad partnership that contributed to its development. The publication marks the culmination of the review of designated landscapes, and now paves the way to a new approach for delivery. It builds on the firm platform of environmental legislation we have established, through both the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016.

The review has taken place in two related but distinct phases. The first phase was undertaken by an independent panel, chaired by Professor Terry Marsden. The second phase—a wider partnership approach—chaired by Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas AM, under the title of Future Landscapes Wales, and I would like to place on record my thanks to Dafydd and all the group for their work.

Professor Marsden’s substantial report, and its recommendations, provides a valuable basis for the Future Landscapes Wales programme, which was able to reflect on this initial review at a time when the well-being of future generations Act and the Environment (Wales) Act, had been enshrined in Welsh law. The proposition developed by Future Landscapes Wales sets the designated landscapes on a path to drive the sustainable management of natural resources within their areas, and beyond their current boundaries.

Since the publication of the report, there has been a lot of discussion on the Sandford principle, and it is mentioned in one of the amendments to today’s motion. This principle applies to the existing two purposes of national parks, which are to both conserve and enhance natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage, and to promote opportunities to enjoy the area. The principle emerged from the review of the national parks in 1974, and is now enshrined in the current legislation for national parks through the Environment Act 1995. It requires greater weight be given to the conservation purpose when it appears there is conflict with the recreation purpose. This does not mean the national parks have a primary conservation purpose or a requirement to apply this principle in all decisions.

I am steadfast in my commitment to ensuring areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks continue to be areas valued for their natural beauty, with vibrant, resilient communities, opportunities for outdoor recreation and rich ecosystems.

The Marsden report introduced the idea of a Sandford plus. What the ‘Future Landscapes’ report proposes is to consider an enhanced role for the designated landscapes by moving forward from having narrow competing duties to something much more integrated. At the same time, it suggests the need for the special qualities of these areas to be given greater weight in decision making so as to enhance the very qualities that make them both distinctive and cherished.

We’ve already introduced principles into Welsh law through the Environment (Wales) Act to require our natural resources to be managed in ways that maintain and enhance the resilience of our environment. These firm principles, combined with the proposals by ‘Future Landscapes’, have, I believe, the potential to be a Sandford plus plus.

Wales’s natural resources and ecosystems underpin all aspects of our well-being, including our prosperity, health and culture. We depend on fully functioning natural resources to provide our food, clean water and air, and recreation, and they provide for many tourism businesses. Our first ‘State of Natural Resources Report’ for Wales highlights issues for all ecosystems, in terms of their resilience and the benefits they provide. Now we have the further challenge of the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union, which represents a significant upheaval for the key sectors shaping the use of natural resources. Seventy per cent of tourists to Wales cite enjoying the landscape as their reason for visiting. Other landscapes are special to individuals or communities, reinforcing that sense of belonging to a particular place. Such landscapes include our urban parks as well as our spectacular mountains and estuaries. It is vital these areas, and the way they are managed, play an integral part in the sustainable use of our natural resources as the bedrock of future prosperity and well-being.

‘Future Landscapes’ has been highly collaborative, bringing together a group from diverse and wide-ranging sectors who often hold competing views on what a designated landscape should be about. The Welsh Government approached the review by opening the door to a new and innovative way of developing a strategic agenda for designated landscapes, and I firmly believe the full involvement of partners is essential in delivering a positive response to the challenges identified, even if this is difficult at times. The next step is to deliver on the ambition in the repot, not in isolation, but by strengthening that collaborative approach we’ve been committed to.

I’ve already made a start by consulting on proposals to reduce the administrative costs of national park authorities relating to audit, and the size of the board in the Brecon Beacons. I’ll be making a decision on how to proceed when the consultation closes at the end of this month. I will also consult on whether legislation could usefully be changed to support the recommendations of the report. This consultation will need to consider how great a weight could be given to the importance of these areas and their ecosystems in decision making, and whether governance arrangements should evolve to reflect local circumstances.

Any substantive change to the legislation on national parks will require primary legislation. National parks are devolved matters, and the appropriate place for such legislation to be introduced and scrutinised is in this Assembly. Dafydd will continue his association with Future Landscapes, and his role will be to steer a broad national partnership to take ownership of implementing the priorities. A meeting of the partners is being planned for next month.

The review puts forward a contemporary role for designated landscapes, set within a new Welsh legislative framework, where our designated landscapes are valued not just for their natural beauty, but as thriving, living places supporting vibrant, resilient communities. I very much look forward to Members’ contributions.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. I call on Simon Thomas to move the amendments tabled in the name of Rhun ap Iorwerth.

Amendment 1—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point 3 and renumber accordingly:

Regrets that the report does not deal with the Sandford Principle as set out in the Environment Act 1995.

Amendment 2—Rhun ap Iorwerth

Add as new point at end of motion:

Believes that any change in the legislation governing National Parks should be taken through the Assembly as primary legislation.

Amendments 1 and 2 moved.

Thank you, Llywydd. I’m pleased to see that we have at last reached the point where we have a debate on this long-awaited report, and I look forward to the fact that the hour we have today is only the start of the debate, because, as the Minister has just outlined, we need to consult more broadly on these issues, and we will need some discussion of them too.

I’m sure like many other Members, I've received over 300 e-mails to date expressing concerns about certain aspects of the report. I believe that the problem we have, perhaps just at the beginning of the debate, is that there are so many stakeholders who have been described by the Minister as part of the process, who obviously feel that they aren't part of the process. I do think that we need to tackle that first of all. I look forward to hearing what the outcome and result of the next meeting of this group will be—which I assume will be chaired, from what the Minister has said, by the Assembly Member Dafydd Elis-Thomas.

