Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

It's really good to be with you as we start the process on this. Let's be under no mistake here that this is long awaited and that this Bill has a real purpose. We're committed, the Welsh Government and I, personally, and I know members of the committee here are too, to developing and strengthening environmental law in Wales, not least by making sure that there's no drop in environmental quality or standards following our departure from the European Union. So, this is a very important step that we're involved in here as this Bill progresses.

What it does reflect, the Bill, in brief, as you requested, although I can go into a lot more detail, I'm sure, but, essentially, it reflects that ongoing need for sustained, long-term action to deliver transformative change, a step change, to address the climate and nature emergencies. So, this is not simply an exercise in replacing the structures or legislation that were in place whilst the UK was a member of the EU—it's far more than that. Our approach is, actually, very specifically tailored to the Welsh context as well, to ensure that we can secure a wide range of reforms that we prioritise to protect the environment. So, it's above and beyond the EU withdrawal piece; it fits within our policy context as well, and it's something bespoke for Wales. But it's vitally important because we know the challenges on nature and climate in Wales. This is a real moment for us.

Diolch. Good morning, Cabinet Secretary and Deputy First Minister. Could you tell us: how did the Welsh Government arrive at the environmental objective, including the outcomes specified in section 1(1)?

Yes. Thank you, Joyce. It's probably worth saying as well that the point that we've come to on the Bill, both with the environmental objective, but also some of the detailed work we've done on other sections of the Bill, have been on a long process of engagement and consultation, including with environmental non-governmental organisations as well. We've been back and forth to try and understand how we get the best result here. So, it doesn't come out of—. What I'm saying is, none of this comes out of the blue—that I suspect that we're discussing today. But the environmental objective provides that essential strategic direction for the duties that are imposed on Welsh Ministers and also on certain other public authorities to apply those environmental principles, to integrate environmental protection, and also for the Office of Environmental Governance Wales, the new governance body, through its general purpose.

So, we frame these provisions to contribute—and it's very important to say this—to a high level of environmental protection—a high level of environmental protection—and improvement in the environment. So, our approach will be to contribute to the well-being goals in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015—still a unique piece of legislation here—to improve ecosystem resilience, Joyce, as well, and to respond, crucially, to the climate and the nature emergencies. 

Welsh Ministers, when we make policy, if this Bill is passed, and certain public authorities, when carrying out their environmental assessments, will have to apply the principles for the purposes of contributing towards the environmental objective. And the environmental objective itself has specific outcomes. And those outcomes, in particular, for example, are to do with meeting the needs of the present without compromising those of future generations, contributing to the well-being goals of the well-being of future generations Act, maintaining the resilience of ecosystems and the benefits they provide, mitigating and adapting to climate change, and contributing to halting and reversing the decline in biodiversity. So, it's very much, as I lay this out—and it might be a theme of today—we're not looking to replicate other legislation here. This is legislation that is really fit for purpose here in Wales, bespoke to our context as well. 

But that's how we arrived at the environmental objective, because that high level of environmental protection and improvement in the environment, I think, is a theme that then drives forward everything else within the Bill.

You said 'halting and reversing', which is absolutely right. Will there be reinstating in that? Because degradation has already happened in lots of places, and this is all about that. But reinstating some of that is also critically important.

I think that's the reversing point. I think it's well acknowledged that in some of our—whether it's terrestrial, marine or riparian—environments, it's where you go from as a baseline. That's why I think that phrase of reversing the decline, improving to that high level of protection, is where we should be, not simply accepting that it is as it currently is.

Okay. Do you want to go on? Any more? 

I've finished.

Okay. Next, Carolyn Thomas. No, sorry, I've jumped. Janet Finch-Saunders, I beg your pardon.

It's all right. Good morning. Bore da. Why have you chosen not to include the integration of environmental protection into policy making as a listed principle, as proposed in the White Paper?

Yes, indeed. We've placed a separate duty on Welsh Ministers to integrate, and there's a good reason for that, and I'll explain it again. It's worth making the point that we've had a lot of engagement with stakeholders to come into this position. So, instead of including the integrating piece of this—the integrating environmental protection—as a principle, we've actually got specific duties imposed on Welsh Government Ministers and on Natural Resources Wales when making policy, and on those other certain public authorities when carrying out environmental assessments, to integrate the environmental protection. We consider this to be a much clearer, much more effective approach. 

This does reflect, by the way, feedback, Janet, from stakeholders, particularly the task group that we set up back in 2020, which recognised that the effect of integration is different than the four environmental principles. Those four environmental principles there, which you can see in headline on the Bill, are different in their characteristics from the concept of integration. So, it's proposed that, while it was not necessary to include an integration principle, the opportunity to strengthen the clarity and effectiveness of integration should be taken forward in the legislation. So, that's why we've done it as we do.

We do think that the integration of environmental protection is a really crucial foundation to achieving a high level of environmental protection. It's very much at the heart of that improvement to the environment in accordance with the environmental objective. But this way of doing it, I think, makes it much clearer. The principles stand very firm, but we've also got this specific obligation then on integration separate from the principles. But it'll bind the whole piece together.

Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I've met with some environmental groups this week who work very hard day in, day out, all year round to ensure that our environment is protected, that we have strong environmental governance, and this is one of the sticking points. I'm not sure who the group was that you engaged with, but they were quite insistent, almost, that they don't agree that you've done it in this way, and that also there is no provision even to amend the list of principles by regulations within the Bill. Why is this?

Well, I'd be interested to have any feedback from the committee on where the objections are to separating out the integration as a piece on its own from the four principles, because the four principles, by the way, are very clearly set out and very clearly recognised internationally, globally. So, the four principles, as a separate piece, they are internationally recognised, they're very well established and understood, and they appear in international agreements such as the Rio declaration on environment and development 1992. These are not novel. These are used. They are in common parlance globally. They're foundational aspects of environmental governance. They have been also, by the way, these principles, consistently referenced in UK and EU environmental frameworks for a number of years, so they're very well established. So, these principles, which we've set out in the Bill as well, are intended to be enduring. In fact, they are enduring. So, allowing them to be amended by regulations could actually undermine some very coherent, very well established principles of environmental protection.

But, the point on the integration, as I say, we absolutely recognise that. And it's based on the task force we set up in 2020, which became very clear, that engagement with that, that the integration piece is a piece of itself. The principles are the principles.

But that's five years ago, 2020. 

And since then as well.

Also, it was proposed in your own White Paper. So, what made you decide not to include the integration when it was in the White Paper? 

Very much because of what I've just laid out. The White Paper is designed to actually stimulate that discussion, to take feedback, to engage with stakeholders, to hear different views. And that's why we've come to the position that says the principles, the integrity of them, the international understanding of them, the fact they are globally applied, including here within the UK context, means those principles are already very well established, and we see them as being enduring. The integration principle we think we brought forward in a very strong way that stands to bind this all together. And it's based on the feedback that came through the White Paper, came through the consultation, came through that task group that we set up in 2020. So, the purpose of a White Paper is to listen and to learn and to engage, and that's why we've come to this position, based on that feedback.

Okay. As a final supplementary on this one, then, would you not agree things have changed as regards our environment in the last five years?

Yes, entirely, but the principles haven't changed. So, those principles that have been in place since the 1992 Rio convention are now really well established, really well understood. Those are well-founded principles. Integration is what we want to do.

