Cynulliad Cenedlaethol Cymru

Diolch, Chair. Thank you. Bore da. Good morning, everyone. I think, generally, the WLGA and local authorities in Wales are really supportive of this Bill. We are committed to ensuring that we maintain and enhance a high-quality environment, so, as such, we welcome this Bill. We welcome the Bill in the fact that it's bridging the gap since we left the European Union, so the gap in EU legislation, and also the aspects of it that will reinforce the section 6 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016.

Okay. And we'll be coming into some detail on some of these issues as well, of course. Can I ask, then, just, again, as a bit of a background, or a bit of a context for us, what discussions have you had with the Welsh Government to inform the regulatory impact assessment, and what the implications of the proposals might be in terms of additional costs for local authorities, because that's very often the first question that people like myself ask?

Diolch. We've been involved as part of the Welsh Government working group to steer and support Welsh Government with the legislation. So, we've been involved in a range of areas and so forth. We have not had any direct discussion with Welsh Government in terms of the financial implication of the Bill, and we do not believe, looking at the current range of impact assessments that have been done for this legislation, that the financial element and implication to local authorities, and perhaps other public bodies, has been considered adequately. I think that's something that we would really welcome: having further discussion on local authorities.

As the committee will be aware—you've seen some of the report and the difficulty in public bodies and local authorities to deliver that section 6 duty. One of the root causes of that is perhaps the lack of proactiveness, and that is the resources element and the capacity. We feel that any new legislation from Welsh Government needs to have an adequate financial package and resource element considered to support the delivery of this legislation, and not add any more burden on local authorities who, as you will be aware, are in a really difficult financial situation, and we've got some of the highest borrowing of all times at the moment. So, we would really welcome further discussion with Welsh Government in terms of discussing a range of financial packages to support that legislation.

Sure. Do you not think it's disappointing that you haven't had—that local government, as one of the key players here, hasn't had discussions around the costs with the Welsh Government in the development of this legislation, because, surely, as you've suggested, any legislation or change in practice is only as effective as the resource that's out there to make it work?

Yes, we do, but we also appreciate the complexity in trying to assess adequately the financial implication until that legislation is in place and we see how it is delivered in practice. It's quite challenging. We would like to acknowledge the current support from Welsh Government through the local nature partnership. They've been really supportive of the work of local authorities. They're supporting a range of regional co-ordinators to help local authorities drive the nature and biodiversity agenda. But even though I think that's falling short in terms of adding a new burden on local authorities, we certainly welcome that further clarity on how the financial aspects of the delivery of that legislation will be covered in future budgets.

So, should we be concerned that local government is going in blind, basically, without knowing what the cost implication of this might be?

Perhaps. It’s something that we need to further discuss again with our spokespeople and perhaps the relevant Ministers. But from an officer perspective, yes, we certainly would like to have a few more details.

Indeed, indeed. Okay. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Carolyn. 

I'll just drill down a bit on that further. The local nature partnerships, which help employ the biodiversity officers—you've got the Local Places for Nature funding, so are you saying that's been really important to ensure that they've been carrying out the biodiversity duty so far?

It's been a really good help. That funding and that programme have not been purely to deliver the section 6. I think it supports the 30x30 target. It's a key driver to that. Obviously, having the regional co-ordinator within the local authorities offers added capacity to support existing biodiversity officers and so forth in terms of supporting them with their day-to-day working, including the section 6 duty and some of the duties they've got to do in regard to supporting local authority services with biodiversity advice and expertise. It's also added additional capacity to help drive some initiatives and projects on the ground as well, which has been really helpful.

Can I just ask you about the environmental objective and principles? So, the environmental principles duty: what are your views on the principles duty, which local authorities would be subject to under section 5 of the Bill?

Yes, we generally support the environmental principles. They were in place under EU legislation. I think local authorities have been applying these policies against their policies and strategy for a number of years already, so it's pretty much going to be business as usual in that space.