There are two Plaid Cymru amendments that just seek to cast some light on these issues that will need to be resolved and where decisions will need to be taken. In proposing these two amendments, we in no way undermine the need to discuss these issues. I think it’s important that we bear in mind that the different pieces of legislation behind the establishment of the national parks and the AONBs derived from a pre-devolution period. It's quite appropriate that we look at the principles and the approach to landscape conservation. I believe that the landscape that I live in is as important to me as the landscape of any national park, and it's important that we see that reflected throughout the whole of Wales.

Therefore, legislation should be reviewed, and certainly in light of devolution, and in light of the environment Act and the well-being of future generations Act, there is an opportunity now to see what the role of the national parks and the AONBs should be in terms of how we develop our nation and use our natural resources. So, in that context, we welcome the fact that this work is being done and is to continue.

It is a fact that there is a principle, as has been mentioned by the Minister—the Sandford principle—that has been encapsulated in the Environment Act 1995, which is referred to in our first amendment, and that needs to be discussed, we need to take a decision on it, and we need to ensure that everyone is content with the direction of travel for the future. Certainly, at the moment, not all conservation bodies, and not all mountaineering organisations, or those using the landscape for leisure purposes, are content with the debate as it's been at the moment.

We've moved from the Marsden report that discussed this principle and wanted, if anything, to promote it, to a paper that doesn't discuss the principle at all, but takes an entirely different approach to these issues. At some point, we need to reconcile these two things.

The second amendment simply restates the legal point, and I'm sure that the Minister would agree that any change to the governing principles of the national parks would need primary legislation in this place. The purpose of the amendment, quite simply, is to provide that assurance to those people who are following the debate, and take an interest in the report, and take an interest in the beautiful landscapes of Wales that there will be a thorough debate in committee, in Plenary and by all stakeholders before we change legislation.

There has been quite a bit of response to this report, after it was published, from people who had misunderstood the report and thought that this change was to happen today, in this debate—that’s not the fact. We are hopefully starting a national debate on the role of the beautiful landscapes of Wales—the landscapes that everyone in Wales has a right to access, namely the landscape that they live in, and the fact that we need to see development that is in-keeping with our landscapes to ensure that we have viable communities in all parts of Wales and we don’t turn any part of Wales into some sort of community held in aspic. Nobody wants to see that.

But, the challenge facing Government is encapsulated for me in a response that I received from RSPB Cymru, which I am going to quote to close, because it does underline how difficult some of the discussions we will need to have are. I’ll quote in English, as I received it. It goes like this:

Ein pryder dwysaf yw bod yr adroddiad yn argymell yn ddiamwys yr angen i greu deddfau newydd a fydd yn rhoi diben newydd i Barciau Cenedlaethol ac AHNE, a hyd yn oed yn waeth na hynny, mae'n cyflwyno hyn fel barn y gweithgor.

And that’s the point I want to emphasise.

Yn sicr, nid dyma farn RSPB Cymru ac nid ydym yn credu mai dyna oedd barn y gweithgor ychwaith. Nid oedd y grŵp yn nodi amcanion cyfreithiol cyfredol y tirweddau a ddynodwyd fel prif rwystr i reoli ein hadnoddau naturiol mewn modd cynaliadwy, ond cynigiodd y grŵp yn hytrach y dylid canolbwyntio ar ddefnyddio'r fframweithiau a amlinellir gan Ddeddf yr Amgylchedd a Deddf Lles Cenedlaethau'r Dyfodol. Nid oes gennym gof i’r grŵp drafod cynnig newydd Llywodraeth Cymru i ddeddfu ar y dibenion ... mewn unrhyw fanylder o gwbl. Mae hyn yn golygu ein bod yn teimlo nad yw’r adroddiad a gyhoeddwyd yn cynrychioli ein safbwyntiau ni yn gywir.... Rydym yn anfodlon, felly, fod barn Llywodraeth Cymru bod angen deddfwriaeth newydd yn cael ei phortreadu o hyd fel bod wedi’i chymeradwyo gan y grŵp.

I quote that just to demonstrate that there is a great deal of discussion yet to be had on these issues.

Can I just say that we are content to note the report, and we do hope it starts a process of policy development that protects our designated landscapes while seeing their wider economic, cultural and social potential being extended? I think that’s an appropriate way to go forward.

The report sets out a new proposition for designated landscapes to go beyond their current purposes of conservation and amenity, but it does this, as we’ve heard, without any restatement of the Sandford principle, unlike the Marsden report, and this has turned out to be quite controversial. Indeed, in its vision statement, the report does not mention conservation at all and, again, I think although some may say we’ve moved on to wider, more inclusive concepts and vocabulary, I still think conservation is an important one. As it states its current vision,

‘Wales as a nation values its landscapes for what they provide for the people of Wales and elsewhere. The designated landscapes of Wales deliver both within and beyond their boundaries to enhance their social, economic, environmental and cultural resources; delivering the maximum well-being benefits for present and future generations whilst enhancing the very qualities that make them both distinctive and cherished.’

Now, you can infer conservation from that, I do accept, but I do think it would have settled the nerve of many people in this time of change if we’d actually mentioned conservation directly. The report quickly goes on to draw on what it considers to be the crux of the Marsden report, namely, and I quote again,

‘to “promote” the current National Park duty to have regard for the socio-economic well-being of the area into one of its purposes, and to apply these same purposes to AONBs.’

While there’s nothing wrong with this approach, it needs to be balanced, in my view, by the Sandford principle, and a clear expression of the value of conservation. Now, I did hear what the Minister said in her opening address to us in this debate, and she did refer to Sandford and even invent or describe something that she wants to call ‘Sandford plus, plus’. I don’t have great problems with you extending the range of things that are now expressed as being within the purview of the purposes, but, at the minute, conservation is the primary purpose. That is what the Sandford principle means. You do have to ask yourself when there’s a clash with one of the other purposes—often there isn’t a clash, but when there is, conservation has primacy in governance, and you do have to ask yourself—‘What’s the point of designating landscapes if that conservation principle isn’t at their heart?’ They would be just like every other landscape otherwise, which would gain extensive protection from legislation, I grant you, but to make them special areas, I think, does imply that we think this concept is very important and conservation is at its heart.