Okay. Thank you.

Diolch, Janet. Right, next—sorry for jumping the gun earlier on—Carolyn, it's your set of questions.

Thanks. So, I'm going to push on the application of the principles as well. The UK and Scottish Governments' duties around environmental principles apply to all policy making, with some exceptions. The Bill focuses on policy that affects or could have any effect on the environment. Is the duty for Welsh Ministers to apply the principles, therefore, narrower? 

That's an interesting question. No, we would argue it isn't. In fact, it's stronger. I'll explain why, and, again, this is based on some good engagement with stakeholders as the time has gone on. The duty that we've placed here in this Bill on the Welsh Ministers is not in practice narrower than those placed on UK or Scottish counterparts. There's been a lot in the process of this Bill of people looking at what's happened in England and Wales, and we've always said we're slightly behind the curve in bringing this legislation forward. We should learn from them, but we should also make something that is bespoke to Wales. So, the duty placed here on Welsh Ministers goes above and beyond what there is in that legislation. We will now need to have special regard to the principles and to integrate environmental protection when making policy in relation to Wales. And this applies to any policy that has, or could have, an effect on the environment, not just environmental policy—any policy that could have, or has, an effect on the environment.

A duty to have special regard, just to be clear, does not exist in the UK or the Scotland legislation. We've gone beyond it. There's also, by the way, a strong requirement to have—. This is a strong requirement to have special regard to the principles and integration of environmental protection. It applies right across, broadly, the full range of Welsh Government policy making. So, it wouldn't make sense to apply the duty when making policy if there is no effect whatsoever on the environment.

So, it is made clear that, in that specific case—and I've got to say, Carolyn, it's going to be pretty rare that a policy doesn't impact somewhere on the environment—but what we've done is we haven't applied it where there is no effect on the environment. And I think you and I would struggle to see the areas where there wouldn't be an effect. So, they're likely to be exceptionally rare, but there's no requirement to do so in that case. In practical terms, can we foresee many policies where there'd be no effect whatsoever on the environment? If you look at transport policy, that pretty much always has an effect on the environment. You could read this across a range of policy areas. But in the small number of cases where there might be no impact on the environment, we don't think it's appropriate or proportional then to apply the principles.

Just to say, in terms of the UK—I've mentioned some of the comparisons here—they don't have special regard. We are bringing that forward in this Bill. The Environment Act 2021 imposes duties on their Ministers to have due regard—due regard—to a policy statement on environmental principles, rather than what we are doing, which is to have that higher level of special regard to the environmental principles and to integration in terms of environmental protection. So, we've gone further and we think the application is broad as well, and it's bespoke to the Welsh context, rather than simply looking to say, 'Why don't we just drop down a piece of England legislation or a piece of Scotland legislation?'

Diolch. You used two terms there—you said 'high level' and 'broad'. Now, one of the criticisms of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 is that it operates at such a high level that you very rarely see the practical difference it makes on the ground. So, what reassurances can you give us that we're not making the same mistake again?

Absolutely. I think the crucial thing to understand with this legislation—and we might come to this at some point in discussing detailed aspects of the Bill today—is this isn't trying to replicate what NRW or others do. But at a high level, on Ministers, on strategic assessments, on that thing, you set very clearly the embedding of the principles, the way that the OEGW can go after those, and make sure that they are being complied with, and so on, and then it cascades down through every aspect of policy and every decision. Now, that's the way—that's the guarantee. But what I would say to you, Llyr, the things that exist within this legislation go above and beyond what there is in England and Scotland. Having special regard to the principles is a higher level of interest and intent from not just Ministers, but also for the OEGW then to pursue us if we're not having special regard to it. But when you set it at that strategic level then, the confidence we have is that that then needs to be applied to all the policy that cascades from that within NRW, within the other public authorities as well. They all have to comply with that approach that's been taken at the strategic level.

But we're not trying, Llyr, to replicate what NRW are doing as a regulatory body. We're not trying to write a road scheme here in Llanybydder, or wherever. But what this will do will provide that overarching approach on environmental protection that I described at the outset, to make sure that it cascades right down to individual decisions that are being made.

Sorry, colleagues, I don't know—. Have I—? No. Sorry.

Okay. So, can I bring Carolyn back in as well, then?

Can I just come back? With respect, Deputy First Minister, you and I, yes, believe that all policy areas should have due regard to the environment—I understand that—but not everybody does. I believe we have to have due regard, when looking at education, planning, transport, health, business, for the environment, but that might not occur to people who are delivering those policy areas on the ground. So, under section 5, public authorities must apply the environmental principles when carrying out strategic environmental assessments. So, what's the rationale for this, and why did you choose not to place a wider duty on public authorities to apply the principles when exercising their functions? As I said, from experience, trying to get a highway officer to have due regard for biodiversity, or talk to the biodiversity officer, is very difficult, and they might just tarmac over an area, just add seed, without thinking about improving it for biodiversity. I accept, and I'm pleased that it's changing from 'due regard' to 'special regard', and that is really needed, so that it's stronger—that they have to actually carry it through, rather than just have regard for it. But I am concerned, really, that it won't be understood properly, that it's not just when looking at the environment; it needs to be when looking at all those other policy areas I mentioned earlier.

And I think it's important to differentiate between what this Bill is trying to do and what the OEGW is trying to do, and the importance of these principles, and the functioning of an individual public authority and NRW. This will set in place that strategic drive to a higher level of environmental protection. But the expectation is that this should cascade all the way down. But the very fact that we're putting in—and I'll ask my team here to come in on the application of 'special regard' rather than to 'have regard'—. 'Have regard' is well understood, but 'special regard' is of a different nature and character in terms of the way that this will be understood, for us and for those who apply it, including within those public bodies. They will understand this. Members of the public might be different, and there's a different question here. But in the way that this then cascades down, we have a strong direction here and, I would argue, stronger than we have in other legislation around the UK.

But, in respect of section 5, the duty on the Welsh Ministers means that those environmental principles applied at that strategic policy-making stage, and then expected to cascade down into other authorities—operational policy and delivery, and the sort of things you're talking about—we would expect that to be cascaded all the way down. It would be unnecessary and, in our view, probably disproportionate, to place a policy-making duty on other public bodies, given that they are expected to follow the frameworks and the oversight of national policy, which is set by me and other Welsh Government Ministers. We set the policy. We expect that to be complied with and then to be followed through. And, in fact, the OEGW, if they think there is a systemic failure here, have the powers in here to follow that through as well.

So, NRW we've put as a slight exception, because it does have wide-ranging, regulatory, but also other, responsibilities, in respect of the environment, but that SEA is what leads to the improved environmental protection, because, with the application of the principles within this Bill, and the compliance approach within this Bill, more robust plans it will lead to, and it will lead to further consideration of good alternatives that can lead to that higher protection of the environment. So, in this respect, the Bill is taking a very targeted approach to further enhance the underlying legislative goals by just ensuring that those certain public authorities, when undertaking the SEAs, do have regard to the principles and they integrate environmental protection. But, do you want to touch on the issue of the special regard?

