Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee

Diolch, Delyth. Carolyn.

Could I also speak to this amendment? The second goal, the well-being goal, of sustainable development is often interpreted, in my experience, by public bodies as low carbon, renewable energy, solar panels, electrical charging, without much regard to the natural environment. And as has been said, I'd like to also thank the environmental non-governmental organisations who've have contributed and spoken up for nature—we need you to continue to do this. Thank you very much. They say it's difficult for environmental objectives to compete with social and economic objectives, as we're seeing from the way in which the UK Government is pursuing its growth mission and planning, so having that strong regard to the natural environment. So, I wanted to put that marker down now of my concerns, but we will at this stage be, sorry, voting against the amendment.

Diolch yn fawr. Okay. Jenny.

Well, I certainly don't want to see our countryside carpeted with solar panels; they belong on roofs and car parks. But, nevertheless, I'm concerned by this proposal to delete the reference to the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, around which we are all, all public bodies, have to be compliant. So, I look forward to seeing the wording that manages to navigate the path between those. But it needs to be really clear that the well-being of future generations Act has to be complied with.

Diolch yn fawr. No other speakers, so Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Can I just say at the outset, first of all, my thanks to Members in advance for all their amendments and their contributions in the long day ahead of us today on this committee deliberation, but also what's come already, because it has helped us refine and shape some of our proposals coming forward already? But I also want to put on record as well my thanks to the many environmental organisations who've been intensely involved in the shaping of the Bill as it currently is, and also as it goes forward as well, and we seek to take what is a good Bill and make it an even better piece of legislation with the will of the Senedd. So, my thanks to everybody involved in this. I just want to assure you as well that we've considered all of what's coming in front of us today in great detail as well.

Let me turn to this particular amendment, Delyth's amendment 165. We understand the thinking of this, and we understand what you've heard from some of the voices—some of the voices—in response to your scrutiny of this on committee, but it is some of the voices. Let me make clear why we object to this amendment, and it does draw on some of the contributions of Members just now. So, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 is an absolute cornerstone of Welsh legal and policy framework. It makes sustainable development a central focus for public bodies. It's not only well regarded here in Wales, it's internationally well regarded and it's lauded. We are praised for the fact that we have that on the statute book providing the framework for our approach in Wales. It requires public bodies to act in accordance with sustainable development principles, to consider long and short-term impacts and to improve the economic, social, environmental and cultural well-being of Wales by taking action to contribute to the well-being goals. Members won't need me reminding them of that, because we say this regularly in everything that we do.

The way the environmental objective has been drafted fully recognises this, so let me be crystal clear: the environmental objective is the attainment of a high level of environmental protection and an improvement of the environment. However, in the context of this objective, it is appropriate to set out examples of significant outcomes that can be achieved by taking action to contribute to the attainment of that objective. So, this is the role of paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 1(1), which complements the wider priorities and framework that policy makers must take into account here in Wales. If we remove this clear connection to the well-being of future generations Act, it would undermine this specific and very welcomed, I have to say, alignment between our Bill and the uniquely Welsh and internationally recognised and lauded legal and policy framework—the point that you so well made, Jenny. It may heighten the risks around inconsistency. It may develop, actually, a more siloed approach, which is what we spent many years working away from, those siloed approaches. It could potentially weaken the integrated approach that is promoted by the well-being of future generations Act, and the coherence of Wales's sustainability framework as a whole. So, I understand that this has been brought forward in response to some of the voices that have been made to committee, but it's not a consistency of voices that have made that point. There have been other voices as well who've said, 'Please stick with the well-being of future generations Act—that's important for the integration and the breaking down of silos.'

So, it's for these reasons, Delyth, not because I don't have sympathy with the reason why it's being put forward, but it's why we can't support the amendment being made. We think the well-being of future generations Act is the cornerstone of our legislative and policy framework here in Wales.

Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr. Delyth i ymateb.

Diolch i bawb sydd wedi siarad.

Firstly, I agree utterly that the 2015 Act is a cornerstone. In many ways, that is why the amendment—it might sound perverse, but that's why it was laid, because I think that a number of the experts who gave evidence to us felt that, because of its essence, because of how central it is, it would already apply. So, just to reassure Jenny, the amendment wouldn't in any way seek to negate the application of the Act. I would never support that myself.

I do understand the Government's perspective on this, of course. The risk that this was trying to guard against would be that a Government in the future could misinterpret, potentially wilfully misinterpret, the need to focus on the environment, and use this as a potential way of doing that.

I accept that this is not going to pass at this stage. If Members before Stage 3 had any thoughts about other ways that we could seek to re-bolster the centrality of the environment without having to risk doing what the Cabinet Secretary has set out here, I'd really appreciate if we could have some discussions before Stage 3, but I appreciate what has been said. Diolch yn fawr.

Diolch yn fawr. Okay, so the question is that amendment 165 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll move to a vote. So, those in favour of 165, please show. Three. And those against. Three. So, it's a tied vote and I use my casting vote in the negative, that is against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii). Therefore, amendment 165 is not agreed.

Diolch, Janet. Any further speakers? Julie.