I don’t think there’s a great problem with achieving the balance that the Government and the report—and I do thank Dafydd Elis-Thomas for producing this work with his group. The concepts of green growth and the circular economy, as well as building on very useful legislative foundations like the environment Act and the well-being of future generations Act, I think, will lead us to a general consensus, but it isn’t there yet and I think Simon is quite right in pointing that out. And we’ve all received extensive representations. We’re at the start of this debate, I realise that, but I think it’s important that the Welsh Government does identify the need to make a clear statement. Sandford has been the cornerstone since the 1970s and I think you need to make your view very clear on that. I think conservation is at the heart of these areas being highly popular tourist destinations, as well as recreational areas of outstanding popularity, with three quarters of us visiting a national park at least once a year.

Can I just conclude by talking about governance participation and accountability? I’m pleased that these issues are being addressed because it is necessary and I refer also to the International Union for Conservation of Nature and the principles for effective governance that have been produced. These principles look at dialogue, voice, participation and consensus-seeking as important and I do believe that they need to be at the heart of some of the developments. My one criticism so far of these reports is that that call for voice, dialogue, et cetera, has not really looked enough at local communities and citizens. It rather looks at organisations and layers of Government and I do think we need to look at communities and their citizens.

Can I say that whilst we’ll support the motion, we do also support the two amendments? If there is any legislative change, then I think it does need to come through primary legislation. I was pleased to hear the Minister’s reassurance on that. But, of course, what is a major legislative change does itself need to be pinned down and I wouldn’t like to see smaller changes amounting to a big change, but then being conducted via or achieved through secondary legislation. I do think it needs to come back here if there is a major shift in policy for primary law making. Thank you.

Could I add my voice to those expressing the very obvious value that the people of Wales and, indeed, far beyond Wales, put on our great outdoors? It’s obviously very important in many ways to our country and we’re very lucky to have such an attractive landscape and, indeed, seascape. It’s obviously very important to tourism, to activity tourism as part of that, and to the general quality of life, well-being, and physical and mental health that the people of Wales enjoy, in part because of the value of our countryside, our variety of scenery and everything that brings to our daily lives. So, I don’t think any of us, or any of the people of Wales, would be in any doubt as to the value of our great outdoors and, as part of that, of course, particularly for today’s debate, the designated landscapes.

I think it is really important that we modernise our approach to these matters, as we’ve heard already, because important though the designated landscapes are, there is much that’s developed in recent years that values the sustainable development approach in terms of all of Wales, and, of course, there are many wonderful parts of our country outside the designated landscapes. I know it will be a major part of Welsh Government work, and the work of other organisations in this field, going forward, to understand that wider approach. But, nonetheless, of course, the designated landscapes have been and are recognised as being particularly valuable because of the quality of the landscape and the seascape and what they have to offer. That value applies to sustainable development and all the strands. So, it’s very, very important obviously for the economy, for social life in Wales and for the environment.

So, in that context, I do believe it’s very, very important that we take note of the concerns that we’ve already heard mentioned here today, and all of us have received a lot of communication expressing those concerns. Obviously, I think there has been, perhaps, some lack of adequate communication somewhere along the line for that level of concern to develop. So, I very much welcome what the Cabinet Secretary said about a consultation exercise from this point on, and I know many of the organisations have talked about the need for that to be a very full consultation indeed and to very much address this issue around the Sandford principle that, where there is irreconcilable difference between the purposes of making sure that we retain that natural beauty of landscape and seascape and also promote the enjoyment of our designated landscapes, where there is that conflict, then we ensure that retaining the natural beauty of landscape and seascape takes priority. So, I’m sure that will be an important part of the exercise moving forward, and I know the Cabinet Secretary will have heard what has been said today and the views that we’ve all received.

I also think that, in terms of Marsden as a piece of work, Llywydd, obviously it was very thorough and I think the process was strong, and it was clear and detailed. So, now when we have the further work that Dafydd Elis-Thomas’s group has produced, we see it in terms of, again, as I think the Cabinet Secretary set it out, building on the work of Marsden and looking at those pieces of work in totality, because Marsden obviously still has set the scene for the way that we move forward, and does have, I think, that clarity and detail and the process behind it that I think was valued, and still is.

So, I do believe it’s very important, Llywydd, that we give the fullest consideration to how we move forward. We do have the new legislation, the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, on how we manage our resources in a sustainable way in Wales; we have the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. They set the scene and they set the up-to-date context, but we also have this important work by Marsden and Dafydd’s group to take that forward and add to the context. But I must say that I do believe, in looking at the long-term approach that is so important to the well-being of future generations, that protecting our seascape and our landscape for future generations is entirely in accordance with the well-being of future generations Act, and I see no conflict between that at all. And I hope very much that what we see emerging from the various strands of work that have taken place, and will take place, is ensuring that we take all the bodies with a vital interest in these matters with us as an integral part of that process.

First of all, shall I say that we will be supporting this motion? But, if, as it appears, the purpose of the ‘Future Landscapes’ report is to form a basis upon which any new legislation on our national parks will be made, the first question we must therefore ask is: why does the Welsh Government see a need for such legislation? The report seems to imply that the need for new legislation to control what we refer to as national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty is a given fact. The report also implies that many of the boards and interested parties who currently administer or work under the existing regulations are in agreement with this general principle, and that there has been broad agreement with the report’s recommendations by these interested parties.