Thank you, Deputy First Minister. Yes, 'special regard', as the Deputy First Minister said, is a rather more unusual duty than 'due regard', and so the effect of 'special regard' is that, when making policy in accordance with the duty in section 3, the Welsh Ministers would need to place considerable importance and weight to the principles when making policy. So, that's different to a 'have regard' or 'due regard' duty, which requires less weight and proportionality. We've gone for this specifically because it's quite an onerous duty. As the Deputy First Minister said, the OEGW will be looking as to whether we've actually had special regard when making policy. So, I just wanted to clarify the meaning and the weight that is of considerable importance.

I'm making a rod for my own back and other Ministers in doing this, but we think it's the right way to do it, and it is, as I say, above and beyond what is appearing in other legislation. So, we've learnt from that legislation and thought, 'Where can we actually be stronger?' And I think placing it at the strategic environmental assessment level in terms of the operation of section 5 is the right one. We feel like we've got the balance right on this. 

Thank you for the explanation, it's really useful. Shall I move on to Janet?

In legal terms, 'special regard' is and must be interpreted more than 'due regard' or 'regard'.

It's more onerous.

So, whoever's sitting in this seat in future better watch out.

Given the principles are not defined in the Bill, why is there no duty on the Welsh Ministers for the principles statement to explain how they should be interpreted?

I think I can explain the approach that we're taking within the Bill within the various clauses and sub-clauses. Within the explanatory notes, we've explained that the environmental principles and the integrating environmental protection statement will provide an opportunity to improve the understanding of that interpretation and application of the principles and the duty to integrate environmental protection as well as enhancing the accessibility and facilitating that proper scrutiny and engagement. So, that statement is very important, because that statement will be used to explain how the principles apply in different circumstances and what they mean in those circumstances.

If you look at section 6, it sets out in detail certain matters that the statement must cover, and it also provides Welsh Ministers with the discretion to include any other matters that they may consider appropriate as well. So, we can deal with the interpretation point within this. To be clear with the committee, the matters that the statement must include are: how the Welsh Ministers intend to comply with the duty imposed on them; how the environmental principles relate to each other, and the duty to integrate environmental protection, those two pieces; and how the environmental principles and the duty to integrate relate to the environmental objective. It also has to set out detailed guidance to NRW and certain other public authorities in connection with the duties imposed on them. This will include the guidance about how to comply with those duties. So, we think, with the combination of section 6 and that statement, it will make clear how this will be interpreted and how it will be applied.

Thank you. Why is there no statutory deadline in the Bill for the publication of the environmental principles and integrated environmental protection statement?

De facto, if it's helpful for the committee, what we're looking at is a six-months deadline, and I'll explain why. We're already working towards the consultation process for the statement and the guidance as soon as possible then after the Bill receives Royal Assent—on the condition it receives Royal Assent—so that we can take proper account of the legislative process that we're now going through. But almost all of the provisions in Part 1 of the Bill will be commenced within six months of Royal Assent. So, that's stipulated. At this point, Welsh Ministers, NRW and certain public authorities will be subject to the relevant duties in that part. So, the statement and the guidance, in effect, will need to be consulted on and finalised before this time. In effect, that six months is the deadline for publication. It's a very practical deadline.

On that point, the OEGW is not even going to be established until at least 2026. Will you, therefore, develop the statement without consulting this body?

That's a really good point. First of all, it is really important that the statement and the guidance is prepared and published as soon as possible, so it's ready when the relevant duties commence, what I've just described. But it is the case, therefore, that the OEGW, because of the timelines of establishing that in a fully operational way, cannot be consulted on the preparation of the first statement. However, it’s exactly for this reason that section 7(1)(c) is to be commenced by Order made by Welsh Ministers. The subsection imposes a requirement to consult the OEGW, so that provision is to be commenced by Order to ensure that the OEGW is established and then has the capacity to respond to the consultation before the requirement is imposed. Once the OEGW is established, the provision will be commenced, Janet, and there will then be a statutory requirement on the Welsh Ministers to consult the OEGW when the statement is revised. So, first iteration—we need to get it done, six months, consulted, produced, published—then subsequent iterations under sub-clause 7(1)(c) when the statement is revised, then the OEGW will have its input to it as well.

We obviously have, currently, the interim environmental protection assessor for Wales in place. We will be involving the interim assessor in that process of developing that statement, so that there is involvement, even though the OEGW is not going to be involved in that very first statement.

We need a better title, by the way, than 'Office of Environmental Governance Wales'. Even the acronym OEGW is a bit of a mouthful, so we will have to get our creative hats on, I think, for that.

The Bill provides for the body to be established within two months of the Bill receiving Royal Assent, which is positive. But, of course, the big question we want to know is when would you expect the body to be fully operational, because it can exist without doing anything, can’t it? What’s your aspiration in that respect?

It’s not an overnight thing, as I know you’ll understand, to get a new body like this fully operational. But there are some provisions in here to do with the establishment of the OEGW that will be in place at the end of the two months, beginning on the day after this Act, if this Act receives Royal Assent. So, things like recruitment, development of a strategy—we can get on with that. But the remaining provisions, you’re right, will be commenced by Order, so that the body can be up and running, fully operational, before the duties and obligations are placed upon it, because otherwise we set it up to fail.

Our estimate is based on previous precedent, and based on our understanding of the work that will need to be done to make this body fully operational. Normally, it will take 18 to 24 months—18 months is the optimistic side, 24 months is more like it normally is for the establishment of a new organisation like this, from the date of legislation receiving Royal Assent.

However, Llyr, I can say to you and the committee that we’re trying to explore opportunities to speed up the process, alongside, by the way—and I think if the public accounts committee is listening, they’ll be happy with this—trying to look at the sharing as well of back-office functions across multiple public authorities, such as, for example, another piece of legislation going through at the moment, the disused tips authority. There are common back-office functions there.

So, that’s roughly the timescale. On the optimistic side, if we can speed things through a little bit, 18 months. On the realistic side, probably 24 months. But, meanwhile, there are already things we can get on with, such as recruitment, strategy and so on.

That sounds positive, but the reality is, of course, that it will be for Ministers in the next Government to make sure that the remaining provisions in Part 2 are implemented, or that they come into force. So, is there not a danger that, if it doesn’t have the same degree of priority, it could be even longer than that?

It will be for you and I, but I can give you some surety on that, Llyr, and for other members of the committee. I take what you’re saying about the name of it, but I’m used to it now. The OEGW, the body—this new independent body—will be formally established within this Senedd term. It’s going to be formally established. Before we leave here, Llyr, we’ll have it in place. Two months after Royal Assent. It will be in this Senedd term. If there was a decision not to proceed with this, then a future Senedd would need to repeal the legislation we are taking through. So, they're going to need to take it through and repeal, if this goes through in this Senedd term, all the clauses that we have within this legislation and in Part 1 for the establishment of the OEGW. They'd need to repeal it. They'd need to disestablish the OEGW. This would require primary legislation, and it would require walking it through that Senedd, just to my left shoulder here, as well. So, that's the certainty we can give.

But you did say 18 to 24 months for implementing some of the other provisions in Part 2. What stops it becoming three to four years?

