Thank you very much for that series of comments and questions. In terms of your last point, on the threat to urban trees, I'd said very clearly at the very beginning that we need to protect the trees that we have. Now, that doesn't mean that in every circumstance every tree can be preserved. One of the points that struck me during this exercise is that we have lost our relationship with our woodlands, and I think a healthy relationship and understanding of woodlands understands that trees need to be cut down sometimes. That's often why we grow them, if we replant them, and obviously it needs to be done on a case-by-case basis, but we shouldn't shy away from the fact that sometimes trees need to be felled. I don't think a healthy understanding of a woodland economy would preclude that. There are competing visions at times between these dappled woodlands with shafts of light hitting the forest floor and sometimes the contrast with an industrial view of woodlands, and there is room for both, and both require different approaches.

There is absolutely potential for job creation, as I say, right through the value chain. At the moment we have a collection of sawmills that have a business model that serves them fairly well, and don't really have a great incentive to disrupt that. I think we need to play a more active role in disrupting that as a Government, and make sure that the demand is there and the supply is there for those businesses to be able to take risks and invest in their own capital equipment and invest in their own workforce. To be fair, when I met them they were very much up for that, and they are definitely part of the solution. I think there's far greater plurality we can introduce into the system as we start to create a different environment. An example was given by Woodknowledge Wales—we're currently putting roughly 70,000 UPVC windows into landfill every year with funding from public bodies for new windows. There's a demand there for timber-framed windows if we take a co-ordinated approach here, and over time that creates business confidence and, of course, a need for more trees. So, this is all linked.

You ask for more detail on the way that we invest in skills and technology and I'm afraid I'm not able to give you that at the moment, but there's very much an intention to start developing plans to do that, and hopefully to keep the taskforce going and to expand it to make sure that we have the right people together. That was what I found so instructive about this: we had the people involved in implementing this around the table with the people with expertise, who are explicitly empowered to challenge, and through an intensive process of working together, systematically identifying barriers and coming up with solutions. We've come up with 49 recommendations that will really make a difference. I think that's a very healthy process that needs to continue.

In terms of Glastir funding being used to allow inward investors, if you like, to come in and buy farms, what I found really instructive about the Stump Up for Trees model is that here we have a Welsh farming-led group of people who have got control and ownership locally but are drawing in money through carbon credits from external bodies. So we have, and we're going to have, an increased demand for carbon offset, and rather than just standing back and letting the market fill that void, and having more Welsh farms bought up by bodies from outside of Wales, I think we need to actually step in here and facilitate this relationship where that money can be used through carbon credits, but you lever that money into communities so the ownership and control stays local.

I hope that addresses as many of the points as I can in the time available. Happy to follow up.