Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee

Wel, croeso nôl i'r pwyllgor, bawb. Rŷn ni'n symud ymlaen nawr at elfen olaf y dystiolaeth lafar, beth bynnag, ar Fil yr Amgylchedd (Egwyddorion, Llywodraethiant a Thargedau Bioamrywiaeth) (Cymru), ac mae'r sesiwn yma, wrth gwrs, yn un sy'n mynd i glywed gan y Dirprwy Brif Weinidog ac Ysgrifennydd y Cabinet dros Hinsawdd a Materion Gwledig, Huw Irranca-Davies. Croeso atom ni, Dirprwy Brif Weinidog.

Ac yn ymuno ag e mae rhai o'i swyddogion e, sef Naomi Matthiessen, sy'n brif swyddog cyfrifol y Bil, ac yn arweinydd polisi ar gyfer llywodraethiant ac egwyddorion, ac yn ddirprwy gyfarwyddwr is-adran tirweddau, natur a choedwigaeth yn y Llywodraeth. Mae Alice Teague hefyd gyda ni—dirprwy gyfarwyddwr adran y môr a bioamrywiaeth ac arweinydd polisi ar gyfer bioamrywiaeth yn y Llywodraeth; Dorian Brunt, sy'n gyfreithiwr arweiniol gwasanaethau cyfreithiol ar y Bil yma, wrth gwrs; a Joel Scoberg-Evans, sydd hefyd yn gyfreithiwr yng ngwasanaethau cyfreithiol y Llywodraeth ac sydd yn gyfreithiwr arweiniol ar y darpariaethau bioamrywiaeth yn benodol o fewn y Bil.

Felly, croeso i'r pump ohonoch chi. Mi fwrwn ni'n syth i gwestiynau, os gallwn ni, ac fe wnaf i ofyn i Carolyn gychwyn y sesiwn.

Bore da, bawb. I want to ask a question on the environmental objective. Several stakeholders raised concerns that the environmental objective's aim of contributing to the well-being of future generations goals at section 10(a) would weaken application of the environmental principles and integration duties through consideration of the wider economic, social and cultural factors. So, why do you consider section 10(a) is needed?

Thank you very much Carolyn, and good morning, everybody on the committee—

Sorry, I misread that—it's 1(1)(a). So, why do you consider section 1(1)(a) is needed? I misread my notes. Apologies. Thank you.

Okay. No, I understand. I've heard some of the concerns that have been expressed over this, but it is very important, in taking forward this legislation, that we take a very holistic approach that complements the wider policy framework here within Wales and the legislative framework. So, we don't want to end up creating a siloed approach to the environment. And just to say, we've engaged very constructively here on this with the future generations commissioner and, of course, with Natural Resources Wales, who both endorse this approach.

So, the reason why section 1(1)(a) is needed: we want to make sure that we fulfil the aims of the environmental objective, which is a high level of environmental protection and improvement of the environment. But there is complementarity here. Mutually supportive outcomes associated with achieving this objective are highlighted, and these outcomes are not exhaustive, but at subsection (1)(a), we have that reference to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. Now, this provides a clear link and emphasises the compatibility between the sustainable development framework, set out by the WBFG Act, and the environmental objective in this Bill. So, it's a holistic approach. And just to say, it's a similar approach to that taken in the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, section 3(2), and also aspects of the sustainable land management objectives in section 1 of the Agriculture (Wales) Act 2023, again pursuing that complementarity approach there and avoiding siloing of policy.

Will it be very clear that they need to follow the duty, or will they be picking and mixing and choosing, do you think? Sometimes, if it's widely spread and not very clearly defined, then—

I see the point that you're making. It's very important that Welsh Government policy makers and public authorities carrying out strategic environmental assessments apply these duties in a way that is complementary and mutually supported by our groundbreaking well-being of future generations Act. We will address this, by the way, Carolyn, as well, if it's of help, further in guidance provided by the environmental principles and the integrating environmental protection statement as well, so it should be very clear.

There was concern that there's no timeline for the guidance. I might be jumping to a further question here, sorry, Chair, but it just led me to it. So, that is a concern.

Yes, we understand that people want to see this guidance brought forward in due time, and we're happy to engage with those concerns. We will bring it forward, but it needs to be properly considered in bringing forward that guidance, and engagement with the public authorities out there as well to make sure that it does work and it is practical.

Okay. We have heard concerns that the duty to integrate environmental protection into the making of policy that has or could have any effect on the environment undermines the principle of integration. So, how would you respond to this?

Well, I think the integration duty sits alongside; it should be considered with the duties to apply the environmental principles. So, I don't agree that the scope of the duties in sections 3 and 4 undermines in any way the principle of integration. We've made provision for clear and strong duties to integrate environmental protections in sections 3-5 of the Bill, and it'll apply to Welsh Ministers, to NRW, and to other public authorities when carrying out the SEAs as well.

Now, this is a very strong, effective approach, and it's been welcomed by stakeholders. It's important to note as well that this is really important, this integration, because some of the greatest threats to environmental damage arise outside the realm of environmental policy. So, given the strong effect of these duties, it's really, really important that the scope is very clear. Now, this is particularly important in respect of me and other Welsh Ministers. We undertake a broad range of policy making, so it's very important that the scope is clear in providing that the duty applies wherever a policy has or could have an effect on the environment.

Sometimes there's not always clarity for delivery—people who deliver on the ground, I think—that environment also covers nature and biodiversity. Sometimes the focus is on recycling, renewable energy, things like that, rather than the nature emergency. Some stakeholders suggest the duty on public authorities to have regard to the principles and integrate environmental protection is least needed in the context of strategic environmental assessments, given their existing environmental considerations. And we've heard calls for the duty to be extended beyond SEAs to other public authority functions. How do you respond to this? You know, when we get down to councillors who may have priorities regarding budgets—homelessness, social care, roads, things like that—they might see the environment, biodiversity, nature as an addition to have regard for, when you have funding and resources. So, how do we make sure that 'environment' is not just classed as anything to do with what they might deem 'environment', but that it is cross-cutting to all areas, including education?

It is cross-cutting to wherever there is an effect on the environment, and you are right that many policy areas do, and this will include housing and planning and drainage and highways and many other areas. So, we've taken steps within this Bill, Carolyn, to strengthen the environmental principles framework by ensuring that the SEA process applies the principles, and it integrates environmental protection so we've got stronger plans and improved environmental protection.