However, and echoing other contributors to this debate, I’ve received many e-mails from involved organisations and individuals that this does not seem to be the case. One glaring omission pointed out by a number, if not all, of these correspondents is that the report contains no reference to the Sandford principle. This seems particularly remiss given that this principle is regarded as the cornerstone of protection policy for all national parks and AONBs. It also seems to ignore recommendations of the Marsden report, which advised that the protection of our national parks should be extended, not diminished.

The Sandford principle states that where irreconcilable conflicts exist between conservation and public enjoyment then conservation should take priority. This would, of course, also apply to any and all development proposals in our national parks. If any new legislation seeks to put aside this fundamental principle then that legislation should come under the most rigorous scrutiny.

Given the huge potential impact any new legislation would have on national parks and, indeed, on the environment in Wales in general, I believe that there should be no such legislation affecting the core purpose of our national parks until full public consultation has taken place, and further that the Sandford principle should remain the cornerstone of any new legislation affecting the Welsh national parks and AONBs.

I am fortunate enough to represent part of Snowdonia National Park, a distinctive area in terms of landscape, nature and way of life. As well as being one of the most beautiful places on earth, Snowdonia is also home to 26,000 people, many of whom work in the park from day to day.

In recent years, there has been explosive growth in one part of the economy in the area, namely outdoor tourism. According to one study, this sector contributed more than £480 million to the Welsh economy. In terms of Snowdonia, expanding the outdoor sector is a cornerstone of Gwynedd’s economic strategy, given that it’s recognised as one of a number of growth sectors in the area, and the emphasis is on promoting business opportunities for local young people.

It is an economic activity entirely in keeping with the two statutory purposes of a national park, namely, as we’ve heard, conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife and cultural heritage of the areas, and promoting opportunities for the public to understand and enjoy the special characteristics of their areas. As we’ve heard, in the event of conflict between these two statutory purposes, the national park authority must give priority to the Sandford principle. That’s the situation at present.

Evidently, this principle is vital to many—certainly to many who have contacted me over the past few days. And many of those are perplexed that there is no reference to this principle in the report being discussed today. It is entirely appropriate to review the purpose of the designated areas, of course, and this was done under the guidance of Professor Terry Marsden, and then came the publication of ‘Future Landscapes’ in May. It is good to have the debate, but, of course, the problem is that the Sandford principle is missing from the current report, which is a mistake in my opinion. By failing to address one of the central tenets of the designated landscapes as they currently stand, the report is inadequate, and it has succeeded in annoying a large number of partners involved with the national parks, perhaps unnecessarily, and these are the exact partners whose collaboration is needed in moving forward in this debate. It has also generated concern among my constituents in Arfon, with people feeling that a great change was afoot, that Snowdonia may be about to change for ever, and that the uniqueness of the park was under threat. To allay these concerns, it is important that Plaid Cymru’s amendments are passed today. We have to have clarity, detailed scrutiny, and a full consultation on the future of our parks and our designated landscapes.

I would like to thank all the constituents who have contacted me to air their concerns. I would like to be able to go back to them and say that the Assembly has accepted Plaid’s amendments, and that the Assembly recognises the need for a full and transparent debate if there is any intention to review the purpose of such an iconic place as Snowdonia national park.

As well as extolling two statutory purposes, Snowdonia National Park has added a third purpose, namely fostering the economic and social well-being of its communities. This is a vital purpose, in my opinion. Snowdonia is an area steeped in local history and culture, and more than half of the population speaks Welsh.

To close, therefore, a full consultation is needed nationally, but we also need a consultation with the local population and the relevant bodies about all the issues—the need to conserve and enhance, certainly, and yes, the Sandford principle, but also the need to foster the economic well-being of communities in these areas.

With three national parks, and four and a half areas of outstanding natural beauty, designated landscapes account for 25 per cent of our nation, and I would like to also pay tribute to the officers and staff at Snowdonia National Park, much of which lies within my constituency of Aberconwy also, for their hard work and tremendous efforts to protect and upkeep our spectacular areas, our ‘crown jewels’ as they’re often referred to. Reading between the lines of this report, though, I do question the fundamentals of two particular omissions. The basic omission of the word ‘conservation’ has given me great concern, and has certainly been raised with me by many living within the community of Aberconwy, and, as many Members here have said, the fact that the Sandford principle has no mention. With any report that’s ever written, people look for what’s not said equally as much as what is stated there, and this causes me concern. Certainly, this has caused and alarmed many within my own community, many who use the national park, many of our volunteer groups, such as the Snowdonia Society, and they are calling for the Welsh Government—and I support these calls—to defend the proper protection, management, and resources for the designated landscapes to ensure that conservation and quiet enjoyment of the special qualities of the designated areas remain central to their purpose, to ensure that the Sandford principle is retained to secure protection from inappropriate development, hold a full public consultation before making any changes to the purposes of designated landscapes, and to revisit the Marsden report and its recommendations. These are vital given that one of the express purposes of the designation of national parks under the Environment Act 1995 is to conserve and enhance the natural beauty, wildlife and heritage. As noted by this report, the 2015 Marsden review mentioned the promotion of sustainable forms of economic and community development based on the management of natural resources and the cultural heritage of the area. In addition, however, recommendation 7 of that same, again, called for the Sandford principle to be applied across all of our designated landscapes, to include areas of outstanding natural beauty. I put it to you, Cabinet Secretary: you should make it clear that here today you will recognise the importance of conservation, protection, and, of course, the Sandford principle to be applied across all the designated landscapes. I’m not sure, really, what Sandford plus will mean to all the people who have written in on e-mails to me. Make your position here clear.

Certainly, we will be strongly supporting both amendments today. To protect, conserve, enhance, and support our natural landscapes comes at a cost, and it is fair to say that there is a general thinking within my own constituency that, before devolution, Snowdonia National Park was regarded by the Government as the jewel in the crown of UK national parks, but now seems to be far less highly regarded by this Government.

