Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee

Thank you, all. I would like to extend a warm welcome to Members to this meeting of the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee. We have received apologies from Julie Morgan for this morning's meeting. We have also received, as we've already heard, apologies from Llyr Gruffydd for this item. A very warm welcome to Luke Fletcher, who is substituting on his behalf. I'll ask first of all whether any Members have declarations of interest to make. I see that there are none.

We will move straight on to item 2 on our agenda. We are continuing with our Stage 1 scrutiny of the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill, and we have an evidence session this morning with environmental organisations. We are very grateful to the witnesses for joining us. May I ask them to introduce themselves first of all for the record? I will go from left to right. To Ruth first, please.

Hi. I'm Ruth Chambers, senior fellow at Green Alliance, an environmental charity and think tank.

I'm Alexander Phillips. I'm policy and advocacy manager at WWF Cymru.

I'm Annie Smith, head of nature policy and casework at RSPB Cymru.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. You're all very welcome. If it's all right, we'll go straight into questions. We're trying to get to grips with some of the framing tensions and whether the balance is right at the moment, and we'd really value getting your insights on this. I know that you've expressed concern that the environmental objective references contribution to the well-being goals. Because it would be putting, or forcing, dependending on your perspective, them into the context of the other goals of economic, social and cultural aspects of sustainable development, we're aware of that potential tension. We know that the future generations commissioner has welcomed that, on the other hand. Could you talk us through your thinking, please, so that we could get a greater understanding of that?

I think I'm starting on this one. You can think of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 in three different ways. The first element is that there's an issue of potentially putting the cart before the horse. The FG Act was developed within the context of the principles existing at an EU level. So, in a way, you already had those principles and the FG Act spoke to them. Then, trying to insert them again back below this might actually end up having some perverse consequences.

The main reason for that is that the FG Act doesn't really recognise the sustainability hierarchy very well. It considers environmental, social and economic elements of sustainability to be equal, whereas if you look at the international literature on this, particularly at the Stockholm Resilience Centre, they really have a tiered approach to it, where you have the environment that is the base of it, then you have the social that comes out of a stable environment, and then the economic comes on top. As the FG Act doesn't recognise that, and you have to consider everything equally, you're at risk of diluting the environmental aspect of it, which was the main purpose of the principles.

The final thing that I would say is that there is actually a requirement on the Welsh Government to enact the FG Act everywhere all the time anyway. So, the explicit nature of the reference here might end up confusing things. It might be implicit, and if it is just implicit it might not have as much of an effect, but I think that those are the main reasons for me, anyway.

Could I come in, Chair, on the well-being of future generations Act? Very often we have a conversation about is it a mindset or does it have enough teeth, do people have enough due regard at all levels of government. Sometimes it's talked about when relevant to actually add weight sometimes. Do you think that, with relying on that as well, perhaps there's a bit of concern?

There can be. There is an issue with how it's been written and it doesn't have those teeth, as people talk about. So, it's always a bit of a risk as to when it applies and who applies it. It's quite inconsistent. And as you say, it's kind of a state of mind, and different parts of government and organisations might achieve that state of mind better than others, and there isn't really a consistency in application. That's why we think that it's another risk, having it put in here, that somebody could interpret it in a way that is particularly destabilising or undermining of these principles that are supposed to be environmental purely.

May I add one point, if that's okay? It's a particular concern about the environmental objective in relation to the governance body, the Office of Environmental Governance Wales. As Professors Lynda Warren and Bob Lee highlighted to the committee last week in their evidence, the OEGW's mission will be to monitor and ensure compliance with environmental law. The breadth of the environmental objective in our view risks diluting that. I think we can all think of public bodies that have maybe been given too much to do that have perhaps lost their sense of purpose. To mitigate that, the environmental objective could be stripped back to the essential core minimum of environmental protection and environmental improvement, especially in relation to the OEGW.

I agree with all of those points. The only thing I was going to add was just from our notes ahead of the session. From the commissioner's evidence, there's a suggestion that the link to the goals helps to support systems thinking. None of us is against systems thinking. I think that we just see addressing those environmental principles and that process of integrating environmental protection as an absolutely fundamental baseline to developing that.

On that, in terms of the list of environmental principles and the separate integration duty, how do you think that that is going to work in practice?

It makes sense to us, I think, having that duty to integrate environmental protection and then that list of those four core principles. I know we're going to get into talking about issues about scope and that sort of thing, so I can wait for the next question on—

You don't want to give us spoilers. I recognise that.

—the approach in terms of a specific duty to integrate, and that's about not only avoiding harm, but where are there opportunities to do good, and then those principles help to deliver that.

Thank you. By the way, I should say that we have just found out that we have had apologies as well from Janet Finch-Saunders for today's session. So, apologies to witnesses and to Members, you're going to be hearing more of your voice than you would have liked to. So, sorry, but I'll be asking more questions. Was there anything else that you wanted to add, before we move on to another Member?

Not on the link to the objectives.

We will move to Carolyn.

Going back to the principles and making policy, there is debate about whether the duty to apply the principles

'when making policy...that has, or could have, any effect on the environment'

is broad enough. The Cabinet Secretary told us that in the rare case where a policy has no impact on the environment, it wouldn't be appropriate or proportionate to apply the principles. What are your views on this? We've had some debates about it. You just said that you think that for the OEGW to just have the environment as governance is helpful. I've spoken in the previous sessions and I'm concerned that Ministers, or even people in public authorities, local authorities, will have regard to the environment across all areas, whether it's education, highways, health even. Because that might not be their mindset when looking at policy, and especially if there are issues with funding and time. So, I have concerns that they would also include the environment, but I'd like your views on that.

Shall I start on this one? Overall, we think it's a good framework for environmental principles. As Annie said, they're the right principles—it's a duty of special regard that isn't well known in an environmental law context. It will need some explaining. But again, the environmental principles statement allows an opportunity to do that. It's also great that the duty will apply to Welsh Ministers and NRW. So, there's a good framework, but I think you're right to hone in on the scope, and we have concerns about that as well.

I think the difficulty is that the Bill gives future Welsh Ministers considerable leeway to decide whether or not there will be an environmental effect. I've tried to think of an example to highlight this, and the one that I've come up with is that it would be possible, for example, for future Welsh Ministers to decide, when procuring new Government IT equipment or systems, that that wouldn't have an environmental effect. Why would it—we're just buying a bunch of new computers? Well, think about that a little bit more carefully. What about the sourcing requirements for the components of those computers? What about the impact of data centres on water use and so forth? So, I think those sorts of decisions could be very superficial. That's a risk of the way that the duty is scoped at the moment.

I think an even bigger impact is the risk that it has of diluting the integration duty. As Annie said, the whole point of integration is to bring the environment into all policy making, and because of the word 'such' in section 3(1)(b) of the Bill, that limits the integration duty only to environmental policy, which knocks the legs right from under it. Why have a duty to integrate the environment into the environment? It just doesn't make sense. So, I think the scope is problematic, and we suggest that it should apply to all policy; it would be clearer for everybody.

Joyce wants to come in with a supplementary, I think.

That example that you gave just now, which I fully understand, would be caught within the future generations Act—not to do harm anywhere, both nationally and internationally.I think IT is a really good example of that. So, looking at policy and harm, would not the future generations Act help in this case?

It might help a bit, but I think the whole point of this framework is to bring those four environmental principles into policy making, or rather to bring them back into policy making, because they've been absent for eight years in Wales. And those principles themselves—precaution, polluter pays—they're not in the future generations Act. At the moment, it's a gap in our legal framework in Wales, so this will bring them back in, and that's something that the future generations Act just simply doesn't have within its text.

Just to add to that, I think fundamentally it comes down to the freedom that is given to a Minister in future to declare what is or isn't affecting the environment. I always try and imagine what would happen if Mr Burns from The Simpsons were the Minister. What if they took a really minimalist approach to it? Is there enough leeway in how this is written to enable that to happen? Other Members here might absolutely disagree with the decision taken, but what is the route to challenge that? You could end up in a situation where it's disapplied in lots of areas, and the whole point about integration is that it's an integrated area everywhere. Just saying that you're integrated in this little bit doesn't really work.

I think the bit that's related to this that's really important is the statement. I don't know if we're going to have more questions about the statement, but I think at the moment, it's quite dangerous the amount of freedom that's given to Ministers to write that statement, change it from time to time whenever they want, quite weak wording. There is a danger there that if a weak statement is put in place, a subsequent Government might, for convenience, just never change it, and it might never progress in a way that we might want it to do, and also not reflect the changes that might happen in how principles are interpreted over time around the world. There is that need for the scope to change over time there. So, there are those two elements there that basically give a big 'get out of jail free' card to Mr Burns or somebody else in the future to do what they want with this legislation, which could be tightened up at this stage.

I know that you're joking about Mr Burns, but when The Simpsons predicted that Donald Trump would be president, they thought that that was a joke as well, but there we are. Annie, sorry, you wanted to come in, I think.

No.

Could I check with you, Alex, specifically? You said in your evidence that you would recommend a stronger duty for public authorities carrying out strategic environmental assessments, and you suggested a requirement to enact the principles in decision making. In terms of the practical effect that you think that might have, can you pull on any examples elsewhere that we could learn from with that?

I think with that, the point we were trying to make is that although there's a duty of special regard on Welsh Ministers and on NRW—which we think is very good—for everybody else, it's just a regard duty. So, there is value, I think, in potentially strengthening that list of authorities that fall under that special regard. There are very obvious ones out there; you think of anyone who's doing the major planning functions, so local authorities and the national parks. Arguably, they have as much impact on actual decision making where they would need to enact these principles as NRW or the Welsh Government.

I know NRW said something similar in their evidence as well, so we would support that, particularly the consideration of extending that, and whether you need to strengthen it in other authorities as well. I think we need to go through a list of going, 'Well, where is it most appropriate?' Some authorities, it seems relatively clear that they won't have much impact, but you can never be sure. I think in many ways, it fits back onto that earlier point of what is environment and what isn't, and a lot of things cannot seem 'environment', but potentially in future would be. So, if there's that scope in the legislation to strengthen it where appropriate, that might actually benefit us all.

Can I check before I bring Carolyn in? Ruth or Annie, did either of you have any views on this? Ruth.

Just one, which is that we welcome the provision on applying principles to public authorities in relation to strategic environmental assessment, but it almost seems like that's the last place to start, and it would be the other functions that would benefit more environmentally from having principles applied to them. So, it's a question that I think I'd like to see the Welsh Government answer.

Thank you, Ruth. Carolyn.

I once had to fight a corporate plan of the local authority where it said the environment was here to serve the economy, and change that wording. The ecologists and biodiversity officers were always having fights to ensure that there was due regard to nature and the natural environment. Very often, they had regard to maybe carbon reduction, renewable energy, but no regard to nature at that level and biodiversity. So, that's why I'd like it to be stronger at all levels of government. Sorry, I'm not the one answering, but that's why I'm raising it—

You're allowed to make comments as well as questions. That's absolutely fine.

I don't know if that was something that you've got concerns about too.

I think it can certainly be a risk here. One thing, going back to the FG Act and the way that functions, is that inserting carbon into goal 1 with economy has, I think, had a positive effect on making them talk about low carbon in that context. The problem has been that goal 2 is nature, and it kind of disappeared. But I fear that if you had put carbon in with that, carbon might have disappeared as well. So, it's just the way these things have broken up. There's no perfect way of doing this, but, hopefully, having the strong principles that can sit there that can be not diluted by the FG Act might improve that situation in the future.

If you are having a strong special regard in local authorities for this, then that might help even further, because there's emergent case law around that use of special regard and what it means. That will, hopefully, add additional weight to this.

That, I think, we as a committee would hope to gain from. This isn't a very technical way of putting it, but we've been trying to get our heads around how exactly special regard would help. With the evidence we had in our last session, I think that looking at that case law would be really helpful, so thank you.

So, to move on to the Office of Environmental Governance Wales—and, again, apologies that you're hearing quite so much from me this morning—Ruth, the Cabinet Secretary told us that the intention is for the body to be fully operational within two years of the Act receiving Royal Assent. Would that address the concern that you've raised about the possible delays to the OEGW receiving its powers? If not, what do you think would alleviate those concerns, please?

So, I listened to the Cabinet Secretary's evidence, and I think he said, didn't he, 18 months would be optimistic, two years would be realistic, or something like that. It's a political commitment. It's welcome. But I think it has to be seen in the context where we've waited seven years for this Bill to arrive, despite numerous political commitments, and it'll be eight years before we get Royal Assent. The other context, which is hugely relevant, is there's going to be an election in the middle of the Bill passing and this body being set up, with a different Government and a different Senedd.

And then the third part of the context, if you've had time to read it yet, is the lessons learned report from the interim assessor, which is on their LinkedIn page, rather than on their website. It makes for fairly stark reading, and it highlights, really, the risks of dependency on Welsh Government systems and processes, and the need for independence and resourcing. I think it's relevant to ask a question why it isn't even on their website. Anyway, that's the context.

That's so retro that they've gone for LinkedIn instead. Wow.

Absolutely. But well done them for finding a way to get it out. That's the context, which is why this is worrying. So, what to do? Well, we know that some of the key OEGW provisions will be commenced, I think it's two months after Royal Assent, but only a small handful to allow the body to exist in a legal form. None of the powers, really, will be available to it. Why not require the commencement of all OEGW provisions within two years, within a time period of two years? That's the commitment that the Cabinet Secretary has given. Why not actually put that into the commencement provisions in the Bill? That would be the first thing I'd suggest.

The next thing would be publishing a clear timetable for this process. There will need to be different phases. Where we move from the interim assessor, there will be some sort of draft body. It may not be a shadow body. I know that the Welsh Government's not keen on that. There'll be an awful lot of work to do to put in place the funding, appoint the first chair, develop procurement systems, decide on a headquarters, think about its mission and values, and the list goes on.

The good news is that there are many people who are willing and qualified to help. The Office for Environmental Protection, for example, has been through this process and I know would be keen to assist. Bodies like ourselves have been through a similar process in other countries. So, above all, I think there must be transparency, so that you in the Senedd and we in civil society can understand what the plan and the process are, so that we can hold Ministers to account in the future.

Thank you, Ruth, that's really helpful. Alex or Annie, did you want to add anything to that?

I don't think there's much to add. I think that was very—

No, that was very comprehensive, very useful. Thank you ever so much.

We'll move on to Joyce.

I'm going to ask about co-ordination with other bodies. In your opinion, does the Bill sufficiently ensure that the OEGW's functions will not overlap with other oversight bodies, including, for example, front-line regulators and the UK Climate Change Committee?

So, we are a bit puzzled about why the Climate Change Committee isn't mentioned, because it is such a significant environmental advisory body that has a role advising the Welsh Government, so it's an obvious body where there is the potential for overlap and where it would make sense to address that from the outset. I think the committee heard from the Office for Environmental Protection last week about their process of developing a memorandum of understanding, which has helped the way they work with the Climate Change Committee.

We're not sure if there's a reluctance to name the Climate Change Committee in the Bill because it's not a devolved body, so to name-check it specifically, but I was looking back at the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and the climate change provisions in there, which do specifically name-check the Climate Change Committee as the potential body to advise the Welsh Government if it doesn't set up an equivalent body. So, I can't explain why it's not there, but it seems like a gap to us, certainly.

Can I add to that briefly? I'd also thought, exactly like Annie, that maybe this was a fear or a nervousness about the competence. As well as the Environment (Wales) Act, the UK Climate Change Committee is also listed in Schedule 3 to the Public Services Ombudsman (Wales) Act 2019 as a body that needs to be consulted before that ombudsman lays draft criteria in the Senedd. So, just on a quick examination, there are places where the UK CCC is listed, so it doesn't feel like it's a competence issue; it feels like it's a simple oversight and therefore should be straightforward to address.