But, on the wider application of this, in some of the calls that you've heard, for example, in some of the concerns that have been raised by the fire and rescue service in response to your consultation and evidence, they feel they could be subject to OEGW if failing to comply with environmental law when this is unavoidable during, for example, life-saving incidents. Now, as the Bill is currently drafted, this won't be the case. But it's an interesting scenario of what risks could rise if the principles were applied to the day-to-day decisions of public authorities. But we think we've got a very targeted, very proportionate approach here. It complements the wider public policy-making duties imposed on NRW and the Welsh Ministers. We think the balance here is right. The intent is for Welsh Ministers to apply the environmental principles in the strategic stage, expecting these then to be implemented by other authorities established through frameworks under ministerial oversight. The one exception to this, of course, is NRW because of its particular environmental focus and its regulatory and policy-making responsibilities.

Okay, we'll move on to Janet.

Can I come in?

Yes.

Cabinet Secretary, can I ask you why have you not had any conversations with local authorities or through the WLGA regarding the financial regulatory assessment?

Well, actually, I'm not sure that that is completely correct there. My understanding is, Janet, that WLGA and local authority representatives were invited to be interviewed as part of the direct development of the RIA, and they've been extensively engaged during the policy development of the Bill. Now, we're happy to have a more focused discussion with them on specific elements of the RIA if they have concerns, but we are confident about the estimates of the RIA. And just to say, this hasn't been raised with us as an issue to date. So, look, we'll continue work with the WLGA and LAs on the development of the targets. The requirement to consult, by the way, with proposed public authorities provides another mechanism for the LAs to raise these issues. But it's the first we've heard of this.

It's pretty late on in this Bill for us to discover, in taking evidence from a witness, and Jean-Francois Dulong was quite clear there'd been no conversations and no involvement. So, why?

Janet, I can only repeat what I said. The WLGA and local authorities' representatives were invited to be part of the direct development of the RIAs. This is the first time we've heard of it, but there are other opportunities, of course, for them to engage with us, and we're more than happy to have a focused discussion with them on this.

Okay, maybe you could do that, and then maybe you could write to this committee to give us assurances that there's definitely been engagement there, because it is really worrying that—. The financial regulatory impact assessment is a necessary part of bringing forward any legislation. You were in Plenary this week when I raised concerns on that very issue. For me, that's a given now—we need those assurances.

Just on that, if I may, they were pretty clear that they weren't really clear about the level of cost this would mean for them as local government. But we can follow up on this in terms of who did what or where people have been. But there is a broader point here, I think, coming from the WLGA, that they have concerns that without additional funding or without sufficient funding and resource in terms of capacity and expertise, they will find this very challenging, particularly with the section 6 duties that they already are not delivering in a way that maybe many would like. The message was pretty clear that they can't do more without more resource.

And we recognise the always threats that there are on local authorities, of course, Chair. Hasn't it always been the way, as well? But we're very happy to continue engaging with local authorities, and we'll look at the concerns that have been raised with you. But, as I say, there was a clear invitation there to engage with the RIA, and we've got confidence in the RIA.

Just to say, in terms of any additional onus on local authorities that might come from target setting, that will be, as I said, part of the target-setting process. We'll be engaging with local authorities on that, where there might be additional responsibilities that fall on them. But the section 6 duties are already there in the section 6 duties. Yes, I recognise the stretch on local authorities, but that has always been the way.

Right. We end up talking about these issues in all legislation, but there's a reason for that as well, isn't there? Okay. Back to you, then, Janet.

Several stakeholders have raised concerns that the Bill provides the Welsh Ministers with complete discretion about whether and when to review the principles statement. Now, they’ve called for a requirement on the Welsh Ministers to review the statement regularly to keep pace with evidence and other legislation. Have you considered this?

We have considered this, but we think it's an appropriate way that this can be reviewed from time to time, rather than put a bureaucratic, systematic burden on it to do it every few years, that it should be reviewed as and when appropriate, from time to time. We think that's the right way forward.

Okay. Contributors are also concerned that the next Welsh Government will be under no obligation to deliver on your intentions for the OEGW to be fully operational within two years of the Bill's Royal Assent. We have heard calls for the Bill to be amended, so that provisions in Part 2 would automatically come into force two years from Royal Assent if they have not already been commenced. Is this something you have considered?

Yes, indeed, we have considered this. I think, as I've said to the committee before, we've looked at the establishment of other bodies and how long it takes, not only to establish the body in terms of its practical functioning, but actually to take on board all its responsibility.

There is a high degree of uncertainty, I've got to say, around the process and procedures to establish a body like the OEGW. So, if we hold ourselves hostage to a specific timescale, it's a very high-risk approach. However, we are considering such provision, given that concerns have been raised. We need to consider what a reasonable time frame actually looks like. We've previously considered—and it's based on our best experience of establishing bodies like this—that it takes two years to establish a body. And that, by the way, is on the assumption that everything goes as well as can be expected. There are risks with that. But we could look, for example, at an approach where we have a requirement to commence all of the OEGW's functions by the end of the next term, which would enable us then to establish the OEGW early and then to take on board all the functions. But I just caution against moving with too much speed and haste and setting the body up to fail. But I'd be interested in the committee's reflections on this, because there are some real practical considerations here, and we do not want to set up the OEGW to fail.

And just a tiny one. Are you assured that we've got those skills in Wales? Or, do you think we've got the expertise for this to get going quite easily?

Yes, I'm confident that we can establish this body. But you've just highlighted one of the concerns, one of the many concerns, with setting up a body that requires this degree of expertise and capacity. Yes, we can do it, but setting an arbitrary timescale could be a high-risk strategy.

Thank you very much. Okay.

Delyth nesaf.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Bore da. To stick with the OEGW, there have been people who've raised concerns with us as a committee that possibly the body's general purpose might be too broad, particularly about the fact that there's reference to contributing to the well-being goals under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and that normally—. Well, the concern that's been raised with us is that, normally, bodies that have an oversight function or an audit function wouldn't be caught under that duty, then, in the same way as delivery bodies would be, and that some of the commissioners have not been expected to comply with those goals. How would you respond to those concerns, please? What would be the rationale for including the well-being goals in the legislation in this way?

Thanks, Delyth. It's important that we reflect on the fact that environmental law impacts upon several of the well-being goals themselves. So, we directly acknowledge this within the wider purpose of the OEGW, given the very unique and powerful role that it's going to play in safeguarding the environment. It will be considered a public body for the purposes of the well-being of future generations Act, so they will need to consider their contribution to sustainable development and the well-being goals, regardless of the general purpose and the relationship of that to the objective. However, what the Bill does is it recognises and strengthens these connections to this unique policy framework in Wales, one that we should be really proud of, and it gives them particular emphasis.

I should say as well, we've discussed this with NRW, who agree with us that the wording in this respect is very, very similar to NRW's general purpose,

'to pursue the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources',

which also references the well-being of future generations Act. So, we don't think this is out of kilter. We think it fits within the policy frameworks within Wales, and it's the right approach. This is not 'for Wales, read England'; this is in our policy framework.