Us, and also the fact that the work is already ongoing. I don't think there will be any desire, from moving from the interim assessor now into the OEGW, to delay in any way, shape or form. And if we take this forward as well, given the OEGW, and the independence that we are all seeking to do as well, they are not going to be hamstrung by any Government telling them, 'Well, you can't proceed—you have to slow down, I'm sorry', because we have no power to direct the OEGW here to constrain itself, to slow down. They will want to get up and running. But as I say, the formal part of establishing the OEGW in law will be within this Senedd term. It's up to us then to make sure that we keep on driving forward, looking after its independence, making sure it gets up and running on time. But realistically, the work we're doing behind the scenes already is being done in order to make sure it can be up and running as soon as possible. And that could be, as I say, at an optimistic level, within 18 months, which is not a long time, I've got to say, or two years on a realistic level. And clearly, you and I and others will have to keep on pushing on this, but it will be established. It would have to be repealed under primary legislation if some future Senedd took against the idea that we should seek that higher level of protection for the environment and thought we should get rid of this body.

What you say is right, and it would take a two-thirds majority to do that, but there is another way, and that is to not fund it. What sort of powers, if any, are there to ensure that they are funded? Because a body with no money can do nothing. 

I entirely agree, and I understand from some of the stakeholders out there that they've looked to legislation in England and Scotland where it has this phrase, 'sufficiency of funding'. But it is an interesting legal phrase—'sufficiency of funding'. I say that because, as many of you as well, with my two decades of experience as a statutory legislator, at what point who determines what 'sufficiency of funding' is? It isn't impossible, but let's say there was a line in this legislation that dropped down England and Scotland and said 'sufficiency of funding'. At some point, that body will appear in front of you as a committee—you or another committee—and it will say, 'We've done tremendous work, but we'd like to do more, if only we had sufficient funding.' And then the Minister—not me but some other Minister—will appear in front and say, 'Well, they've done a really good job, and they've had sufficient funding to do it. What they're asking for is additional funding to do more things.'

I get that, but that nicety of saying—. Who determines what sufficiency of funding is? Is it you, the committee? Is it the Minister? Is it the body? Is it the organisation? So, actually, I understand what people are saying about that, that a body can only be independent if it has sufficient funding. We agree with that. We're committed as a Government to making sure that this body gets up to speed as soon as possible, operationally functional, following through all the things it can now do as we've left the EU, or whatever. But it's whether there is a belief that a phrase in legislation that calls for 'sufficient funding' is sufficient to do what the stakeholders are trying to achieve with that. It's more important, frankly, that this committee, that I as a Minister and others, deliver sufficient funding to the organisation to get on and do what it's doing.

But I understand the calls out there. That's not the way you provide independence. The way you provide independence is putting in, as we've done within this legislation, very clear, tangible, practical measures that guarantee the independence of this body. And I would argue strongly that, in that regard, we've gone, again, above and beyond what they're doing in England and Scotland in legislation. It's not just to do with the quantum of funding or a line in legislation that says 'sufficiency of funding', because what is that?

This has triggered sufficient interest as well, because Janet wants to come in on that point.

Yes. A big concern to the environmental groups out there is that we are nine months away from an election and, at the moment, as of today, this has huge cross-party support, but, potentially, there could be a different political make-up after the next election—who knows? Where are the safeguards in this to ensure that it can't just—? As, I think, Joyce was almost hinting at, really, somebody with a different political agenda might think, 'We'll get rid of that', or—.

Yes. And that I entirely agree with. That I entirely agree with and, by the way, I'm not discounting, because I understand that there are good people out there who are really exercised by this issue of sufficiency of funding. My argument is, exactly: does a phrase in a piece of legislation that says 'sufficiency of funding' deliver sufficiency of funding? Because it's open to interpretation.

So, as a supplementary, there, then, is there a weakness in the writing up of that legislation and we should look, in amendments, to tighten that up, that this body will be funded appropriately and that, you know, it's futureproof?

Well, if you can come up with something ingenious on that, I'd always be intrigued to look at it, because I understand the sentiment on the funding aspect. My challenge back to you and to stakeholders out there is that I have an immense amount of sympathy with that and I want to see this organisation properly and adequately funded to do what we're setting out to do in legislation—the question of a phrase that appears in other legislation in England and Scotland of sufficiency of funding is: what's 'sufficient'? What's 'sufficient'?

How long is a piece of string?

When it comes in front of you as a committee, what's sufficient? When it comes in front of me as a Minister—. But there are different ways to guarantee the independence. So, your point is right. I can go through some of those. First of all, we absolutely recognise, we're crystal clear, that the independence of the OEGW is crucial to its operation. That's why the Bill includes very specific areas that will work to strengthen its independence. And I say again: we've looked at the other legislation and we've chosen not to replicate it but learn from it and do things that we think strengthen it, and I'll come to some of those. To make it crystal clear, there is no direct—there is no direct—Government control over the OEGW. So, to give an example, Welsh Ministers will not be able to dictate what the OEGW does and what it does not do. So, Ministers, for example, may choose from time to time to ask the OEGW to provide advice to help inform our policy development. The OEGW is under no obligation to do so. They could say, 'That's not our priority, Minister. Thank you very much for asking, but no.' Now, this contrasts, I have to say, with the OEP across the border, where their body must provide advice—must provide advice—on changes to environmental law if requested by Ministers of the Crown. We're not putting that obligation on them. They might say, 'Actually, we agree with you on that request; you need to have advice, we will give it to you', but they're not compelled to do so. They could throw it back in my face and say, 'No, we've got other priorities that are not your priorities to get on with.'

We'll also have no role whatsoever in signing off the OEGW's strategy. Instead, the OEGW strategy will be informed by public consultation. It's wholly owned by the OEGW. This is more independent than the approach that they have in England and Northern Ireland, where the OEP there must have regard to guidance provided by the Secretary of State. We're saying, 'No, this is yours. Go out and publicly consult on this, we have no hand within this. It's your strategy to decide what your approach is.' And the accountability mechanisms that we've got in here have been structured to provide transparency to the Senedd. Now, in particular, that scrutiny role that the Senedd has, to support its independence from people like me, from the Ministers. So, the OEGW will be required to publish reports on its findings, which must be laid before the Senedd. Depending on what the Senedd wants to do then, it may be subject to scrutiny by Senedd committees or on the floor of the Senedd, but particularly by those committees with responsibility for environmental protection.

Welsh Ministers will have responsibility for appointing the board—this is not unusual—but they will do so on the basis of recommendations from a panel that is primarily comprised of independent interviewers. Welsh Ministers have to have regard—they must have regard—to the recommendations of that panel. All the other appointments are being made by the OEGW itself, and Welsh Ministers will have to consult the Senedd before appointing the chair, the deputy chair and so on. And the other thing is, of course, as we've just touched on, that the OEGW itself is established by primary legislation and can only be repealed using primary legislation with the approval of the Senedd.

So, in terms of independence, we think we have gone above and beyond the measures laid out in other ones. We've taken a step back and said, 'You do what you want. You will not be directed by Ministers, you will not have us having our fingerprints over your strategy. You do what you want to do. And if we ask you for advice, it's great if you can give it to us, but if you decide, "No, thank you, that's a wild goose chase you're sending us down—we've got other focuses"', it's for them to decide. That's a level of independence above and beyond what I think appears within others.