And I would also say that there is a more substantive relationship between the OEGW and the UK Climate Change Committee than has been suggested. I think the Cabinet Secretary suggests that they probably will need to work together, but maybe there won't be a huge overlap. But climate law is within the remit of the OEGW, as it's defined in the Bill, so in the future, if there's a breach of climate law in Wales, what would probably happen is the OEGW would enforce it, whereas the UK CCC would be the body that found it, so they would have to work together to make sure that there isn't overlap or duplication.

Interesting.

It is interesting, yes.

Okay, that's it. So, you've found a problem, what do you think we need to do? Just to make sure that it's on the face of the Bill, or—?

Just add the UK CCC to that list of five public authorities. I think that would be straightforward.

Okay.

We'll move on to Carolyn.

I'm just going to ask questions about independence. You called for the Bill to include an express provision establishing the legal independence of the OEGW from Government, and you talked about it a little bit earlier. The Cabinet Secretary told us that such a provision would only be declaratory and wouldn't materially affect the practical measures around independence. So, what are your views? I know there could be a change of Government, maybe a change of views, but—.

I'll start, if I may. Having listened carefully to all the other evidence sessions, if I may be so bold as to say, I think the Cabinet Secretary is a lone voice in this regard. I was struck by the OEP's written evidence—obviously, you heard from Dame Glenys and Natalie Prosser in person—but the written evidence talks about the duty that the Environment Act 2021 places on the UK Secretary of State to respect the OEP's independence. They clearly don't find it declaratory; they said,

'It provides a helpful frame of reference...clearly signalling the legislative intent. We have found this to be a valuable safeguard through changes of Ministers and government.'

That's their words, not mine. That's also our experience of that duty, because it applies on decisions when the Secretary of State is deciding the funding of the OEP, when making appointments, when responding to its compliance work, for example. So, I would say that such a duty is almost the opposite of declaratory; it's demonstrative, and I think it should be added into this Bill. And I find myself feeling deeply anxious about placing a reliance on warm words today to provide this body, which will be important—. It will come knocking at the doors of future Welsh Ministers, who won't have had that sort of relationship with an oversight body like this for probably 10 years by the time it's set up. So, its independence needs to be protected in law.

There are a couple of other aspects of independence that I also wanted to draw to the committee's attention, quite briefly. One is section 29 of the Bill, which is the meaning of environmental law, so this is the place where environmental law is defined. It also gives Welsh Ministers the power to make adjustments or updates to that definition in the future, which is sensible, because environmental law is not a static concept, it needs to change. But that meaning of environmental law basically defines the remit of the OEGW. It's really important. The Environment Act meaning does the same for the OEP. I was worried that I found no requirement in that part of the Bill to consult the OEGW when those changes are made. In the Environment Act there is a requirement to consult the OEP, and again it feels like an oversight. I wonder if that could be added.

And then, the final bit of the independence jigsaw is on funding. I found the explanations from the OEP and Environmental Standards Scotland, on how their legislation provides safeguards and mechanisms, really quite compelling, and I wondered why the OEGW couldn't be provided with similar things, so a duty on the Ministers to ensure sufficient funding, a power for the OEGW to report on its funding to the Senedd, and then the final thing is a multi-annual funding commitment to give that funding security. And, Chair, I hope it's not too inappropriate to propose that that commitment could be sought, perhaps on a cross-party basis, and not just for the Welsh Government to say, but for it to be done cross-party, so that it's got the greatest chance of surviving beyond the election.

Obviously, I would agree with all of that. I think for the OEGW—. That acronym is terrible. 'Oh goo', is how it reads to me, so I'm going to say 'oh goo'. In addition to everything that Ruth has said, really, it really is that point about democratic legitimacy and security going forward. With talking about what process we're going into in the next couple of years, you just don't know, and what happens after that? It's how do you tie it down.

And, I think, an element of this is about appointments as well. The Welsh Government has really taken control; the Welsh Ministers have got control of that process of appointing the chair and members of the governance body, basically. So, I would like to see a lot stronger role for this place in that. I know, in the past, you've had a role in the appointment of the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales and things like that. But, obviously, it's felt a lot like a rubber-stamping process at the end, like sometimes you're presented with one candidate or those kinds of circumstances. I would suggest that the committee does take time to reflect on what would be ideal for it or future versions of yourselves. So, I would suggest things like making that a priority on the appointments committee. Do you end up in that sifting stage? You don't want to be in a situation where you're sat there with one candidate from Mr Burns and it's Mr Smithers. You know, that's effectively the risk you have under the current process.

I admire how committed you are to this analogy.

I find it very effective.

It is, it is.

It does cross across all boundaries.

Yes. I wanted to ask, actually, because, Ruth, I know that a stronger oversight role for the Senedd was something that you'd raised as well. I want to check if Ruth or Annie want to add anything to that point.

I just think it's such an important facet of independence. And again, maybe those first round of appointments will matter most because they will set the body off to a really good start. And again, they will come the other side of the election. At the moment, there is some independence built into the process, but it's almost at the sifting or the interview stage. So, again, we'd welcome the committee's advice or recommendations on how you can play a greater role, because we would agree that you should have one.

Interesting. Thank you so much. Sorry, Carolyn, did you have any further questions?

No, that's fine, thank you.

Okay. So, to move on to enforcement powers, the escalatory approach to the enforcement powers of compliance notices ends, as it's drafted, with a referral to the High Court. Do you think that that would provide the effective teeth to the body or do you think that fines would be more appropriate, or is there another balance that you would prefer to be striking?

I think I'm starting on this one. So, overall, an escalatory approach is sensible and right for this body in the context in which we find ourselves, providing that the end point, as you say, is sufficiently robust in its deterrent ability. Nobody ever wants to get there, but everyone needs to know that, when you do get there, it's a place you don't want to be, and it brings people to the negotiating table and it strengthens the governance body's powers to persuade public authorities that they really do want to come back into compliance. That's the whole basis for the system, and as a system we support that and the concept of information notices, compliance notices.

We've got, I think it's fair to say, some questions about section 19—so, the route to the High Court. It's different—it's very different—from all of the other legislation. It feels like, again, it's a work around some, maybe, other bigger issues in play, and, if there's time, we'd love to talk about things like judicial review and intervention in other people's proceedings.

Fines is a tricky one, because it has been debated in every single bit of governance legislation and every governance body that's been set up; it was certainly a critical and very effective part of the EU system. I think there is a general view that it has been difficult to replicate in a domestic environment where you'd have one public authority potentially fining another public authority, and, generally, public authorities, as we all know, don't have enough money, so how would that work?

There is a possibility that this High Court process could lead to the awarding of damages; it's something that we've asked the Welsh Government to clarify—not the same as fines, but, again, there would be monetary penalties, if the remedies available through that process are the same remedies that are available through judicial review. But we don't know because that process isn't judicial review, so there are some technical clarifications that I think could be made there.

Thank you, Ruth. Annie, you wanted to come in, I think.

I support all of that. If I may, I just wanted to mention something that I, perhaps, could have covered when we were talking about other environmental bodies, but it's related to the way that OEGW will deliver its functions, including going through the enforcement stages, giving advice et cetera: it's that relationship with the other governance bodies in the UK. So, both Environmental Standards Scotland and the Office for Environmental Protection have a duty to consult other UK governance bodies in relation to matters that might be relevant. I think when the governance bodies were here giving evidence to the committee, they emphasised how valuable and important it is for them to be able to work together and share information on issues that are often common in all of the countries, and depend on a very similar, if not identical, sort of legal underpinning and issues.

So, again, I'm not clear why the Welsh Government hasn't done it, or might be nervous about doing it, but the duty to consult in the other legislation is placed on the bodies themselves—on the ESS or the OEP. So, placing a duty to consult on the OEGW, for example, wouldn't necessarily, I think, bind the other bodies in a way that would be inappropriate. I just wanted to flag that in relation to the general exercise of those functions.

That's useful. Thank you. Alex.

The only thing I'd quickly add is that, obviously, there is some route to fining, potentially, there at the end of this, so that does make sense. But I think there is a wider issue about fines in the Welsh context, particularly with the powers NRW have got as well, about whether they can do civil sanctions, where that money goes, can it be hypothecated back. There's a need for a whole set of work around that in order to have a regime that functions. I think what we have at the moment doesn't really work very well. It could result in money leaving Wales, which is not what we want, and, obviously, the powers available to NRW to actually do this aren’t really worthwhile at the moment. So, I think if we consider this issue as part of a wider problem, it probably needs separate committee consideration in future.

Thank you, all. Turning to the point that Ruth had touched on, about the fact that there is not expressly a provision for the OEGW to refer bodies for judicial review and to intervene in civil proceedings, this is something that has caused us as a committee—. Well, we have heard evidence from some that it's causing some people concern. The Cabinet Secretary was trying to reassure us as a committee and said that that provision wouldn't be needed because, technically, anybody with sufficient legal standing could apply for judicial review. Now, the counterpoint has been made to us, that that is a high bar and that this could be problematic. I know that Ruth has already touched on this, but we'd be keen to hear your views on this, really. Ruth, did you want to go into more depth?

Could I add one thing to that? So, I think it's a really important point, and I'm really pleased that the committee is thinking about it. Standing isn't a given. Legal standing before the courts is often a contested matter. And I don't think it would be beyond the realms of possibility for a court, in the future, if the Bill stays as it is, to look at the OEGW and question its locus. If it looked at the other legislation in the UK, and it saw that both the OEP and Environmental Standards Scotland have an explicit duty, it would be right to ask itself, 'Why was that explicit duty not given to OEGW?' It doesn't mean that it would definitely be a barrier to OEGW accessing the court, but it could present some difficulties.

And in the beginning, it will be really important that OEGW establishes its reputation and legal authority with the court. You don't want all of the important cases in the High Court of England and Wales only to be intervened by the OEP. You want the OEGW to be there as well, and in particular to that power to intervene, it sounds like quite a soft power, doesn't it? If we look at how the OEP's used it, it's used it extremely judiciously and extremely effectively. It's only done it four times, and it's been around for, what, five years now. And each time, it's sought not to take a side in a particular case, but it's sought to clarify the meaning of a particular and significant environmental law. For example, it intervened in the Finch case about climate change. It recently intervened in a case about environmental principles. So, it picks those cases very carefully. And so far, it's got a 100 per cent record, by the way, and the court is seeing its work as aiding and adding to the court's consideration. So, it shows its value in doing it. But if it wasn't straightforward for the OEGW to do that, because there isn't an express power, then we'd be concerned.

I think the final thing to say—. It has been suggested in one of the evidence sessions, I think that the OEGW could also rely on the broad ancillary power that it has in the Schedule, which is not uncommon for a public authority to have; it basically allows it to do anything it considers necessary to discharge its functions, or words to that effect. But it would be unusual for a public body to decide to go to court using that broad ancillary power. It's usually for things that the legislation forgot or that are a little bit more minor in nature. So, it isn't impossible for it to get to the court, but, without something express, I think it increases that bar.

Thank you, Ruth. Annie or Alex, did you want to add anything? No, you're happy. We now turn to the committee's guest star for today, Luke.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. If I could come to review of the compliance notices—. And I'll start with Ruth, if that's okay, because, in written evidence that was submitted by the Green Alliance, there were concerns highlighted around the review of compliance notices and the review committees. Could you just expand on that for us, please?

Yes, I can. I also note that the OEP chair was careful not to comment in detail too much about the Bill, but this was a provision that she picked out as being concerning as well. I think the first thing to say is that I don't object to the principle of there being a review process. After all, compliance notices are going to be serious things. They're going to highlight where a public authority is allegedly failing to comply with an environmental law, and they're going to go beyond that, they're going to set out the steps that authority must take to bring itself back into compliance. It's perfectly reasonable to give a public authority the ability to say to OEGW, 'Well, sorry, we don't agree. Please can you look at that again?' But then to devolve, almost, that decision making outside the OEGW just completely undermines its enforcement authority. And this review committee, it could decide to agree the notice, it could decide to scrap it altogether, or it could decide to change it. And the composition of the committee is also quite troubling, because it will contain at least two members from a list appointed by Welsh Ministers. Again, going back to that earlier conversation about, probably, the gaze of the OEGW is largely going to fall on Welsh Ministers, that creates a worrying perception of impacting on the OEGW's independence, so it starts to feel dysfunctional as a system.

But I don't think all is lost, because you could amend that part of the Bill to allow the process to continue, to build in objectivity by requiring, for example, the OEGW, when it undertakes this review, to do it with people that haven't been involved in that decision to date. You could even co-opt an independent member to observe the process. But don't wholesale give away the OEGW's biggest power, which is its enforcement power, which the Bill currently does.

One final thing is that we've had a look at other enforcement bodies who operate similar policies and systems, and they are able to operate a review process without giving away their power. If that would be of interest to the committee, we could send in a short note on that.

Please.

Alex, Annie, is that something you would broadly agree with?

Yes, absolutely. I think it's one of those areas, and we've highlighted a few this morning, where there's a clear risk of the independence being lost in future should a Government decide to do so. I think it's just always good practice for legislation to try and tighten those gaps wherever possible and provide something that should be proofed to tampering, should we ever face a Government that wishes to do so.

The only thing I would add is just a question mark over the issue of a review process for urgent compliance notices. I think this was raised by Professor Lee last week, and we mentioned it in our own written evidence. I don't think there's an expectation from anyone that using an urgent compliance notice would be a regular thing, it would be in a very urgent circumstance, and so building in a process for review, which would add weeks to action being taken, seems high risk. So, I would definitely raise a question over that.

Okay, thank you. If I could just move on to access to environmental justice for citizens, Schedule 2 requires the OEGW strategy to set out how it will enable persons to make representations to it. Now, I think you've all suggested that this falls short of a legal right to access to environmental justice for citizens. So, how would we go about, then, resolving that issue?

So, I think the easiest thing to do is have an explicit clause about that on the face of the Bill. I think, when this came out, that access to justice was a core purpose of why this Bill exists. It's what we had within the EU, and it's in many ways one of the strongest functions that the EU had, in empowering people to actually challenge decisions around them. So, although I would say it's implicit within the legislation, it feels quite fundamental and important to have it there. And I remember, when this Bill was published a few weeks ago and I was talking to different journalists about it, they said, ‘Oh, so this is that?’ And I said, ‘Well, yes, it is that, but it doesn't say this.’ And it's very strange to me why that wouldn't be there. Technically, you can argue what Welsh Government have argued, but it is the fundamental thing here that we're trying to achieve, so it should be on the face of the Bill, clear, so you can communicate that and people understand that there's that mechanism in place. Otherwise, it won't be used.

The Cabinet Secretary has referenced Mrs Jones of Tredegar a few times, and actually she's very close to my own heart, because my great-grandparents used to keep the Coach and Horses in Tredegar. But that's maybe for another day. On reading the Bill in its current form, Mrs Jones would simply not know that she has the right to make a representation, if she's worried about an environmental law being broken, to the OEGW. So, why not—? Let's help Mrs Jones and make it explicit, as Alex has suggested, and also provide some detail—essential detail, not stacks—on how Mrs Jones's representations will be managed.

Yes, absolutely. And in the OEP legislation, there's not only that specific right for anyone to make, it’s called, a ‘complaint’ there—I think that's less the issue than the express ability to do that, to make a representation—but then also a duty on the OEP to keep that person informed, as well as setting out the process for how it's going to handle issues being raised with it like that.

Can I come in?

Yes, of course.