Okay, thank you for that. And then turning to whether or not there should be an express provision on the face of the Bill about the body's independence from Government, previously you have been sceptical about whether there should be that express provision. But we have heard evidence from the Office for Environmental Protection and Environmental Standards Scotland that, in their cases, having the provision stated in the founding legislation has been valuable. Now, I utterly respect the fact that you've said that you don't think that it would be necessary in this case. Could you please talk us through what disadvantages you feel there would be to including the express provision?

It's been interesting hearing those concerns, because I've laid out to the committee before in black and white why we think the independence that's enshrined within this legislation goes further than other legislation. I won't rehearse them again, but I've put them on record previously. There's a number of ways in which the independence is stronger within this legislation. The ability of Ministers to direct OEGW, to request them to do things, et cetera, that doesn't include—. I could go on, but I won't go through that list again. But we have heard some of the feedback, including from some of the other environmental protection agencies—the OEP, ESS, and other stakeholders as well—who've endorsed the inclusion of an express clear provision on OEGW independence. I've got to say, from my point of view as the Minister, this would be something of a declaratory statement as opposed to good law making, but it is—. I do believe that it's important that we stress the independence of the OEGW. I think we've done that through the Bill already. But, look, I recognise that there are many views from stakeholders on the benefits of an approach that would make it more explicit. There are actually relatively few disadvantages that we could identify to it, so we are giving further thought to its inclusion within the Bill. We want to get it right; we don't see any downsides of it, it's just that we don't feel that it's necessary.

Okay, thank you for that. We will be following with interest how that develops as you're considering it. And finally from me for now, on the appointments process of non-executive members of the OEGW, there have been calls that have been made to us that some people think and some organisations feel that the Senedd should have greater oversight of the appointment of those non-executive members. And again, and I appreciate that you've said that it shouldn't be 'for Wales, see England' or indeed 'for Wales, see Scotland', but the Scottish Parliament does have that role of approving ESS appointments and not just to be consulted on them. Has there been a particular reason why you've decided to draft this in a slightly different way?

Yes. I think it's because we're trying to get the balance right here, the right approach here. Look, we've weighted the appointment process to give more prominence to the independent panel members, who will have that necessary expertise then to inform advice that will come to Ministers. The relevant Senedd committee will need to be consulted prior to the appointment, and those are powerful hearings in front of a committee, that pre-appointment hearing procedure. And by the way, this is along the same lines as the appointment of the future generations commissioner as well. So, we just don't think it's necessary to involve the Senedd committee directly in the appointment process, as opposed to that sort of pre-appointment hearing procedure. But, look, we're interested in the committee's views on this. We think we've got the balance right and this is a good way forward.

Okay. Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Delyth. Julie.

Diolch. Bore da. I'm going to ask you about funding of the OEGW. You've questioned the merit of including provision in the Bill to ensure that the Welsh Government provides the OEGW with sufficient funding, but we have heard from the OEP and the ESS that having such a provision has been useful. So, again, what would be the disadvantages of having a provision on the sufficiency of funding?

I've mentioned previously, Julie, my concerns over defining 'sufficiency of funding' within legislation: who determines what is a sufficient level of funding? I think that is a pertinent point. But, look, we've heard some of the feedback that you’ve had from some of the other environmental organisations—the OEP, ESS and other stakeholders—who’ve continued to advocate for something that looks like a sufficient funding statement. I've got to say that it remains my view that this would be mainly declaratory in nature.

However, given the strength of feeling on this matter, we are giving some consideration to amendments that could give effect to this requirement without, I've got to say, drafting wording so that the provision would be easily open to challenge as to what is considered sufficient. There's the real challenge: you’ve put that into legislation, but who determines what is sufficient? We could be arguing about this until the cows come home. We're open to the representations that have been put forward, but we're just trying to see whether there is a way of putting something in on it. I don't think, Julie, there would necessarily be a downside, other than we could create confusion if we get this wrong, because of that, ‘Who determines sufficiency?’

Thank you for that answer, and it's good that you are considering this issue, bearing in mind the strength of feeling there seems to be. Audit Wales told us that, to ensure independence, the OEGW should be funded from the Welsh consolidated fund with approval of the budget by the Senedd, like the Public Services Ombudsman for Wales. Did you consider that at any point?

Yes, we did. We looked at that as an option, and we discounted it because we concluded that there wouldn't be any financial advantage to the OEGW being funded through this mechanism; in fact, there could be some disadvantage. So, for example, when we come to underspends elsewhere in in-year budget management processes, where reallocation of funding that's become available can be done, then if it was in the consolidated fund, that is then ruled out.

Now, that flexibility could be helpful to the OEGW, and it could be particularly helpful in the early years of their establishment and operation as well. So, we don't consider that this would undermine the independence, by the way, of the body. I've stated previously, and I could go to town on it, how we've actually marked out within this legislation the independence of this body through other safeguards that we've built into the legislation. So, we did consider it, Julie, but we just don't think it has any advantages, and it might, indeed, have a significant disadvantage.

One thing to say, though, that might be of help: I think this might be another area where even though, again, it might be declaratory in nature, a statement that was something to do with having regard to the OEGW's independence might assist as well.

Right, thank you for that. As I say, it's good that these issues are under consideration. I'm going to ask you now about the OEGW's duties under the well-being of future generations Act, and the fact that the auditor general and others have questioned why the OEGW will be subject to the duties under the well-being of future generations Act, particularly as the body's main function will be oversight rather than delivery. So, could you explain why you consider that reasonable?

Yes, we do think it's reasonable and the appropriate way forward, because the OEGW will be, of course, classified as a public body in relation to the well-being of future generations Act, so it'll need to comply with the duties in the Act. This includes the seven well-being goals and the sustainable development principle in its operations.

I’ve mentioned this previously: the functions of the OEGW, to ensure oversight of the implementation and the application and the effectiveness of environmental law, are inherently aligned with those well-being goals, in particular, by the way, that goal of being a resilient Wales. So, we recognise that the OEGW, through its functions, will make a huge contribution to the wider policy and legal landscape, and that includes sustainable development.

It doesn’t mean, by the way, just to give that assurance, that the OEGW should ignore non-compliance because it relates to activity that supports other well-being goals. But it means that the OEGW's approach to resolving non-compliance should be applied through that lens of the well-being goals. We don't think this dilutes its environmental oversight function; we consider this as complementary rather than conflicting with the OEGW's mandate. And again, it ties in with that Welsh policy and legislative framework within which it's operating. It's not dissimilar, by the way, to—in fact, it has parallels with—the NRW approach to embedding the WFG Act duties into its ways of working as well, which they also consider complements what they do; it's not a dilution of what they do.

Thank you very much.

Diolch, Julie. Janet.

Thank you. Some stakeholders are concerned about the potential for duplication of functions—and I get this, I understand it—between the OEGW and existing oversight bodies and feel there is a lack of clarity around how the OEGW's role will fit into this existing landscape. Is there not a role for the Welsh Government in providing this clarity on the OEGW's distinct role whilst promoting awareness and understanding?