We've heard calls for the principles duty to be extended beyond the strategic environmental assessments to other public authority functions. There's the concern that, when it comes to local authority level and delivery, and silos of different departments, if it's just having regard to the environment, or just the environment is mentioned as a headline subject—would they apply this Bill, which is the environment principles governance and biodiversity targets, to all areas of delivery? So, for example, if you're in education, having the mindset there that you include biodiversity targets maybe in that, whether it's education, or building of infrastructure, and same with highways infrastructure et cetera. With climate change, very often local authority officers might think about recycling or putting solar panels on as energy rather than the nature emergency. So, do you think that having just the environment there is enough, and that it will be picked up by other areas?

Yes, we think it's enough. We think that it's the right level as we're looking at it as a strategic environmental assessment. There are a range of other assessments that local authorities will take, for example the environmental impact assessments, which are more project delivery and so forth. There's a range of other assessments like the DECCA framework—diversity, extent, condition, connectivity and aspects of ecosystem resilience—which is promoted for biodiversity and which is used for planning and a range of other services. So, from that respect, we think that looking at it at the SEA level, we've reached that kind of strategic gap, so looking at it from the strategic, knowing full well that we've got mechanisms in place at the delivery and operational level to duly consider biodiversity, nature and the environment. So, we believe that, obviously, the biodiversity targets, which are going to be set across four specific areas, will really complement the environmental principle, and give them a bit more understanding and clarity in terms of how this could be delivered, aligning with the targets and some of the other targets that are set in the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, for example, and so forth.

Janet would like to just come in briefly on this. 

Yes. Nice to meet you. I'm just a little bit concerned in terms of that the first two questions were paramount for me, talking about the financial regulatory assessment, and that we're so far on in the Bill and yet that's not been sorted. I just think that we're all sitting here setting ourselves up to fail.

It's replacing some existing legislation.

Yes, but there's still going to be massive resource implications for our local authorities, who are almost screaming, 'No more, no more'—they just can't afford it. But I thought we'd have been over those hurdles by now at this stage of the Bill. I need a reasonable explanation as to why that hasn't happened. I don't think I've ever sat here in committee at this stage and the regulatory finances haven't been put forward.

Sure. In fairness, Jean-Francois has explained that there hasn't been any liaison between the Government and local government.

Yes, but why? 

Well, that's a question we should ask the Cabinet Secretary, I think, because the onus is on them to be forthcoming. I think we can register our concern that those discussions haven't happened.

Absolutely, and we will. Right, okay. I just had to get that off my chest. 

No, no, that's okay. Well, consider it done. Sorry, Carolyn, back to the Bill. 

Yes, just a question on the environmental principles statement. In your written evidence, you say guidance will be needed at the time as Part 1 is enacted to ensure consistent application of the principles duty, including guidance on how Part 1 should be considered in environmental assessment. Does the Bill need to be amended to ensure that there is a statutory timeline for the principles statement to be produced? Section 6(3) of the Bill provides that the principles statement must include guidance to public authorities, but no time frame is given in the Bill for the guidance to be produced. So, that's the concern regarding the detail.

I guess it's a position for us, and the WLGA has been really vocal in terms of, when new legislation is enacted, we need to ensure that the tools, the guidance and everything are published at the same time as legislation. Failing to do so will lead to inconsistency in how the legislation is interpreted and how it is applied across a range of organisations. We've had, over time, a number of examples where legislation is enacted and we don't see any of the supporting tools and guidance being published for a number of years. And then, it's again leading to inconsistency across the 22 local authorities and so forth. So, we would really encourage Welsh Government to ensure that every guidance and tool are ready at the same time as the legislation is published.

We would like to draw your attention to the Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Bill, and really would like to commend Welsh Government on how they've approached that legislation, the range of engagement they've had with stakeholders and local government as well, and the supporting material that's just been created. So, we would really encourage, perhaps, that section of Welsh Government to really look at how the coal tip section has approached the new legislation, and really encourage them to use a similar approach.

Okay, thank you. 

Yes, okay. There we are. Thank you. I think we're moving on to the Office of Environmental Governance Wales now, so, Janet, you're going to lead us into this.  

Thank you. Are you clear on how the OEGW's function relates to local authorities and how this function would be differentiated from any other oversight body?