These are amendments 55 and 56, which we would oppose. And I believe some of the environmental bodies also oppose those because they would add principles to the list of environmental principles in section 2, and they're not environmental principles, and would substantially weaken the intention of Part 1 of the Bill, which is to embed environmental consideration into policy making. So, for that reason, we would go along, really, with what some of the environmental groups are saying and oppose those proposals.

Thank you, Julie. And apologies to Delyth—I should have called you as a Member with amendments in this group, so I'll call you now.

Don't stress, you're fine. It was nice to hear Julie's voice. Diolch, Cadeirydd. I speak principally to amendments tabled in my name in this group, firstly. Amendments 121 and 122 would be aimed at bringing clarity to what the new duty on Welsh Ministers to have special regard to environmental principles will actually apply to. At the moment, the Bill doesn't explain what is meant by 'policy', and that could risk confusion. By setting out a non-exhaustive list, we think that we could give Ministers and stakeholders a clear understanding of when that duty is engaged to avoid inconsistent practice, as well as legal uncertainty.

This clarity would be especially important, as we, again, might have a new set of Ministers in the next term, potentially those who would not be necessarily as familiar as members of this committee with the purpose of the duty. We've already seen in England that a lack of transparency around the equivalent duty can stem from uncertainty about what counts as policy. Now, these amendments would help avoid Wales repeating those situations. If the Government isn't minded to put this on the face of the Bill, the same clarity I think does need to be set out clearly in an explanatory memorandum, and in the environmental principles and integration statement.

Now, to move on to amendments 123, 124 and 125, these would build on this same principle by strengthening the duty on public authorities, so that a higher standard of special regard would apply across all of their functions, and that would ensure that environmental principles are properly and consistently considered in decision making, rather than being treated as an optional extra. Raising the standard in this way would help put environmental protection at the heart of how public bodies operate, and ensure that principles are genuinely embedded in practice.

Now, to turn to amendment 126, this looks at how this would be followed through. It would introduce a clear requirement for Welsh Ministers to review how Part 1 of the Bill is operating in practice, and to report on its contribution to the environmental objective. As it stands, the Bill doesn't require any truly meaningful review of how the principles or duties are working. Ministers are only given a very narrow power to look at integrating the environmental protection statement 'from time to time'. That's how it is worded. Now, this was raised with us in evidence that that was nowhere near enough. We've looked at how this has worked elsewhere. The Environment Act 2021 did not require a review on the face of the Act, but that was only because the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs publicly committed to carrying out one within two years. That early review has, as I understand it, been important in shaping how the duty was implemented.

Having a focused post-implementation review in Wales would be essential. It would help ensure the legislation is delivering the effect it's meant to deliver, and allow lessons or improvements to be built into policy. Crucially, this would place a clear responsibility on Welsh Ministers, not just on the OEGW, to actively assess how the legislation is contributing to the environmental objective.

I'm afraid that I'm not in agreement with amendments 55 and 56, for much the same reasons that Julie has set out, so I won't repeat those. Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you for the comments of committee members. There's quite a lot of detail within some of these amendments, so I'll need to respond in some detail to each in sequence, if that's okay.

In response to Janet's opening remarks, we really do welcome as a Government all the amendments being brought forward. Some of them, during the course of the day, I'll explain with, hopefully, a considered and rational reason why we wouldn't support them. But we welcome them, even if they are there to seek to get the Government's clarity on record about what the intentions behind the legislation and individual clauses are. So, whether we're here till midnight, I'm more than happy to do that for the purposes of scrutiny. Well, not midnight perhaps.

Let me turn first of all to amendments 55 and 56. Julie made the comments, which I would agree with. I don't understand that these have any significant support from environmental organisations out there, from our discussions with them, but I'll explain why we can't support amendments 55 and 56. The four environmental principles that are in place, and the duty to integrate environmental protection included in the Bill, are based on concepts that have developed over decades. This includes through international agreements and European Union and domestic legislation. They are very well developed, and very well understood.

We have also placed a strong 'special regard' duty on Welsh Ministers and on NRW to apply these very well-understood and well-developed principles. There's real clarity and real purpose behind it. If we add further less developed, less well-worked, less well-understood principles in this list, then what we could end up doing is risking significant uncertainty and barriers towards effective delivery of what this legislation is trying to do.

The environmental principles and the integration duty presented in the Bill are supported, as they are right now, by a wide range of stakeholders. A case for additional principles has just not been made throughout our engagement with stakeholders—nor have I, by the way, noted it being raised during the course of the committee scrutiny either, with any great support. Furthermore, relevant aspects of these principles are already captured, to different extents, and to a more effective and appropriate degree, within the environmental objective and the duty to integrate environmental protection.

For example, non-regression is generally interpreted to require that there should not be a rollback in environmental standards. The environmental objective, however, aims, through relevant duties in Part 1, at the attainment of a high level of environmental protection and an improvement of the environment. This goes beyond non-regression in terms of preventing any lowering of ambition, and it focuses on contributing to a high level of environmental protection and actual improvement to the environment. So, I consider these amendments, although I understand why you've brought them—. I hope you'll understand that not only are they not necessary, they could be highly detrimental to the policy outcomes that are being sought.

