Item 5 this afternoon is a debate on the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee report, 'Report on storm overflows in Wales'. I call on the committee Chair to move the motion—Llyr Gruffydd.

Motion NDM8024 Llyr Gruffydd

To propose that the Senedd:

Notes the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee report: ‘Report on storm overflows in Wales’, laid in the Table Office on 15 March 2022.

Motion moved.

Thank you very much, Dirprwy Lywydd. We undertook our short, focused inquiry into storm overflows when they were firmly in the public spotlight. There were frequent news headlines about raw sewage being dumped into rivers across England and Wales. There were reports of heated debates in Westminster on tighter laws to tackle sewage spills. Then came Ofwat’s announcement of an investigation into water companies on both sides of the border, which were potentially in breach of storm overflow permits. As a committee, we therefore felt it was important to have a clear picture of storm overflows in Wales and the actions being taken to tackle sewage spills.

So, what do we know about storm overflows? Well, they’re meant to be used infrequently and in exceptional circumstances, when heavy rainfall means that the capacity of the combined sewers is exceeded. They are there as a safety valve so that sewage doesn’t flood back into our homes and onto our streets. However unpleasant, given the damage and distress caused by sewer flooding, they are a necessary feature of the sewer system that we have inherited.  

So, what’s the problem? Well, the figures speak for themselves. Rather than being used in exceptional circumstances only, it appears that storm overflows are the norm. According to NRW, in 2020 there were over 105,000 spills—105,000 spills—from the over 2,000 permitted overflows that are monitored. Is it any wonder, therefore, that the public responded so strongly when these figures were published and that the water companies and NRW were so harshly criticised? And those figures, of course, don't tell the whole story—they don't include spills from permitted overflows without monitors, or from unpermitted overflows. This means that the true number of spills may in fact be much higher.

During the course of our work, we heard time and time again that spills from overflows are not the main cause of poor river quality, and we don't dispute that as a committee, of course, but there is a tendency by some to use that to try and underplay the unacceptable number of spills, by trying to deflect the debate to pollutants from other sectors, and that's just not helpful, because overflows do contribute to declining water quality, and it is an area that needs to be addressed.

Before turning to the committee's specific recommendations, I'd like to make reference to the Minister's introductory remarks in her response to our report. The Minister told us that tackling storm overflows alone would not lead to wholesale improvement in water quality. As I'm sure the Minister will appreciate, we're not asking you to only tackle storm overflows, of course. All forms of water pollution must be tackled in a proportionate and fair way. But what we are asking you to do, along with the water companies and NRW and others, is to do more and to do so quickly to bring down the eye-watering number of spills that are occurring year on year across Wales.

Our report makes 10 recommendations, and all of them were accepted in principle by the Minister. Some of the recommendations were also aimed at NRW, the water companies and Ofwat, and we are grateful to the Minister and the companies for their responses, which are in the main positive, and we also look forward to hearing from Ofwat and NRW when the time comes.

In the Minister's response to our first recommendation, which asks the Welsh Government to show greater leadership, the Minister referred to a road map for storm overflows that is being prepared by the better river quality taskforce. The committee called for this road map to include targets and timescales for reducing spills, and comprehensive and transparent monitoring and reporting mechanisms, so that progress towards delivery can be assessed. The Minister has accepted this recommendation. We are given that the road map will set out objectives and measurable outcomes for delivering improvements, so that's a good start and is very promising. But what about the targets and timescales that we've called for? Perhaps, Minister, in responding, you could commit to ensuring that the road map includes these.

We're also told that oversight for the delivery of the road map will be a matter for the taskforce and that accountability for delivering actions will lie with taskforce members. Well, perhaps, Minister, you can tell us in response how we and the public will be able to scrutinise progress towards delivery. Will you ensure full transparency in the work of the taskforce, something that has been missing to date, I have to say?

Recommendation 4 calls for enhanced monitoring arrangements to ensure better understanding of the impact of spills on receiving water, namely the water that spills flow into. We're told that an investigation monitoring programme will be established to determine long-term requirements for monitoring overflows. That begs the question: why has it taken until now to do so? This programme needs to lead to outcomes, and we need to see those quickly.

I want to return to the matter of unpermitted overflows, and I mentioned them a little earlier, because there's hardly any information on these, so we don't know what damage they could be causing. I'd like to hear from the Minister, therefore, whether you have such a clear time frame that sets out when you expect NRW to bring these into the regulatory regime. How much of a priority should this be for NRW?