As we enjoy an increased global profile as a tourism destination, depleted budgets mean tough decisions for our national parks, all of which come at the cost of our environmental and visitor safety. A 19 per cent budget cut since 2011, annually—yet, in England, with Government support, they have secured until 2020 annual increases of 1.7 per cent. So, it shows who values their national parks. So, we should be alarmed that the average cost of park authorities’ external audits as a percentage of their income stands at 0.82 per cent in Wales, disproportionately more than 0.2 per cent in England and 0.16 per cent in Scotland. I therefore welcome the commitment to reduce the regulatory burden of audit on national parks. But I ask also for a Welsh Government commitment to secure in-budget settlements in advance, and not not knowing what they have—you know, months that they’ve got to then plan for for the following year. They need their budget assertions and knowing what they’re going to get long before that.

Llywydd, the Marsden review called for the national landscapes of Wales to be valued by the nation as important factories of well-being, to be supported, to be protected, and to continue their role of improving the lives of current and future generations, and for their special qualities to be maintained, enhanced, and widely appreciated, and I support those calls.

In contributing to this debate, can I just begin by thanking Dafydd and his working group for the work that they have done? This is not an easy pathway to follow, and to bring forward different interests, sometimes competing interests, but to get them onto the same page—and I think the Minister has said in her opening remarks that this is part of a journey, going forward. There will need to be further dialogue and consultation, and I welcome that. But I do want to thank Dafydd for the work he and his group have done, also the predecessor report, the so-called Marsden report as well, which was different, but covered some of the same ground. By the way, there is—people haven’t mentioned it today, but there is some welcome stuff within this report that Dafydd and his working group have produced, and I’ll turn to that in a moment. But I do want to thank this Assembly and the Government for having the courage to actually look at this.

Before I remind people of why we need to look at this issue of governance and how we take this forward within Wales, eight years ago, I stood on a platform in the South Downs and we announced the opening of a national park, the South Downs National Park, the great unfinished business of the 1946 national parks Act. It was the one closest to the big urban population of London and Brighton and so on, and we never quite got round to it, but we did it. I spoke there as the mechanic behind the scenes about how we were doing the governance of it and the difficulties of bringing together local authorities and competing groups, and we’d managed to do it. I did all of this, and there was polite applause, and then Hilary Benn, the Secretary of State, got up and he spoke with joy and poetry about what the national parks were all about, and he wowed everybody.

So, in beginning this, I’m just going to say—and it’s interesting, this. This is from Iolo Morganwg, one of the great Glamorgan poets, in his ‘Hymn to Health’, when he was recovering from a serious and possibly terminal illness. It was his ode, if you like, the ‘Hymn to Health’, and he says, in a little extract:

‘Through dewy dales and waving groves, / The vernal breeze unruffled roves.

‘Delicious Health!’—

I exclaim that, because it’s got an exclamation mark after it—

‘I range the vale, / And breathe once more thy balmy gale; / ‘Scap’d from the wrathful fangs of pain, / I view, rejoic’d, thy skies again.’

Well, he could have been anticipating the future generations and well-being Act, or the factories of well-being referred to in these reports, and the other, many, multiple public goods that we get from the natural environment and that both reports say—[Interruption.] Both reports actually say we need to do more to spread, in a social equity way, the benefits that come from these as well.

Just in passing, one of the things I welcome in Dafydd’s report, and its predecessor, is its recognition that this is not just to do with nationally designated landscapes. I get as much joy and as much health and physical well-being from standing on the Devil’s Pulpit on the Bwlch mountain in Ogmore, looking down Ogmore valley, as I do from standing on Pen y Fan or Snowdon top. I have to say it. This report deals with that, and it talks about that working beyond boundaries—the importance of these national designated authorities working beyond their boundaries, not for there to be a line drawn artificially on the map and that’s where the responsibilities lie, but how do we actually extend the benefits that come from all of our landscapes, right across all of our populations.

It talks within Dafydd’s report about innovations in resourcing. We need to be serious about this, because, despite the contribution just now, all our national parks and all our designated areas, right across the UK, have faced cuts, year after year. So, we need to have more innovations in resourcing.

It talks about improving accountability and performance, about driving well-being and about wider sustainability and green growth. In answer to the query that was set a moment ago of, ‘Why do we need to do this?’, I refer you back to Professor Marsden’s earlier report, where he says his panel had

‘found that a fresh approach to the purposes and governance of Wales’ designated landscapes is overdue…for at least three reasons’.

He addressed

‘the scale and complexity of the environmental challenges’ and he referred to climate change, as well as our loss of biodiversity, as different from what it was in the last century. He referred to how

‘the relative spatial and social inequalities in well being, health, education and access to outdoor recreation demand far more from the designated landscapes’ and others. It’s not good enough, I’m sorry, to have certain types of people going in their cars and visiting our designated—and I say this as somebody who was born on the Gower, the first-ever AONB in the whole of Great Britain. It’s not good enough to have only certain people visiting and getting the health and well-being benefits. They need to be available to everybody, and that means spreading this beyond those nationally designated areas.

He finally says that

‘these areas need to be the home of far more vibrant rural communities, where the young can be retained, trained and attracted by sustainable homes and jobs.’

But I would say to the Minister, as others have done, it is worth, in the good parts that are within the report that’s now come forward, to return and look at Marsden’s report—not least recommendation 6, where it lays out three new statutory roles that would underpin, to do with conservation, human well-being and sustainable resource management. It says this should be the ‘Sandford plus’ approach. Have a look at that as we take this forward and debate this in dialogue, get the groups involved, continuing on the work that Dafydd and others have done, and let’s get to a good place where everybody is signed up to a different way of governance within Wales.

