Item 4 on the agenda is a statement by the Cabinet Secretary for Energy, Planning and Rural Affairs on the national development framework. I call on the Cabinet Secretary, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Creating sustainable places where people can lead active and healthy lives and be proud to say where they come from is a priority of the Welsh Government. The planning system plays a central role in delivering these places, and the process by which we do it is place making. There are many components to successful place making. The Government must play a part in this by providing leadership and putting in place a policy framework for the planning system that has place making at its core.

Last February, I launched, for consultation, a new version of our national planning policy, 'Planning Policy Wales'. The document expressly recognises the multifaceted nature of the well-being goals and ways of working under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. The revised version of PPW seeks to put sustainable place making at the centre of our national planning policy. To complement PPW and enhance place making, yesterday I issued for consultation the preferred option for the national development framework. This is the first formal outward-facing stage in the preparation of the NDF, which will replace the Wales spatial plan. Unlike the Wales spatial plan, the NDF will have development plan status.

The NDF will play an important role in the delivery of the Government’s national strategy 'Prosperity for All', which, in turn, recognises the role of the NDF and the need to co-ordinate the planning of new homes, facilities and infrastructure by local authorities, health boards, housing associations and other key partners. The NDF will have a 20-year time horizon and will sit at the top of the hierarchy of development plans in Wales. Beneath it will sit strategic development plans and local development plans, and the legislative provisions require any plans beneath the NDF to conform to it. This represents a very powerful mechanism for shaping the planning system in Wales, and it is essential that local development plans are prepared and reviewed in a timely way if we are to give effect to our place making ambitions.

The preferred option is the product of considerable stakeholder engagement, testing and challenge, and reflects the structure of the draft PPW. Taken together, PPW and the NDF strengthen the role of place making in the planning system. We must turn away from thinking of the important issues of the day, such as housing, transport, health and energy as discreet issues, and recognise their combined impacts on places. It is time to re-energise the planning system and local planning authorities to deliver sustainable places for future generations.

The consultation on the preferred option for the NDF closes on 23 July. I encourage everyone with an interest in the long-term development of Wales and the creation of sustainable places to make their opinions known by responding to both consultations on PPW and the NDF. Thank you. 

Can I welcome the announcement today? One of the disadvantages—and, Deputy Presiding Officer, you'll share fully in this—of first being elected in 1999 is that we remember going around this race course in the first place, and the spatial plan was regarded as being highly innovative, ground-breaking indeed, a 20-year vision, integration across the main public policy areas so that they're not viewed as discreet entities, regional planning as a new concept that was going to give relevance to the planning cycle. That was published in 2004. And I cannot tell you how much it dominated the first Assembly, this whole concept of thinking spatially. We updated the plan in 2008 and then you did a further update in 2013. And, about half way through this whole process, in 2009, the chair of the north Wales economic forum heavily criticised the plan saying that it was good in theory but it was very difficult to actually see what it delivered. I think that's a very broad criticism and it's not entirely fair, but I think it does sum up some of the frustrations. 

Can I just ask some very specific questions? When will the draft national development framework be laid before the Assembly for its consideration, because there is a danger that it'll come to us very late, in the sort of late evening of this Assembly term? I just wonder if you have anything further to tell us on that. And what then have you learned from the Wales spatial plan? What is being preserved in that concept, and what is now being ditched as not being effective? And I notice that, obviously, its statutory significance, in that local development plans have to refer to it, is a big change. 

I'd like to know how the national/regional significance divide will be defined. I think that's part of the problem at this level of planning. And will your regions be the same six sub-regions in the Wales spatial plan—with slightly blurred boundaries, it has to be said—or have you come up with a different way of doing this? When will local development plans have to show that they are compliant with the NDF? It could be a long time, I think, before that happens, given the length of time this is going to take to get through the system. And how will the strategic development plans, the regional plans, work alongside city deals? I think these are some very important questions. 

And then, on housing, I know we'll have some further detail possibly this afternoon, but you do say that you are now going to have regional housing projections, and I just wonder how that will fit alongside the revised projections that were produced in 2015, but not taken up—the Holmans alternative projection. And how will that current review in developing regional housing projections fit in with the recent announcement on the affordable housing supply review that is now going on?

However, it's important we get this right. Obviously, we have new legislation in this area, and I think it's important that we strive to get an integrated, coherent planning system. But, on reflecting on one of the major initiatives in the early stages of devolution, spatial planning, it doesn't seem to me to have been a stunning success. 

Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and thank you, David Melding, for your observations and your questions. I think the Wales spatial plan—. I wasn't here in 1999, but I think it was very innovative, but it did have limited influence, and it didn't have the statutory weight to be able to influence decisions in the way that the national development framework will do. It also had, I think, very limited national strategic spatial prioritisation, and I think it lacked that national overview that I think we desperately need. So, that's what, certainly, I've learned from looking at how the Wales spatial plan developed. So, the statutory development plan—and you referred to this in your comments; the statutory development plan status of the NDF will ensure that it can set the direction to lower-tier development plans and then influence that decision making.

You asked about the timeline. We'll be out to consultation next year. This is the first stage of this process. It's very technical, but nothing's been written; there is no content yet. There's been a huge amount of stakeholder work that has been undertaken by my officials—I think they've spoken to about 200 different stakeholders over the past year to get to this stage, but this is really the first stage of preparing. So, next year, 2019, we'll go out to consultation. That's when, obviously, there will be scrutiny, and a plan will be in place in 2020.

You asked about city deals and growth areas and about LDPs and SDPs, and I've made it very clear to local authorities they have to have LDPs in place. We are trying to get them to work at a strategic development level as well. It is meeting with a little resistance, shall I say. Next week—I think it's next week—I'm meeting with all the lead members of planning, where we will be able to discuss this further. The planning system is very complex, and I think we need to get some simplification of it, if you like. And one of the ways of bringing all these different tiers together, and it's why I went out to consultation with PPW—. And also, in my own portfolio, I have energy policies, which sometimes clash with planning. So, I think it's really important that we get everything right, and the NDF will help us in that way too.

So, the planning system will obviously play a crucial role in delivering the Cardiff and Swansea city deals—the proposed north Wales and mid Wales growth deals also, if those bids are approved—by setting out our strategic spatial policies on housing, on employment, on transport, on education, on digital infrastructure, on tourism. And I have had conversations with all my Cabinet Secretary colleagues ahead of this stage also.

In relation to housing, I've also met with the Minister for Housing and Regeneration. What I want the NDF to do is to provide strategic direction for housing, again linked to connectivity infrastructure; I think it's very important that that happens around key facilities, and also where there are areas of growth, so we have that very clear focus on place making. I do think there is an opportunity for the NDF to identify a national policy-based population and housing projection. That could include an all-Wales range of housing numbers for a planned period. It's something that Scotland are looking at, and I'll be very happy to learn from them.

Thank you for the statement. The national development framework will set the national strategy for planning for the next 20 years, as you note. So, it is very important that the Welsh Government consults as much as possible to ensure that the right objectives are set and that the right strategy is in place to deliver the framework. Of course, the strategic development plans and the local development plans will have to dovetail with the framework, and that's another reason for having a thorough consultation in rural areas as well as in urban areas, and with different demographic groups in Wales.

I think it's also very important on this point that the people of Wales—and the local authorities, if truth be told—understand what the purpose of the national development framework is and its relationship with the two layers underneath it. Now, it looks like something completely technical and boring on the surface, but I think it's important that people do understand that this does set out the framework for development for such a long period of time, and that they have to be part of that process. So, I think that having a clear explanation of what the purpose of this is, right at the beginning, would be very beneficial.

I agree with David Melding that we do need to learn lessons from the spatial plan for Wales. I wasn't here in 1999 either, but I do remember that period, and I remember that it was very unpopular, that it caused a great deal of ill-feeling and opposition. So, I hope that this framework won't suffer the same fate and follow the same direction. So, could you give assurance that this consultation will be a genuine consultation and not just a tick-box exercise where the final decision and the favoured option is already decided—that that's not what we'll end up with?

Now, the document does mention providing

'direction for the three regions across Wales—North Wales, Mid & South West Wales and South East Wales.'

Who says that those are the three regions that we have in Wales? The framework also mentions focusing on strategic housing, providing connective infrastructure in the city deal and growth deal areas and support for rural areas as well. I don't understand entirely what that's supposed to mean. Is the intention to compel local authorities to work on matters that have been decided by the Welsh Government within regions that are set out and directed by the United Kingdom Government—the city regions and so on, which are currently being emulated by the Welsh Government?