Finally, the Minister has advised that the cost of delivering on much of this work is outlined in her response. Well, that's not a particularly satisfactory response. Can you give us an idea, Minister, of when this work will be completed? And can you also provide us with assurance that there is adequate funding available to pay for the work that you've outlined, which is just as important?

To conclude, therefore, Dirprwy Lywydd, although media attention on storm overflows may have waned in recent months, the problems of sewage spills have not gone away. Now that the true scale of the spills has emerged, we do expect to see firmer action taken to drive them down. We expect to see improvements in the understanding of the cumulative impact of spills on water quality. We, as a committee, expect to see a reduction in the damage caused by spills to our rivers and to the precious wildlife that inhabit them. We also, of course, as a committee, look forward to discussing the progress made, hopefully, in implementing our recommendations later in this Senedd term. Thank you.

May I thank Llyr and my committee colleagues for their work on this extremely important piece of work? From the conversations I have, and the correspondence I receive, I would suggest there is a growing public concern about the quality of our waterways. There's been a lot of media attention, rightly, on the Severn and Wye rivers, and the impact of pollution from chicken farms, for example. I have called in the past for a moratorium on these developments on a number of occasions, and I will do that again, because, to quote the Minister's letter to us:

'Discharges from combined storm overflows...are not the main cause of poor water quality in Wales—the main causes is runoff from animal waste and chemicals used in agriculture, pollution from disused mines, runoff from built up areas, and sewage pipes being wrongly connected to drainage networks.'

Welsh Water's own modelling on the Wye shows that its assets are responsible for 21 per cent of phosphorus in the main water bodies, with combined storm overflows only responsible for 1 per cent. The remainder is caused by those other factors that I've just mentioned.

There are certainly overflow issues in my region. Just last week, I was contacted by the Ask About the Arth community project, which is working with Dŵr Cymru, the West Wales Rivers Trust and Ceredigion Birds and Wildlife to reduce overflow into the Arth, and to regain a flag status for Aberarth beach. In 2019-20 raw sewage was pumped for 230 days, and the groups wants that to be reduced down to 60 days. I hope, Minister, that you'll be able to engage with the Ask About the Arth project going forward, and I will be more than happy to put you in touch with that group.

On a positive note, there are also examples of very best practice in Mid and West Wales too. The committee did look at Llanelli's innovative Rainscape project, where Welsh Government invested £115 million between 2012 and 2020, and it's delivered around 14 miles of new pipework and curb drainage, as well as a new tunnel and almost 10,000 plants and trees. And it's a superb example of a big infrastructure solution coupled with a nature-based approach. But a small change multiplied many times can be equally effective. Five years ago I led a short debate titled, 'Running off that road, running down that hill', and I'm still proud of that one. It followed up my 2009 legislative proposal to deal with surface water flooding by curbing the use of hard surfaces around people's homes, which the Assembly, at that time, did approve. And it was one of the main recommendations of the Pitt review that followed the devastating floods of 2007, and Members will recall. But 15 years on, these weather events are less exceptional. As Hafren Dyfrdwy noted in their evidence,

'extreme rainfall events are 30% more likely in the next decade'.

The fact is, compared to a garden, non-porous paving, tarmac and concrete increases run-off by as much as 50 per cent. And while there are planning restrictions for what can be laid in a front garden, there is very little, if nothing, likewise for the back of the garden and, in my opinion, there ought to be. So, again, I would urge the Minister, if she can, to take up that matter and to be bold in the next planning Bill—

Joyce, will you take an intervention?

Yes.

A little one. It's really great working with you on these sorts of issues on the committee, alongside you. Would you agree with me that the latest fad now is plastic lawns? Of course, there's no absorption with plastic lawns. And now that we are actually going forward trying to protect our environment, I know that we can't bring policy or legislation in, but should we not, perhaps, be putting a message out there that you're much better off in terms of this and also to protect our environment to actually stay with your natural lawn? Thank you.

I would absolutely agree with that, because it's not just about the surface water that they create, but it's about the micro particles of plastic that will be going down the drain as well. So, I'd absolutely agree with you and you just caught me, because I was about to finish urging the Minister to be bold in her policies coming forward, which she has been in the past, so to be bolder than she has been in the past, in terms of dealing with surface water.