I was going to intervene on Huw Irranca-Davies, so I’m glad I’ve had the opportunity to speak, actually. I agree that it is time for us to be reviewing the purpose of our designated landscapes and reviewing the strength of the protections that are embodied in those at the moment. I mean, it’s not so long ago that we were standing here talking about the national parks and the opacity of their governance arrangements, for example, so it is quite right that these matters are reviewed. The paper, even in its early consultation stages, raised a few questions for me. If I’m right in thinking that one of the purposes of this paper is to jolt our national parks in particular out of their silo thinking, and perhaps to influence the use of landscapes outside their boundaries, for me, I’m wondering if that’s your ‘Sandford plus plus’, Cabinet Secretary. Because my understanding of that is that it would probably have protected Mynydd y Gwair, which of course is a famous bridge between the Brecon Beacons National Park and the Gower area of outstanding natural beauty. If it isn’t intended to do that, perhaps you would explain to me what it is intending to do. Because, of course, there is a risk that this could work the other way, and that it would leave designated landscapes more vulnerable to the incursion of disproportionately intrusive infrastructure in the name of green growth.

On that, I do actually recognise something that you’ve said in the paper about beefing up the duty on planners and developers to have due regard to the purposes of the designations of various sites. But if those designations are going to be much broader in their purpose—and I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be, but if they are going to be—how can Government ensure that the purpose that builds in protection for the integrity of landscapes isn’t then diluted to a point where the stronger due regard duty becomes irrelevant, it becomes meaningless, or indeed, even might become an agent of negative change? And when I say ‘negative’, that would be in the eyes of some people whose sense of identity, as you acknowledge in your paper, is so firmly bound up with the landscape that they inhabit.

Your first principles of governance—David Melding mentioned a few of these—include words like ‘participation’, ‘voice’, ‘acceptance in society’, ‘representation’ and ‘consensus’. I’m wondering if that’s—I hope it is—a hint that you might be paving the way here for the repeal of TAN 8, because TAN 8, in all cases that I can think of, has trumped any attempt to rely on those concepts at the moment.

Finally, just briefly, I notice it took until the last page of the narrative in the document to mention the concept of the UNESCO biosphere, and of course we have an amazing exemplar of that in the Dyfi valley—even though the fact that it’s a biosphere is underused in its potential in terms of tourism. On which, incidentally, I’m very glad to see the u-turn on the branding issues regarding national parks and AONB, because I think the earlier discussions, a couple of years ago, about changing the name, were completely counterproductive. So, I’m curious—I don’t know if you’ll have time to address this, Cabinet Secretary—about how much of your vision that is embodied in the document we’ve read today is based on those principles of a UNESCO biosphere. Because, certainly, my family that lives in that biosphere would recommend it as a way of looking forward to how we deal with this—I don’t think it will be that easy—balance between protecting the environment and expanding its purposes.

Like everybody else who’s spoken in this debate this afternoon, I strongly support the Sandford principles, although I do take the point that the Cabinet Secretary made in her speech that these beautiful parts of our countryside must be thriving and living places, and inevitably there are going to be conflicts of policies and conflicts of interest, which have to be reconciled somehow. I do think, as David Melding and others following him, and my colleague David Rowlands, have said: what is the point of designating areas as being of outstanding natural beauty or as national parks, if not to give precedence to the principle of conservation? That is the founding principle upon which the initial legislation was introduced, with all-party support, which has been sustained even to this day. But I also—following from Huw Irranca-Davies—would like to congratulate Dafydd Elis-Thomas and his working group on producing this excellent report, which does, I think, provide us with an evenly balanced view of the way forward.

I’d just like to refer to a couple of the provisions that he mentions in his report, in particular on page 8, where he refers to the sustainable management of natural resources and the need to reflect a broad understanding of the importance of these areas and their ecosystems, and that they need to be given greater weight in decision taking. And then, again, on page 17:

‘the need for better policy integration and increased understand of how designated landscapes can positively engage in the agenda’, in particular in relation to developing

‘sustainable land management schemes tailored to an area to replace or complement existing agri-environment payments, including working with clusters of land managers’.

Now, there are two issues that I want to refer to, briefly, in the course of this speech, following on from those general principles. We’ve had these debates in the Assembly before, in particular in relation to the intrusion of pylons and windmills into the landscapes of national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty and the countryside in general. I believe that we ought to have a sense of proportion here, although I don’t share the enthusiasm of the overwhelming Members of this Assembly for most of the green measures that have been introduced in recent years. I don’t want to enter into a debate on the general principles of that, but I’ll just say that the contribution to the defeat of global warming—if that is possible—that can be made by windmills in these areas must be so negligible as, if you have a sense of proportion, surely, to require placing the interests of conservation before the interests of environmental policy. Because bearing in mind what’s happening in the rest of the world, with India and China between them building another 800 new coal-fired power stations, what use is it to desecrate our wild places in Wales in order to make such a minute contribution towards the reduction of carbon dioxide emissions that it can have no practicable effect on the climate whatsoever? So, I would make a plea in this instance, even for those who take a very different view to me on man-made global warming, to make an exception to the general approach in order to protect our wild areas in mid Wales, north Wales and west Wales in particular.

The second point that I want to make is one to which I hope we will return in due course, namely the wilding of the hills of Wales, following on from the EU habitats directives, as a result of which we’ve seen a catastrophic increase in most predators and therefore declines towards sometimes extinction of many vulnerable prey species. I believe that leaving the EU gives us an opportunity, as environment is obviously one of the devolved issues and gives us the power in this Assembly, to take a very different approach to the one that has been adopted hitherto. We’ve seen a rise in rank and unpalatable grasses infested with ticks, and as a result of unburnt, mature heather, that also becomes infested with heather beetle. Out-of-control bracken has created sterile landscapes that are unsafe both for tourists and walkers, and also vectors of Lyme disease. So, I think we’ve got to reconsider the way in which we look at these areas of the countryside. We must ensure, as the Cabinet Secretary has said, that they do remain thriving environments in which people work as well as live and, in particular, visit. So, I do believe that there is more of a superficial conflict between these different strands of policy than exists in reality if we apply a proper sense of proportion to them. But the key element is to give the Sandford principle the overriding support that it needs.