I think the OEGW will do this in line with the legislation that we're considering very well. It'll do it itself. It's very important, I think, that the OEGW is seen as and is independent from Welsh Ministers. It will develop that brand and define its approach and its functioning as it sets out itself there. So we do expect, as part of that, Janet, the OEGW to engage with the public and stakeholders about its role, about its responsibilities, about what it does specifically, including in terms of receiving representations and building on the successes and the lessons learned from other environmental protection organisations who've been effective in this regard.

So, for us, it's allowing the OEGW to set out clearly and to define itself in terms of the legislation in what it pursues. But if the committee have any specific considerations on this, I'd be happy to do it. But what I don't want is Welsh Ministers to be interfering in not just the OEGW's independence, but its role in actually promoting awareness and understanding of the role of the OEGW and explaining that and the difference between it and other front-line regulators to stakeholders and to the public.

Okay, thank you. Environmental non-governmental organisations raised concerns that, as drafted—[Interruption.]

Sorry, Janet. Deputy First Minister.

Dorian, I think, wants to come in here.

My apologies. I should have been keeping a keener eye on the screen in front of me. Dorian, yes, please come in here.

Thank you, Deputy First Minister and Chair. I just wanted the committee to note that, in Schedule 2 to the Bill, which sets out the provisions about the OEGW's strategy, it says at paragraph 1(1)(e) that the strategy will require the OEGW to set out how it exercises its functions in a way that seeks to avoid overlap with the exercise of functions by the Auditor General for Wales, the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales and various other ombudsmen. I just wanted to draw that to the attention of the committee.

That's very useful. Diolch yn fawr.

Thank you. Environmental NGOs have also raised concerns that, as drafted, paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 on the OEGW's strategy is overly prescriptive and could undermine its independence. How do you respond to this?

We don't believe that Schedule 2 is overly prescriptive. It simply outlines those areas that the strategy could cover. It doesn't define how the OEGW should do that work. It's certainly no more prescriptive than legislation outlining the requirements for the Office for Environmental Protection and Environmental Standards Scotland strategies. It's not exhaustive. It leaves plenty of scope for OEGW to include further detail in this strategy if they're so minded.

We think the details set out for the strategy in Schedule 2 are well balanced. They only contain matters that the OEGW must communicate through the strategy. But the substance of those matters is at the discretion of the OEGW, if not otherwise prescribed in the Bill itself. However, we've asked stakeholders to tell us what exactly they want to see changed or removed from Schedule 2 to inform our thinking going forward. So, we hear what they're saying, but we believe it's in the right place at the moment, and if they have particular concerns then we're engaging with them to try and find out what those are.

Thank you. The Bill provides that the OEGW must review its strategy every four years. What consideration have you given to including an enabling power for the OEGW to review and revise its strategy as is required to provide flexibility for an earlier review if desirable?

We think that within four years of its initial publication is the right timeline to review the strategy, and we think this is important for several reasons. It allows the strategy to remain responsive to emerging environmental challenges and to refocus those priorities for the OEGW if the OEGW feels that is needed. It also, I have to say, supports public accountability so that the strategy needs to be consulted upon and published so that the OEGW's intentions are clear and transparent and visible and open to scrutiny. But thirdly, it aligns with what we've heard from stakeholders about needing a broad and evolving strategic framework rather than something that is just set in aspic and then forgotten. So, I think that four-year timeline within four years of the initial publication gives it the right time to come back to it and to see whether it needs adjustment.

Okay, thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. Carolyn.

Can I ask a question regarding public representation? Environmental NGOs and academics have raised concerns that the Bill fails to provide Wales's citizens with a clear legal right to make representations on environmental law, a right enjoyed prior to EU exit. They've called for the Bill to adopt a similar approach to the UK Environment Act 2021, which sets out unequivocally the rights of the public. How would you respond to that?

I hear those calls there for something more explicit. I've always been very clear with this that, in setting up the OEGW, and within its functions, citizens of Wales, organisations, individuals should be able to make representations, and, if the OEGW feels appropriate, it should be able to respond to representations made. And those representations, of course, can be made within the legislation as it stands, within paragraph 1(2)(b) to Schedule 2. It puts requirements on the OEGW to set out how it'll manage representations, including enabling persons to make representations, how these might be published and prioritised and how people will be kept informed.

But in listening to the feedback from stakeholders, I'm open to ideas around bringing this up more clearly, perhaps into a separate section on the face of the Bill, with some sort of introductory provision stating any legally defined persons can make representations. I don't think, by the way, this would have any substantive effect on the operation of the provisions, but it may help in terms of presentation.

So, I recognise this could be an area where it's helpful to remove any doubt whatsoever, because you are right in saying one of the benefits we had previously before we withdrew from the EU was the ability of citizens or citizens' organisations to bring representations. That is within the Bill already. But if it helps presentationally, we think there might be ways to surface this more clearly within the Bill, given the importance of providing citizens access to environmental justice.

Very often they're the eyes on the ground that we need, and if there's clear guidance on the face of the Bill, that might help with that public accountability and participation, basically. So, thank you for that suggestion.

Thank you. The Bill as drafted doesn't include a requirement for independent oversight by the OEGW of progress towards biodiversity targets. That is different, of course, in England. The OEP does review progress towards the biodiversity targets there, and the ESS in Scotland, if the Bill passes as drafted, would require a similar role there as well. So, why do you feel that the approach in Wales should be different in that respect?

Chair, this is an interesting one, because even though there isn't an express duty on the OEGW to monitor targets, it does provide that strategic enabling framework allowing the OEGW to determine its own priorities. We've talked a lot in this session, but also in previous discussions about this, about the independence of the OEGW to pursue its own priorities. So, I think this is very much grounded in that approach, providing that independence and that discretion to the OEGW.

As an independent body of experts, the OEGW is the one that's best placed to determine its own priorities. And if it chooses to actually then monitor progress in terms of biodiversity targets, it can do so within the legislation. Schedule 2 requires the strategy to set out how it intends to monitor any environmental targets set by or under environmental law. This includes biodiversity targets, but does not limit the OEGW to those targets exclusively. And of course, the OEGW has to demonstrate how it will comply with the environmental objective, which includes halting and reversing biodiversity decline. So, it's really embedded there within it.

I've got to say this approach that we're taking reflects evidence from the other environmental protection organisations—the OEP, ESS and others—who all emphasise the importance of allowing the OEGW to select which statutory obligations to focus on in line with its resources. So, it's for them to determine, but they can do it.

Okay, but if there's a statutory obligation, there's a statutory obligation. They can't pick and choose.

We don't put that express duty there to monitor targets, but it gives them the framework that if they choose to do so, they can do so.