Turning to the issue of the Welsh language, of course the lack of affordable housing is a particular problem in several communities, while other communities feel that housing has been built in the wrong place, without the facilities and services that are needed for the growth in population. The major challenge that Wales will face over the next 20 years, of course, is developing the Welsh language and ensuring that it flourishes, and the planning system does have a part to play in that objective of reaching a million Welsh speakers.

This potential for the planning system won't be achieved if the Welsh Government doesn't provide strong leadership and robust leadership in this area. I would suggest at the beginning that we need reform and strengthening of technical advice note 20, which contradicts the Planning (Wales) Act 2015. We've had this discussion before, but I'm sticking to my guns and I very much hope this will give us an opportunity to have that discussion again.

Now, there is an opportunity with the framework for the Welsh Government to give clear leadership to local authorities with regard to linguistic planning. So, my final question is: will you provide certainty that the national development framework will include a clear statement and an unequivocal statement about the importance of the Welsh language in planning how to use land? Thank you.

Diolch, Siân Gwenllian. I can absolutely reassure you that it is a genuine consultation. As I said in my answer to David Melding, not a word has been written yet. This is really the start of the process, even though there has been huge consultation with stakeholders by my officials over the past year. I think I mentioned about 200 stakeholders and that includes all local authorities—you referred to local authorities—health boards, public services boards. But the real hard work starts now. And it is very technical and, because it isn't something tangible, it is hard to ensure that people do understand just what an important document this is and what it is intended to do. 

It will be a national land use development plan. You know that I'm out to consultation at the moment on the draft marine plan. So, that's obviously for the water and the sea. This is an equivalent for the land and, as I've mentioned, it will replace the existing Wales spatial plan and it will set out the 20-year spatial framework for land use in Wales. So, it is a context for new infrastructure, it's also for growth at national, at regional and local levels also. 

You asked about rural communities and, again, how I envisage the NDF working is it will support living and working in rural places to make sure that they're economically and socially and environmentally sustainable and vibrant. The policies within it will provide a framework for rural housing, for instance, which you referred to, but also services, facilities—including health and education—and employment and connectivity. That's to make sure that our rural communities retain and attract people and obviously help deliver a much more prosperous and sustainable rural Wales.

You asked specific questions around the Welsh language. We are under a duty to consider the impacts of the NDF on the language and we're doing that as part of the integrated assessment process. Planning can obviously create conditions whereby the language is allowed to thrive and that's providing opportunities for new jobs and for housing and community facilities. So, I believe the NDF can indirectly help us reach that target of a million Welsh speakers by 2050, which we want to do, by promoting developments in the right places.

In relation to local authorities, I mentioned that officials have been in discussions with local authorities so that they do understand where the LDPs and the SDPs fit in. I think what the NDF gives us is a better means of showing the major development priorities for Wales, and that's ensuring also that the planning system is aligned. So, I want to work with local authorities and developers to show where our priorities are, but also to help them reach difficult decisions more quickly. Because you'll be aware that sometimes things land up on my desk and I think that that will help them before they get to that situation—that will help them. So, what the NDF will do is sit, if you like, at the top of a pyramid of development plans, with strategic development plans for the regional level and the local development plans at the local authority scale. It's hugely important that the three work well together. We want to avoid duplication, for instance. The NDF will focus on the national matters, if you like—the matters that affect that large part of Wales—but the strategic and local development plans will remain responsible for the detail and for identifying sites for different types of development.

I thank the Minister for today's statement. We're talking today about plans and planning and, as the Minister just outlined a moment ago, we seem to be heading towards broadly three types of plan: local development plans at the bottom, a national development framework at the top, and strategic development plans in the middle.

We have had issues of public contention over LDPs in recent years, with councils feeling that, in some cases, their hands were tied in having to proceed with LDPs that were not always universally popular with some, or large portions, of their electorate. So, I think one of the problems, or one of the issues, or, to use a popular phrase in Government, one of the challenges that you're going to have going forward is: how do you retain democratic consent for a major overhaul of planning, involving decisions taken at regional and even national levels? That may be the main challenge that you have, going forward, because if we've had a problem at a fairly localised level with LDPs, how do we ensure that we don't actually magnify these problems, going forward, with larger-scale planning like the SDPs and the NDF as a whole? So, I suppose my first question is: broadly, how will you ensure that you retain a large measure of democratic consent to these kinds of proposals? It's going to come down a lot to the structure of what you set up.