It can do what it wants, but, of course—and we don't need to go back over this, I think, because you've spoken at length about this—it is quite striking, I think, that the legislation in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland is much more explicit in terms of the independence on the face of the Bill. The Scottish Bill says that, in performing its functions, the body there is not subject to the direction or control of any member of the Scottish Government. So, I know you do it in a different way, and maybe that's something we can probe with stakeholders, but I think it is striking that it's so explicit in the other legislation and more 'pick and choose' a little bit in the Welsh legislation.

The only thing I would say as well—and there's an argument about getting that right balance isn't there, clearly, between independence and accountability and all that kind of thing and I get that—is that the Bill, for example, is silent on which environmental targets the body should monitor. So, there's a whole grey area there, I think, about who decides what and under what influence. So, at the end of the day, I think it all comes back to who appoints the board and all that kind of thing. And there was a very interesting debate yesterday about public appointments, so we don't want to repeat all of that, but, yes, I think we've got a bit of scrutiny to do on that piece.

Llyr, just to say, on your opening supplementary there, I think if we were to add something more explicit to the legislation—the Bill that's currently going through— more explicit on the measures to protect independence, it wouldn't materially affect the detailed practical measures that we've put in place here. It may be something of a declamatory statement and sometimes those can be helpful, I guess, but it wouldn't materially affect the practical, tangible measures that we've put in the clauses and sub-clauses, which demonstrate and make effective the independence of the OEGW. But I do get that sometimes in legislation people will want to see something declamatory that says, 'And by the way, just to make clear', it's just that I'm not sure it would add to what we've got there.

But on the target setting, which is a really important point there, within Schedule 2, if I can take your attention to that, we set out within Schedule 2 some key aspects of the OEGW's operations that have to be articulated within the strategy, including how it intends to monitor any targets relating to the environment set by or under environmental laws, and these are subject to public consultation, which adds again that level of transparency and accountability.

But I've got to say, for the OEGW to be truly independent—and this is the reason we've come to the place that we have on this, our approach—it needs to be free from direction from Welsh Ministers or others. It reflects back on this, 'Let them do what they need to do—they are the body.' So, in respect of those targets, statutory environmental targets, we recognise that they're a very important part of the legislative landscape. So, if there is any concern about their delivery, we would absolutely expect that the OEGW will want to investigate and, if necessary, enforce in relation to these targets. However, we're really cautious, bearing in mind the conversation we just had, about telling the OEGW what it should do. They are an independent body of experts; they're best placed to decide how to prioritise the work, and, if they think that should be towards statutory targets, there's nothing to prevent them from doing so, and good luck to them on it, because they might decide to do it. But let's let them decide; that's the independence that we're giving them.

Carolyn, your question next, please.

Thank you. How does the Bill avoid overlap between the OEGW's functions and those of other public bodies with oversight roles, including NRW, and how will it work in practice? Can you provide tangible examples?

Yes, we're quite confident, Carolyn, that, within the Bill, we've taken forward provisions that address that potential for overlap with other public bodies to the extent that we're able, so we've included specific measures within the Bill to ensure that that risk is minimized. So, I can give you a tangible example as well. So, for example, in section 16(7), it expressly provides that a compliance notice, which is one of the powers that the OEGW have, may not require any action to be taken in respect of an administrative decision—an administrative decision—in relation to a particular person or a case, like, for example, the granting of planning permission under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or an infrastructure consent order granted under the Infrastructure (Wales) Act 2024, and orders and regulations made under those Acts. So, that means that a compliance notice wouldn't be able to overturn—. And it's important to be really clear on this, what this Bill sets out to do and the powers that the OEGW has and what it doesn't, this important definition between the strategic and then the cascading down to public bodies. So, it means that, for example, Carolyn, compliance notices won't be able to overturn or overlap with existing planning and licensing decisions made by NRW or local authorities or other public bodies. So, the OEGW will oversee the public authorities in Wales as defined in the Bill. It limits that overlap between the OEGW and those other public bodies, but also between the OEGW and the UK OEP as well. Sorry, lots of acronyms—the environmental governance body in—. So, the OEGW is that strategic body; there's really clear separation between existing regulatory bodies and the governance body. The OEGW, because of that, will then be able to focus on monitoring, enforcing compliance with environmental law, without becoming involved in the day-to-day decision-making processes of other regulatory bodies, such as those who take responsibility for planning and licensing. That separation we've bolted deep within the legislation, and it frees them to get on with what they need to do then.

Okay. So, why is the UK Climate Change Committee not included in the list of bodies in Schedule 2, which the OEGW strategy must refer to in terms of avoiding duplication in functions? So, the White Paper highlights the risk of duplication between the functions of the OEGW and the UK Climate Change Committee. Is the Climate Change Committee a statutory body?

It’s a statutory body, yes. Yes, it is a statutory body, and of course, the CCC is a UK-wide statutory advisory body, and it was established under the Climate Change Act, back in 2008. So, its role is quite different. Its role is to provide independent advice to the UK and to devolved Governments on the setting and meeting of carbon budgets and preparing for climate change impacts. The OEGW, differently, is going to be responsible for overseeing compliance with environmental law in Wales, so its remit there is monitoring, investigating, enforcing compliance by public authorities, and advising Welsh Ministers as they see fit on environmental law and governance. So, we're confident, Carolyn, that there's going to be limited overlap between OEGW and the UK Climate Change Committee. They're established under different legislative frameworks, and they have fundamentally different purposes.

The other thing in terms of the OEGW, of course, as I touched on earlier, is it's been tailored to the Welsh legislative and policy context. It is responsible to us here in the Senedd, not the UK Parliament, and it will oversee devolved functions. So, they're quite different.

Okay, thanks.

Diolch, Carolyn. A few questions from me. The first one: a function of the OEGW is to receive representations from the public if they feel a public authority may be in breach of environmental law. How is this provided for in the Bill?

We think we have got a good way forward in this legislation, because any member of the public—. I've always been concerned about this. I see this Bill as something that not only sets up a body and sets up the principles and the target setting, but it's the ability of a citizen of Wales or an entity in Wales to make representations, and those could be concerns, they could be complaints: 'Environmental policy in this area is systematically failing', et cetera. You should be able to do that, Cefin, I should be, Mrs Jones in Treherbert should be able to do that, or an environmental organisation.

So, within this legislation, any member of the public or any organisation can submit representations to the OEGW, who could then decide that that should form part of its investigations and its works. The engagement that we've done with wide stakeholders over some time now—and feedback from the other bodies, the OEP and the ESS, the two environmental governance bodies in the other jurisdictions—has led us to conclude that if we were purely to define this in terms of 'complaints to', it creates some expectations around things such as automatic consideration, investigation and immediate outcomes, bearing in mind the separation of this from other regulatory bodies as well. It's more proportionate and more effective for OEGW to consider any representations, but alongside the wider body of evidence that it gathers and then makes a judgment as to whether to investigate.

If, for example, Mrs Jones in Treherbert puts forward a complaint or a representation, or an idea or a suggestion for improvement, and the environmental governance body goes, 'Well, I tell you what, that is really interesting because we've also picked up on that, and there are 50 Mrs Joneses across the country who have picked up on it' then they could say, 'Alongside the body of evidence we have, we are definitely going to do something in that space.' But it's not a 'complaint, respond, fix' in the way that you might understand with other public bodies.