Thank you. From our understanding of what we've seen in the legislation and the White Paper, yes, we are clear in terms of how the new body would have the oversight and the implication it would have for local government. We've got some reservations in terms of the clear line of sight between the role of NRW as a regulator and this new body, and it may on some occasion perhaps have some areas where we're not too sure. For example, probably the area that I can think of is that if you look at the biodiversity target and the pollution element, where another body's already a regulator and controls and manages pollution incidents, we would like to know what would be the difference between this new body and another body in terms of reversing the pollution element side of things. So, for us, there needs to be a really clear line of sight from the moment the body is created in terms of what's their duty and what's the responsibility of NRW. What we don't want to see is a mission creep over the months and over the years, which would even further confuse the regulatory system around the environment in Wales.

And what about local authorities, you know, the integration there? 

Yes, with local authorities, we're pretty clear in terms of what it's going to be. Again, it's perhaps how they apply their regulatory services. So, we know local authorities will issue a range of licences and permits. There's no clarity, really, in terms of whether the new body would have an oversight in terms of how that's being done, and whether they feel that local authorities are delivering this function adequately. So, again, we would like better clarity in terms of how does that relate to the regulatory role that local authorities have, and whether that body would have oversight in terms of how they deliver those responsibilities.

Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. I'm going to bring Delyth in here.

Diolch. Bonjour. Bienvenue. I want to ask you about enforcement. Do you think that the body's enforcement powers are proportionate? Do you think that the escalatory approach is something that is in keeping with other bodies that would have a similar function, or do you think that something needs to be looked at again, please? 

We think the escalatory approach is really good. It's a really good way that really considers the current situation across the public authorities at the moment. Again, we tend to look at enforcement, financial penalties, which, in a current context, don't really work and add further burden on local authorities and the public purse as well. So, that kind of approach is really good. That's something that we support.

The only query that we may have is whether the body itself will be adequately resourced, with the potential workload that that may bring in, if they've got too many cases going on at the same time, and whether they will have the right expertise as well to provide that kind of advice and support. And the right expertise as well. The issue with the expertise, then—are we likely to lose expertise within local authorities and then other bodies that may go and work for that body and so forth? So, I think, again, the resource element and the expertise within Wales, we need to ensure that we work together and we don't create new bodies that will take the few officers that we've got left in local government. It's a point that we made again—. Sorry, I come back to the mine inquiry legislation. That's a key point, again, that we made with the new body that's been proposed there. We don't have enough experts across this area in Wales to support, perhaps, a number of organisations.

Okay. Thank you. And those concerns that you have, have you raised those with the Government, and, if so, what kind of response have you had? Do you think that they are alive to those potential pitfalls?

Yes, they are. So, they've been raised, obviously, at official level through the working group, and politically, as well, with our WLGA leader and the Deputy First Minister. There's some work going on by the Welsh Government climate change branch in terms of looking at the range of skills that are required in the environment section. They've been really supportive in terms of funding some environmental engineering placements within local government for the next six months coming, and they're looking again at that nature element, moving forward. So, we're confident that they've duly considered the aspects.

Merci beaucoup.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Julie.

Bore da. What about the time frame for the enforcement, the time frame provided in the Bill for public authorities to undertake actions that are required by the compliance notice? What are your views on that, on the time frame?

We feel that the current time frame in the legislation might be a bit too stringent and a bit too strict. We would have preferred a more pragmatic approach, where it is looked at on a case-by-case basis, assessing the type of infraction, the capacity and the resources required to mitigate the infractions and so forth. As it stands, I think the deadlines are really strict when you consider the current resource within local government. Perhaps what we would have liked is an acknowledgment from the local authorities or whoever is infringing the legislation to acknowledge the concern of the—[Inaudible.]—and engage with the new body within a due time frame, but then mitigation and remediation to be on a case-by-case basis.

Right. So, have you passed on those views?

I believe we did so in the White Paper.

Thank you. You say in written evidence under section 23(2) of the Bill that, where a public authority must make reasonable efforts to resolve issues or to agree on remedial action, the steps to be followed are unclear. So, how do you think that should be addressed? Should it be addressed in the Bill, or should it be addressed somewhere else?

