Thank you, Minister, for your statement. I'll start on that point, I think, because, really, we've been talking about these other people coming to the table for the best part of a decade, and it's still pretty vague, I have to say. There's been talk of insurance companies. You mentioned Network Rail, and, yes, clearly, the north Wales coastal rail line is susceptible to erosion and flooding, and the Conwy valley—how many times has that line been closed because of flooding and erosion there? But we're still talking about how 'opportunities are opening up' and 'potential partners'. This is 10 years down the line. So, really, what I'm asking is—. You can give us a bland statement, but tell us: what levers are you using to bring these people to the table? Clearly, finances in the public sector are contracting, but they're contracting—. The private sector isn't awash either, and corporate social responsibility isn't going to give us the transformational change that we want to see in that respect. So, what is it? Is it planning? Is it regulations? Give us something specific that you're using as a tool to bring these people to the table and not just these platitudes that we've now been getting used to over the last 10 years. So, that was the negative bit. [Laughter.]

There is much to welcome in the statement, and I don't want to characterise it by being totally critical of everything that is there, although I do find it interesting, actually, that you say a number of schemes don't just look at issues in one location but take a whole-catchment approach. Surely, all schemes should take a catchment approach, albeit with different, sort of, answers and mitigating measures, because, otherwise, it's just sticking plaster, isn't it, to try and address a wider, more fundamental flooding risk. And whilst you give us a good picture, really, in terms of the geographical breakdown of investment, I'm just wondering whether you could provide us, not necessarily in your answer, but maybe in written form, some sort of indication of the split in funding that you're articulating here between hard flood defence and softer mitigation measures. What proportion of this funding is actually going to be spent on concrete bunds and what proportion is being invested in tree planting, in peat bog restoration and those softer measures that, of course, will have a longer term benefit than mixing more and more concrete?

And if we want to pan out to an even more holistic view, then, clearly, what other additional benefits can we enjoy from those investments? There was mention of the rain earlier—I never complain when it rains because it's free hydro fuel. It's money falling from the sky, and we need to harness it. So, how are we looking to utilise and implement, through these flood management projects, opportunities on hydro for example? And, of course, we know that the tidal lagoon proposals offer huge benefits, not only in terms of renewable energy, climate change and job creation, but also in terms of mitigating flooding along the coast and coastal erosion as well. So, how do those fit in to some of the things that you've been telling us here today?

You say that you're maintaining NRW's revenue budget this coming year; maintaining is one thing, but, of course, if you only maintain it, then there is actually a real-terms cut. So, is it fair to expect that they maintain the existing level of activity if there is a real-terms cut? And I'm coming back again, as I always do when NRW comes up, to whether it's properly resourced in order to deliver its functions in a way that we would wish and we would expect.

Finally, you say that your planning policy is going to direct development away from high-risk areas. That's great. Does that mean, in a tangible sense, that you're updating planning guidance? Technical advice notice 15 hasn't been updated since 2004, so is it time to do that? And the new flood risk maps that you say will be made public, well, if it's found that land will now, according to these new flood risk maps, be susceptible to flooding, if that land is allocated for development, will you therefore ensure that it's de-allocated? Because if not, then, clearly, it's just storing up problems for future generations.