David Melding, who spoke first, gave us what I found a very interesting historical look at what was attempted in the first Assembly term with the spatial plan, which, I must confess, I wasn't much aware of. I don't remember it being a matter of massive newspaper talk at the time, but perhaps my memory fails me. But, obviously, it was a major development of the Government in the first term, which didn't really work. So, now we are where we are with a new scheme. So, how will you learn from the lessons of the spatial plan? I wonder what lessons you take yourself, Minister, from the relative failure of the spatial plan and how we can ensure that this plan will not replicate those failures. 

I think there are problems, and I'm hopeful that this will be broadly a success, but I can see issues, going forward, because you also have a local government reorganisation, which is still in the mix, which your colleague sat two doors down from you is in charge of. Obviously, there's a separation between you as the planning Minister and him as the local government Minister, and that can sometimes cause problems. You're obviously going to have to work closely together on this to ensure this is a success. I wonder how these things are going to dovetail. At the same time, we've also got the city deals coming in, the growth deals, so I hope this all doesn't become very messy and I hope that you can retain between the two of you, and the housing Minister as well, a broad measure of control over this. So, I wonder broadly what your thoughts are on those points.

One issue that I did particularly want to ask about was the SDPs. I know you stated that these are going to be statutory—sorry, the NDF will be statutory. So, this will influence, is bound to influence, decisions taken at the lower tiers. I'm just slightly puzzled as to who actually takes the decisions with the SDPs. It seems to be the local authorities together. You said you were trying to get them to work together at a strategic level. How does that work with your statutory powers? How will that actually work in practice? Will they be working at the same level as the city deals? Will it be the city regions that actually take the decisions over the SDPs, or will it be some other conglomeration of different local authorities? Diolch yn fawr.

I thank Gareth Bennett for his comments and questions. I think I need to reassure—. Well, I've ensured my officials have reassured local planning authorities, and I'm very happy to reassure members that the NDF isn't some kind of power grab or a bypass for good, effective local decision making. If we think about it, over 25,000 planning applications are dealt with by local planning authorities each year, and only a handful are taken by Welsh Ministers. That won't change as a result of the NDF. What the NDF gives us is a better means of showing the major development priorities for Wales and ensuring that that planning system is aligned. You're absolutely right; you heard me in my answer to Siân Gwenllian that the NDF will sit at the top of a pyramid of development plans and the SDPs and the LDPs will be underneath at a regional and local authority level. 

Local authorities have already played a very significant part in reaching this very early consultation stage. They've been very involved with early engagement. However, I do think there is much more we can do with them. I have an offer on the table to all local authorities to work with us as we gather our evidence now ahead of bringing forward the draft NDF. I will continue to seek the views of local authorities, but of course there is an onus on them to play a very full and active role. I've also made it very clear that the NDF is not an excuse to delay any work on local development plans or the review of LDPs that is currently taking place by all the planning authorities. There won't be any surprises in terms of the content of the NDF, because we expect them to work with us in preparing it. 

You referred to the Wales spatial plan, which you didn't know about, being a failure. I wouldn't go as far as to say that, but I will go—. I think David Melding referred to the sort of enthusiasm that the first Wales spatial plan was greeted with, and I think it's absolutely fair to say that it didn't deliver the meaningful change that the first Government wanted. 

You asked me what lessons we've learned and I think the big lesson that I've personally learned, and clearly officials have learned, is that because it didn't have that framework and that status of being a development plan, it didn't have the teeth, if you like, to bring forward that meaningful change. So, that's why we've given that status to the NDF, because I don't want it just to become some sort of glossy document that sits on the shelf and it doesn't have the teeth to drive that change that we want to see.

I work closely with all my Cabinet Secretary and ministerial colleagues. I mentioned that I've met them all before we've even got to this stage to see what their priorities are. It's very much a cross-Government document. We don't work in silos. We work very closely together, and I referred to what work I've been doing with my colleague the Minister for Housing and Regeneration. The Cabinet Secretary for Local Government, as you say, is initiating work around reform. This will dovetail with it. Obviously, we've got 25 local planning authorities with the 22 local authorities and, clearly, in the work that Alun Davies is taking forward, I will work very closely with him on that. 