Of course, Wales is known for one of its greatest natural assets, which has contributed towards an integral part of Wales's culture, heritage and national identity. It shapes our natural environment and landscapes, supporting biodiversity and our ecosystems. As a vital natural resource, water underpins our economy and the effective operation of infrastructure, including energy supply. Access to clean, safe and resilient water supplies is essential also in supporting the health and well-being of everyone who lives, works and visits Wales. That is why we must do everything we can to protect it for future generations and work to safeguard its ability to be used to benefit Welsh interests in the future.

Now, the Government's programme supposedly commits us to improving water quality by beginning to designate inland waters for recreation and strengthening water quality monitoring. It also suggests a commitment to enhance the legislative framework in relation to sustainable drainage systems—SuDS, as we know them—to provide additional environmental, biodiversity, well-being and economic benefits to our communities, and these should also be adopted. The Welsh Government have made rolling provision for a multi-year, multimillion-pound programme, currently estimated at around £40 million, to improve water quality. However, reports from NRW indicate that the latest data is not as promising as it should be after 22 years of a devolved Government. Only 40 per cent of Wales's water bodies are at 'good' or 'better' ecological status. As the Welsh Government have already acknowledged, our water bodies are under pressure from a range of challenges, however extreme weather, pollution, climate impacts, industrial processes and associated water demand and population growth have failed to encourage the Welsh Government to speed up action that could solve many of these issues.

As I've already stated, our water bodies need to be protected so that current and future generations can benefit from a prosperous, resilient and healthy Wales. I'm afraid—. I know it's a big issue, I know that it's all about infrastructure and that we don't want to pass the cost onto customers, but I do believe that the Welsh Government could be doing more.

While there is promising data to look over, the amount of sewage discharged into Welsh rivers during heavy rainfall is unacceptable and this places an avoidable risk onto the general public. Storm overflows have been the subject of ongoing public and political debate over the past year. Concerns have been expressed about the frequency of sewage discharges from storm overflows, the adverse impact of discharges on the environment and public health, the underreporting of pollution incidents by water companies, and failure of environmental regulators to take enforcement action when pollution incidents occur. And I've had so many incidents recently whereby an incident has happened in my constituency, so I contact Dŵr Cymru, they tell me to contact NRW to report the fact that that's happening, so I have both agencies involved, or so I think, and I have to just keep chasing and chasing and chasing. If the Welsh Government are to start to restore public confidence, NRW must be able to respond timely and effectively to pollution incidents and must be prepared to take enforcement action immediately when permit breaches occur.

River pollution is a crisis that will only get worse without immediate and significant intervention. So, while the Welsh Government have followed recommendations in the report—some recommendations—it is lacking a framework and accompanying action plan for the long term.

The UK Conservative Government has outlined measures to tackle storm overflows, with plans that will implement ambitious targets for water companies to reduce discharges by 80 per cent. Under the proposed plan, by 2035, the environmental impacts of 3,000 storm overflows affecting our most important protected sites will have been eliminated. In addition, there'll be 70 per cent fewer discharges into bathing waters, and, by 2040, approximately 160,000 discharges, on average, will have been eliminated.

The evidence from contributors to the latest report suggests the sector is keen to adopt nature-based solutions to water management. Although some progress has been made in recent years, it is much slower than what has been expected by NRW. So, I am keen to understand why this is and how the Welsh Government expect to overcome this. So, I was just wondering, Minister, whether you would consider holding an open forum to discuss solutions, so that an array of industry specialists and law makers can advise on this. We must see action from the Welsh Government, in its leadership role, to ensure that the number and volume of discharges is reduced as a matter of urgency. I would like to see the Minister report back to our committee six months after the publication of the report on storm overflows in Wales, setting out the actions she has taken, with partners, to address this issue. Diolch.

I’m pleased to speak in this debate, and I'd like to thank the Chair of the committee, the rest of the committee members and the clerking team for the important work that they've done with the report and the consultation.

Storm overflows are an important issue and, as we've heard, this is also an emotional issue. Concerns were raised with us about how frequently storm overflows lead to sewage discharge and the detrimental effect that this has on the environment and public health. Concerns were also raised about the lack of reporting by water companies, again as we've heard, and the failure by environmental regulators to take stronger action against companies when pollution takes place.