'Complaints', in fact, can be a bit more of a restrictive term, whereas 'representations' could genuinely be you, me, citizens of Wales, environmental bodies saying, 'There's something here that needs to be fixed on a systemic basis, would you look at this, please?' If, alongside the other body of evidence that they have, they go, 'Do you know, you're right, Mrs Jones? We're going to have a look at that, and we're going to bring forward proposals of how to fix it, how Welsh Ministers or public bodies could fix it'—. So, we think we've got the balance right there and it is informed by our engagement with the other environmental governance bodies. We've learnt the lessons from them.

If a public body was found to be in breach, could they be fined at any time during that enforcement process? Is there a High Court element to it as well?

There is a High Court element, but it's important, again, to differentiate for the committee and for others listening into this between the role of this body and the wider remit of the regulatory body NRW. The approach that the OEGW will take is not based on fines, but it does have teeth. We've given the space to the OEGW to take what we would describe as an escalatory approach to enforcement.

The first part of that is working with public authorities to highlight areas of concern and then to work with them to get compliance as quickly, as efficiently as possible without having to necessarily resort to High Court procedures and so on. It's very much, I have to say again, grounded in the approach that we are taking in Wales, which is embedded within the principles of well-being of future generation legislation and so on. So, there's intended to be an inherently co-operative approach here, working with public authorities across the public sector to address the impacts of environmental harm that appear to the OEGW to be driven by non-compliance with environmental law.

However, you've got to have both approaches. The OEGW will be then able to issue compliance notices that compel those public authorities to take action with the weight of the knowledge that if there were to be non-compliance, this can be escalated by the OEGW to the High Court, if necessary. If you get to that point, then all that approach of working with, and so on, has come to nothing. Our expectation is that this approach will actually gain benefits, because it will work on and with those public bodies and with Welsh Ministers to ensure compliance. But if all else fails, this can be escalated up to the High Court. And I don't think any public body wants to be in the High Court being pursued by the OEGW, quite frankly. They'd want to do everything to avoid it.

A final question from me: why does the Bill not make provision allowing the OEGW to apply for judicial review or intervene in civil proceedings?

The JR we do not think needs to be on the face of this Bill. We're trying not to drop down automatically what appears in other legislation in other jurisdictions. We're very firmly of the view that the OEGW can remedy any non-compliance with environmental law through an advisory approach or by the serving of those compliance notices, and if necessary, escalation to the courts.

We've designed this process for Wales, through the ordinary compliance notices. And also, bear in mind there are urgent compliance notices here as well within the legislation. That's led us to conclude that JR is not essential on the face of the Bill. But in our view, the body would be able, under its ancillary powers, which are in paragraph 23 of Schedule 1, to do anything it considers appropriate in relation to its functions to apply for judicial review, to intervene in court proceedings. It is open to anyone to make an application for JR, and the court will then determine if it meets the sufficient interest test and should be given standing to bring a JR.

We do appreciate that the England, Northern Ireland and Scottish counterparts to our OEGW—the OEP and the ESS—have powers to apply for JR stated in the relevant legislation. I simply say: this reflects the design of their enforcement system; it differs from ours. We have a very good approach within this legislation. But it doesn't rule out JR, it simply means that what we have here are those additional routes, which include ordinary urgent compliance and then escalation to the High Court. But it doesn't rule out JR, because it's within the ancillary powers, we would argue.

Joyce.

Once you escalate something to a court, then you're in a time frame that you don't control, so—

Yes. We want to avoid it.

So, my question is—. And there are other bodies, of course, that can enforce, like tree preservation orders and things like that. So, was it your intention to avoid that huge delay—and it can be huge—by doing it this way?

It's partly that, and to try and use other measures that avoid us getting to that stage where we have to escalate it to the High Court, but giving them the teeth that they can use that route if they feel it appropriate. But you are right, and it's interesting to note, I might bring colleagues in now, how many or how rare is our understanding that the OEP and the ESS have used so far. I'm not sure if they have escalated anything. There have been civic bodies and other legally defined persons who have brought JRs or legal challenges. But I'm not sure if the OEP and the ESS have actually brought any so far.

Not that I'm aware of.

We were discussing this earlier on.

If you could come back to us.

Yes. But actually, our approach in Wales will be that we've given additional ways here, with the compliance notices and the urgent compliance notices, to say, 'You need to do this'. Before that, of course, there is also information that can be requested from public bodies, which is a pretty clear signal to that public body: 'We're seeking this information for a purpose. We want to work with you so you can improve what you're doing, but if you don't, you'll have compliance notices, and if you don't comply with those compliance notices, when it goes to the High Court, they will take into account what has been the advice given, what has been the engagement given, what does the compliance notice say and why haven't you complied'. But you are right, what we want to try and avoid is public bodies getting themselves into that mess. We want them to take the action in a timely way.

Okay, thanks.

Before I bring Janet in, I'm just conscious of the time; I think we've got about 10 or 11 questions left. So, if we can, maybe, keep the questions and answers a little briefer so that we can get to the scheduled end time properly. Janet.

Thank you. In response to the White Paper, you have proposed a mission statement for the biodiversity framework instead of a headline target. How does the Bill provide for this? For me, I'd like to know why you've done that and what is the difference, if you like.

It's a good question, and again it's based on the feedback that we've had and the engagement that we've had. The purpose of the biodiversity target-setting framework is to set those legally binding targets that drive the action to halt and reverse the decline in biodiversity and tackle the  nature emergency. So, instead of a mission statement, which again would have been a declaratory statement, the Bill incorporates our ambition to tackle the nature emergency through how the powers and duties in the Bill interact, including how they interact with existing legislation. For example, Welsh Ministers can only exercise their regulation-making power if they are satisfied that a target will, if met, contribute to halting and reversing the decline in biodiversity, in particular through one or more of increasing native species abundance, enhancing ecosystem resilience or increasing genetic diversity. So, there's real practical, tangible measures within the Bill. We think that this new approach, Janet, reflects the intent of the previously proposed mission statement. In fact, it takes a further step, because it sets out the specific aspects of biodiversity that we must contribute to. So, we've done it in a different way, but we think in a much more explicit way and a way that will drive that in trying to halt and reverse biodiversity loss.

Thank you. So why are are these environmental groups concerned that there is a lack of specific detail? 

I think it's in terms of the mission statement, because the journey we've been on with this and the way legislation always develops when it comes to committee, but also before committees, is you work through iterations and you bounce ideas off each other, and you come to a point where we say, 'Right, do we want something that looks like a declaratory statement that says we're going to do this?' or do you actually put in place something much more definitive that says, 'This is how we're going to do it, and that's what we think we've got to'. So, the spirit of the declaratory statement is within the practical measures that we bolted in. I'm always a legislator who says, 'Make it real within the black and white of the legislation'. Declaratory statements do have their purpose, and I get that. And I think that's why some of the stakeholders are still saying, 'Yes, but it would be good as well to have a declaratory statement'. Well, what we've said is, 'You don't need that, because we bolted it into the Bill, what we're going to do'.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Joyce Watson. 

I'm going on to priority areas and timescales for introduction of targets. How did you determine the priority areas within which biodiversity targets must be set? And why is there no requirement on Welsh Ministers to consult before making regulations setting those targets?