I strongly support the principle of a national development plan and a strategic development plan sitting above the local development plans. I think that we too often look at areas in isolation, and for those who know the area near where I live, you have Parc Trostre and you have Fforestfach retail park, which are both three or four miles apart. They have an effect on each other, but they're dealt with by different planning authorities, and under any changes anybody's put forward in recent times, it would still be under different planning authorities. We've seen the development of a second campus in Swansea, which I think has been a tremendous building, but it actually has a much bigger effect on Swansea than it does on Neath Port Talbot, the council which by serendipity it appears in. It was a bit of land that nobody used, and they followed a stream down to get a boundary. So, I think it is really important that we do end up having a strategic overview. 

Can I go back to before the spatial plan? The spatial plan only replaced the old county plans. The county plans existed and they designated areas within a county for different usages. It's quite interesting that the county plans disappeared, because the counties' planning departments disappeared, because somebody decided that if there was a planning department in a district and a planning department in the county, there must be some form of overlap there where you can bring efficiency in by merging them. People have always wanted to merge things to bring efficiencies in; one day it will work. And we found out then that the county plans disappeared, so you didn't have a county development plan, which was very useful. I think that we do need overall development plans, because people are always affected by the area next to them, and that's not solved by the boundaries of Wales or the boundaries of council areas, however big you make them, or by the boundaries of the city regions. 

I've got two real questions. Will you be looking to designate land for forestry? One of the great failures over the last few years is that the amount of afforestation that should have taken place in Wales hasn't. Many people in this room are very keen on increasing the amount of forestry in Wales. Will you be designating areas, like the county plans used to designate areas for minerals and areas for forestry? Will that be in there so that you can have areas designated, so that we can actually have enough land available for afforestation to actually meet our plans? 

The second question is: we've now got a marine plan separate to the national development plan—why? I've come to the conclusion that the sea at every point meets land. And I'm also of the view that ports, for example, have an effect on marine; at least part of them is on land and part of them is at sea. Surely, one unitary plan covering marine and land would be better than having two plans, because I'm sure somebody in the future will be wanting to join them.        

Thank you, Mike Hedges, for those questions. I'll take the second one first. I think that's actually a very good point as to why we did separate plans, and I suppose when I came into the portfolio exactly two years ago I was very conscious of the fact that we didn't have any strategic view of our marine—our seas and our waters—and it was becoming more and more of an issue, and I was very keen to get the marine plan up and running. As it was, it took me just over a year. If I'd have waited for the NDF as well—and, obviously, the NDF isn't going to come until 2020—that would have prolonged it, but I think it is very important that they do dovetail very much together. 

In relation to your question around forestry, certainly, I absolutely agree with you that we're not planting as many trees as we would all wish to, and clearly that's a piece of work that my colleague the Minister for Environment is taking forward. I think what the NDF has the potential to do is aid the delivery of the natural resources policy that we've brought forward. I think there's potential for all three of the NRP's priorities to be supported by the NDF. Obviously, the planning system has a key role to play in helping to reverse the decline of biodiversity, for instance. So, we can certainly look as to whether we designate areas for forestry and, again, I mentioned that is absolutely a blank piece of paper at the moment. So, we can certainly see what responses come in from the consultation, but I do think that that is an area that we can look at going forward.

Thank you for the statement, Minister. I just want to focus on one aspect of it, and that's energy. The statement, rather than the consultation, makes it clear that energy is at the heart of the place making, as you suggested. Specifically, there's a great deal of talk in the consultation, in the paper, of renewable energy, which is in the Welsh Government's hands, of course. But it's also true to say that there are major energy developments beyond renewable energy that can affect communities. You think of the Aberthaw power station, for example. The climate change committee heard evidence just last week that the closure of that power station, which is in the pipeline from the Westminster Government, is crucially important for the Welsh Government's climate change targets. We've just seen a planning application for the reopening of the coal mine in Aberpergwm, which raises questions as to how energy developments of this kind fit in with the other concept that you espouse, because the purpose of any national strategic plan is to deliver on the ground what you have within national policy; that its purpose. So, when you talk in the consultation about nationally important energy projects, can you just tell us today whether the 'national' there is referring to Wales or the UK? I only use 'national' in reference to Wales, of course, but I occasionally see it being used in the context of the UK. So, it's just so that we can understand that fully, so that we can be clear about that.