I am sure, Dirprwy Lywydd, that we were all shocked to hear, earlier this year, that there were 105,000 cases of sewage discharge recorded in Wales. And worse still, as the committee Chair has said, we, as a committee, came to understand that the actual figure is probably significantly higher, given the lack of recording, or illegal discharges.

Storm overflows should be used infrequently only, and, as the Chair said, only in exceptional circumstances, but that is not the case. What is clear is that the number of cases of discharge is increasing. And, as Llyr Gruffydd has said in the past, this situation cannot continue, where a parent is afraid to let their child swim in a river in Wales because they are so worried about sewage. It's revolting. It's a terrible situation. It's clear that it's high time for the water industry to clean up the way that it works. It needs to reform and invest, and do what it is paid to do, namely protect areas of water for people, but also for the environment.

The many cases that we've heard about show that there is a gap in the environmental regulation process and in the way that environmental law works in reality. When will the Government tackle the environmental governance gap? Could the Minister please give us an update on this?

The Government's response to our report mentions £40 million-worth of investment over three years, as we've heard previously, in SuDS, namely sustainable urban drainage solutions. I don't know how to say that in Welsh. That is to be welcomed. But SuDS alone cannot solve the problem of the increase in urban development and the decrease in how permeable the land is. Other countries have looked at other ways to improve drainage. Austria has tried to reduce urban sprawl; Belgium is re-using brownfield land for developments; the Czech Republic has led the way in protecting agricultural land through landscape fragmentation. I would like to hear from the Minister whether this Government in Wales has looked at what happens outside Wales, or internationally, when they respond to this challenge. By the way, when we talk about urban development, I would agree entirely with what Janet Finch-Saunders said about plastic grass. Again, I'm not sure how to say that in Welsh.

I am pleased that the Government has accepted the recommendations, but I remain concerned. Welsh Water told the committee that removing all storm overflows and avoiding all spills would involve duplicating the drainage network at a cost of between £9 billion and £14 billion. It also said that the cost would mean an increase in customer bills during a cost-of-living crisis, so how will the Government respond to this challenge, relating to cost? Thank you.

I'm grateful for the opportunity to speak on this matter, considering I'm not a member of the committee, but particularly as the report is rather robust in its analysis and rather damning in its conclusions. My interest in this report is because my Member's legislative proposal is on improving inland waterways, and, obviously, water pollution affects my constituency.

The first recommendation of the report, in black and white on page 6, reads:

'The amount of sewage discharges into Welsh rivers is unacceptable. We must see action from the Welsh Government', a damning admission that the Welsh Labour Government has been content, for over 20 years, to see raw sewage dumped into our waterways, waterways such as the River Towy in Carmarthenshire and the Cleddau in Pembrokeshire, both in my constituency. Simply put, it isn't good enough. This is why I'm grateful to the Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee and its Chair, Llyr Gruffydd, for investigating this important matter. This is an issue that affects constituents of every Member in this Siambr, with notifications of discharges flooding my inbox. Every time a permitted combined sewage overflow discharges sewage, I get notified by concerned constituents, those who use the inland waterways, who get in touch in both anger and desperation through Surfers Against Sewage's online system.

According to the committee's report, 2020 saw 105,751 permitted—permitted—discharges. Those are instances where the Welsh Government policy dictated that raw sewage could be dumped in our rivers and seas. This number omits non-permitted sewage discharges, instances where there are no Welsh Government-approved permits to dump human waste in our rivers, a point raised and stressed by committee Chair Llyr earlier. The exact number we don't know, because neither the Welsh Government nor their sponsored body NRW monitor instances such as these. Frankly, I believe this is not good enough.

Across the border, the UK Government have brought an action plan to address these very issues; the Welsh Government have sat on their hands, signed off on sewage permits and continued to dump raw waste into our rivers.

Dŵr Cymru have stated that this is a situation that is, and I quote,

'not where we want to be.'

Ofwat have acknowledged their deep concerns about sewage discharge, going on to say the 'current level is unacceptable'. Yet, Welsh Government policy has led to us being in this position, so, by opting to do nothing, the situation will only worsen.

We can only effect change by taking heed of this report and the recommendations included in it. All 10 of these recommendations are constructive, effective and achievable.

I would also stress that the better river water quality taskforce needs to be more transparent than we are seeing at present. Where are the minutes from this meeting? This is such a public interest topic that the idea that a taskforce set up to improve river quality won't publish minutes of its meetings is frankly bizarre.