There could be a socioeconomic dimension to this in terms of awareness, and that would concern me. Because those people better able to understand systems can group together as citizens if it's in an area or with a species, or whatever else it might be. They'll have better access to be able to be informed, whereas some socioeconomic groups may not have that to understand all the nuances, and to gain help from people who they need help from. So, this particular bit struck me as an imbalance in that socioeconomic standing.

May I just say briefly I completely agree with that? If you have a look at the Office for Environmental Protection website—I can send a link if it would be helpful—they've got a section on complaints. Now remember, in their legislation, as Annie has said, there is a requirement for them to set this detail out, and it's an amazing resource. No matter how familiar you are with complaints processes and that sort of thing, they've got frequently asked questions, they've got guidelines, they've got something called an eligibility checker where you can put in your worry and it tells you, they've got a helpline, they've got a lot of information. They get a lot of representations each year where they are helping citizens find access to environmental justice, either through their own systems or through signposting to other authorities. But that's a requirement for them to do that. Again, it would worry us that when the OEGW is looking at its limited resources, it may have a more de minimis approach to that, because it's not a requirement in the Bill.

I think that's certainly something that would concern the committee.

Most people would get in touch with their local councillor or the police when there's something happening. So, they would need to know as well about where to direct complaints.

Carolyn, we're moving to you now, actually, on biodiversity targets.

Thank you. Regarding biodiversity targets, you're calling for a headline biodiversity target to reverse declining species by 2035, rather than a headline target of 2050. So, if you'd like to respond to that.

I'm happy to explain the thinking behind that. First of all, it feels important to have a specified target on the face of the Bill to maintain the urgency and the commitment that is present with the current Welsh Government and the current Senedd to tackling the nature emergency. And the reason for this suggestion, which is a relatively near-term target—a 10-year target—is to try to make sure that as soon as the Bill is done, it immediately starts to shape effort.

We know—and it's an issue that we'll come on to—it's going to take some years longer to create a suite of biodiversity targets in law under the powers and duties in this legislation. But having a specification for what one of those has to be on the face of the Bill would actually help to galvanise action, help to prevent drift while all the work goes into establishing what those targets need to be.

The global framework obviously addresses the need to halt and reverse the decline in biodiversity and, in the longer term, to restore biodiversity. So, this is really looking at that first bit, that 2030 mission of halting and reversing the loss of biodiversity, which is going to be like turning a tanker around. It's going to need a lot of policies to be stacked in favour of supporting biodiversity protection, conservation, recovery—just more nature-friendly behaviour. So, that's going to be a difficult step to get through, that halt and reverse.

In a way, once enough policies and actions have been stacked to enable that to happen, we'll, I would assume, feel much more confident and it will be more straightforward to deliver ongoing improvement and recovery, if you see what I mean. So, that's why the emphasis on that short term.

Actually, it's not without precedent. The Environment Act 2021 has a specific requirement for the UK Government to set a target to halt the decline in species abundance by 2030. Obviously, our Bill is a few years later. We're looking at the target reporting, therefore, a few years later, but with a higher level of ambition. So, we're not looking at the flat bit at the bottom of the curve; we're looking at when it has started to move in the right direction. Our suggestion is species abundance should be at the same level in 10 years as it is now, so we've gone through that bottom of the curve, and that actually fits with the same trajectory as the English short-term target.

But just to also mention the reason for emphasising species abundance as a useful target in this space is really just because species abundance is seen as a bit of a north star in biodiversity science—it's about the amount of biodiversity that there is. That's an indicator that is going to respond to common species getting a boost from more nature-friendly practice, to rare species getting a boost from better management of protected areas, and it will show change in the short term. We need a range of measures to tell us what's happening with biodiversity, but they won't all be as responsive in the shorter term. So, that's the rationale for that proposal.

I agree completely with that, but what I'd also say is what has been really useful in a headline target—. If you think about net zero, it's something relatively simple that people can understand. It doesn't really explain everything you need to do, but it gives you that something that points you in that direction, and biodiversity has always been missing that. It's much harder to define those things. So, I think what Annie's talked about is a potential route through that, to get to a point where policy makers and the public can go, 'Okay, this is what we're trying to achieve', and see how policies stack behind it.

If you look back at past legislation, our Environment (Wales) Act 2016, the difference between how Part 1 and Part 2 has been implemented and understood is quite stark. You understand with the carbon side of things what we're trying to do with budgets, where we're trying to get to, because it was easy. The Part 2 around sustainable management of natural resources, as we've discussed in previous evidence sessions, has never really been understood. It's never really been advanced anywhere. And it's not a surprise that this has come along afterwards to say, 'Okay, how can we change that to potentially get us in that direction?' Some people, particularly Annie, were here 10, 15 years ago saying that this is what you needed to do. So, hopefully now, we can get there in this piece of legislation.

Just one word on our experience of the 2030 species abundance target that Annie mentioned, which is in the UK Environment Act. We see it everywhere. It's pervasive, but in a good way. It drives Government action, the civil service talk about it, there are programmes of activity attached to it. What we know is that one of the single biggest drivers of civil service activity is fear of legal risk and worries about compliance. So, without this kind of short-term target, constituted in the way that Annie has outlined, I fear that the drift that we've experienced on this programme, which you yourselves have highlighted on many occasions, will continue, and just be put off to the next deadline and the next deadline. So, I see this as an essential part of the Bill.

Thanks for that different view. Because the academics said 2050 is a long-term vision, but I understand where you're coming from. That's been really important to hear that.

Sorry to just jump back in again. There are also good reasons for having that long-term view. Because what we need is urgent action, but then action and ambition that is going to endure, and recognising that longer time frame that's embedded in the GBF is really important. That additional suggestion of a longer term target would help to support that. But as I say, the near-term target we think is really needed to galvanise.

The Cabinet Secretary talked about 'reversing the decline' in biodiversity, so halting and reversing decline are the key words, but then you're saying that it should actually be 'to restore' biodiversity as an aim. And you talked earlier, Alex, about net zero and punchy words that people understand and things. I feel, sometimes, we need a punchy something for nature, building nature, restoring nature, to be there as well, so people have that in the front of their minds.

This might be a bizarre question, but forgive me: why is it that we don't have the equivalent of net zero in terms of a concept or the way that it's framed for nature? Are you aware of another part of the world where they do talk about it not as this lovely luxury thing? I think we were having a conversation about this earlier in the week, Alex, about, actually, it's something fundamental; it isn't just a nice, beautiful thing at the side. Is there any way of getting that framing better in terms of conveying that urgency?

I would say we've struggled everywhere. I don't think anybody has really nailed this yet. I think it's just that complexity of the natural world, which is much harder to quantify than, say, the number of carbon levels or a certain point. So, we've struggled with that.

Sorry to interrupt you, but it's perverse, isn't it? Because the natural world is something that we can see, whereas talking about net zero and carbon often is about things that are theoretical—well, not theoretical, but we can't visualize them in the same way. So, it seems perverse that it's the thing that we can see that we haven't been able to get to grips with. Sorry, I know that this is perhaps not a helpful train of thought.

It is difficult. There are attempts that have been made. One that we use as a sector quite a lot is the biodiversity intactness index, which is an attempt, I think by the British Museum, to actually measure this around the world. It basically ranks countries. That's why we often have the stat of Wales is one of the most nature-depleted countries on earth, that we're in the bottom 10 per cent of that, and that really shows you where it is. But that's far from perfect, and I'm sure that any scientist can drive a bus through the holes in it, like everything else. But I think what Annie's talking about, what was achieved there at the UK level, is the best stab we've had at it. It doesn't really tie us to past baselines and trends and all that kind of technical argument people tend to have. It's just saying that we want more stuff in future. What that is, what the mix of that stuff is, isn't really important; it's about getting that diversity back and then through that we get these added benefits to the wider society.

There are probably many answers to your question that we could probably spend a long time talking about and debating, but I think the practical impact of this is there is a disparity between climate and nature in law, and what this Bill has the chance to do is to move the natural world closer to having more robust and effective legal systems to help restore them. So, seeing it in the context that you've described, which I think is really helpful, kind of strengthens the case for this target even more, I think.

So, you want to restore biodiversity rather than halt and reverse.

Within the global framework, we've got a shorter term focus on halting and reversing biodiversity loss and a longer term vision of restoring biodiversity. I think there are different ways that that could be reflected, and that longer term headline target is one idea. There's always very deep debate and concern about using the word 'restore', but there are other ways in which some of that framing could reflect the wording. The framing of the biodiversity targets power draws on the elements of goal A from the biodiversity framework on restoring species and ecosystems. It's great that it talks about increasing species abundance, but it could talk about increasing species abundance to healthy and resilient levels, it could talk about restoring the resilience of ecosystems. There will be different ways of reflecting the longer term ambition, I think.

I would just reflect that all of our comments and suggestions in relation to this part of the Bill are about trying to embed both the urgency and endurance of ambition and action so that this is the norm. We're looking at how to increase biodiversity in the same way as looking at how to constantly move towards that net-zero target. We've made additional suggestions, which I'm sure we'll come on to discuss, about needing to make sure that we do get long-term targets as part of our framework. I think we've talked about things being implemented in a de minimis way, and that's the fear. Just using what's written on the Bill, not thinking about the intent behind what's gone into it and the commitment of the people writing it, but taking those words, I think you could end up with the duty in the new section 6C being fulfilled with a set of short-term targets that will make a de minimis contribution to halting and reversing biodiversity loss. So, all of this is about how do we try to prevent that and make that as difficult as possible, making sure we focus on the long term, but also on the need for immediate action.

Can I just add on restore?

Of course.

Because I think this is something we've talked about a lot in the past. We've always had the view that 'maintain and enhance' is deficient, relative to 'restore'. You can see that when you look at the international bodies, they use all three words and they mean different things. And when we’ve had lawyers look at it, they have suggested that 'restore' does have additionality to 'maintain and enhance'. The example I always give is: if you’ve got a dent on your car, you can maintain and enhance that by polishing it. It will look lovely, but that won’t get rid of the dent; at some point, you have to take action to restore that dent.

So, we’ve argued this with Welsh Government a lot. We’ve suggested that the use of 'maintain and enhance' does lower the ambition of people enacting this, how that common understanding of these words is. Welsh Government insist that they are right—their framing, their structure is the equivalent of 'restore'. I feel like I’m flogging a dead horse with that one. But, ultimately, what they could do is they could be very clear in statements, to go, 'Actually, what we’re using here, this framework is the equivalent to "restore". We interpreted it as this way. We mean it to mean this. You should interpret it to mean this as well.' That might be the best we can do if they’re not going to go back and change that initial language in the Bill.

People might understand it better as well. So, earlier, you talked about suggesting 12 months for the targets to be brought in following Royal Assent, and the Cabinet Secretary asserts that target development by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee will take a year, followed by additional time to consult and draft regulations. He emphasised the importance of getting the targets right, which will take time.

You mentioned this earlier, Ruth, the urgency of it all. So, is there anything that you missed earlier that you want to say on this?

Yes, I think the three-year timescale for setting targets, to me, feels like a luxury that we can’t afford. And I don’t buy the line that it will take a minimum of three years. It means that we have to wait for the first targets—not all targets, but the first targets—until 2029, which is one year away from many of the global biodiversity targets. And it feels like we can and should be moving more quickly. Other Governments have done it within 12 months, so we have to ask why that wouldn’t be possible in Wales, especially when so much work has already been done, through the JNCC and Natural Resources Wales, by colleagues across from me on the panel today. So, there’s a lot of effort and goodwill and evidence gathering already started. I would like to see those timescales being brought forward. And if other administrations can commit to 12 months, then why can’t we?

They're specific targets for marine, terrestrial and freshwater environments as well. We've got such an emergency there in our rivers. Okay. And then there is no requirement to routinely review the targets, and the Cabinet Secretary told us the three-yearly progress reporting requirement will help identify whether the targets need to be reviewed. So, what are your views on that?

I think we’ll go back to the 'from time to time' framing that Alex talked about in relation to the environmental principle statement, because that’s the framing that’s used in the Bill to guide when the targets would be reviewed. And I think that, in my view, is the start of a potentially very slippery slope, and it gives future Ministers maximum headroom to obfuscate if they wanted to do that. 'From time to time' could mean tomorrow, it could mean in three months, it could mean in 20 years; we just simply don’t know. So, I don’t think it would be unreasonable to ask for a more specific and sensible timescale to be put into the Bill for reviewing targets, bearing in mind the new cycle that the Senedd itself will be moving into.

I think the other point on the review is that there could be clarity—greater clarity—on the role of OEGW, in terms of monitoring and reporting on targets. If there is a lesson that we’ve learnt from the Environment Act 2021 in England, it's that that reporting framework was not properly or rigorously enough thought about, and it now feels very clunky, with the different elements of it falling over themselves. I think the OEP mentioned that in their evidence to you. So, they would be my two thoughts on review.

The only thing I'd add is that having that regular review—. So, the Cabinet Secretary said that that reporting process would help identify if a review is needed, and of course it would, but it doesn't specifically trigger a review, and it's that lack of an explicit requirement. But in doing that, then the Government could have a look again at whether its set of targets was going to do that job of significantly contributing to reversing biodiversity loss. So, I think that's an opportunity to just maintain that focus, really.

I just wanted to quickly reflect on our comment about the need for targets to cover the different domains—the marine and freshwater and terrestrial. It's not a suggestion that for every single target you need three versions of it, if you like, but you'd need to see that that set of targets was going to have a positive impact for biodiversity in all three of those domains. So, on the species target specifically, for example, and this might not be definitively correct as things develop, but it might be harder to measure exclusively in the marine environment. But things like protected area condition in the marine environment give a really good signal of not only how conservation efforts and regulation are supporting nature in those areas, but also wider systemic issues. So, I think that that's what I mean by that. Do you know what I mean? It's important to make sure that the suite addresses those areas appropriately.

Diolch, Annie. We will turn—. Oh, we're into our final eight minutes or so of the session.

We'll turn to Joyce.

We've done mine on the targets, to be honest. All of those questions have been answered. I want to come back to the freshwater, because it's of critical importance. It's a great surprise, isn't it, that our rivers run to the seas, so if they're polluted, the sea becomes polluted. I'm concerned that there are no targets for freshwater, and we really need to push this forward. We only have to look at the change in the environment and the fact that we're going into drought and flood, sometimes within a very short period. So, the potential here to do harm is greater than it was before. Having said all of that, and RSPB, of which I'm a member—I should have declared an interest—has also highlighted this. What exactly can we do—this is obviously the question—when we are giving advice to the Minister to change that? What exactly would be useful?

To change the plight of our rivers? I mean, I think it's useful that the areas to be addressed by the targets do include reducing pollution. That's obviously a really pervasive and fundamental threat to freshwater biodiversity, which impacts not only on rivers and freshwater bodies themselves, but also our coasts and seas, and the biodiversity that depends on them. I think that looking at the condition of protected areas is a really important route in terms of all domains, really, because that can't be achieved without addressing some of these wider issues. But, Alex, you might want to say something on freshwater.

On the freshwater point, WWF published a report a few months ago that looked at the scope of all freshwater regulations in Wales—who's responsible for what, what's the target, is it working, and what happens when it gets failed? The result of that was basically that there are lots of targets, nobody really does anything about them, and nothing happens if it fails. So, we suggested within that how you would structure a freshwater set of targets in this legislation that would hopefully lead to change by 2030. Part of that, fundamentally, is how do you use this legislation, this new target, to drive action across wider Government, and that puts us straight into agriculture. We know that's the main cause of river pollution across most of Wales. How do you get on top of that? How are you stopping excess nutrient loss? Are you reducing the application? Are you dealing with stock in certain levels, which are causing the problem? Are you planting more trees, fundamentally, and restoring riverside habitats? That puts you back in the area of the sustainable farming scheme, which we had this week. Now, what was launched this week will do very little to nothing to actually improve the situation, unfortunately, but the framework is there to improve that.