I have the huge privilege of having a home in a national park, in St Davids, and there’s nothing like waking up in the morning and seeing that coastline in front of you. But there are limitations in living in a national park, particularly in terms of construction. It’s a function and a responsibility of national parks to ensure that there is a balance between retaining the beauty of the countryside and enabling the local population to live there. That’s something that needs to be dealt with sensitively.

Nawr, bydd llawer ohonoch yn gwybod fy mod i ar hyn o bryd, ynghyd â thîm o fusnesau a sefydliadau llwyddiannus yng nghefn gwlad Cymru, yn ceisio datblygu cynllun datblygu economaidd ar gyfer Cymru wledig. Yr hyn a oedd yn amlwg oedd ei bod yn bwysig i ni gael cynrychiolydd o'r parciau cenedlaethol ar y grŵp hwnnw, a hynny oherwydd bod gan y parciau cenedlaethol, wrth gwrs, gyfrifoldeb i warchod harddwch yn y dirwedd y maen nhw’n ei gweinyddu, ond mae ganddynt hefyd, fel yr awdurdodau cynllunio , gyfrifoldeb i fod yn rhan o'r ateb i ddatblygiad economaidd yng Nghymru wledig, ac nid, fel y maent wedi eu portreadu yn y gorffennol, yn rhwystr iddo.

Rwyf eisiau bod yn glir: rwy’n deall mai prif gyfrifoldeb parc cenedlaethol, yn unol â Deddf yr Amgylchedd 1995, yw yn gyntaf oll gwarchod a gwella harddwch naturiol, bywyd gwyllt a threftadaeth ddiwylliannol parciau cenedlaethol. Yn ail, eu tasg yw hyrwyddo cyfleoedd ar gyfer dealltwriaeth a mwynhad o nodweddion arbennig y Parc gan y cyhoedd. Ac yn drydydd, ac yn bwysig, yr elfen sy'n cael ei hanghofio yn aml yw bod gan barciau cenedlaethol hefyd y ddyletswydd honno i feithrin llesiant economaidd a chymdeithasol eu cymunedau lleol. Nawr, yr hyn nad oeddwn yn ei ddeall tan yn ddiweddar yw nad yw honno ond yn ddyletswydd i'r graddau y mae'n ymwneud â gwarchod harddwch a hyrwyddo mwynhad o'r parc. Roedd gen i ddiddordeb mawr mewn clywed Siân Gwenllian yn siarad am yr hyn sy'n digwydd yn Eryri. Byddai gen i ddiddordeb mewn cael gwybod sut y maen nhw’n llwyddo i ysgaru llesiant economaidd a chymdeithasol oddi wrth y ddau beth hynny, gan nad wyf yn deall sut y mae hynny'n cyd-fynd â Deddf yr Amgylchedd 1995. Byddai’n ddiddorol gwybod— [Torri ar draws.] Rwy'n credu ar hyn o bryd bod y cyfyngiad yno, ac rwy'n credu ei bod yn bwysig ei fod yn gyfyngiad cryf o ran eu galluoedd cynllunio.

Will the Member give way?

Of course, yes.

I think the point that Sian Gwenllian—she can speak for herself, but the point I understood her to make very clearly was that Snowdonia has taken the need for living and vibrant communities in their area and applied that within the principles that are in legislation, and has been successful.

My understanding, certainly from Pembrokeshire Coast National Park, is that they can only promote economic and social development of the area if it’s in relation to points 1 and 2. That’s what I’ve been told very clearly, so if you’re able to do that differently, I’d be very interested to understand how.

Unless we create sustainable communities where people can live and work, there’ll be nobody to look after and serve the incredible number of visitors who bring so much wealth into these communities, but also to serve the people who live there. Where will the carers of those who live in national parks be able to live if there’s no affordable housing available for them to live in?

Now, one of the problems that national parks face at the moment is that there’s a lack of clarity between the responsibilities of the 1995 Environment Act, the responsibilities of adhering to the Sandford principles, and adhering to the seven goals of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. I hope that’s what will happen now in the next phase—that there’ll be a better legal framework for these national parks to be able to adhere to those three areas that they need to.

I think that we should, of course, keep to those Marsden recommendations, which would allow economic development to occur—yes, even in national parks, if, of course, the development is done sympathetically, with a view to the ecology and natural beauty of the area, and if it helps to support services and employment for people who have lived in the area for a number of years. For example, in years to come we’re going to have to provide adequate accommodation for older people. That’s why one of the main recommendations in our rural economic development plan will be that we need to try and build eco-homes for older people—yes, even within national parks. It has been done in Pembrokeshire. It is possible, it’s possible to do it tastefully, and these projects have provided local jobs and enhanced local supply chains, allowing younger people to stay in the parks. We mustn’t forget that these national parks are living places. There’s a residential population of over 80,000 people. We need to make life easy for the people working there so we don’t lose more young people to the bright lights of the cities.

Now, national parks make up around 20 per cent of the land area of Wales. They cannot and must not be pickled in aspic. They need to be vibrant communities where different generations can live and work, and, of course, we must do that as far as possible whilst preserving the beauty of the environment.

I call on the Cabinet Secretary to reply to the debate—Lesley Griffiths.