Welsh Government, water companies and regulators must all come together to deliver meaningful change. Now is the time to listen and for action and to work constructively with one another, and I'm sure we can make some positive steps forward. This is an opportunity to turn the page and ensure our rivers become bastions of biodiversity and places for all of us to enjoy. I sincerely hope this report is the wake-up call that's needed. Diolch.

I call on the Minister for Climate Change, Julie James.

Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd. I would like to thank the committee for their detailed report, which they published on 15 March, and I very much want to acknowledge the hard work and real enthusiasm with which the committee did its work and to acknowledge the conclusions made within the report. As committee Chair Llyr has already pointed out, we've accepted or accepted in principle all the 10 recommendations made.

Dirprwy Lywydd, time will not permit me to go through every single thing that Members have raised today, but we're very much on board with the general points being made, and Llyr will know that we've accepted those. Where we've accepted them in principle, that's because we're either already doing it or we're already doing something very similar to it. So, it's not that we're trying to not do it in the future. So, I just wanted to make that point. I'm going to concentrate on a couple of the points, but I'm very happy to continue the dialogue with the committee and with the Senedd.

So, obviously, protecting and enhancing the water environment remains a top priority for the Welsh Government. The programme for government commits us to improving water quality by beginning to designate inland waters for recreation and strengthening water quality monitoring. It also includes a commitment to enhance the legislative framework in relation to sustainable drainage systems. As an aside, can I say how much I welcome the sudden conversion of everybody in the Senedd to what a great idea those were? That's not my recollection from when we brought them in, but I'm delighted with the conversion. They provide the additional environmental, biodiversity, well-being and economic benefits they bring to the communities.

We've already made provision for a multi-year, multimillion pound programme of works to improve water quality, totalling over £40 million over the next three years. As many people have already said in the Chamber, there's been much media coverage recently about water quality and sewage discharges into waterways, with a widespread perception that this is the main cause of poor water quality. As has been acknowledged across the Chamber—well, apart from the last contribution, which I didn't really follow—the evidence shows that numerous factors contribute to poor water quality, which include, of course, agricultural pollution, private drainage misconnections, septic tanks, et cetera, et cetera. So, it's not the main cause; it's one of a number of causes. I absolutely acknowledge, however, that we need to do something about it. So, just to say that I just think it's important to keep it in play. 

Will the Minister take an intervention?

Certainly. 

Thank you. Well, all the information that I've related in the speech that I gave is in the report, so I think it's quite disingenuous for you to say that you didn't quite understand my contribution.

Well, I really rather meant that you seemed to be trying to contrast us with work over the border, and actually it's a real problem right across the UK. So—[Interruption.] Well, I'm not going to enter into an exchange across the Chamber.

As acknowledged by the Chair, storm overflows provide a controlled point of relief at times of heavy rainfall. With more extreme weather events occurring, they perform a crucial role in reducing the risk of serious flooding of homes and public spaces, preventing sewage from flooding homes and businesses. I absolutely accept, however, that they should be happening only in extreme events and only when the rivers are in complete flood, which, of course, allows a faster travel through the river. No water body in Wales could achieve good ecological status as a consequence of addressing spills from storm overflows alone. That's not to say that they don't need to address them. In all cases, we need to develop solutions that address all other causes of pollution as well.

So, tackling overflows is one of the key priority components of the wider holistic approach that the Welsh Government is taking to improve water quality. We need a cross-sectoral, holistic approach to achieve it; we're working closely with delivery partners, regulators and the relevant sectors to identify and implement the sustainable solutions that not only deliver on desired water quality improvement outcomes, but support our climate change adaptation, improve biodiversity and deliver our net-zero target.

Will you take an intervention?

Yes, of course.

Would you add to that list of partners you want to work with, especially when it comes to monitoring in future, the citizen scientists that have been playing an important role in emphasising the risks? I'd like you to join me in congratulating Surfers Against Sewage for the work that they have done to highlight the problems that we face here. Recommendation 4 does emphasise, doesn't it, the role that citizen scientists can play in future. 

I completely acknowledge that, and I'll mention it in brief—I'm going to talk very fast now—in the rest of my contribution.

I just wanted to acknowledge the work of Joyce Watson on the surface water drainage issue. She's left the Chamber now, but she's been working on that very hard as long as I've known her. I want to assure her that we're absolutely on board with that.