So, the next Government, whoever that might be, could actually make that work. And I think that that's part of the tension. There's a fear that, if you have a strong piece of legislation here with a strong target, that might actually drive the SFS or similar policies to actually enact change on the ground, which would be controversial. But that's what needs to happen, fundamentally. Unless we change these systems, promote more sustainable farming, reward the farmers who are already doing it, then this situation won't change. And having a strong target here might be the way of doing that. It's the only thing that we've never really done in the past.

I've just got two really quick suggestions in answer to your question. If you look at the broad power to set targets in the Bill, so the new 6B that it'll add into the Environment (Wales) Act, it's really broad. It says,

'Welsh Ministers may by regulations set targets in respect of any matter relating to biodiversity in Wales.'

So, one thing you might consider doing is directly asking the Cabinet Secretary whether it is his intention to use that broad power to set targets in relation to water pollution, if the evidence points to a need for that. So, in other words, does he feel that that is within scope. The second thing it may be helpful to ask him is, next week, the Cunliffe report is coming out in its final form and that covers Wales as well: what is his intention to take that forward in a Welsh context? What is the interrelationship with this Bill? What is the prospect of new potential legislation, either Wales specific or England and Wales?

That's useful. Thank you.

Thank you so much. Just in the very final few minutes, if I could just check: we've had evidence, particularly from Professor Bob Lee on this, that there have been calls for the duty to contribute to targets to apply to public authorities more generally, rather than just the ones that are designated by Welsh Ministers. Could I just check what your views would be on that? Annie.

Well, first of all, it is really welcome that the Bill thinks about a way of binding public authorities into delivery. I just wanted to flag on this that that power to bind the public authorities in, and their duty then to take action to meet the targets, is tied into that section 6 duty, which we've heard a lot about recently because it has got some weaknesses, including I think that it's to seek to maintain and enhance biodiversity in the exercise of functions, and so what we have seen over the years is that not all public bodies will accept that that is very relevant to their functions, and so it gets marginalised. So, I think the question is: what's the best way of enabling this bit of the Bill to almost act as something that gives new responsibilities to those public authorities, so that it is absolutely in their remit to be delivering for biodiversity and contributing to those targets? That does mean that the strength of that designation or that duty on public authorities in respect of the targets is important, and it's definitely worth exploring whether that suggestion from UKELA would mean that that was more clear and more apparent. I think it is also really important to reflect that we've talked about public bodies and their resources, or lack of, and you obviously can't heap new responsibilities on bodies without resources being available to deliver those. But there's no doubt that public authorities have got a fundamental role.

We highlighted in our written evidence that the 6F power is a bit strange because it refers to designating a public authority, whereas it seems pretty much inconceivable that only a single public authority has got a role to play in delivering a target. So, making sure that that can be a broader application, I think, is really important.

Thank you, Annie. Alex, is there anything—

Just to reinforce that point about resourcing, I think that designating powers is quite good. I think that that could actually really change things, but this can't be an excuse for Welsh Government to just palm off responsibility onto other bodies. It needs to come with money to do that as well, and sufficient wider resources. I think that we can all think of examples over the past 10 years where powers have been put upon other authorities, NRW in particular—lots of new powers, lots of new responsibilities—and it's never had the budget to deal with them, and that's why we've seen it not be delivered as well as it might have been. It's not their fault, they've not had the resources and personnel to do it.

Exactly. The final word to you, Ruth.

Very briefly, I'd support exploring this too. Targets won't deliver themselves, so assigning that responsibility could be really significant. It shouldn't come without resourcing, as Alex has said. My question would be: which public authorities? What about those public authorities that are in that no-man's land between reserved and devolved competence? We haven't got time to go into that today, but there is an accountability gap that this Bill creates, and we need to find a way to close that.

That is fundamental, so if there's anything extra that you'd like to write to us with, that would be very useful, please. And on that note, there may be a few more technical questions that we haven't had a chance to get to today, so if it's all right, we'll write to you with those few extra questions. A transcript of what's been said will also be sent to you so that you can check that it's a fair record, for accuracy.

But may I thank the three of you for your evidence this morning? It has been exceptionally useful. Thank you very much to you. Members, we will take a short break of nine minutes.

We will take a brief nine-minute break, because I'm afraid we've run over by a minute. I'm so sorry. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.

Welcome back to the committee. I'll start this part of the meeting by thanking Delyth Jewell for chairing for the first hour of the committee this morning. We'll move on now to our evidence session with representatives from Natural Resources Wales and the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. And I would like to welcome online Mary Lewis, who is head of natural resource management policy at Natural Resources Wales; Neil Parker, who is team leader of biodiversity policy and strategy with Natural Resources Wales; and Beth Stoker who is director of international evidence and advice with the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. So, welcome to the three of you.

A warm welcome to you all. Can I start, maybe, by asking about the environmental objectives? Now, the Welsh Government has decided not to make NRW subject to the environmental objective in section 1, because, obviously, you're already subject to separate overarching objectives under your general purpose, but I was just wondering whether you felt, actually, that that was appropriate.

Okay, I'll take that one. Thank you very much. So, yes, I think we're very content that that's appropriate. We recognise that we're not subject to that specific environmental objective, but we also recognise that the reason for it is that we already have that overarching purpose for NRW in terms of pursuing the sustainable management of natural resources in the existing Environment (Wales) Act 2016. So, we see this as essentially aligning with our existing purpose, but that there's no need to apply that environmental objective to NRW as well, partly to avoid that sort of complication, because we already have an overarching objective in terms of delivery of the sustainable management of natural resources, but also because they are complementary.

But also further, obviously, in NRW, we have a wide range of regulatory, advisory and delivery roles, and the intent of the objective is very much already embedded in the work of what NRW does and what we're here for as an organisation. So, we're happy with the way that that's set out in the legislation and we're also happy to see the alignment of the environment objective with the existing statutory frameworks around the well-being of future generations et cetera—it just brings this all together into one context for sustainable development for Wales. So, from our perspective, we think that that's appropriate.

There we are, okay. Well, that message is loud and clear. Diolch yn fawr. Carolyn.

And to NRW again, you say in your written evidence that the Welsh Government should consider extending the environmental principles duty more widely for more public authorities to apply the principles—why do you say that?

Okay, so I think we're happy with the principles applied to ourselves, obviously—they're very much within the remit of our organisation. We welcome the duty on NRW there. I think the reality is that lots of decisions made by other organisations have significant environmental impacts, so that's why we flagged that we think it's worth considering extending the duty to other organisations, because there are other regimes—for example, land use planning, transport, economic development—that can have direct implications and impacts on the environment. So, it's just to flag that we think it's worth considering extending the duty to other public authorities as well.

Do you think it might not occur to them that the environment might—? You know, it might not occur to the decision making that they're doing—. So, they might just have a—

Absolutely. Oh, well, yes—

A narrow focus.

There are many other requirements on other public bodies that will mean that they will take account of certain aspects of environmental implications. You know, for example, projects might need a habitats regulations assessment, they might need an environmental impact assessment. So, it's not that environmental considerations would not be taken account of, but to have a very clear duty just puts it front and centre, and ensures that the three prongs of environment, economy and society are considered in all decision making.

Okay. So, do you think, though, that with there being no expressed duty to explain how the principles should be interpreted in the principles statement—? Do you believe that the requirements around the principles statement's content in section 6 will provide enough clarity on interpretation of the principles?

Yes, so, I mean, I think you can go so far in legislation and then give yourself the tools to provide the statements, the guidance et cetera for how that legislation should then be applied, and that gives a degree of discretion and flexibility on how that's done. So, I think that we support the requirements to publish a statement around the principles and how they should be interpreted.

I think, as I say, what's really important is the clarity in that statement. So, we don't think necessarily there needs to be more provision in the legislation, but in terms of that statement, how it follows, we would want to see clear definition of each of the environmental principles. Some contextual background would be very helpful, where they've come from, what they mean, what's meant by policy, and also it could be really helpful to provide in that statement and supporting guidance case studies, because there is experience from applying those principles previously, and also guidance on how it links to the wider sustainable development framework in Wales in terms of SMNR and well-being.

So, I think we're happy with the provisions that are in there around the statement. The critical thing will be the clarity that follows. And I think for us as well that what's really important is that that statement and supporting guidance are able to really signpost, beyond its sort of environmental legislation and management being about the prevention of harm, actually into the sphere of proactive seeking of opportunities to restore and enhance the environment in Wales as well. I think we think that that's a really key shift we need to see, again, through the supporting tools that will come as a result of the legislation.

Are you concerned that there's too much weight on the statement, though? The previous panel were, in cases like a change of Government and Minister—that there should be more in the actual legislation?

It's always a really difficult balance, isn't it? I think it's helpful that the legislation sets out the requirement to present the statement and what it should broadly cover. If it's too nailed down in the legislation, there isn't the flexibility to include more provisions and more advice in that statement. Obviously, there's always a risk, as things change, that that statement could be diluted et cetera. But I think it comes down to a really strong relationship between the organisations that would advise the Government at the time in terms of what needs to be in that statement, and holding us all to account around that, rather than necessarily narrowing more prescriptions in the actual primary legislation itself.

Okay—

Joyce, yes, come in on this.

We know that the Government is going to change next time. What if that relationship isn't the same as the relationship now? Would there not be an advantage in tying this down?

I mean, we recognise that risk, and that risk goes in all directions in terms of policy delivery, I guess, doesn't it, really? I think the legislation as drafted for us is clear in terms of what is needed in the statement. There's always a risk with a change of Government that what's gone before in terms of the guidance or the statements et cetera gets changed. But I think that stands for everything that follows as a tool that you would deliver as a result of power set out in primary legislation, rather than it necessarily meaning that we need to change the provisions here.

But I think we understand that concern, we're very alive to that concern, and it may well be that looking at those provisions around what's required in the statement is worth just some final scrutiny, isn't it, to make sure that they are tight. But I think we're content as long as we can maintain that advisory relationship, and we are a statutory adviser to Government, so we would expect very much to be in the space of advising and influencing what comes through in that statement.

I'm just going to move on to the Office of Environmental Governance Wales, the OEGW, regarding independence, so to what extent will the Bill's provisions safeguard public trust in the body?

Beth, would you want to go first on this one?

I'm actually going to suggest that Mary goes first on this one, if that's okay.

Okay, go on. Yes, that's fine.

That's fine, thank you. As a public body ourselves in Wales, we are, obviously, really conscious of the need to demonstrate that kind of independence and integrity in the delivery of an organisation's remit et cetera. So, we think it's really helpful that the Bill doesn't have provisions that allow Ministers to provide directions or guidance and really allow the OEGW to operate independently.

We think the provisions in the Bill are sufficient. It comes down to delivery and demonstration of the purpose of that new body being fundamental. I think an important aspect for NRW in terms of demonstrating independence is we've had a really positive, close relationship with the interim assessor to date, but we are really conscious that the new body will need sufficient expertise internally in the body itself so that it can operate independently, rather than necessarily needing so much expertise from NRW, which could be seen as diluting the independence in terms of its operation alongside a public body that it also may want to advise et cetera. So, I think that's one of the key points for us is they're sufficiently set up to have the expertise within the body themselves.

So, the body, OEGW, will have powers to advise the Welsh Government. Could these overlap with your advisory functions? I see that NRW and the JNCC both have advisory functions.

We do. I don't know if Beth wanted to come in first. I'm happy to go first. Again, we recognise that in terms of plain reading of the legislation, there is the risk of an overlap in terms of our role in NRW and the OEGW. It's worth reflecting, I think, that, in NRW, we have a very broad range of statutory advisory roles, regulatory roles, various powers and duties in terms of environmental management. And then this particular body is going to have a very narrow and specific remit in relation to the delivery and scrutiny of environmental law. I think we're content that Schedule 2 sets out the need to make sure that they don't overlap in terms of their exercise of their functions with us. And then there's further information in the explanatory memorandum that explains the limits of their role compared with us. So, I think we're content that what's set out in the legislation is enough. I think what will be fundamentally important is that we work very closely together as appropriate, which we have done to date with the interim assessor.

Also, we recognise there will be some areas where both organisations are providing advice on aspects of environmental law, but the perspectives will be different. So, the assessor will be looking at how that law sits alongside other pieces of legislation, how it's implemented et cetera. We will be looking at the outcomes for nature, climate, pollution in Wales as a whole. So, our perspectives will be different, but we will need to work together closely to make sure that we don't see any duplication.

Sure. In fairness to Beth, I understand that, obviously, your particular expertise is around targets. But this is, I think, relevant, isn't it, in terms of a risk of overlap not specifically being addressed, as far as you're concerned, in Schedule 2, so you might want to add something.

I'm happy to come in here. Thank you for that. So, just to say, I think our reflection here is that JNCC have developed constructive working relationships with the Office for Environmental Protection for England and Northern Ireland and then Environmental Standards Scotland, and so very much what we would hope to do with the OEGW is to develop that same constructive working relationship. That relationship isn't specified in the legislation itself underpinning the OEP or the ESS. It is, however, noted in the explanatory notes that go with those pieces of legislation. So, that perhaps is one element that could be considered here, which is whether the explanatory memoranda are extended slightly to give due consideration to the Joint Nature Conservation Committee within those notes.

Okay, thank you very much. Diolch yn fawr. We'll move on to Delyth.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. Bore da. I wanted to ask Mary and Neil specifically, please. We are aware of the concern that you have raised already in your written evidence about the governance gap potentially emerging, where OEGW won't have a remit over some of the reserved public authorities that undertake a devolved function in Wales. Do you think that the Bill should address this, please?

Yes. So, we have raised that concern—that's right. Obviously, as the environmental body and adviser for Wales, we primarily advise and regulate in relation to devolved functions, but we also have some roles in relation to reserved functions ourselves as well. So, it's something that we're quite alive to, really. So, we do understand from discussions that there probably are legislative reasons and constitutional reasons why the assessor for Wales can't have remit over reserved authorities, but it still potentially leaves us with a little bit of a gap. So, for example, there are organisations that have a reserved remit, for example the National Grid or the Crown Estate, that obviously do operate in Wales, and we, as a regulator, may regulate certain activities that we give them permissions for and we can deal with that aspect of their operations, but not the compliance with other aspects of environmental law. And an example might be the section 6 duty in the Environment (Wales) Act in terms of biodiversity.

So, there potentially are some gaps there that we are concerned about. It might be that it can't be resolved in terms of the legislation for reasons we've mentioned. But we do think what would need to happen is for the body to set out very clearly in its strategy—the strategy that's required as a duty to produce that under this piece of legislation—how they will go about investigating any suspected non-compliance from a reserved public authority, where they're discharging a devolved function, which is the bit where there's a potential gap, and also then how it will work with the existing OEP in England in terms of bodies with reserved functions that will also deliver in Wales. So, we think the strategy will be the critical place to address that if it can't be addressed in legislation.

Yes, that's comprehensive. Thank you. And sticking with NRW, if I may, we're interested in your perspective specifically as a body that would fall under the OEGW's jurisdiction. In terms of the proposed escalatory approach to enforcement and the wider enforcement powers of the body, what are your views on that, as opposed to should the balance be struck more towards fining—all of the implications of the provisions as they're drafted for this, please?