Yes, I see. Okay, so if it's not there, they can choose to do it. By the way, before we go on, I still struggle with the acronym, Deputy First Minister—the OEGW. I'm going to pitch here now for EGW—Environmental Governance Wales. Why we need 'office', I don't know, but maybe that's something you can reflect on. Llywodraethiant Amgylcheddol Cymru I think would be better. Anyway, we can come back to that maybe at Stage 2, but that would mean a lot of amendments, but there we are—that's a whole other story. Julie, over to you.

Diolch. Why are there no powers for judicial review included in the Bill?

We don't think it's required, Julie. The OEGW would be able to apply for judicial review without any express provision on the face of the Bill. Anyone can apply for a JR under the existing mechanisms. The courts decide ultimately if the applicant has sufficient standing to proceed. So, in our view, a statement on the face of the Bill that the OEGW can apply for JR and intervene in proceedings would carry no greater weight whatsoever than existing provisions in law to bring a JR to intervene.

Ultimately, the courts will decide. They are the decision makers as to whether the OEGW has standing based on a test of sufficient interest to proceed with that application. So, that's why we've come to the conclusion we have. They can bring a judicial review, but they have a range of other powers here in terms of compliance within this Bill as well, but it doesn't preclude judicial review being brought; it's just that there is no need for an express provision within the Bill. They, like any other organisation, can actually put to the courts a request for judicial review.

Right, thank you. We did hear in evidence that judicial review provision hasn't been included due to the limitations on the Senedd's legislative competence. Is there any truth in that?

No, not at all. It's because of the factors that I've just described there. Just to extend this a little bit, we note that the provisions in the UK and Scottish Acts are actually, in some ways, more restrictive, because they require applications from their environmental bodies to relate to serious failure to comply with environmental law. We're not going to impose such a restriction within this Bill on the OEGW, or EGW as it's just been renamed, I think. It's free for them, under the current powers that are available to any organisation, to bring a request for judicial review without any constraint, and there are constraints under the other legislation in different parts of the UK.

Thank you. So, EGW, as we all—

Don't start using it until we have a consensus. [Laughter.]

There's nothing to prevent it bringing judicial review—I think that's the conclusion of what you've said to us.

To do it like any other organisation, and it'll be for the courts to decide whether they've mounted sufficient arguments, then, to do it. But also there are no constraints within this Bill on why they should bring judicial review, and I think that's very important to note as well.

Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you, Julie. Joyce.

I'm going to talk about co-operation between OEGW—as I'm going to call it—and its counterparts. Both the UK Withdrawal from the European Union (Continuity) (Scotland) Act 2021 and the UK Environment Act 2021 enable ESS and the OEP to share confidential information with counterparts in other UK nations, and we've heard from both those bodies about the benefits of that provision. Why is there no comparable provision in the Bill for OEGW? And, in the absence of that provision, could it hinder that joint, co-operative way of working?

No, we don't believe so, in answer to your second question, Joyce, and there's a reason why we think we've got the balance just right here in the approach within this legislation. So, the confidentiality clauses within the Bill already support the effective treatment of information provided to the OEGW, including the capability to share information with the consent of the public authority that provided the information or the correspondence. But we just consider that including provisions stating that confidential information can or will be shared with third parties would undermine the confidence of public authorities in the OEGW, and it could actually reduce those collaborative efforts to obtain information, and even resolve non-compliance without resorting to stricter formal measures, which could take much more time and much more resource. So, we think this approach is the right one. But I wonder whether my colleagues, either Naomi or Dorian, want to add to this, based on our consideration of the way forward here.

Would one of you wish to come in?

Don't feel that I'm—

Deputy First Minister, I think you've covered that point well. We're confident that, particularly given the emphasis that we want to have on the OEGW resolving things informally, as far as possible, this sets the right framework to do that, while still enabling that information sharing to take place. While I have the microphone, would the committee be happy if I pick up three points that came earlier in the session, and just clarified those, or would you rather I did that at the end?

No, we're happy to take the evidence. I'm mindful, slightly, of time, but we're okay at the minute. So, yes, please do. Please do.

Okay. Thank you. It will be very brief. So, first of all, mainly this relates to Carolyn Thomas's questions. Carolyn asked when the statement would be published. Hang on—sorry, this is about—. I just need to find my notes. So, this is the statement on how the principles should be applied, and we will be engaging with stakeholders in the coming months on that, and aiming to consult on that before the end of the term. So, stakeholders and committee members will be able to see more detail on that interpretation of the principles very soon.

The other point that I wanted to make was Carolyn Thomas also asked about the interpretation of 'environment' and the fact that some people often just don't consider the natural environment within that, and just to say that that has been specifically set out within the legislation, in the general interpretation aspects, and that makes it very clear that 'environment' is intended to cover natural environment as well as things like waste and recycling.

And then the third thing I just wanted to mention was that the OEGW, when it's set up, will have the ability to choose a different name. So, hopefully, we will not have to continue with that acronym.

Okay. Well—

I don't think it needs an amendment to do that, does it? The OEGW—

No. Fine. Okay. Well, that will save us all a lot of consequential amendments as well, I'm sure. Yes. Okay. Diolch yn fawr. Back to Joyce, I think, isn't it?

Yes. We're looking at clarification of which bodies will fall in the governance gap between the OEP and the OEGW's jurisdiction, and whether you're going to address that, and if you are going to address it, how you're going to address it.

Yes, Joyce. There are certain specific bodies that are not subject to devolved oversight, and therefore they're going to fall outside the jurisdiction of the OEGW. So, this includes organisations such as Network Rail, the Crown Estate, the Ministry of Defence. Now, these reserved bodies are not within the devolved control of this Senedd. So, they're not subject to the same political oversight in the way that authorities included within the scope of the OEGW are. But there is a way forward. The OEP exists to cover reserved authorities, and if any oversight gap were to arise, we consider these can be addressed through co-operation between the OEGW, the OEP and the public authorities themselves. So, whilst this will be a matter for the OEP and the OEGW to resolve, my officials, just to let you know, have already started discussions with the OEP towards informing a future solution that could be brought forward to the OEGW for their consideration. So, we've already started those discussions on how we resolve this governance gap, as you described.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Right. We're going to move on to focus specifically on the biodiversity targets now, and Carolyn's going to lead us into this.

Thank you. Naomi, I hear what you say about the natural environment specifically being set out in legislation in the Bill, but there is a call to have biodiversity on the face of the Bill and biodiversity targets as well. So, we've had strong calls for the Bill to include a target to reverse the decline in species abundance by 2035. According to stakeholders, this target will indicate the scale and pace of change required to set biodiversity on a path to recovery. What consideration have you given to the inclusion of such a target, and also for long and short-term targets? So, we want to know why the Bill is silent on the duration of the targets. For example, if we had a short-term and a long-term vision of how to get there, that might help as well.