Perhaps it should be addressed in some guidance by the new body. I will use the example of NRW in their regulatory role. In many cases, we seem to have a misinterpretation between what NRW expects as a regulator and what a local authority understands in terms of responsibility. So, this is due to a lack of clarity in the wording being used and so forth. So, we would really encourage the new body to really clearly set out what's expected in terms of the remediation time, the payers and so forth. Preferably, we would like this to be done in collaboration with the public bodies involved.

Thank you.

Thank you. Carolyn.

Just some questions regarding barriers to improving biodiversity. So, in your view, what barriers have public authorities faced in improving the status of biodiversity and ecosystems?

The biggest challenge, as I said earlier, is around resources, funding, expertise and capacity to do so. We've been really supportive of the regional co-ordinator and the funding that Welsh Government has offered to date in supporting local authorities, but we can see that even that is not sufficient to help deliver what we have. The finding of the auditor on section 6, I think, was that almost 50 per cent of public bodies didn't deliver the section 6 duty. So, yes, we would like to see adequate funding and perhaps building up the expertise within local government and public bodies in Wales to be able to do more for the environment and nature.

Again, the challenge—you will be more than aware—of budgets within local government is, when the vast majority of the funding needs to be allocated to social services and education, there's very little left to support other services and other areas of work.

I was going to ask you also about political buy-in as a barrier. I've met with some biodiversity officers who are working on the ground with funding, building up a map, a network, of biodiversity corridors, or nature corridors, but they struggle to get that political buy-in at a top level, especially, as you say, when they have priorities such as homelessness, social healthcare—you know, other priorities and a tight budget. Do you think that having ring-fenced funding is helpful? Because I know local authority leaders have asked not to have ring-fenced funding as well. But sometimes you have new legislation and you've got to have that funding to back it up as well for that new legislation to work. So, just your views on that, please.

Yes, the WLGA's position is that there shouldn't be new ring-fenced funding. We do accept as officers that in certain situations—the one that you mentioned is a clear one, when you've got new legislation in place—that, perhaps, for a period of time, there should be some ring-fenced funding specifically to support the different services in terms of building up their function and ensuring that the legislation is embedded and delivered in the best way possible.

So, is there any other way forward that you think, in the case of this legislation, this Bill, might address the decline in biodiversity in nature besides funding, resources and political buy-in?

It's a tricky one. We've seen in some of the reports that up to 2023, we had a 23 per cent decline in biodiversity and ecosystems in Wales, so it's going to take a lot of effort to reverse that trend. There's a range of protected species; we need to look beyond that and open up a bit more. I know the targets are working in terms of broadening the types of ecosystem, nature and so forth, and species that we protect in Wales.

Where we see, perhaps, there is potential—and it's an area that the Welsh Government does not fully explore at the moment, and it's one of the recommendations in the 30x30—is that kind of green financing, an alternative funding mechanism to support that area of work. So, we would like the Welsh Government to work a bit closer with local authorities and other bodies in Wales to really drive that kind of green investment to support more nature and environment in that space. So, we feel this is an area where there is a range of opportunities there that we have not yet fully explored. 

Okay, thank you. 

Thank you. Janet. 

Some stakeholders have suggested all public authorities should automatically be designated in relation to biodiversity targets set by the Welsh Ministers, rather than being singled out by regulations. What are your thoughts on this?

I would say that every public local authority has got a role and a duty to play in protecting the environment in Wales. We all play a key role, and yes, we support that. The point that we made around this is that, for the moment, there seems to be a confusion in terms of who is deemed as a public authority. If you look at the list put forward by the future generations commissioner’s office, it’s different to some of the others. So, what we would like to see as a starting point is having clarity in terms of who are the public bodies in Wales. When we look at some of the reports that have recently been done, whether from Audit Wales and so forth, or even the future generations commissioner’s office, they seem to focus only on a certain percentage of those public bodies, not all of them. So, again, I think that clarity, in terms of who the public bodies are, would be really helpful, but, generally, we would support all public bodies as having a key role to play in delivering the function and the targets. Again, I think the point would be around the body’s capacity to oversee such a big number of bodies.

Thank you. 

Thank you. Joyce. 

Good morning. I want to ask questions around the duties of designated public authorities. What are your views on the new section 6 of those duties for designated public authorities? Are you clear on what is required of local authorities in terms of the augmented section 6 duty in this Bill?