Yes, sure. On the whole, we think what's proposed is appropriate. We recognise that the new body will be discretionary in terms of what it will choose to investigate, and we think it's right that it has a suite of tools and a suite of powers that it can use, and to decide what to prioritise and what steps to take, for example the information notices, escalating to compliance notices, urgent notices et cetera. There's a very clear escalation route in the legislation, but it starts with the advisory provisions in section 13. So, it feels really appropriate to us. And also, we're very happy to see that there's a duty to co-operate, which would apply to us as well in NRW.

I think in terms of the ability to—. You mentioned as well in terms of levying fines—it is an important question. I think we're mindful of the fact that this will be a small body, and the resources it takes to set and levy fines is very significant—we know that ourselves, don't we, from multiple experiences in Wales—and therefore what's in there is probably proportionate to the work that the body will do. They can refer cases up to the High Court as well, so there is obviously a further escalation route there. But overall, that sort of feels appropriate.

There are two areas where we think, potentially, it could be tightened up a little bit. For example, we're subject to the co-operation duty. There is no time frame around the co-operation duty, which could help strengthen the provisions, to a degree. And also, it could be worth considering, with information notices, whether there could be a provision to issue them to multiple public authorities—you know, one notice to multiple authorities, because often, it can be the case that a particular issue relates to more than one organisation, more than one public body, and that might make the operation of the assessor more efficient, if you like, as well. So, I think, there are probably some tweaks that could be considered, but overall it feels proportionate to us, really, yes.

That's helpful. Thank you so much. And then finally from me, for now, in terms of the transparency of processes by which the public can apply to the OEGW, do you think—and this would be for any of you who would have a view on this, please—again, the balance is right? Is there sufficient focus on how the public could make representations to the OEGW? We've heard evidence earlier this morning about how in England, on the website, there is a very clear complaints procedure, there are frequently asked questions. It's been expressed to us this morning that because of the limited resources of this body, because there isn't as much of an explicit requirement for that much, that perhaps this could be lost. But we would be really interested to hear your views.

Yes, okay. So, I'll pick that one up. We recognise those concerns. We can see that in the Bill at the moment it does allow anyone to make a representation to the OEGW on any topic. And then they will obviously have their own discretion for what they decide to proceed with. But it is really important, it is a body operating for Wales, for the public of Wales. So, we do recognise it's really important that people know and can see that they can make representations. That could be done through different ways—either, as you just explained, you make it very clear on the website or the portal for the body that there is a way to submit complaints, or it could be, and it wouldn't potentially undo anything that's already in there, helpful to have an explicit clause, or it could be something that's added, for example, in the definition of representations in section 42 of the Bill. So, there are ways of potentially making it more explicit. So, we think that the Bill doesn't prevent any of that happening, but we can see that it might be helpful to either consider something in the Bill, or very much the way that the service is offered and communicated to the public, to make that very clear.

Thank you. Did either of the other witnesses want to add anything to that? No, you're content. Okay.

Joyce wants to come in.

What concerns me, and I raised it in previous questions, is that the disparity that could arise here from the informed and the uninformed, and the capacity to realise their opportunity in this regard. I think that there's potential here for socioeconomic disadvantage in raising a complaint and making a representation. So, what are your views on that? Do you share my view? And if you do, what do you advise?

The social justice aspect of access to any new provisions is really important, isn't it, and it is a really live issue in Wales, so I totally recognise what you're saying there. I think it will affect this piece of legislation and many other pieces of legislation. I think what's fundamental will be about the way the opportunity to raise issues is communicated, very clearly, and where it is communicated, so that you take it to people where they are and make it understandable to people where they are, rather than the passive need for people to understand and battle through the complexities of Government, as it were. I think it's probably less about the legislation, and very, very much about how this is delivered in practice, and always having in mind the social justice of access to our services and provisions in Wales.

Okay. Diolch yn fawr. Right, we're going to move into targets now, then, and Carolyn is going to lead us into this.

Okay, thank you. We've heard calls for a headline biodiversity target. So, what are your views on that?

So, I'll take this one first, to start with. In our White Paper response last year, we were supportive of a headline target. It's a good idea. We've seen what's happened with net zero and that really, really works. It makes a very powerful statement publicly to make these things happen. However, it might be better if we stay away from that as a headline target, more of a mission-statement approach, because trying to define what a target is in legislation might then be very hard to stick to. Whereas it might be better, as the framework set out in the Bill gives us four areas for targets, which have to combine with three particular areas of abundance of species, resilience of the ecosystems and genetic diversity, which will, actually, give us a pathway to recovery, to halting the loss and then recovery—. I think it's different to climate and I think we need to remember that. Ecosystems don't work in that way. Climate affects ecosystems, not ecosystems affecting climate; we need to remember that as we go through this.

I think the other thing to think about here is that we have the environmental objective here, and we have the other piece of legislation that I think Mary has already mentioned, in terms of looking at ecosystem resilience and maintaining that. So, we have a lot of hooks already to do that. Maybe there is a public relations offensive that we need to do on nature, with nature, to really build that in—the nature emergency—some more and drive that forwards.

Neil, if we have that—so, we say ‘net zero’, don't we, for carbon reduction. Have you got an idea, then, to put in people's minds the nature emergency—'reversing nature decline', something like that—in the offensive on getting public awareness of the nature emergency?

Yes, I was aware that I was making myself a bit of a rod there, but I'm not sure I can coin a statement right now, but we need to work that out, don't we? We’ve got the 'nature emergency' and people are hearing that. We've seen Sir David Attenborough and some of the—[Inaudible.]—that came out there with the marine side of things. Can we build on that? Do we need to put our heads together and actually generate that in that context? Perhaps we do.

It's got to be achievable, hasn't it? This is the big thing with a target: we've got to make sure that it's achievable and it's got to be meaningful. So, yes, we've got to do something around that. We're not limited to one target either, are we, so we can make multiple targets. If you look at what England have done, they've actually got one big headline, but when you look at what they've done, there are multiple targets that have the same level—there's no one big headline, particularly.

Okay, I want to come back to that. The academics said that we should have a long-term vision of reversing decline by 2050, but the non-governmental organisations suggested that we should have interim targets by 2035 as well, so what are your views on that?

Yes, we've got to act now. There is no reason—there's no point in saying 2050. This is probably some of the challenge with targets like this. We need short, medium and long term, in one way or another. It might be difficult to set a suite of short-term targets, only to then have to go through challenging ourselves with updating targets in a legislative context. So, perhaps medium to longer term targets are necessary and are the ones that we need to build here, but then indicators, interim measures, if we like, and monitoring to be able to understand whether we're on track to achieve that in, say, 2030, 2035, 2040, 2045, 2050, and so on, so we that know that we're on track. That is the key here, otherwise we could end up putting ourselves in a place of continuously reviewing targets in the future, and I don't think we’d really want to end up in that place, because that will stop on-the-ground of action, which is where we really need to focus.

Okay, I'll come to Beth—. Go on, you go first, and then I'll pick up on some of that later, because I might want to pick up on something you say as well.

Thank you very much. Yes, I just wanted to come in on both of those questions, both around the headline biodiversity targets and the short versus long-term element of setting targets. I think the reflection we would have from JNCC is that, on balance, we would actually prefer a multitarget approach to reflect the complexity of ecosystems and biodiversity that we're seeing. We absolutely understand the value of having a headline target, particularly from a communications perspective, and building that narrative around the importance of nature. But, certainly, when we look at how that headline target in England has then been implemented, particularly in their environmental improvement plan, you can see that that target has been nested in alongside several other targets as well. So, again, even at that implementation stage, it's much more integrated and using that multitarget approach.

Then I think it's also just worth noting that when you look outside, beyond the UK, countries are really only beginning to put these biodiversity targets into law, so there's also not that much experience and practice from other parts of the world that we can take, in terms of understanding the value of having a headline target against having multiple-target approaches. So, I think it's for those reasons that we would, perhaps, yes, guide slightly towards a multitarget approach, in terms of that debate around a headline target or not. But it is a good debate to have, and, certainly, the narrative around nature does need to improve.

And then coming on to the short and the long-term target piece, which I think is connected to but also separate from that discussion around the headline target, I think it's important to have a suite of targets that represents different timelines. Very much as Neil was saying, I think the key bit there is around the monitoring and the reporting that you're doing against those targets. So, even if it a long-term target, there should be regular monitoring and reporting against your achievement to that target, so you're able to monitor your progress over time towards that target, and able to take different actions depending on what those reports are telling you as to whether you are making progress or not. So, again, in that balance between short-term and long-term targets, I think you have to build in that monitoring and that reporting process within there, because that also offers you an avenue to judge distance to targets over time.

Thank you. So just to condense or boil what both of you are saying down, really, it's—. Mission statements don't galvanise people, do they, in the same way as a target. But you feel, both of you, that having a headline target on the face of the Bill, albeit with other targets coming through in regulation, probably isn't the best way forward. That's what you're saying.

Yes, I think so. A headline target is a really powerful thing in the climate arena. Will it work for biodiversity? We don't think it will, because there are many more moving parts. How you then track that and monitor that and deliver upon that becomes much more difficult. The four areas in the framework and then how they might meet the abundance, the resilience and then the diversity, that gives a stronger way of trying to identify how we can monitor ecosystems, and whether they are giving us the benefits that we want them to provide.

Okay, that's fine. Joyce.

Good morning, all. My question is to the JNCC. If you can briefly outline the work you're doing to support the development of the targets, when you started working on them, and when you expect to be able to provide advice to the Welsh Government about them.

Yes, of course. Thank you, Joyce. We started working with the Welsh Government back in 2024, and, at that point, the work that we had there in terms of support we were giving was to look at the suite of indicators that we already have available within the UK, but also within Wales. For example, JNCC hosts the UK biodiversity indicators, which are updated on a regular basis. The first piece of work has been a mapping exercise to look at how the indicators that we currently have map onto the developing targets within Wales, and to what extent those indicators then can be used to measure those targets within Wales. Parts of that piece of work completed were earlier this year, earlier in 2025, so that advice will already be with the Welsh Government.

The second piece of work that we're doing and hoping to complete within the next six months or so is then beginning to use scenarios and modelling concepts to look at the feasibility of the targets. This is very much about understanding the extent to which any targets that are selected can be achieved within a given time frame based on different policy scenarios. So, exploring different types of policy interventions and understanding how those interventions in the modelled scenario might impact the achievability of those targets into the future. That's an active piece of work at the moment and something that we're hoping to conclude late in the autumn.FootnoteLink

Do you want to give an example?

An example of a scenario?

Yes, an example of first of all you've got the target, then you've mapped it, and now you're going on to look at the effect. Do you want to give an example? Because at the moment it's not grounded, is it?

Yes, of course. We are looking at scenarios where you might bring different policy interventions into play in Wales—so, the different levers that you might pull through different forms of the policy commitments and legislation you've already got—to understand the extent to which they might influence your ability to achieve that target, or not, by looking at the data that we've got, and forecasting out what happens to those biodiversity indicators. Those biodiversity indicators might improve or might actually get worse in those different scenarios, based on the policy interventions. For example, if there were changes to agri-environment schemes, whether that would look to improve your biodiversity indicators, or perhaps could send them the other direction, which could then have an impact on your achievement of the target.

We had evidence just now from previous witnesses saying that the Bill passed yesterday, or the update passed yesterday, on farming was not adequate to deliver what we would want, because there were various omissions. Tree planting, I think, was one, and the treatment of chemicals on the land was another. Would you be looking at that as an example—I use it as an example because you’ve just given it—to advise the Government? And if that's the case, we are at odds here, aren't we?

I don't have the detail in front of me at the moment, so I can certainly come back to the committee with an answer on those specifics. But if it's something that the Welsh Government are keen for us to explore, then we can certainly look to build that into the work that we're doing, and as you say, it may help provide that further evidence around the impacts of those changes in terms of being able to meet any biodiversity targets.

The targets for England—we've heard this several times—were brought forward just over 12 months following Royal Assent of the Environment Act 2021. Were you involved in developing the targets for England? Is there good reason why Wales needs longer? The estimated time we've been told is three years.

Yes, JNCC were involved in supporting the work in England, and in Scotland, which is also running to a 12-month timetable following Royal Assent to that Bill as well. I think experience and evidence suggests that the targets can be developed within a tight 12-month timetable. I would suggest that it's for Welsh Government colleagues to answer their perspective on the three years, because I understand there are Welsh-specific issues that might mean that that longer timetable is needed in Wales.

Thank you.

Thank you. Carolyn.

We've heard calls for the duty to contribute towards the targets to be widened to public authorities more generally, rather than the designation of public authorities approach taken in the Bill. We had evidence from Professor Robert Lee on this as well. It's just ensuring that all public authorities, whatever policies that they're looking at, have regard to the environment. What are your views on that?

We have noted that the Bill does include a power for Welsh Ministers to impose a duty on a public authority to contribute to defined targets—section 33, I believe. What I think this is really about is a big collaborative approach. It cannot be done by itself by a handful of organisations, particularly environmental ones like ourselves. We need to do it as one big public service. And that public service needs to also draw in the private sector where we can to help, I guess, fund some of these things.

Integrating and mainstreaming nature recovery action into decision making across public authorities is really where we want to see this. Internal policy making, how we manage land and assets, how we make more nature-friendly procurement, perhaps; that's what we really want to see. I think then there's the expectation of what that might look like for other public bodies and authorities. It's got to be proportionate within the context of functions, hasn't it, with all of us, and the capabilities, and I think we have to make sure we understand that. We've got to do this as a sustainable development principle. We would need the targets to be very clear about where those authorities would be able to contribute to the targets as and when they are drafted, and what the expectation is, including the timelines, to allow sufficient time for any public authorities to be able to make meaningful contribution also.

I think that's really where we feel we are with it. I don't think it should preclude the Minister from providing specific direction. As it already stands, we do have, obviously, the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and the section 6 duty already there, which is the biodiversity and ecosystem resilience duty, or the resilience of ecosystems and the benefits they provide. We already have that, so can we build upon that again?

There are some concerns that, with the duty to just 'have regard to', they don't always have to take it forward. There's always concern raised with me by biodiversity and ecology officers that different departments don't always have that as a focus in their mind. The environment might be something that impacts on every service area and they should have regard to biodiversity, whether it's planning, building new schools, education, but it's not always there because they might be focusing on the core delivery. So, unless it's there that they have to have due regard, they might not presume it applies to them when they're making decisions.

The Environment (Wales) Act, the section 6 duty there, already contains some of that. The general movement has always been that. But I think you're absolutely right and I do agree with you. Where specific functions have a remit, they focus on mission, don't they? And so, our mission is about the environment, it's about biodiversity, particularly my team and what I do. It doesn't apply to everybody, perhaps, or is it more implicit in what they should be doing and what we need to do in terms of capacity building, so that we understand that in generations that come forwards? How do we make that happen if we don't build something into what we have in the draft Bill at this stage? We've got to really think more about that ask to make it happen. Do we put a general duty on public authorities here, or do we not? What difference will that make when we already have similar things elsewhere? Are the Ministers going to be able to press then for those education departments, as you say, to be able to do that, or is it going to be business as usual?

My argument is that highway technical officers or planning officers look at legislation in black and white. You saw that with the roll-out of the 20 mph in some areas. So, unless it's there in legislation in black and white they will not follow it. It might be a mindset to have regard to the environment, to have a discussion when doing a highway piece of work—that when you're restoring the verges to have a conversation with the ecologist, 'What can we do here for wildflowers?' for example, rather than just returning grass seed to that bank. It's having that thought there to have regard for biodiversity and the environment in all that they do. Otherwise, if it's not legislated for, they might not think about that.