Thanks, Carolyn. Well, I can happily explain why we're taking the approach that we are, although I've heard those calls for something to do with abundance on the face of the Bill. It's because, under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, our approach that we are committed to is an ecosystem-based approach, and this focuses on the health and resilience of that overall ecosystem. Now, I've got to say, this is well founded. It's in line with the approach outlined in the global biodiversity framework. It gives that much more holistic, sustainable pathway to nature recovery in the round. So, if we go for a headline species abundance target, it would diverge from this ecosystem-based approach, which underpins all of our environmental policies, which are well established, as I say, based on the global biodiversity framework approach.

But we do recognise the importance of species abundance. We've included this as a key consideration for Welsh Ministers in setting out our targets. So, in setting the targets, Welsh Ministers, I and others have got to be satisfied that those targets contribute to halting and reversing biodiversity decline, and in particular that they contribute to increasing the abundance of native species or enhancing the resilience of ecosystems and increasing genetic diversity. So, that's our reasoning. There's a real principled point here. Whilst I understand the calls, taking that ecosystems approach is well founded, well established, and we think it's the right one.

There is another reason as well, by the way, and it's a very practical one. If we go to set a target on species abundance at this stage, it would mean doing so without undertaking the necessary scenario modeling to enable us to get to that much more specific, measurable, achievable and realistic target. We would not, if we set a target on the Bill, have done that consultation with a broad range of stakeholders across Wales as well, which could jeopardise the deliverability of a target as well.

But you mentioned as well the duration of the targets. We think, by not stating a specific requirement or time frame, we’re able to adopt a much more flexible approach, which means we can set short, medium, long-term targets. This, I’ve got to say, reflects the complexities of our environmental systems. They don’t always respond in a purely linear fashion to interventions. So, setting the right time frame for the different targets is the right approach. So, for example, setting the target to determine the condition of all our protected sites is likely to be a very short-term target. However, a habitat extent and condition target is likely to be a longer time frame. It can take decades for some habitats to be turned around and to become well established. So, that’s why we've taken the approach that we have.

Okay. Delyth wants to come in, and then I'll come to Joyce.

Thank you so much. On that point about the duration of the targets, we have had some representations about this, about the possible risks of taking almost a de minimis approach to implementation. I utterly appreciate what you're saying about having that flexibility, and, with a Government that is well meaning, of course that is what we would expect would happen. But, isn't there a risk that, because the Bill allows both long-term and short-term targets, but it doesn't specifically require either, there could be a scenario where a Government could choose only to bring forward short-term targets. And, in a similar vein, elsewhere in the Bill, the language around halting and reversing the decline in biodiversity, in new section 6B, could limit the ambition in restoring biodiversity. So, I completely appreciate that you want to be able to empower, and for there to be that flexibility, but if a Government in the future were minded only to take what is literally required of them, that risk is there, isn't it?

I think you’ve just explained very well the complexity of this. But that’s why we do think it is right, and I hope we’ll always have a well-meaning and progressive government here in Wales that really delivers on these targets. But having that flexible approach—. We have those short, medium and longer term ones, recognising, in the couple of examples that I gave, that there will be some that do take a longer time, and they need to be well grounded and given that time to develop. Others could be more short term.

But, look, we’d be interested in the thoughts of the committee on any way forward on this, as to how you would consider setting time frames for target durations that can be achieved, but also allowing for that flexibility to set a meaningful range of targets. We’ve got to retain that ability, otherwise, if we’re too prescriptive, we’re going to hamstring that ability to have really meaningful, really enduring outcomes for the natural environment.

Okay. Joyce, you wanted to come in.

We all like to hope, and it can be sometimes a false bedfellow. So, in the absence of that not happening—that we have reasonable governments all of the time, with good intentions here in Wales—we have to take a different approach. And my concern on this is this: whilst I accept everything you’ve said, and the reasons that you’ve given for that, if we don’t immediately look at what needs to happen in the short term—and that is staring us pretty much in the face at the moment—and added to that the longer term targets, and the rivers would be definitely within both of those, we won’t see any change. We can hope all we like that it might happen, and we’ve been living in hope that people would adhere to the legislation already in place, but that hasn’t stopped polluters from polluting. So, it becomes false hope. So, my question to you is this: will you look at this again and clearly outline what you mean by the statement that you’ve made? And if you did that in writing, because I know we haven’t got much time now, we’d accept that. Thank you.

Joyce, look, as I’ve said, I’m interested in what the committee can bring forward that gives that flexibility that is absolutely necessary for the timescales for the duration of the targets here. Let me go back to those two examples that I gave. If you are to turn around sites in terms of nature restoration and habitat restoration, that can take time. That can be a long-term target. If it's simply a question of mapping and listing them, and the ones we need to do it on, that can be done in the short term. So, it does need that mix, that flexibility, within it, but if the committee has additional suggestions of how this could be framed I'm genuinely more than happy to listen to them. But we think we've got the balance right here.

Okay, well, that's a fair challenge to us as a committee. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. Janet.

Thank you. Some stakeholders were concerned that the priority area on extinction risk could ignore the importance of other species that we know are in decline, but not yet at risk. It was suggested that the priority area could be redrafted more broadly, for example, to refer to improving the status of native species. Will you consider this?

So, this is an interesting one, because, as currently drafted, the priority area is to reduce the extinction risk of native species. I've just got to say, this doesn't preclude setting a target that addresses abundance, distribution or extinction. So, it's not that it stands there on its own. It doesn't preclude setting those other targets. So, from a Welsh Ministers' perspective, we can only set a target, according to the approach set out in this legislation, if we're satisfied that meeting it would contribute to halting and reversing decline in biodiversity, in particular through abundance of native species or enhancing the resilience of ecosystems or increasing genetic diversity, as I've laid out before. So, in considering how target-setting requirements work alongside the priority areas, this provides additional confidence that targets will be set that reflect the importance of other species than those only at risk of extinction. We've also included, Janet, a requirement to have regard to section 7 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 when considering whether a target would contribute to increasing the abundance of native species. So, the section 7 list is exactly what you described, which is for species and habitats of principal importance here in Wales.

Okay, thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. Delyth.

Diolch eto. The Joint Nature Conservation Committee have told us—and I'm quoting from them—that experience and evidence suggests that the first loss of biodiversity targets could be developed within a tight 12-month timetable. But it's been suggested as well that there are Welsh-specific issues that might mean that a longer timetable is needed in Wales. Could you please explain what you believe those issues might be?

Yes. I don't think there are Welsh-specific issues, but what we are trying to do in Wales is get these targets absolutely right, and we genuinely make no apologies for this. We're doing an immense amount of work to get these targets right and meaningful and deliver the outcomes that we want.