Diolch. Yes, we’re clear in terms of what that means, and we are supportive of this approach. Again, I would raise the point in terms of section 6 that the majority, I think, if not all local authorities, are compliant with the current section 6. The sticking point comes when it needs to move from a section 6 report to a delivery plan. Local authorities are good at planning delivery plans, but there are no resources in place to deliver the delivery plan. So, reinforcing the section 6 duty, again, yes, we support it, but we would encourage the Welsh Government to really consider the financial implication of that. And if we are already failing in some aspects of the current section 6, I am not sure how strengthening the section 6, without adequate funding, is going to solve the problem.

So, a lot of this seems to come down to funding, in your view. Do you think the duty requiring designated public authorities to align section 6 reports with biodiversity targets is going to be effective in supporting the delivery of those targets?

It will be. It’s a comment that we made in our written evidence. Local authorities are delivering a range of activities that will have implications for the environment. We do duly consider the environment and nature on that, so, yes, we support the biodiversity target being more linked to that. A range of activities delivered across local authority administrative boundaries are delivered by other sectors and other organisations, so as long as local authorities have got the right powers and the resources to ensure that those biodiversity targets can be passed on to other organisations.

I will use planning as a standard example where currently local authorities can require some element of nature and biodiversity through the planning process. Unfortunately, we don't have the capacity to go and enforce and inspect whether the applicants are actually taking forward the conditions that have been set out, so we would need to ensure that local authorities have got the power to follow up, to enforce, and ensure that those biodiversity targets are not solely the responsibility of public bodies, but of all the key players across Wales that impact on the environment.

And of course, the environment doesn't know any boundaries, but local authority seems to be very clearly marked out in boundaries. I'm particularly interested to know how adjoining local authorities are working together. I cover Mid and West Wales, for example, and when we talk about river pollution, it doesn't stop in Ceredigion and restart in Pembrokeshire or Carmarthenshire. So, how well are local authorities going to be able to join up to tackle the environmental principles that they are now being asked to do?

Thank you. It's a really good question. We've already got a range of networks, especially around flood risk management and water. Our local authorities will be based on a river catchment footprint, which has been really useful in terms of supporting initiatives across the whole catchment. We would like to perhaps build on that and broaden the kind of wider environment and nature agenda, linking it with those existing networks to ensure that we can have a more integrated approach.

We've been working quite closely with NRW as well. There are a range of catchment-based pilots taking place. So, again, we're confident that there are some mechanisms in place and there are already some structures that are delivering on a regional scale. So we would like to encourage and see what more we can do to support nature, biodiversity and the environment in that space.

And just one final one, talking again about joined-up working. I do travel around quite a bit in my area and there doesn't seem to be an awful lot of joined-up thinking between highways, local authorities and environment, and where they clearly are cutting areas they don't need to cut and could leave that for wildlife. If you try to get underneath it, one blames the other: 'It's not mine; it's his or hers.' That isn't really going to help, is it, going forward?

Yes, I take your point. We've also got some really good examples of how highways and biodiversity teams are working together and promoting that approach. I think in your area as well, specifically, there is much more to do, and perhaps there's a need to review some of the existing guidance and standards around highways to ensure that nature and biodiversity is a bit more embedded and an essential part of the decision making.

Okay, I look forward to the changes.

Thank you. Janet.

Thanks. The Welsh Government has committed to update its section 6 guidance on the biodiversity duty to improve implementation by public authorities, in light of the augmented duty. Should the Bill require the Welsh Government to produce this updated guidance?

Yes, please. That's the short answer, but we would say 'yes', and I reiterate my earlier point that we would like that guidance to be ready at the same time as the Bill is enacted. 

Thank you.

Thank you. Carolyn.

In your written response, you believe biodiversity targets will rely on councils imposing conditions on the activity of other parties, such as developers, but that councils currently have insufficient powers to enforce these conditions. So, can you elaborate on this point and outline how it can be addressed?