In the example you used, it's already legislated for. That conversation has to happen. Unless it's followed through, as you say in the example, with the planning conditions that are set, they are monitored and they are fully implemented, we will never make that change. So, I think there is a need for this. How it is delivered is going to be the challenge. In terms of that planning area, if you like, it's how we make sure that that is drawn upon. It's not always the highway side of things, is it? It's the large infrastructure developments that have private ownership. How do we make sure that those are drawn and held to account themselves in the delivery of this?

This is a collaborative effort. A Government can't do this by itself. There is not enough money in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland to do that. So, it does need that private investment in there. Holding people to account is quite challenging. Understanding what they can contribute, though, is probably a slightly different thing, and so we would like to see something in there. We don't disagree with what the law association said. How are we going to make that a reality? It's about capacity building to understand that and to get that planning element right.

Diolch yn fawr. There are specific priority areas for targets in the Bill. I'm just wondering what your views might be about those. Beth, I don't know if you want to go first.

Thank you. I can come in. We support the priority areas that have been identified as targets within the Bill. Those have been identified in dialogue with others, including the JNCC. I think one of the specific questions that was asked was around the difference between increasing genetic biodiversity or maintaining genetic biodiversity. It was one of the specific points in there. The global biodiversity framework in terms of the relevant goal here refers to maintaining genetic biodiversity. The associated target that then sits underneath that refers to maintaining and restoring genetic biodiversity, which is then closer to the language that's been used within the priorities and the targets within this Bill around increasing genetic diversity there. So, it's just that kind of nuance as to where the language is falling between goals and targets.

Do you have a view as to which is preferable?

Certainly increasing.

Yes, I thought maybe, but there we are, just for the record. Neil, any thoughts on the priority areas?

Yes, and very much in the same space as Beth has just explained, if you look at the goals, goal A in the global biodiversity framework:

'The genetic diversity within populations...is maintained, safeguarding their adaptive potential',

that's very heavily linked to what we already have in our ecosystem resilience language in Wales and what is also included in this Bill. Goal A, that's one. You've got to remember that these are all interlinked; all these targets in the global biodiversity framework and the goals are interlinked. Goal B, the general theme there: 'prosper with nature'. To do that, we need to make sure that we're maintaining. Sometimes, to maintain genetic diversity, we need to increase a population of a species. That will by its very nature then increase the genetic diversity, maintaining their ability to adapt to pressures and threats on them. So, there's a very technical answer that could be had here, and there's a case of—. I think, again, we're in a very good space. This is a really positive area that we're in here, and we can really work from this and really drive some of this home a bit further.

Okay. Because your evidence makes particular reference to the enabling and mainstreaming tranche of global biodiversity targets. I'm just wondering how you'd like those to be considered.

Yes. It's very similar to what I was just working through in the previous question we talked about. It's all very well and good setting targets; we've been in targets world in the past in the biodiversity arena, when we had the H targets and so forth. The global biodiversity framework references between the previous targets, H targets, and things like that. For us to be able to implement some of these targets, restoring populations, making sure all our sites and best nature areas are in great condition, the enabling targets are there to try and generate some of those funding streams, some of the software, some of the educational capability, for us to be able to understand whether we can do that. So, it comes back to smart targets. Can we make these targets smart, or smarter, so we understand what they are? We need transformative change here. We need the private sector to come along with us rather than—. We just had the example, 'We can do wildflower verges' or, 'We could put back some grass seed.' When we put back, they need maintaining. We need that. That's what enabling targets are really around. If we get those right, the third tranche, as they call them, means the first tranche, where the 30x30 generates diversity, and the tackling of invasive species, that gets easier—an awful lot easier—we think. So, we would like to see some of that happen. We've got to pay a bit of regard to that when setting the targets, because when we talk about the evidence relating to biodiversity, which includes 'access to it and the use of it', that means we're in those tranche 3 enabling targets, almost, to be able to do that. So, there is a crossover and, as I said, they're all interlinked, all the GBF targets, so we would hope to see more use of that—just more communication, as the targets are built, on how they could be drawn together.

Okay. Thank you for that clarity. Delyth.

Diolch. I wanted to draw your attention to the fact that Professor Steve Ormerod, when he was giving evidence, he expressed a concern that perhaps the focus on pollution in the priority areas could distract from other drivers of biodiversity decline. Would you share that concern?

Of sorts. I guess we don't want the distraction to do with pollution. So, we have a suite of regulatory tools already available, which is great. But pollution is one part of the jigsaw for us. So, it shouldn't distract us from those other actions. But, under the framework of targets, it needs to work together, because pollution degrades an environment. We heard about the rivers over the past couple of years, and the phosphates issues there. We've got the marine evidence that we've just released as well from NRW. They're pollution drivers. I guess it's what you put on land, it's what you put through the treatment works and things like this. It's what comes out of a chimney stack somewhere. You can't touch that, I think, as we've discussed, and we talked about climate earlier. You can't touch that; it's not quite tangible, is it? So, it's quite hard to then work out what to do with that. So, I guess what Steve Ormerod is really trying to say, I suppose, is, if we distract ourselves with pollution, we might end up in the same space, whereas if we then try and target some of the other items, like species extinction risk or abundance, or have we got the right information to hand to make decisions on and monitor ecosystems better, that's just as powerful as pollution. I think the problem is we probably understand pollution better as Wales, if you like, or as the UK. We understand that better because we've got a long history of legislation and policy that drives that.

Thank you. Beth, is there anything you wanted to add to that?

Yes. I suppose I can add a little bit from our side. In terms of the comments from Steve and what Neil was reflecting on there, I think we see it as important to have pollution within the targets. Pollution, as Neil was describing, it's long range, it's diffuse, so it really helps to have it explicitly covered within the targets. I think, perhaps, as Neil was saying, and the point that Steve was making, which is recognising that the priority areas that have been identified and the targets then set against those priority areas in and of themselves at the moment might not be comprehensive in terms of covering the full suite of issues that we've got in terms of the drivers causing biodiversity decline, and even that full suite of the global biodiversity framework targets, but actually mapping in these other pieces of policy and legislation and action that are happening to show in the round the totality of the interventions that are being made to halt and reverse that decline in biodiversity loss. So, I think it's stepping out and seeing that bigger picture of everything that is happening within Wales to take that collective action and having a specific target here on pollution picks up, perhaps, on a gap that exists at the moment. So, therefore, it's right to have it at that point.

Thank you both for that. And then finally from me, we have heard some evidence that it should be necessary to have specific targets for marine, terrestrial and freshwater environments—so, not necessarily to have separate targets for each of those, but that the targets would need to make sure that they were answering the different contexts of each of those environments. Could I ask for your views on this, please, and whether you think that that should be included in the Bill?

Yes, of course. I think, really, one target won't work because of the way that ecosystems work. I've already tried to outline some of that. We need to make sure any targets that are set will work together so that they complement each other and don't draw from each other, and so we end up trying to resource all of ourselves in different ways to tackle different targets. So, they need to work together, but marine, terrestrial and freshwater do have different things within them that we need to be able to look at and to understand, and it's that evidence piece, perhaps: have we got the evidence that tells us what we need so that we can make sure that we work on these together to drive halting the decline of biodiversity and species and putting it on the path to recovery?

What happens on land will affect water in some way or another. So, whatever we do at the top of a catchment, at the top of the ridge of the mountains, it will end up in the freshwater, and that probably will end up, therefore, via the rivers, in the marine environment. So, they do need to work together. I don't think there's anything wrong with that—quite supportive of it. I think we need to work through the motions of the targets over the next few years, shorter or longer, however that turns out, to make that work, and I think that question that we had earlier about short-/long-term targets, that comes into play here as well. There might be some short-term things that can be done that then will actually be contributing to a longer term target, which is probably the one that we're really after.

Okay. Diolch. Beth, and then we've got five minutes left then for Carolyn to bring us to a conclusion.

Okay, great. Thank you for letting me come in. So, just to add then to what Neil is saying there around having those targets for different ecosystems, certainly one approach you can take is having those different targets across the different ecosystem types. An alternative approach is to have a common target across the different ecosystem types that is then supported by different indicators under that, so you can measure your different ecosystems differently. So, part of it is about how you, I suppose, map and bundle your targets and your indicators that you're using to measure against those targets. So, that can be another bit that can be explored here: having a common target that is then supported by indicators representing different ecosystems within Wales. So, there are different approaches that can be taken.

Diolch yn fawr. Carolyn.

Thank you. The Bill requires the Welsh Ministers to specify in their section 6 biodiversity plans what action they propose to take to meet the biodiversity targets. There is no requirement on designated public authorities to do so, or to do the same in their section 6 plans. So, what are your views on this?

Beth, would you like to—? Go on then, Neil, you were in mid drawing of breath.

Yes, I can do. [Laughter.] Hang on, the headset's falling down. The Bill does provide a statutory framework opportunity to make best use of existing statutory mechanisms such as section 6. I think it does make sense for public authorities to set out their intentions within the existing section 6 reporting—well, planning and reporting—mechanism that we have. This is about integration again. So, we want to see organisations’ work plans—. The work plans that they generate in their teams, in their departments, we would like to see that improved. It is challenging. The sustainable development principle applies here, through how we can do that in the social and economic, cultural and environmental spheres. How do we make it more of a goal for Wales rather than individual organisations, I suppose, is what we would like to see happening here.

But, without these targets, if they don't have to do a local biodiversity action plan, then the local authorities won't do them, I feel.

Yes, and I think that's kind of the story to date, isn't it? We've had a policy area for this for a very long time. The plans are drafted, they're made, they're reviewed—are they actionable? And I think that's part of the challenge for this. And if you draw on things like green infrastructure assessments, they tend to then move towards an action plan, but then actually adopting that action plan within a local authority, say—and that's not meant to pick on local authorities at all—how do they then action them? The requirement there was a green infrastructure assessment, not to implement the action plan. So, for a local authority now, if you like, to have to include them in a target, and how they contribute, that's probably a positive thing. How do we do it in terms of the functions that they've already got, and the resources that they've already got to do that, without drawing more on those?

Okay. I don’t think you’re picking on local authorities; I think Audit Wales has made the situation clear to us, really, in that respect. Can Beth respond, and then you can come back in, because we've got three minutes left? Beth, would you like to come in?

No, not on that point.

Okay. Carolyn.

So, local authorities—because I will refer back to them—they're under pressure: social services, housing, education. So, as Delyth said earlier, they need to know that biodiversity is not a frilly thing, nature isn’t a frilly thing, it’s something that underpins everything we do. There was a corporate plan where it said that the environment was here to serve the business, basically, which is concerning. So, I feel that if it’s not there in legislation, or as something that they have proper regard to, it will be a concern going forward. So, your views on that comment then, please.

Yes. We’ve got the existing Environment (Wales) Act 2016 section 6 duty to produce a plan and to report on that. 'Is that strong enough?' is the big question here, and I think we probably know it’s not strong enough. That needs reinforcing. So, within this Bill, within this piece of legislation, we would like to see that reinforced and to drive that forward. It's quite clear that that needs to happen.

So, Neil, we’ve had discussions regarding 'due regard' or 'special regard'. So, section 6 is to have 'due regard' to biodiversity, whereas we’re hoping to change that to 'special regard'. So, do you—? Have you—? We’re trying to work what the difference is, as well, in law, how that can be applied, but just your views on that.

I don't—. I'd have to take it back, and probably have to put more thought towards what we'd really like to do there. I think I've been quite explicit in that we have an existing movement and yet we aren't really doing that already. So, if 'special regard' means doing more, then we need to find out a way of doing that. And if we can find out a way of wording that in this Bill, then that would probably be the most beneficial thing we can do, and that would need to follow with: how are we going to do that, where are the people that can do that, where is the understanding that we can do that, and where are the resources that we need to do, to implement, that?

And I think, to an extent, that's what we're all grappling here with this legislation, really, isn't it: how we turn the rhetoric into action that makes a difference on the ground. Can I thank the three of you for joining us this morning? We have fully expended our slot.

Thank you very much for joining us today. We really appreciate your time, and the written evidence that we've received before the session today. You will receive a draft transcript to ensure its accuracy, but, as I said, we all as Members are very grateful to you for your time today. Thank you very much.

The committee will now break until 12:40, when we'll be reconvening for scrutiny with the Future Generations Commissioner for Wales. So, we'll go into break for now. Thank you.

Welcome back, all, to this committee meeting. We're moving on to our fourth item on the agenda, which is our continued scrutiny of the Environment (Principles, Governance and Biodiversity Targets) (Wales) Bill. Joining us for this session, we have Derek Walker, Future Generations Commissioner for Wales—welcome to you—and also joining him is Rhiannon Hardiman, who is policy lead for climate, nature, economy and food at the future generations commissioner's office. A very warm welcome to both of you. I'll go straight to questions, if that's okay. We have an hour set aside.

Can I ask, to start—? The environmental NGOs have expressed concern that the environmental objective includes contribution to the well-being goals. Now, obviously, their concern there is that a requirement to consider the wider economic, social and cultural aspects might weaken the application of the environmental principle. I'm just wondering how you might respond to that.

Thank you very much for inviting us to give evidence. First of all, I wanted to just make a point in terms of our excellent working relationship with Welsh Government around this legislation. They involved us at a very early stage. We've contributed our thoughts in terms of the draft Bill, and many of those have been taken on board. So, it's been a great working relationship and full respect to the civil servants involved, and to my colleague Rhiannon, who's done a lot of that work.

I don't accept the point made by the environmental groups. The purpose of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 is to provide common direction for all of us in Wales: public bodies; private sector organisations, potentially; and third sector organisations, even though they're not formally covered by the Act. It gives a common vision for our country, and it requires all of us to work together and not work in silos, and collectively understand the impact that we can make together to the delivery of those long-term goals. So, it was intended to be, and it has become, the central organising principle for how we run our public services in Wales. For me, it sits above pieces of legislation, in that we're all working to these common aims.

I don't accept that it would dilute the legislation, either. There's enough flexibility in the well-being of future generations Act, in the way that it's framed, to enable the environmental objective and the purpose of this Bill to be achieved, without being diluted. So, for example, what public bodies and what Welsh Government are required to do is to deliver on the environmental objective, but in doing so understand how that can contribute to delivery of wider well-being objectives and other goals. So, it doesn't take away from the objective, it just means that when that objective is being delivered we need to have wider regard to how we can maximise our contribution across the well-being goals and the well-being Act. So, I don't accept that it would dilute things.

The other point I would be concerned about is whether it would set some sort of precedent. So, you could see other pieces of legislation that are very important to other sectors, very important to the people of Wales, whereby people might say, 'Well, this needs to come above the well-being of future generations Act. We don't have to have regard to the wider perspective and understand why we need to maximise our contribution to those other goals. So, that should also sit above the well-being of future generations Act.' So, I don't accept it would dilute. I think that there's plenty of flexibility in the well-being of future generations Act to allow this objective to succeed, and I would worry about the precedent.

Okay. Thank you very much. Carolyn.

Earlier, we did hear concerns that the environment comes at the bottom of the hierarchy under the well-being of future generations Act, below social and economy, so—.

Well, that's simply not the case, I'm afraid. The well-being dimensions are all dealt with equally—cultural, environmental, economic, social, and the goals are written in a way that none of them takes precedent. So, when public bodies are delivering their well-being objectives or putting in place their well-being plans, they're deliberately intended to consider how they can maximise their contribution against all the goals. In fact, that's a lot of the advice that I'm giving to them, they're just sometimes focusing on one or two when they should be looking at them all. So, that isn't the case.

Okay. I just wanted a response from you on that. Thank you.

There is debate around whether the duty to apply the principles

'when making policy...that has, or could have, any effect on the environment',

so it's specifically the environment, is broad enough. The Cabinet Secretary told us that, in the rare case where a policy has no impact on the environment, it wouldn’t be proportionate to apply the principles. So, what are your views on the duty?