We've already taken steps to tackle discharges from overflows, including making sustainable drainage systems mandatory in all new building developments, which helps relieve the pressure on the network by diverting and slowing down the speed at which surface water enters the sewage system and ensures the last-resort nature of storm overflows.

NRW are currently finalising the next iteration of the river basin management plans, which will set out a comprehensive overview of our water bodies, pressures and a suite of measures required to deliver water quality improvements.

I cannot emphasise enough that it's only by working together across all players that we can tackle the multiple risks that our water bodies face. We're working with the regulators, water companies, Afonydd Cymru and the Consumer Council for Water, through the better river quality taskforce, to develop action plans. The action plans will support our understanding and identify changes required to ensure water companies effectively manage and operate their system of sewers to meet current and future challenges.

I've already committed to providing an update to the committee in the autumn, following the publication of the road map by the taskforce in July of this year. Those action plans will cover five areas of change and improvement, which are: reducing visual impact; improving effluent quality and river quality; improving the environmental regulation of overflows; longer term planning for capacity in the waterwork network; enhancing public understanding engagement on water quality, and the quality action plan will also focus on monitoring arrangements. We're establishing an investigative monitoring programme between NRW and both water companies to determine long-term requirements for monitoring the overflows throughout Wales and the need to monitor for a wider range of pollutants, including microplastics and pharmaceuticals, and public health parameters will also be assessed.

We're also investigating and promoting the use of monitoring and—

You need to conclude now, Minister. I've given you sufficient time to cover the interventions.

Okay. Let me just sum up then, Dirprwy Lywydd. Just to say that we want to actively work with the citizen scientists mentioned by Rhun in order to improve the monitoring and support. The biodiversity deep dive, as mentioned in committee this morning, will help us with the targets, Llyr, that you mentioned. And just to emphasise at last that it's only by working together and taking a Team Wales approach that we can tackle multiple risks, and we have a summit being chaired by the First Minister on the first day of the Royal Welsh Show to finish it off. Diolch.

I call on the committee Chair to reply to the debate. 

Thank you very much, and thank you to everyone who's contributed. I think some of the points that have been raised have certainly enhanced the work that the committee has done. We were reminded that one of the practical upshots of these deficiencies is that some beaches do lose their blue flags, and that not only brings environmental implications, but there are also wider economic implications too.

I'm pleased there was reference made to the SuDS. There was talk of RainScape in Llanelli when I got here first in 2011. It's sad that we're still talking about that as something that we want to hold up as a positive example. There is work happening in Grangetown in Cardiff, which has happened more recently, and that's the norm we want to attain. I understand that work needs to be done to get to that place, but it's certainly something that we need to see more of, rather than simply referring to these as exceptions or exemplars that we seek to emulate.

The point on having capacity amongst regulators to stop this river pollution, to enforce the regulations more effectively, and to penalise too where needs be, is an important one. Ultimately, it comes down to the money, and every similar conversation comes down to a discussion of the funding of NRW. I know that there is work happening in that context.

I'd like to thank Delyth Jewell for reminding us. I think she used the word 'appalling', and it is appalling when you stop to think what's actually in the water. It is entirely unacceptable, but, of course, the reality of the situation is that it would cost between £9 billion and £14 billion to fully resolve the problem, and, therefore, we do have to deal with the issue in a phased manner. Transparency of the taskforce is important. I would say that, at the moment, it's as clear as some of the water that we see in our rivers, which is not a good thing, and I would say that that needs to improve.

And finally, the point on citizen science is very important indeed. Gathering data is important and real-time monitoring is also very important. And I don't always want to make comparisons between Wales and England, but in England companies are expected to report within an hour according to the Environment Act 2021 when such cases arise, which isn't a commitment that we have here in Wales.

However, Welsh rivers, as we know, are a crucial part of our natural heritage. One part of the problem is pollution from sewage, but it's one part of the solution too, and certainly something that has to be dealt with. More rain as a result of climate change will happen—we know that; there is still population growth and we're seeing urban sprawl, so there is a very real risk that this situation will get worse before it improves. And that is why the committee is eager to see steps taken, and that's why our report includes a range of recommendations for actions by the Welsh Government, the water companies and the regulators. And the committee's plea to you is that you all come together, as you've suggested in a summit, to tackle the problem and to deliver the change that we need, and to help improve the state of our rivers. Thank you.

The proposal is to note the committee's report. Does any Member object? No. Therefore, the motion is agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Motion agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.