But I can give you an illustration of what we're trying to avoid, and this is without criticism of what's happened elsewhere explicitly; it's just an acknowledgement. So, we know that the recent report from the Office for Environmental Protection highlights that robust modelling, which takes time, which takes real insight and intelligence, is imperative to inform target ambition and development. So, that report from the OEP found, for example, that the DEFRA modelling for the Environment Act 2021 species abundance target suffered because it had simplified assumptions and data gaps. They leapt to it, they went for it, and that undermined it as a target. So, we're trying to learn from DEFRA's experience and other people's experience. So, we have templated a more conservative timeline—I acknowledge that—in developing these targets, but we believe this is important because it will allow us to much more accurately develop our model assumptions, get it right, and lead to much more concrete target ambitions that are really tangible, really measurable, and can be delivered. It's critically important. I'm as tempted as anybody to say, 'Let's go with more haste here,' but my worry is we trip over ourselves and we reflect on this in several years and go, 'Oh, my goodness, why didn't we properly consider that and get it absolutely right?' If we're actually pushed into, for example, setting targets within 12 months, which I've heard some calls for, saying, 'Get on with it; just produce these targets within 12 months,' this would severely curtail the amount of detailed work and modelling that we're able to undertake and it could potentially reduce the level of ambition for our targets, because we'd have to leap at simplified, cruder targets, and perhaps badly informed targets as well. So, in addition to developing the targets and metrics, we're going to need to develop the regulations that flow from this. Those regulations will need to be subject to public consultation. Time needs to be given, then, to analyse the responses—not undue time, but we need to consider the responses that come back in on them. And, of course, I've been through before with the committee the need for proper regulatory impact assessments, which we touched on earlier here today, including cost-benefit analysis, integrated impact assessments and implementation guidance as well. So, that's why we need to model this really well and do it well and learn from others where there's been more of a rush towards targets.

Okay. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. Julie.

Have you considered requiring a revoked target to be replaced with a new alternative target?

Thanks, Julie. I'm actually open-minded on this, because we do recognise that, in principle, introducing such a requirement could be quite a valuable addition to the Bill. It could help to further strengthen its impact and its ambition. What we would need to do, however, is to give careful consideration to ensuring that the duty, if there was such a duty, didn't inadvertently then simply replicate a previously revoked target, particularly where the rationale for revocation was very sound, very evidence based. So, we'd be interested in any thoughts from the committee to enable us to consider this further. We recognise in principle it could add to the Bill.

Thank you. Well, perhaps we can come back to that.

Joyce.

I'm going to ask about public authorities' designation and duties and the fact that some stakeholders have suggested a wider duty on public authorities to contribute to the delivery of achieving biodiversity targets as an alternative to the approach taken in the Bill, where they'd be designated. So, have you considered what public authorities can do and should be mindful of doing in supporting your wishes within this Bill?

We have, Joyce. We have considered this, and our starting point on this is that the duty-to-contribute provisions are being inserted into the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, where there is already, of course, as you say, that duty on public authorities to seek to maintain and enhance biodiversity, promote the resilience of ecosystems, where they exercise their functions in Wales, and, in complying with their existing section 6 duty, all public authorities will also be contributing to the delivery of biodiversity targets in that broad sense there. But, by adding targets in priority areas, then we're going to provide further clarity on the key aims for section 6. So, this will strengthen the existing mechanisms. So, this new, explicit duty for designated public authorities to contribute to the delivery of targets will strengthen and provide further clarity on the implementation of section 6 duties. And of course, the targets will address specific aspects of biodiversity and the drivers of biodiversity loss. It wouldn't be appropriate, we don't think, to introduce a blanket duty on all public authorities beyond what section 6 already requires. So, I hope that's helpful, Joyce, in answering.

Okay. I'm going to move on now to the adequacy of resourcing as a potential barrier for implementing Part 3 of the Bill. We've heard from local authorities on, of course, the issue of finance. But the other capacity they kept mentioning was expertise, and, to be quite honest, the fear of losing the expertise they've already got to another body, which would, in turn, negate their possibility of delivering what you want. So, I'm going to ask you how you're thinking about that, and I'm going to throw a curveball here and I'm going to also suggest that, if that is being identified, and it clearly is being identified—have you given thought in terms of linking up your Government and supporting some apprenticeship and training ahead of the need?

Yes, we're already working on this and engaged on this. It's not dissimilar from the challenge, by the way, that we also face within such major aspects of this Government's work as coal-tip remediation, or flood work as well—similar challenges in making sure that we grow the capacity for everybody, from contractors to local authorities to the public bodies themselves; it's a common theme. And I've described to the committee before the work that we're doing on this and skills development and how we're also looking at filling some of these skills gaps through also looking to international recruitment as well, through established players, which will assist as well. But I think your point is right, Joyce, in that we need to grow this capacity together. There will be more of a demand here for expertise in a range of functions within this, and it won't simply be on the OEGW—it will be on local authority partners and other public bodies as well. So, we're very seized with that; we're working on it.

Just on that targeted funding, I've helped with drainage officers and biodiversity officers recently, but there is a bit of concern, with a change of Government and change of priorities, that they might not have the targeted funding and local authorities might have to manage on existing funding in the revenue support grant. So, that's just a consideration, really, and a point I wanted to make.

Regarding the section 6 biodiversity plan, we heard disappointment that section 35 of the Bill does not stipulate that the biodiversity plan must address the responsibilities of all Welsh Ministers. Given your intention that the section 6 plan will be the Welsh Government's new biodiversity strategy, would this plan cover ministerial portfolios across Government and, if so, should the Bill reflect this? This is going back to, again, a willing Government that will put biodiversity and the nature emergency and climate change at the centre of all they do, and a Government that doesn't believe in it, basically, so—.

Well, I'm glad to say that you can already hold all Welsh Ministers to account on this, because our duties are set out in terms of all Welsh Ministers in section 6 to maintain and enhance biodiversity in the exercise of our functions here in Wales, and this includes all areas of activity—so, it's not just my portfolio, it's procurement, it's infrastructure planning, it's policy development. So, we think this is robust already—those duties apply to all Welsh Ministers.

Okay, but do you believe that the Bill should reflect this, that there needs to be something more in the Bill to ensure that, in the future, it's across all portfolios?

I think we have it clear within the Bill how the section 6 duty applies and how the OEGW should seek to oversee this, but I wonder whether I could bring in any of my colleagues on this, because if the committee does have any views as to what might be put forward to make a difference, we'd be interested in hearing them. But Naomi or anybody?

Naomi? Oh, Alice.

Thank you, Deputy First Minister, I'm happy to jump in. As you said, the section 6 duty is an existing duty, so, any future Government would still be required to uphold that duty, and, as has already been said, the OEGW would then be able to look at any future Government that wasn't complying with that.