Joyce, on your first question, I think it can be really quick, as has been asked by the Chair. We developed those priority areas following extensive engagement and prioritisation with a range of stakeholders, and it's undertaken around, and you'll have heard my predecessor, Julie James, say this, the 23 global biodiversity framework targets. It's been very well engineered. During this engagement, we consulted over 70 organisations. They covered things that are important to you, I know, and other members of the committee: freshwater issues, pollination, marine, terrestrial environment, forestry, agriculture, land management. So, we are confident, based on that engagement and the drop-down from the GBFs, that we are addressing the most pressing, urgent biodiversity challenges and issues in Wales.

Your second question was on the consultation. 

Why is there no requirement on Welsh Ministers to consult before making regulations setting targets? 

To be clear, before there's any setting of biodiversity targets, we have to seek independent expert advice, which I think is the right way to do it. We are committed—I've got to give you that surety—to doing so through a very transparent, collaborative process. And that would include, by the way, publishing a summary of the advice that we are hearing so that everybody can see it. To support this process, we've established, as you know, the biodiversity targets advisory panel. That has got some of the leading experts to provide that rigorous, evidence-based recommendations. They cover that sphere of things we talked about: biodiversity, water, economy, education, social research, behavioural research as well. So, we've got a really broad, balanced perspective. We're also engaging widely with stakeholders, including agriculture, fisheries, planning people as well, to ensure that the targets are both ambitious and deliverable. But whilst there's no express duty to hold a public consultation before setting the targets in regulations, let me be clear on what my expectation is. I would expect that the usual position would be that we will hold a public consultation—it's in line with Welsh Government consultation policy. So, we'll do all of that—we'll do the expert-led, the engagement, the stakeholder and so on. But, the Welsh Government consultation policy would lead us to the point where we would say, 'I can't see a way in which it wouldn't be normal for us to actually proceed on a public consultation as well'. But we'd have that transparency of the evidence, and the expert-led evidence as well, before proceeding into a public consultation. I don’t know if—

Just to add as well that, before making regulations, or in making regulations, the Welsh Ministers have to apply the principles of sustainable management of natural resources, which includes making appropriate arrangements for public participation in decision making. So, it's embedded as well.

Okay, I'm going to move on to the timescale for the introduction of targets. You've set in the Bill three years for Welsh Ministers to set biodiversity targets for the priority areas. The committee has previously called for 12 months, and the Environment Act 2021 and Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill have also got the targets being set within 12 months of Royal Assent. So, why do the Welsh Government need longer?

I can explain, but I am listening as well, because I'm also genuinely interested in whether we can shorten the timelines, but without jeopardising the credibility of these targets, and that is really important. Can I address head-on the issue of what has happened in England and Scotland, because that's often thrown up in this context?

Just to say, in terms of Scotland, the Natural Environment (Scotland) Bill requires targets to be laid within 12 months. That sounds great, but there's actually no certainty given on when these provisions will come into force. If you look at the commencement section within that, you'll see that it's open ended. Scottish Ministers will need to bring forward a commencement Order before the section comes into force. So, in Scotland, it seems like it's 12 months, but it's not just 12 months—the commencement Order needs to be laid and it’s open ended at the end of that. So, whilst we might have a longer time frame, our target-setting provisions actually come into force two months after Royal Assent.

We're trying to provide a definitive end date, but it's a definitive end date that isn't reflected in Scotland's legislation. In England, yes, the Environment Act 2021 introduced regulations to set those targets. The Act was enacted in November 2021; it took a further year to publish the targets. But, just to be clear, the evidence and the analysis that underpinned that were conducted over a previous two-year period. So, just reflect on where we are now. The details that they set out on how they plan to achieve their targets were published then in their environmental improvement plan in January 2023, which is currently under review. So, I just want to make the point that we're not actually comparing directly apples with apples here. However, I am really alive to the issue of whether we can reasonably shorten the timescale for all or some of the targets. I'm interested in what the committee might bring forward, but I would just ask you to do it in a way that works with us on some practical considerations.

So, here's why we think it's going to take a little bit of time, and I think it's important, Chair, to just lay this out in a tiny bit of detail. I know we're up against time, but it's a really important issue that a lot of stakeholders are engaged with. First of all, the work on the target development is happening at pace now, and it's in tandem with the legislation. So, we're under way—we're doing this stuff. JNCC have been commissioned to undertake the modelling.

Do you want to say what the JNCC is?

Oh, sorry—the Joint Nature Conservation Committee. It's all acronyms, sorry. They've been commissioned to undertake the modelling work for the target development, and they'll start very shortly. They tell us that this normally takes 12 months, so bear that in mind with anything that you might bring forward—their work will take 12 months. This is all about getting good targets as opposed to any old targets, right? We can do any old targets—I could pick them out of the air tomorrow. None of us want that. The work the JNCC are doing will provide the evidence base so that we can set the appropriate target levels for Wales specifically. Additionally, we're going to need some sufficient time, which the committee will understand, to bring forward then the secondary legislation, which will include impact assessments, because it's not just, 'What's the evidence base of what the targets should be?', as it's then, 'What will the impact assessments show us?', to do public consultation, drafting of the legislation required, and then bringing it through the Senedd. We can plan this out very well, and that's what we're thinking through, but all of them take chunks of little time. So, it's not that we're trying to drag our feet. It's a real—I've forgotten what they call it—critical path analysis. How soon can we get to delivering them?

We will, of course, bring forward the regulations ahead of that time, if we are able to, but we've got to get those targets right. The work that's being done in the background of establishing the evidence base for that and then doing the analysis, it's all work that we are doing right now. But if the committee has some ideas about what would look like a reasonable timeline, bearing in mind those genuine constraints, we're happy to look at those. But what we don't want to do genuinely here is pick from the sky a target. I could pick an output target tomorrow. We could say, 'We will bring forward plans to do x, y, and z.' That doesn't turn around the decline that we're seeing in nature and biodiversity. What we actually want is a target that says, 'This is the one that will turn it around.' I don't want a plan. I don't want a target that says, 'In all of these areas, we're going to bring forward a plan.' We've had those.

Can I challenge you?

Yes.

I'm going to anyway. Yesterday, we had a report about the state of the sea as a consequence of the state of the rivers. We have got huge evidence already about where the pollutants come from, what we need to do to deal with them, and we've had that for some time. So, given that as an example, where all those things you just said need to happen before we can then set a time frame, does this allow us, in this case, to introduce a quicker timescale for—and I'm going to keep to this—water, where we know where the evidence is, we've had the consultation, so we don't need to wait for it all to be done again, for it to come forward faster than some areas where perhaps you need a little bit more time?

Indeed. Separate out, I would ask you, that particular issue from the target setting, because it might well be that when we've done this analysis and we bring forward the targets, some of those targets may well be in the marine or riparian environment. However, we should be doing that now. So, on the point that you've raised just now, we have regulatory bodies, we have work that's going on with the NMB—sorry, old acronyms—nutrient management boards, the river summits, the work we're doing sector by sector by sector. We need to deal with that using the NRW regulatory powers that they have, work with the water companies and so on. We don't have to wait for this. The targets, however, we need to get absolutely right. So, if, within the marine and the riparian environment, the JNCC and other evidence bases are saying, 'Well, actually, the targets that you've got are not sufficient to the task, you need to do this or whatever', great, we will get on with that when they're brought forward. Right here, right now, we should be doing that already in response to that.