Secondly, as has been mentioned already, your alternative choice in this consultation talks about three regions in Wales, which means that mid Wales goes with the south-west of Wales. But, of course, we do have four regions to all intents and purposes with the ambition region in north Wales, the Ceredigion and Powys growth area, and then the two city regions in the south. As you perhaps know, yesterday, there was a conference held in the National Waterfront Museum in Swansea, looking at energy in Swansea bay city region—it was held by the Institute of Welsh Affairs—and one of the things that was discussed and indeed was recommended in that conference was that there should be energy and renewable energy targets at a regional level in Wales. That is, in order to reach your national targets, as set out in this consultation, you will also need regional targets, because different regions may perform better than others in terms of renewable energy—mid Wales makes a significant contribution in terms of wind turbines, for example. So, related to this idea of three regions, are you wedded to that, and, as a result, will you be introducing renewable energy targets on a regional basis?

Thank you. In relation to the word 'national', I too am talking about Wales when I refer to the NDF. I think getting our energy policy and our planning policy aligned and correct is very important. I mentioned a clash of policies at times, and I'm having to look at a planning application for renewable energy, say wind turbines, and because it sits outside an area—you know, the planning policy—there is that clash. You mentioned another one that's just come before me. So, I think it's really important that we do align our policies, and that's one of the reasons for going out on 'Planning Policy Wales' in order that we are able to reach the targets that I set for renewable energy and the types of energy back in December.

In relation to the regions, no I'm not wedded to these, and I think this is an area that we can look at over this period now when we're looking at the preferred option and setting the scene, if you like, ahead of the draft NDF coming out next year. Looking at whether we should have regional targets for energy is something that we can look at. I think the most important thing is that the NDF supports our decarbonisation aims and helps us build resilience to the impacts of climate change. I think that's something that I would want it, obviously, to do.

If we're going to achieve our strategic decarbonisation goals, I think that has to be a central goal of the NDF, and that includes, obviously, reducing our greenhouse gas emissions by at least 80 per cent by 2050. So, what I want the NDF to do is support the delivery of our targets through policies that then support generation through a range of technology, and also provide a framework for the delivery of local energy generation also.

You mentioned major energy infrastructure, and, again, I think it gives us an excellent opportunity—the NDF—to spatially express our very positive planning policies on energy infrastructure in order, again, that we can meet our climate change obligations and also our renewable energy targets. My officials are currently examining opportunities to map the potential for new large-scale renewable energy infrastructure across Wales. And, again, placing those in planning policy I think will enable us to show real leadership where we consider the developments are best placed.

I'm very pleased, and I very much welcome the hardwiring of the well-being goals and the ways of working of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 into the planning policy for Wales, and into the national development framework. In the light of that, I wonder if you can say a little bit more about its development plan status and whether it enables you to do some of the following. For example, does it enable you to make it clear that out-of-town shopping centres will not be welcomed in the future because of the damage they do to place making in city centres or town centres? Does it enable you to insist that significant new housing developments will only take place where there is also decent public transport links, as it's impossible for us to meet our climate change obligations unless we control development to areas that are properly connected? Does it enable us, for example, to repeal the Land Compensation Act 1961, which is one of the main barriers to the development of new land for housing where there is housing need, as it enables people to hold on to land in the hope that at some future date it might become considerably more valuable than it is in its current status? So, I'd be keen to understand a little bit more about what levers this new national development framework gives you to really deliver on the well-being of future generations Act's aims.

Thank you, Jenny Rathbone. You're absolutely right—I think the ways of working in relation to the well-being of future generations Act have been absolutely integral to the development of the NDF, even during the work that we've undertaken to date, but absolutely for the work ahead. We've really considered how the ways of working shape what we do and how they can help us achieve the sustainable development that we want to see. They've also been used to inform the review of the evidence and identify issues, and also to look at the structure of the assessment framework. It's obviously a requirement of several pieces of legislation that we do undertake a variety of assessments in relation to the NDF. So, we have really sought to integrate the approach already at the assessment process.

You ask about specific points, and I think you're absolutely right—it's vitally important that when we're looking at where housing developments are going to be placed, for instance, that there is the public transport around it. When I've had discussions with my Cabinet colleagues and ministerial colleagues ahead of this, it's been something they're looking at. So, for instance, when I was talking to Kirsty Williams, if she was looking to put a new tertiary college somewhere, it would be important to look at what surrounds that—whether the housing is there, whether the public transport is there. So, absolutely, that will be part of this.

You ask me about the 1961 compensation Act—I'm afraid I don't have the answer to that question, but I'll certainly be happy to send a note to the Member.

Thank you very much, Cabinet Secretary.