We've heard strong calls for guidance to support implementation of the section 6 duty, given poor implementation of the existing duty and the new duties that the Bill would introduce. You've committed to updating the existing guidance, so when would you be doing that? There's a note here that there's no statutory requirement for the guidance to be updated. So, given the Bill will be implemented in the next Senedd, should it include a statutory requirement to publish this guidance?

Yes, I can give you an update, Carolyn, on that. In terms of the duties under section 6, I'm going to be writing out to our public authorities in Wales very shortly to remind them of the requirement to publish their section 6 reports by the end of the year, and accompanying this letter, we'll have something of a resource sheet containing, for example, links to existing guidance and practical examples of actions authorities can take to comply with their duties. So, we are, as you say, committed also to supporting those public authorities in meeting their duties through providing updated guidance. The resource sheet that I mentioned, by the way, we've already shared it with the key delivery stakeholders, the section 6 delivery stakeholders, for feedback, so this helps to address Audit Wales’s recommendation in its recent report, where it suggested that there should be co-development of guidance with those public authorities.

So, in terms of timescale, we intend to publish a planning template by the end of this year to assist authorities in preparing those section 6 plans, in line with the Audit Wales recommendations. There is further guidance, of course, going forward, because as we introduce the biodiversity targets, we will need to produce new or updated guidance, which will again be developed in line with those timescales and milestones of the target-setting process, so there will be more to come as well. But by the end of this year, we'll bring forward that planning template for the section 6 authorities.

Can I just come back? I think that would be welcomed by the officers on the ground, to get that political buy-in at a higher level, so thank you for that.

Okay. Just on monitoring, Wales Environment Link suggested adding a monitoring duty on Welsh Ministers that would be comparable to the duty on the Secretary of State in the UK Environment Act. Is that something you considered, and if so, why did you decide against including it?

I think, Chair, it's because the Bill already, as drafted, has really strong provisions to support transparency and accountability in monitoring those targets. So, if I can draw your attention to section 6B(5)(b), which puts that duty on Welsh Ministers to specify indicators for measuring progress against the targets, and the use of indicators, of course, requires Welsh Ministers to support the collection and the availability of data needed to inform them. Those will be published as part of the section 6 report, so that the underlying data is very much publicly accessible as well.

But in addition to that, Chair, one of the priority areas for target setting focuses on improving the quality and accessibility and application of biodiversity evidence. So, the reason we've done this is to make sure that we have robust data and information made available to support decision-making and policy development and progress monitoring as well.

Just one note of caution there that a general duty to collect data may not always be the most practical or appropriate way forward. So, let me give you a specific example: you only really need to drill down to understand how this works on the ground—or in this case, in the sea. One of the illustrations here is in monitoring Welsh sea caves. They're often very precious and sometimes protected sites. They have their own particular habitat and biodiversity there, but if you put a general duty to collect data on that, it can be prohibitively expensive, but also—I've got to say—dangerous as well, just saying you had to monitor those day in, day out. So, by developing more specific targets and indicators, we can take a much more strategic approach, put those resources where we know they're going to have the greatest impact.

Okay, yes. Okay, well, the lack of data in the marine environment is something that we as a committee have been concerned about for a long, long time, but I hear what you're saying, and I think you make a fair point. Do Members have any further issues? I think we've covered all the bases that we were hoping to cover. Deputy First Minister, is there anything you wish to add or leave us with?

I can see—

I can see Dorian's hand is up, yes, we saw it at the same time. So, Dorian, do you want to come in first, then?

Thanks very much. I just wanted to make two quick points. The first one is that there's been a lot of reference to the future generations Act and the duty in this discussion, but I just wanted it noted that the focus of the environmental objective is the attainment of a high level of environmental protection, and an improvement of the environment. So, that's the focus, that's the objective, and the purpose of the OEGW is to contribute to achieving that. Whilst we have referred to the FG Act, that's one aspect of the details about the environmental objective in section 1.

The second point I wanted to make is that in Schedule 1, paragraph 23, the OEGW has powers to do anything it considers appropriate for the purpose of or in connection with its functions. So, that would be the power under which it would bring any judicial review. But as we've discussed, we don't think that that's necessary in this case, because our system is much different to that that is set out for the OEP. As the Deputy First Minister has said, there's a restriction on the OEP in that there must be a serious failure to bring a JR. But I just wanted to point the committee towards that paragraph, because that's the power to bring a judicial review or an employment tribunal claim or civil proceedings, in case the committee wanted to know where that power came from. That's all from me. Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. That's very useful. Thank you. Deputy First Minister, anything to conclude with, or are we happy to draw a line there?

I simply wanted to say, Chair, that I hope you can take away from this and previous sessions that we've had with the committee that we're very keen to seek to make this the very best Bill that it can possibly be, and, in that, engaging with the committee, but also with stakeholders as well. So, I'm looking forward to future engagement and suggestions that might come forward. But I would simply say, I'm not an unduly cautious person, but I'm a very pragmatic person. So, finding a way that we can make this really work and deliver the outcomes that we want, as opposed to leaping at stuff, I think is the approach that I'm trying to take with this legislation. But I'm looking forward to continuing to engage with the committee.

As we are, and we're very grateful, as always, for your being open-minded on these issues. Long may that continue. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you very much, Deputy First Minister and your officials. We greatly appreciate your presence. We will now take all of this away, deliberate and consider later on today in readiness for preparing our Stage 1 report and all the recommendations, no doubt, that will come from that. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you so much for being with us. Diolch.

So, we'll move on to our next item, which is a number of papers to note. Obviously, given the summer recess, there are many of them. Are Members happy to note them collectively? Delyth, you want to pick up on something.

Diolch. I'm happy to note them, but just wanted to draw Members' attention to the correspondence we've had from Coal Action Network. Before recess, obviously, we had been very involved in scrutinising the disused tips and quarry—well, what we all have referred to as the coal tips Bill. Coal Action Network, I know, are actively involved in trying to ensure that the proposed ban on coal mining at a Westminster level should include a ban on the mining of coal tips. I know that I feel really strongly about this. I know that other members of the committee feel strongly about this as well. I would just like anyone watching the committee to know that this is something that we are still receiving correspondence about, and I would like us as a committee to discuss that in private.

Fine, okay. We'll note that and we'll certainly come back to that then later on. Diolch yn fawr. Otherwise, are Members happy to note the correspondence? Yes. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you.

Iawn, felly fe wnawn ni symud i sesiwn breifat. Yn unol â Rheol Sefydlog 17.42(vi) a (ix), dwi'n cynnig bod y pwyllgor yn penderfynu cwrdd yn breifat am weddill y cyfarfod yma. Ydy Aelodau'n fodlon?

Happy to proceed?

Diolch yn fawr. Mi oedwn ni, felly, tan i ni fynd i sesiwn breifat. Diolch.