I can come in on this one. So, we share some of those concerns, I think, because the wording of it creates the space for ambiguity. It creates the opportunity for someone to make a decision to say that the duty doesn't apply to this policy. And I think that what we would prefer to see is that the duty is applied first and then the decision is made that this has no impact. So, the duty would then apply across all areas of policy, not just those where somebody believes it may or may not have an impact on the environment. And it's really important that we're making those connections across different areas of policy and not just thinking about where there's an obvious link to the environment, but it's across all areas of policy.

So, it's about having that specifically so that people in different areas, services—as we've said before, education, transport, whatever, social services, even—have regard to the environment as well, because they might not think it does unless maybe they're in an area looking at biodiversity, ecology, whatever. So, just to make sure that that happens, really.

Yes, it's something that we see quite a lot in public bodies, that any issues relating to climate change, nature recovery, climate risk, they're almost perceived as the role of the person who is the biodiversity officer or is the climate change officer. One of the recommendations that the commissioner made recently in the report is to look at all of those corporate areas within public bodies, looking at all departments, and really shifting that internal culture so that ownership actually exists across all disciplines, not just those ones where, almost, they can pass the buck to that team. That's what we really want to avoid here and understand that this is a policy for everyone.

Okay. The Cabinet Secretary argues that the Welsh Minister's duty to have special regard to the principles means that the effect will cascade down to every policy and decision. So, to what extent does this negate the need to apply the principles more widely to other bodies and situations in the Bill? So, that's, again, on that same point, really.

Yes, absolutely. And I think that the expectation would be that public bodies were making all of their decisions in the context of what the national policy is telling them, whether that's planning policy or whatever that policy is. So, the extent to which it's necessary depends on how much Welsh Government has applied the duty themselves to that national level of policy, and that could take a while to break through if it's only as and when policies are being revised, renewed, over however many years we're looking at. So, the intention, I think, makes sense—that they wouldn't need to apply that level of duty at the public body level—but they are going to be completely reliant on what's happened at a national level for it to impact them.

So, it needs clarity right down to all the authorities that need to deliver this, I think, in different areas—is that what you're saying? Okay.

I just want to go on to the Office of Environmental Governance Wales, and the independence of it. So, the Bill provides that the OEGW will need to comply with the well-being duty under the well-being of future generations Act. The environmental NGOs have suggested that this isn’t appropriate, as the OEGW would have a specific environmental oversight role. So, how do you respond to that?

It's an interesting discussion and interesting point. My assessment of the new body is that it would meet the criteria to fall under the well-being of future generations Act, and I think it's important that it should, because, as I was saying in response to the earlier question, we want all of our public bodies to be collaborating, integrating their work programmes, working together for our common objectives under the well-being of future generations Act. And you can see, well, clearly it's a public body, it receives public funding, it's audited by the auditor general, and in my view it has a strategic purpose. So, in carrying out its investigations or its dealing with complaints or in providing advice, these are all strategic functions that I would expect a public body to be drawing on in terms of the well-being of future generations Act, and complying.

It goes back to another point: the well-being of future generations Act is framework legislation, so it's guiding behaviours within our public bodies, it's guiding a common direction, but it also includes quite a lot of flexibility—perhaps too much, sometimes, in my view—which does mean that public bodies can put together their plans and their objectives in a way that suits them, but they do have to then consider their wider role.

Which is my concern with this Bill, though, because the well-being of future generations Act might have flexibility, it might be a mindset, but how people apply it and what weight they give to it can vary. And if, in the environment Bill, just as a duty for the environment—. But if it isn't defined that it should be applied in all areas, all service areas, and how it should be applied and more defined, then, there might not be due regard to it.

Well, it would be required to—. I think the point is an interesting one, in that public bodies do interpret the legislation in different ways and they take it forward in different ways, but that's the beauty and the beast of the legislation, really, and you've got this common direction, but you've got enough flexibility to respond to different requirements. It would be part of my role, and the role of the auditor general, to work with them to make sure that they were delivering it in a way that I would expect them to. So, I think it certainly should apply, and my view is that the remit of their work makes that eligible when you look at other public bodies.

Delyth.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. Prynhawn da. I wanted to ask you about safeguarding the independence of the OEGW. Do you think that, as it's drafted, the Bill is robust enough in safeguarding that independence from Government?

Yes, we considered this quite closely when we were responding previously. I was thinking about my own role, my own office and its independence, and how that's structured and what's important, I guess, in terms of thinking about the independence of the office. And the types of things that I thought were important were the appointment of the chair and the board and the chief executive in the first instance. I think who decides the budget and who sets the work programme—these are key things that you look at to assess whether a body has sufficient levels of independence.

I think, looking again at the way in which the chair, the deputy chair, and other board members are appointed—that's clearly the role of Welsh Government, but the way in which the Senedd is involved and the way in which there are independent people involved in that process is, I think, pretty strong, actually, and I thought that was a good way of having some scrutiny of those appointments.

I think in terms of the budget, well, it's actually quite similar to mine, in that the Welsh Government decides my budget, so if they weren't happy, they could slash the budget, couldn't they? And with the Auditor General for Wales, the budget for the auditor general comes from the Parliament before the Senedd, before it comes to the auditor general, but you know that's a similar approach to me and the other commissioners.

And then in terms of the work programme, from what I can see, it's very clearly the responsibility of the organisation itself to set its work programme, and even to say 'no' to Welsh Government if it asks it to undertake certain investigations or so forth, if it can justify that.325

So, my analysis is that they've gone a good way to seeking to ensure that the body is independent and I think that's good. We have thought about whether they could have some sort of statement around independence that really makes that very clear, but actually the requirements at the moment are not bad, in my view.

Okay, no, that's useful. On that last point that you were making about whether there should be a statement to make explicit the independence of the role, the Cabinet Secretary said that it would be, if there were a statement, it would be declaratory only; it wouldn't affect practical measures in any material way. But then we've heard evidence conversely, to say instead of being declaratory, it could be a confirmatory statement, just making it completely clear on the face of the Bill. You implied there that you might have changed your view on that, or would you still think that there is a real—

No, I think there is a case for it. I mean, it's really important that this body is independent, isn't it? I don't think it's bad, what's included at the moment, but I think having something that would strengthen that, and strengthen it in the eyes of the public, would be helpful.

Yes, thank you. Just finally, because I know we're short on time, but there was quite an effective analogy in the previous session from WWF, just thinking about if a future Government were led by, for example, Mr Burns from The Simpsons, would we need it to be absolutely clear that this is independent from the Government in those kind of circumstances? [Laughter.] So, I thought that was quite useful.

Yes. [Laughter.]

He took the analogy further to talk about Smithers and all sorts. It was quite involved; you should watch it back.

I'm going to watch back the evidence, yes. Yes, it's interesting, that. [Laughter.]

Yes. Who's Homer, I want to know. [Laughter.] Okay, you suggest in the evidence you've given us that a memorandum of understanding between the office of environmental governance and yourselves or your office would be desirable. Just wondering whether you'd want to see express provision for that in the Bill, or are you happy for that to happen on a more casual basis?

Yes. I mean, first point to say is that from the White Paper to the Bill, things have moved forward quite a lot, because I was very concerned at the outset about the confusion between the role of the future generations commissioner's office and this body, that some of the language that was being used could have been confused with prevention in the ways of working and prevention when we talk about it here. So, I think the work has gone a long way to clarifying those things, and I'm particularly pleased that I will be involved in being consulted on the plans being put in place by the new body, so that's all good.

I think a memorandum of understanding would strengthen that. I don't think it's a big issue as a result of the changes that have already been made, but I think having a memorandum of understanding in place would ensure it's not just a sort of role in responding to what they put down together—you know, what they put down and for me to respond to that—but it's also in understanding where we're going to focus our work and in supporting collaboration. So, I don't think it would be a bad thing to include; I think it would strengthen our working relationship. We could do that anyway. We wouldn't have to have it in legislation, but depending on the body, they might not choose to do so.

Although there was a requirement in the English Environment Act for an understanding between their governance body and the UKCCC, for example. I'm just thinking whether there were parallels there, but you're right, it doesn't—

Absolutely. I think it would strengthen things to have that in place because there are a lot of public bodies in Wales—this is a point I've been making in other committees—and the more we can clarify their respective roles, the more that we can strengthen how they work together, the more that we can avoid duplication and confusion, not just for the people working in them but for the public, the better. So, I think this would go some way to addressing that if it was in the legislation.

Indeed. Okay, thank you. Just on enforcement powers, do you think that the escalatory approach to enforcement of compliance notices, ending ultimately, of course, with referral to the High Court, give the body enough teeth, particularly given, obviously, that it can't fine?

I think Rhi's going to come in on this one.

I think the first thing to say is it's good that it does have those enforcement powers, that's something where there's certainly been a gap in that space for some years now. What we particularly like about the way that the process has been set out is that it starts with a collaborative approach, it starts with trying to seek agreement, and then enforcement is the next stage in terms of that escalation. So, we feel that's very in keeping with the five ways of working in the well-being Act, and seeking agreement seems to be the right way to start this process.

We, as the commissioner's office, don't have those enforcement powers to ensure delivery of the well-being Act and it can make it really challenging and dependant on goodwill, so it's really positive to see that that process is there and that it has been set out very clearly, actually, in terms of what happens, what the expectation is, the process for the compliance notices, the process for non-compliance and the process for urgent compliance notices as well.

Perhaps what we're less clear on is that process of appeal around appealing against those compliance notices and who's making the decisions around that. There's potential there for decisions to be taken out of the hands of the new body, but having said that, and it's something we said early on in our discussions with Welsh Government on this as well, it's the value that there is of having the High Court as part of that process as well. Since coming out of the EU, we don't have that court system that was in place before, so we couldn't rely on the governance body to do all of that work, so the opportunity for that to escalate to the High Court, we think is right.

Okay, diolch yn fawr. Delyth, do you want to come in?

Diolch. I wanted to ask you about citizen access to justice and whether you think that there is enough provision for that. That's a slightly clumsy way of wording it. Looking at the situation in England, it is very clear on their website. There is a section listing what to do if you want to make a complaint and there's a frequently asked questions section, we understand, as well. There isn't express provision on the face of the Bill saying that the OEGW should accept representations from the public. I know that there would then be guidance about how to go about doing that, but do you think that they've got it right in terms of how it's drafted at the moment?

I can take this one as well. So, we think the provision is in there where it says about taking representations. I think there's maybe a language issue around that in terms of what people might understand that to mean. Does that actually mean I have to get legal representation to have my say? So, that's where there could be a sticking point, but whether that needs to change how it's written in the Bill, I'm not persuaded on that yet. I think what will be really important is that the organisation presents itself in a way that's accessible, invites people to speak with them, invites those contributions from people, because I've heard people say that the word 'complaint' should be used, but, actually, I think the spirit of this is that it's complaints but it's also suggestions, it's also pointing them in the direction of where maybe they'd like to think about doing a piece of work; it's not necessarily complaints. So, that 'representations' word, I think, is helpful in that sense, in that it covers a broader scope of what people can engage with them on.

But I think, also, we need to urge a little bit of caution here, in terms of the capacity of the organisation as well. So, if we're going to put into the Bill that people will be able to complain, in terms of managing expectations, the expectation will be that there's a complaints process, it will be looked at, it will be dealt with. But we know, as a small organisation about the same size as this new body, we couldn't deal with that sort of volume that comes in. So, we have to—. Yes, we respond to everyone who gets in contact with us, we log issues, and when we see that there's something that keeps coming up, we will act on it. If we think there's a systemic issue, we will act on it. So, I would just urge caution in terms of managing expectations around what it could mean.

Could I just check—? Could I press you on that, because when you said that you don't feel persuaded on balance—I don't want to put words in your mouth—that, necessarily, the wording needs to change, would that be because of the resource constraints concern that you have? Or, even if we were to forget that for a moment, I know we can't, but if we were to just put that to one side for a moment and if we were just looking at a situation where it was only about accessibility—not 'accessibility' of that, but making sure that the public would understand what their rights would be with the wording as it is—would you then want to see that wording changed in terms of representation? I'd be really interested to know what it is in Welsh, and whether the same confusion could arise in Welsh, actually. So, would your reticence—? Not reticence, but the fact that you don't want to necessarily say, 'Yes, it needs to change', is that because of the resource constraints?

Not just because of that, but I do think there is something around the language that's used there that could lead to confusion if people don't feel like they're able to engage with that, the way it's written. I think what I'm trying to say is that, on a technical level, it's there. The right is there to make representations. How people understand that is maybe the issue.

Right, okay. So, potentially, if there were a change, the thing to highlight would be that word.

Yes, that word covers a range of different ways that they can engage with the organisation, and I wouldn't expect the Bill to set out too prescriptively how the organisation should be expected to handle and deal with all of those representations that come in. It should be for the organisation to be able to determine its capacity, what it's able to deal with, and to manage that caseload in the way that it sees appropriate.

That's useful. Thank you.

Okay. Well, another important word in the Bill is 'targets', so we're going to move on to targets now. Carolyn.

Okay. Can you explain why you are calling for headline biodiversity targets in the environment Bill?

Yes. I think this is a really important point for us, for a number of reasons. We know that nature is in crisis, you've probably heard lots of evidence about that, and you'll be fully aware about it anyway. So, nature can't afford for us to wait for us to be taking action, and the way in which the Bill is drafted will mean that targets might not happen until 2029, and that's wasting time. So, that's one of the reasons.

The second reason is that targets drive progress, especially when they're statutory targets. So, another area of our work is around decarbonisation and net zero, and I recently produced my future generations report, my five-year review of the legislation and how it is being implemented, and one of the bits of analysis that we presented in there, gathered together by my team from speaking to public bodies, was how that target had been so important to public bodies in terms of giving it the priority it deserves. And many of them told us that, actually, nature was less of a priority, and we're in a nature and climate emergency. And they're clearly related; they're not two separate things, it's very related. So, I think that's why it's really essential that we have a target, and that we don't delay putting those targets in place.

What I'm calling for is a headline target in the Bill itself, not to wait for a future Government and to wait for regulation, because we know we haven't got time to wait. So, I think it's important that we do that, for the reasons I've said.

We've received evidence to the contrary, obviously, because people are asking, 'Well, what would a headline target be?', because there are so many areas to potential targets here. How do you capture that in a headline target?

How do you measure it in the wake of climate change? How do you measure improvement in biodiversity? I agree that it needs to be there because of the nature crisis, and when you look at different public authorities delivering, they often focus on carbon reduction, renewable energy, waste, recycling, but they see nature as frilly, rather than—

Can I just say that Carolyn isn't indicating that I see it as frilly? Somebody said it earlier.

She quoted it earlier, so I keep looking at Delyth now when I say it. But it's true, they see it as, rather than being core—. Public authorities are having to deal with health, social care and education, and they’re looking at transport, all of these core things, but nature is a nice-to-have.

How do you galvanise people with an overarching target, given that it's such a broad area?

What's important with this headline target is that we shouldn't be trying to capture everything that this Bill is trying to do with that headline target. What we want is one really clear indication of how nature is faring here—is it doing better or worse? We really support proposals being put forward by the environmental sector in Wales to echo what they've done for England, which is to look at species abundance, across a range of species as well, as an indicator of how biodiversity is faring, and whether species are declining or not. That's a fairly clear picture that we can get, but that's also something that would make sense to people as well. One of the reasons, as the commissioner said, that we want this headline target is that we really want this Bill to speak to people. We don't want it to be a technical piece of environmental law and nobody really knows what it's going to do in terms of the general public. It should be something very clear that really sends that clear message.