You're not, though.

No, but that's exactly the point. It's the difference between what the OEGW can do and the targets that will drive, perhaps, some of their attention, bearing in mind, again, as I said before, it's up to the OEGW if they want to pursue particular targets and how they're being delivered. But they could actually say—. What the OEGW can do separate from targets is, when they're established, they could come back and say, 'You know your water regulatory approach, your enforcement approach, your set of legislation and policies around the water environment, it's not good enough'—they could say that—'and here's where we say, "You should actually change, modify it, adjust it, get on with it." If not, "Here's a compliance notice."' But it's slightly separate from the targets, because they could come up with targets, through the work that we're doing, which will say, 'Actually, the targets will help you drive that.' We don't have to wait for that though. We should genuinely be getting on with this already. It's slightly separate.

We've been talking about timelines, and I'm conscious of our timeline this morning as well. So, Janet, and if we can keep the answers brief as well.

It'll be quick, don't worry. Regarding targets now, the Bill provides that the Welsh Ministers may, from time to time, review the targets. Why did you choose not to have a more specific review period for the targets?

Thanks, Janet. There's a really good reason, and I'll try and keep this very quick here. So, we must review a target if it appears that that target may not be met or if it's no longer appropriate. That can happen as well. But, every three years we are compelled to have a progress report, and that progress report can help identify whether targets need reviewing because they are out of date, they are no longer relevant, they are not doing what they were intended to do, we have got some more evidence, and so on. So, that’s why we have got 'from time to time', rather than putting in a systematic 'every six months' or whatever. But, that three year progress report will help identify some of that. We are required to review all targets, if there is one that is missed, to identify any systemic issues and ensure that we are on track as well. That, again, has to be informed by independent expert advice and, again, transparency around that, so surfacing that into the public domain as well. So, that is why we have got 'from time to time'. It may be that we need to address this sooner or it may be later. Some of these targets we might find are definitive and enduring to help us turn around.

Okay. The White Paper proposed NRW's ‘The State of Natural Resources Report’—are you ready for this, the SoNaRR—a lovely acronym that—would report against the biodiversity targets. However, the Bill requires Welsh Ministers to report against the targets through their section 6 duty. Why has there been this change of approach? 

Again, it is based on feedback through the process that we have been through. The SoNaRR reports, these are the ones that we regularly as Senedd Members attend and see the updates on them. SoNaRR reports are really important, but what we don't want to do is divert them from what they are doing, and we do not want to duplicate either. So, what we have done is, the duty to achieve the targets falls ultimately to the Welsh Ministers. Having a first-hand understanding of progress towards that is fundamental to fulfilling that duty. Also then, rather than have SoNaRR reporting on the target process, it allows SoNaRR to keep focused on its intended purpose, which, to remind Members, is of informing the natural resources policy. Now, the Bill also requires us to publish a completion statement by the target date, confirming whether targets have been met or not met, or if we are still awaiting sufficient data. This aspect is unchanged from the White Paper and, again, is based on the feedback that we have had. I could say more, but we want SoNaRR to do what SoNaRR does, and we will do the reporting in a different way.

And why have you chosen not to make provision in the Bill for a national biodiversity strategy as, again, originally proposed in the White Paper? 

And, again, it’s this question of focusing on delivery and not duplicating what is going on. So, we have included a requirement for Welsh Ministers to set out the actions that we propose taking to achieve the biodiversity targets within the existing legal requirements, the section 6 plan, rather than requiring a new and separate policy document and the duplication that comes with this. The section 6 plan will serve Welsh Ministers as the Welsh biodiversity strategy. This means, in addition to setting out in our section 6 plan how we will deliver against the section 6 duties to maintain and enhance biodiversity, also we will have to set out how we achieve the biodiversity targets. This provides that clear, strategic pathway for us, for public bodies, for stakeholders and wider society to seek that reversal of biodiversity decline. It's very transparent, it's very effective in terms of monitoring and evaluation, and we can track progress through it.

And you've answered question No. 25, so thank you.

I don't know what it is. 

If you're happy, Janet, we'll move on.

Yes. There'll always be more on this, won't there?

Yes. Diolch yn fawr iawn. So, for the final set of questions, back to you, Carolyn.

Thank you, Cefin. I want to ask questions on the local delivery of targets. How does the Bill ensure local action towards the targets? Local nature recovery plans are not provided for in the Bill, and the Bill does not require designated local authorities to set out in their section 6 plans how they intend to contribute to the targets. Why is this?

Well, first of all, we welcome, by the way, your committee's recognition in the recent report on biodiversity that it's incumbent on all of us to take action to halt and reverse the loss of nature, and we recognise that.

So, responses to the consultation, Carolyn, highlighted that local nature partnerships have local biodiversity action plans that are produced with a range of organisations, including the private sector, and we should be building on this rather than duplicating the work. So, we proposed in our response to the White Paper that we wouldn't duplicate this existing mechanism. But there is a need for a co-ordinated approach, and that's why we've included a power for Welsh Ministers to designate public authorities, which would require those authorities to take action to contribute to achieving biodiversity targets.

The Bill also, by the way, requires us to consult with the relevant public authorities before they are designated. This will help drive, alongside the existing local biodiversity action plans with local nature partnerships, that duty to contribute to halting and reversing biodiversity loss at a local level, as well as at the strategic level.

So, they still have to do the local biodiversity action plans, each local authority? 

Yes. 

At one time they had to do those and an official from Welsh Government, I believe, used to go out and visit local authorities to ensure that this had happened, but I don't know if that still happens now. There used to be biodiversity champions, which really helped drive it through. So, I just want to make sure that it will still be a priority. [Inaudible.]

I think that's the interesting interplay between this at a strategic level, driving the approach, because it then actually strengthens the arm of the local nature partnerships and those local biodiversity action plans. They become such a key part that it actually strengthens them in terms of the local delivery. So, we don't need to duplicate it; this actually drives that to them and says, 'Okay, this is how you deliver on the ground.' It's for all of us to do, like the committee report said.

Okay. Finally, the Bill places a general duty on Welsh Ministers to take steps to promote awareness of biodiversity—and I mean all Welsh Ministers—covering all different policy areas, I believe, including education, planning, transport, health and business. So, how do you intend to comply with this duty in practice? 

You are so right; just as this falls on every aspect of policy that touches on environmental matters—and it's hard to think of one that wouldn't—it will touch on all Ministers as well. So, we're committed, because of the requirement that's set out in the section 6 plans, not just to maintain and enhance biodiversity through our functions, but that duty in there to promote awareness is part of that wider section 6 duty. So, we will take steps to do everything we can to raise public awareness of the importance of biodiversity and the threats that it faces, and to drive that important thing that so many people forget about, which is the behavioural change needed to reverse biodiversity loss.

We'll do it through campaigns, Carolyn, education, skills development, nature-positive behaviours and promoting those, and supporting this transition to more sustainable practices across all sectors, all parts of Government and public bodies, and we can tailor our approach to this duty as well. I'm sure that the OEGW will be holding us to task on that. 

Lovely, thank you. I think education and the understanding is so important, so thank you.

It really is.