As I say, we've got a key role as local authorities. We've got an important role to play and we've got duties in terms of ensuring that whatever we do doesn't impact the environment, nature and biodiversity. But other bodies, for example developers and so forth, have also got a role to play. Currently we can ask developers, through the planning process, to have regard to biodiversity and—. Apologies, I just forgot the term. We've got the net benefit for biodiversity in place for the planning process, which encourages developers to not have a negative impact. There's a DECCA framework in place as well.

What we're lacking is perhaps that kind of power for local authorities to be asking more, and that's linked with the planning process, where the planning process has got that principle of reasonableness in place where it's really easy for a developer to challenge local authorities on the grounds of an unreasonable condition. Obviously, we want to enhance nature and biodiversity, we don't just want to maintain it, and I think that's where the sticking point may come, where a developer may think that we are unreasonable by asking too much of them.

We would like to ensure that some of these aspects of legislation around planning are reviewed to ensure that planners and local authorities can ask for more, and have the right power in terms of enforcement. Again, if you look at planning enforcement, they usually don't consider the nature and biodiversity side of things. So there's a lack of expertise with planning enforcement, a lack of capacity as well. Usually most of the planning enforcement will be looking at the site or building itself rather than the wider green space and so forth. We need to have stronger links with the sustainable drainage legislation to ensure that, again, we can hold developers and other sectors to account in the way that we do that.

So, being able to enforce planning conditions, but also stronger legislation is what you're asking for, for clarity, regarding biodiversity targets, maybe. Was that what you were saying? Just for clarity.

Yes. I can try to speak with some planning colleagues and get back to you with a bit more on that space, but we certainly would like to see a review of the planning conditions and what local authorities can give as conditions, and the section 106 agreements as well.

Okay. Thank you. 

Thank you. Janet.

What is your view on the Bill's requirement to seek independent advice in relation to the development of biodiversity targets at new section 6D? Are you content with this or would you expect a much wider consultation requirement for target development?

We would be happy with independent advice so long as the independent advice comes from specialists and suggested biodiversity targets are evidence-based. Too often, we see a range of targets that are being set out that are not evidence-based—set on perhaps ambition of policies and so forth. With biodiversity targets, they need to be evidenced and they need to also have a short term but also a longer term vision. As you know, with biodiversity it takes years to see the results of the activities we deliver. So short term and long-term biodiversity targets that are evidence-based and informed by sound science behind it. That is what we want. So, if the independent adviser can provide this, that's fine. We would like the Welsh Government to engage with public bodies after that to ensure that they are deliverable within the current context. Thank you.

Thank you. I think we've covered all the bases that we were hoping to cover. Is there anything, Jean-Francois, that you feel that we haven't covered that you'd like to convey to us or any general key matters that you'd like to leave us with? 

No, that's fine. Thank you very much for the opportunity. I'm happy to come back on any question that you may have. I will seek some clarification around the planning conditions as well and come back to you on that. Thank you for your time. 

Excellent. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you. You will be sent a draft transcript as well, to check for accuracy. I'm sure that, if we do need any further clarity, we'll follow up as well. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thanks for joining us. 

Diolch. The committee will now break for 15 minutes. Can we reconvene at 10:25 so that we can start promptly with the Deputy First Minister at 10:30? Diolch yn fawr. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, we'll move on to Janet.

Can I come in?

Yes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much. Okay. 

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

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

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

'to pursue the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources', 

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

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

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

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

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

Okay. Diolch.  

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Delyth. Julie. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you very much.

Diolch, Julie. Janet.

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

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

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

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

Sorry, Janet. Deputy First Minister.

Dorian, I think, wants to come in here.

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

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

That's very useful. Diolch yn fawr.

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. Carolyn. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. So, EGW, as we all—

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

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

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

Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you, Julie. Joyce.

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

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

Would one of you wish to come in?

Don't feel that I'm—

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

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

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

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

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

Okay. Well—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay. Joyce, you wanted to come in. 

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. Delyth.

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

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

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

We could do, by the way, shorter term targets, but these could result in having things such as more action-focused targets. So, not ones that are focused on really good outcomes but how many things have we done—have we ticked the boxes on x, y and z? So, this would not establish a long-term trajectory for restoring our natural environment.

Okay. Thank you, Deputy First Minister. Julie. 

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

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

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

Joyce.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Naomi? Oh, Alice.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can see—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Happy to proceed?