But do you understand the point, then—? Obviously, if that becomes the overarching target, then enhancing the resilience of ecosystems and increasing genetic diversity don't seem to be—. Everything might be pushed to that particular element of the targets then, and not the others. That's the point that's being made, isn't it?

I think if you're improving ecosystem resilience, you're going to see nature recover. I don't understand why it would prevent that or get in the way of that.

I think, maybe, numerical targets are really hard to do, but you can actually see whether it is increasing generally, can't you, in abundance.

Many of these things are already measured, aren't they? There's stuff that's already collected and assessed. But I do think this matters. We've had quite a lot of interest, I guess, in the point that we've been making around targets. This isn't something that's sort of a legislative thing—people care about seeing butterflies. I was just thinking this morning, as I was doing something around this, that I used to see house martins, when I was growing up, in the eaves of houses, and now you don't see them, do you? So, this is about addressing that so our grandchildren can see what we saw. I think we can't underestimate its importance to people, and by putting this in regulation, by not seeing it for three years, that's wasted time. We're already late with this whole piece of legislation—this body—anyway, so let's not kick it further down the road.

That's an important point. Thank you. Joyce.

I'm coming on to that, because you did mention that the introduction of targets should be brought forward 12 months after Royal Assent, yet the Bill allows three years, with the Cabinet Secretary arguing that a target developed by the Joint Nature Conservation Committee will take a year, and then you will need additional time for the legislative timeline, and the elections are getting in the way. So, do you stand by your 12 months?

Yes, I do. That is a long process, and I feel that that can be speeded up for the reasons we know are important. It may be that targets, as in other areas, would need to be revised as we go down the track. But let's not make perfection the enemy of progress. We need to get this moving. We need these targets in place. We would ideally like to see these targets much quicker.

There are also priority areas for targets and they are listed. Is there anything you'd like to see other than those areas that are included?

I think Rhi's going to come in on this one.

I think that all are important to be included. We haven't done a full analysis in terms of which ones we think should be included as priority targets, but we would just like to see a much wider set of targets than this coming through when we've got the secondary legislation. Of those four priority areas, for example, we're really pleased to see that pollution is in there. The commissioner has led a lot of work around water quality in Wales, for example, looking at rivers, river pollution, so it's really good news to see that that's been highlighted as one of the priorities in there.

I think what we would like to see is, when the secondary targets come forward, that they reflect more the wider global biodiversity framework targets in there. The reason for that is because we're always interested, as an office, in how things are done, how this is delivered, and there's real opportunity with the targets to really look at, for example, influencing public policy making through having targets around nature-based solutions, really bringing that front and centre. There's a lot in the global biodiversity framework around capacity building, participation, equal opportunities and the role of businesses in all of this. All of that really can speak really well to the well-being goals and to the ways of working as well. We would really like to see much more of this thinking expressed through the targets that come forward.

You have mentioned the global biodiversity framework. In your opinion, to what extent does the biodiversity target-setting framework align with the global biodiversity framework?

Sorry, could you repeat the question?

To what extent does the biodiversity target-setting framework that we're talking about appropriately align with the global biodiversity framework?

There are some really good indications in there of how that framework has been more embedded into the Bill. So, for example, the way that it's mainstreaming biodiversity into all areas of policy—that is one of the targets in the global biodiversity framework. We are definitely seeing that. We're seeing that one of the four priority areas is all around the evidence and the data gathering. So, we're definitely seeing that it's there. It's just, I think, we're not seeing it to as great an extent as we could be.

Thank you. Delyth.

Diolch, Cadeirydd. In terms of time frames for the targets, we've heard evidence that there should be both long-term and shorter term targets. What would your views be on that in terms of the time frames?

Absolutely, yes, it's important that we have—. You'd expect a future generations commissioner to want long-term targets.

I would be shocked if you didn't.

Absolutely, we need long-term targets, because we're not going to achieve our objectives overnight, and so that needs to be part of the picture. But short-term targets, clearly, are useful too. We want to be able to hold future governments to account on what they're achieving in their time in office, and so we need to have these sorts of milestones, I guess, in terms of the bigger targets. I think it's good practice to have a mix of short-term and long-term targets.

Thank you. In terms of revoking or lowering targets, in section 6, do you think that the grounds that would allow Welsh Ministers in the future to either revoke or lower targets are appropriate? I'm just thinking again of the worst-case scenario. Again, to use Alex from WWF's analogy, if we had Mr Burns or someone like that in that role in the future, do you think the grounds are appropriate or do you think that there would be too many risks? What would your view be?

I think they're appropriate, personally. I think you need to have the flexibility to be able to change targets—

When the science changes.

—when the science changes or the situation changes. What we don't want is for everybody to be pursuing the wrong target and driving resources and action in the wrong direction if subsequently we feel it should be somewhere else. So I think the Government of the day needs to be able to apply criteria as to why it might change a target.

And presumably for those criteria to be quite robust in terms of that would need to be protected to make sure it wasn't misused as a provision.

Exactly that, which I think is addressed in the Bill.

Thank you. And then finally from me, in terms of the approach in the Bill by which public authorities are required to contribute towards the targets—the fact that Welsh Ministers could by regulations designate a public authority in relation to a target after consulting with them, and then that public authority would have to take action to meet the target it had been designated—do you have any views on that approach?

Rhi's going to take this one too.

Yes, I do think that's a good approach. It does mean that there's not going to be any duty on public bodies to contribute to the targets for another four years, though. So there is that issue that we've flagged. I think what we've seen with the current duties on public bodies in the form of the section 6 biodiversity reporting is that it hasn't been as effective as we might have expected, and we have reports now that give us some of the extent of that.

What we would like to see coming through in terms of contributing to the targets is that the public bodies have a stronger duty to do something, to act, to deliver on those targets. We know that a lot of the reason why there's been some inaction is lack of resources, but that comes from a lack of prioritisation for nature recovery. We know that there are a lot of people in public bodies who are trying their hardest. They really want to drive forward nature recovery in their areas and with the local nature partnerships and everything else, but they struggle to make the case within their organisation for it to be a priority for them to have the resources.

When you look at it that way, it's not really that surprising that the section 6 reporting maybe hasn't been prioritised either. So this duty to contribute to these targets, the statutory targets, when it has the opportunity to actually get nature recovery on the agenda, on the risk registers, all these things that drive action in public bodies, this is one of those potential drivers. But as I say, we're not going to see any action on this for a good few years until we have those targets come through in regulation, so there's nothing in there right now.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Carolyn.

That's been a concern for me as well. The Local Places for Nature funding, which we discussed previously in budgets, I think has helped with local authority officers going to their team leaders and saying, ‘There's money for this, so can we employ a biodiversity officer?’ and I think that's helpful. Should that money be removed under future Governments, without the legislation, it won't happen, so I totally get what you're saying.

On promoting biodiversity, the Welsh Ministers must take steps to promote awareness of the importance of biodiversity and its threats. The explanatory memorandum states that provision is deliberately broad. What are your views on that?

I welcome the fact that it's there, but there's no detail on how that's going to be delivered, is there? And perhaps it's difficult to do that in a piece of legislation. We've seen these sorts of things before in other pieces of legislation and they can be easily delivered without much impact. You could deliver this by a little leaflet or something that went to a small portion of the population. It is really important this happens, for the reason Rhi was just saying. We need to up the level of awareness and the priority given to nature restoration and to biodiversity for all the reasons you all know. So, we want to see this happen, but we want to see this happen properly and effectively, not just given lip service to. I don't come with a proposal about how you might change the legislation to strengthen that, other than to say it would be part of my job, as well as, of course, your job as a Senedd and others, to scrutinise and hold to account Ministers for delivering on this in an effective way. So, I think it's important that it's there. It will be a useful tool for me to be able to hold Ministers to account, and you as well, but we need it to be real, be a proper programme and make an impact here.

Okay, we're drawing to a close now. A couple more questions from me, if that's okay. We note from the written evidence that your team held a webinar earlier this month with stakeholders to discuss the Bill. I'm just wondering whether there was anything in particular that came out of that that maybe we haven't covered, or any particular conclusions from that that you might want to share with us.

Rhi ran the webinar.

Yes, I can speak to that. Yes, thank you. We had around 50 people attend the webinar and the panel on the webinar was Alex Phillips, Ruth Chambers and Annie Smith, so very knowledgeable on the ins and outs of this legislation. But the purpose of the webinar then wasn't really so much of a technical briefing—it was more about reflecting on the Bill and what it might mean. The audience we targeted was public bodies in Wales, and it was largely public bodies, but we also had built environment, private sector, there, we had lots of academics, researchers and funders. So, there's clearly interest in this legislation much more widely in Wales.

We asked for questions from those attending to get their reflections on the Bill, and they weren't unexpected, really. There is confusion around how the role of the OEGW is different, and particularly different from the role of NRW. There was also a feeling from some that it looks like it was a process-heavy piece of legislation, and that there was a risk of resources going into the admin of it, rather than going towards the actual delivery. So, they were talking about the admin of targets and evaluation and things like this.

The question came up as well around the role of bodies in Wales that are not devolved, because they are not captured within this Bill and they don't come under the competence of the OEGW. But, potentially, they don't come under the competence of the OEP in England either. A good example that someone highlighted here was, for example, the role of the police, who are a competent authority for the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 and the Protection of Badgers Act 1992, and other pieces of legislation like those. So, some clarity there about things that are not caught under the Act—

Or either Act is what you're saying.

Yes.

Interesting.

Yes. And then also just a general sense of uncertainty over how much priority was going to be given to the duty and also to the need to contribute to targets. The reflections that came back were, 'Well, we've had this 30x30 commitment, we're not going to achieve that, why is this going to be any different?' and also a concern around competing demands as well—so, how much of a priority is nature going to have when it's up against housing targets and other infrastructure needs as well, as well as all sorts of other things around climate risk and flooding and all these other things. So, yes, it brought up a lot of questions, I think, that would need further exploration.

Very interesting. Okay, thank you. Finally from me—and I might regret asking this, because we haven't got long left—I'm just wondering if there's anything that we can learn from the well-being of future generations Act, really, and its effectiveness or otherwise, as we look to the development of this Bill. Because we started here a little bit at the start, didn't we, in terms of it being a framework kind of Bill. You touched on concerns that this legislation might be a bit process-heavy. Well, that was a criticism of the future generations Act as well, wasn't it, with the need for well-being assessments, well-being plans, et cetera, et cetera. Any other thoughts about striking that balance between a framework Bill and something a bit more specific that we can take from your experience?

Yes, a big question, and 10 years of the legislation—you know the Equality and Social Justice Committee is looking into, reviewing, the legislation and understanding how it might be further strengthened. I think these are quite different pieces of legislation, frankly. So, the framework legislation of the well-being of future generations Act is quite different from this Bill. I think one of the reflections that we've given in terms of the well-being of future generations Act is giving clarity about expectation from public bodies, about what's expected of them, so that we give enough flexibility but also enough direction, so that we don't see them all going in lots of different directions—so, in terms of the well-being of future generations Act, being clear about how are your plans delivering on the goals and how are they meeting our 50 indicators, and reporting on progress against that. That isn't always the case with the well-being of future generations Act. So, I guess, in transferring that sort of insight to this piece of legislation, it's just being very clear about what the expectations are of Welsh Government and the public bodies through the legislation. I guess that goes back to comments we've been making around targets and the need for the targets to drive action and progress, and for that to happen quickly. So, I guess that would be one thought. I don't know if there's anything else that you wanted to add, Rhi.

I think there's that key learning, isn't there, that the well-being of future generations Act is something that everyone within every role in the public body needs to take into account. How can we ensure that that same principle applies to this new legislation, but in a more effective way than we've seen with the well-being Act? We're still working on that.

Okay. Delyth, do you want to, very briefly—?

Yes, very briefly, with apologies for the fact this is also quite a big question. We were talking earlier about how there seemed to be an awful lot more understanding or urgency, generally, about the need to reach net zero and to tackle the climate emergency than there is to tackle the nature emergency, which seems perverse in that the effects of the nature emergency are very visible, whereas the effects of the climate emergency aren't—. Well, with flooding, obviously, they would be very visible, but when we talk about things like carbon, and things like that, it's not something that you can always see in the same way. Do you think that there are ways in which a Bill of this nature could help to bridge the gaping gap between those two, or are there examples that you'd like to point to elsewhere where they seem to be translating the urgency of the nature emergency better?

Well, yes, I think this is a fundamental point. Rhi and colleagues, you met with a lot of public bodies in putting together the future generations report, and this is what we heard from people and officers in public bodies—exactly what you're saying, that it isn't given the attention that the climate emergency is being given. I'm just repeating the same point, I think, but I think, by having a statutory target around nature, certainly with regard to the public bodies themselves, that will give it, the nature emergency, much more attention within the public bodies than perhaps it's being given at the moment. That will, hopefully, help it be seen as a strategic priority and a funding priority as well. So, I think that's a critical part of this.

I think the point we were making around awareness around biodiversity is a key point as well. It's interesting, isn't it, because I think we do see the impact of the climate emergency—flooding, the heatwave I was commenting on last week as well. People do very much see the real impact of it, but they also see it in terms of nature too. It's just not being given the attention it deserves within our public bodies, and I think this will help.

Just to add to that as well, I think there are two main reasons why the decarbonisation agenda has made much more progress. One is the net-zero 2050 target—very clear, we've had it for a while now, people understand it, and, right across the whole of society, you can understand how you can contribute to that, whether you have a duty to or not. Everyone understands that. But the other reason is that, in doing that, there are benefits. You can save money by doing energy-efficiency improvements to your home. Within the local authority estate, there are cost savings to be made with energy efficiency. So, I think nature recovery often sits in the same place as climate risk and adaptation—there's not that immediate return on it. And until we can somehow figure out how to incentivise taking action—much as I really don't like that; we should protect nature for nature's own sake—people want to learn from the decarb agenda—

To find ways of showing the immediacy of the benefits.

Yes—how do we really incentivise it as one of those other drivers for change.

Interesting. Thank you.

Okay. Well, may I thank the two of you for joining us this afternoon? We very much appreciate the evidence that you've given to us, in written form and orally. There's plenty for us to consider and mull over from these very interesting sessions we've had today. You will receive a copy of the draft transcript to ensure that it is an accurate reflection of proceedings and discussions, but thank you very much for joining us. Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr.

Can I ask you a question before I go?

You're making me really nervous now. Go on, then. [Laughter.]

Well, not a question, but I think you're scrutinising the appointment of the chair of NRW this afternoon.

No. There's a letter—there's some correspondence that we're noting. We scrutinised the chair recently.

Oh, that's been done already. My apologies.

Yes. But that's the next item on our agenda.

I was just going to encourage you to be asking around the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, of course, and awareness of the Act and how it's applied.

Well, of course, and there will be ongoing general scrutiny of the chair in future sessions. So, we'll certainly keep that in mind. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you.

Thank you.

So, we'll move on.

We'll move on to our next item, then, which is item 5, papers to note. There are three papers to note. Are we happy to note them? One of which is correspondence from the Deputy First Minister confirming the appointment of the new chair, but also reassuring the committee that he did seek assurance on Mr Sachdev's time commitment, as we flagged that as a concern, and also that there will be a tailored induction and training programme to assist in developing a greater and deeper understanding of Natural Resources Wales, as well as operating within the Welsh context as well, which is something that we did flag up as a committee. Okay. Diolch yn fawr.

Okay. We'll note those papers.

The sixth item is to move into private session. So, in accordance with Standing Orders 17.42(vi) and (ix), I propose that the committee resolves to meet in private for the remainder of this meeting, if Members are content. I see that they are. Thank you. So, we'll pause for a moment to wait until we're in private session.