Diolch, Llywydd. I’d like to thank all Members who’ve taken part in this debate and I will try and respond to many of the points raised. The substantial work undertaken, firstly by Professor Terry Marsden and his panel and then subsequently by Lord Dafydd Elis-Thomas and the working group, now positions the designated landscapes in a role that I think can help address increasingly complex environmental challenges, inequalities in well-being and health, and create vibrant and resilient rural communities, as Eluned Morgan has just referred to.

I want to reiterate again, in the strongest possible terms, I and the Welsh Government remain committed to conserving and enhancing the natural beauty, wildlife, and cultural heritage of national parks and AONBs. I have to say, you would think it was my report, the way some Members have spoken; it isn’t my report, it is the report of the group.

Wales has set out bold ambitions in the recent well-being of future generations and the environment Acts and this provides the framework for the sustainable management of natural resources and the path to resilient ecosystems, which are key to increasing economic, cultural, and environmental benefits.

If I can just turn to the two amendments from Plaid Cymru. We will not be supporting the first amendment. I’ve no wish to undermine the deliberations and report of the Future Landscapes working group—and, in fairness, Simon Thomas said the same: he didn’t want to undermine it—through and amendment that regrets how they have dealt with the Sandford principle. I don’t think it’s clear in the amendment whether this principle should be maintained or not. I know, in your comments, that’s certainly the message that’s come through, but I don’t think the amendment specified that.

We will be supporting the second amendment. I’ve said in my opening remarks, and I hope it’s very clear to everybody, that any substantive change to the legislation on national parks will require primary legislation. They are devolved matters and the appropriate place for that legislation is here.

Will the Minister give way?

Yes.

Just for clarification, I understand what she said about our first amendment, but the first amendment is really designed to ensure we have that debate, which we’ve started here today, I accept, but it’s not resolved yet, and I think the Minister might be a little too complacent about just how resolved this is.

No, I’m not complacent at all, and I hope, in my opening remarks, I made that very clear. I will come back to the Sandford principle because, obviously, several Members have raised that in their contributions.

If I can start with Simon Thomas’s contribution: you specifically mentioned about RSPB Cymru, who were represented on the working group. Other people have said to me that it does reflect—they’re the only people who have said it doesn’t reflect the report. So, on the basis that you can’t please all the people all the time, you know, it is very unfortunate that the RSPB feel that way and I think that’s something that we need to discuss further with them.

David Melding referred again to the Sandford principle. We’ve now introduced legislation in Wales with our own principles, to ensure that our natural resources are managed in ways that maintain and enhance the resilience of our environment, and that’s absolutely the bedrock for environmental policy in Wales and that really should build on AONBs and our national parks.

John Griffiths, you were the only person to mention seascapes. You’re absolutely right, it is about all our landscapes and the work that will be undertaken going forward.

David Rowlands asked why there is a need for legislation. Well, this emerged from the process that was established to consider this. You also wrongly asserted that Sandford relates to new development and that, I think, is what’s triggered the level of correspondence that we’ve all received and why they say they’re not supported. But as I said in my answer to David Melding, we have our own principles here in Wales.

Sian Gwenllian talked about Snowdonia and, again, her concerned belief that parks were under threat. Well, that hasn’t come from the Welsh Government. Again, I hope I’ve reiterated that in my comments.

Janet Finch-Saunders referred to Snowdonia. As a north Walian, Snowdonia is incredibly dear to me, and it’s incredibly dear to the Welsh Government. I go back to what I just said to Sian Gwenllian: I don’t know where this has come from but it hasn’t come from Welsh Government. Sadly, we’re not in a position to protect national park budgets due to the austerity of your Government in Westminster, but hopefully that will change on Thursday.

Huw Irranca-Davies referred to that resourcing approach—it’s a very important point, and I think that really came out in the working group and we need to look at that, going forward.

Suzy Davies, you asked about Dyfi Biosphere—I think there is much to commend that approach, but, again, that needs to be consulted upon. The report from the working group did suggest exploring several ways of looking at that, but that really will need to be consulted upon.

Neil Hamilton, you often raise China with me. Well, do we just throw our hands up in the air and say, ‘Well, we won’t do what we think we need to do’? I have to say, they are starting to—. You know, renewable energy—I was reading an article last week about the level of renewable energy they’re bringing forward.

Janet Finch-Saunders also referred to extending Sandford to AONBs. Well, they only have one purpose, AONBs, and that’s to conserve, so, really, Sandford couldn’t be extended to AONBs.

Just in conclusion, Presiding Officer—[Interruption.]

It’s just a very brief point: I think one of the things that we shouldn’t miss—I understand that a lot of the focus today has been on designated areas, but I do not want to miss the thing that this report does take us forward on, where it says that

‘The desire of Future Landscapes Wales is to unlock the full potential of all landscapes in Wales, including designated landscapes’.

And that is critical for tourism development in constituencies in the south Wales Valleys or mid Wales—places that aren’t designated landscapes. This report does take us on to that territory. Don’t lose that as you take it forward.

Absolutely, and you mentioned specifically areas in I think it was the Gower, going forward.

Our designated landscapes should not only have clarity of purpose, but I think they must have very efficient and effective governance arrangements, and people have referred to that. As I say, I will bring more views forward following the consultation that closes at the end of the month.

The Future Landscapes Wales programme has been highly collaborative in nature, involving a wide range of stakeholders in its debates and deliberations, and I want to continue in that vein—[Interruption.] I haven’t got time, sorry. The Welsh Government will continue to consult widely before deciding on changes to the current designated landscape regime. I’ve given assurance that, following consultation, any primary legislation will come here, it will be scrutinised here, and I hope that in replying to all the many e-mails that we’ve had we’ll be able to give that point over. I think the challenge now is that we, together, deliver a very collaborative approach that started with the working group, and that that must result in lasting benefits for the people of Wales. Diolch.

The proposal is to agree amendment 1. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I will defer voting until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.