I welcome the Government's statement. I just can't understand why everybody else doesn't believe in the importance of forests, because I actually believe it's one of the most important things we have. I don't believe you can actually have too many trees, and it always pains me when I see a number of trees being chopped down. In Rebecca Evans's constituency, a giant redwood has been chopped down in Penllergaer. That's a matter of massive local concern, and it's also a matter of concern—the number of trees in that area that are being removed. So, I think that we really do need to protect trees more than we do now. Tree preservation orders are very good. They give more of an illusion of protection than actual protection, but when they've had an accident and they've knocked a tree down, you can't un-accident the removal of a tree. I'll tell you what, if there are two things I know: grade II listed buildings spontaneously combust, and people driving around trees have accidents at fairly regular intervals, which ends up knocking down trees that have tree preservation orders on them. Both of those I find amazing, and it must be serendipity that causes them.

Can I welcome the co-operative forest planning scheme, specifically for people and co-operatives to work together and plan woodland creation at a significant and strategic scale? I support the planting of mixed forestry as opposed to a monoculture of conifers. There's been a number of tree diseases, such as Dutch elm disease, ash dieback, and the one the Minister pronounced earlier, which I'm not going to take on. Does the Minister accept that mixed forests provide some protection against tree diseases, and that such mixed forests should include broadleaved trees? Does the Minister accept that we need annual regional forestry targets? We tend to have long-term targets, but the long term, as people involved in financial planning will tell you, is made up of a lot of short terms. So, if you want to do something in the long term, you have to successfully deal with a number of short terms to get there.

Finally, something I've never understood, and it used to exist under the old county plan where land was identified for a whole range of uses: why cannot local development plans identify land for forestry in such a way that people know that that land is suitable?