If I turn to amendments 3 and 5 in my name, the 'special regard' duty ensures that the environmental principles feature prominently in decision making, whilst also enabling Welsh Ministers to balance environmental principles with other relevant considerations, depending on the context. Given the strong effect of this duty, the strong regard, it's important that the scope is clear.

To address concerns raised by stakeholders, I am bringing forward the following amendments to provide further clarity. Firstly, I'm proposing, subject to the committee as well, amending the duty in section 3(1) to remove the provision that the duty applies only to policy that has or could have an effect on the environment. This is, by the way, along the lines of the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee's recommendation.

However, to ensure that the duty is effective, I'm proposing adding a new subsection by amendment 5 to clarify that the duty does not require Welsh Ministers to act in instances where there is no effect on the environment or an effect that is negligible. This is very deliberately a very low threshold, and policy makers will have to carefully assess the effect of their policy to determine whether their policy meets this threshold.

It's very important to provide this threshold, given the very strong effect of our duties, which apply broadly across the full range of Welsh Government policy making. It would not be appropriate to apply the duties when making policies if there is no or negligible effect on the environment. I can't put it clearer than that. If we did not provide this threshold, we risk creating a situation where policy makers are straining to meet the duties, or turning it into something of a tick-box exercise. This could severely undermine the impact and the effect of the duties that we put in place. It is imperative that, instead, we empower policy makers to engage constructively and meaningfully with these new duties.

If it's helpful, Chair—I've referred to this, I think, before in committee—one of the possible examples—it's difficult, sometimes, to speculate—is a piece of legislation the two of us on this committee are intimately familiar with: the reasonable chastisement of children and young people. That is one of those areas of policy where it would be quite possible to go, 'Well, is that a no or negligible effect on the environment?' Yes? Or do we say to those involved with that, 'You now are going to have to go through a process where you have to—'. Yes, okay, I think I've made the point.

It's important to note, in practical terms, there are very few policies that would have that no effect or negligible effect on the environment, and so it is considered likely to be very rare that the duty will not apply to Welsh Government policy making. However, we want to ensure that the determination as to whether a policy has no or negligible effect on the environment is subject to careful consideration.

Whilst I appreciate it's not within this group, Chair, I consider this approach will be well supported by the non-Government amendment 51, which is in front of us today later, in the name of Carolyn Thomas, which would add a new requirement on Welsh Ministers to explain, in the environmental principles and integrated environmental protection statement, how the Welsh Ministers propose to determine whether a policy has a negligible or no effect on the environment. This statement, of course, will be subject, in the proposal, to formal consultation and Senedd scrutiny, which is proposed by amendment 13, and like amendment 51, will be covered, I think, in the next group. I think that really gives the clarity and the substance to this.

It's also important to reflect the combined effect of the amendments that we're bringing forward in respect of the Welsh Ministers' duty to apply the principles. This approach will remove the wording

'that has, or could have, any effect on the environment'

from the section 3(1) duty; it'll provide important clarity that the duty applies to all policy making, unless there is no effect or negligible effect on the environment; it'll provide a stronger duty—just to be clear—than other UK jurisdictions; it'll provide confidence the duty will be applied with rigour and engaged with fully by policy makers, which will better support the environmental objective; and it will be—just for clarity—open to challenge for non-compliance, so, for example, through judicial review, or the oversight of the OEGW, pursuant to provision made in Part 2 of the Bill. I think that is very robust and very clear.

If I can turn to amendments 121 and 122, in the name of Delyth Jewell, which are amendments to clarify the meaning of 'policy' in Part 1 of the Bill. The Bill and supporting materials already provide broad non-exhaustive definitions of 'policy' and of 'making policy' for the duties of Welsh Ministers and NRW. The approach is similar to the equivalent Scottish and UK Acts, which also do not seek to further define or clarify the meaning of 'policy'. But I highlighted in my response to your report, Chair, that public policy making is complex, so trying to define 'policy' specifically could unintentionally limit these duties. This would potentially have a detrimental effect on the scope and the effectiveness of the policy-making duties imposed on Welsh Ministers and NRW.

However, I would be content to reflect wording along these lines within the explanatory materials, where we can provide further clarity on policy and policy making, whilst also putting in place the appropriate caveats and explanations around their intended scope and reach, if that would be satisfactory. So, if the Member were agreeable to that approach, we'd be happy to discuss this further with her and with the committee on how we can provide that clarity in the explanatory materials.

In respect of amendments 123, 124 and 125, which seek to impose a wider, stronger duty on public authorities to have special regard to environmental principles and integrate environmental protection when exercising their functions, these would substantially change the approach by placing a duty on public authorities to have special regard to the environmental principles and integrate environmental protection when carrying out all of their functions.

I did express previously my concerns about aspects of this approach in my response to your report. If we impose a universal requirement to have special regard to the environmental principles and to integrate environmental protection across all public authority functions, it would be unnecessary and disproportionate, in my clear view. Applying this would require additional assessments, additional documentation and training, even where environmental impact is minimal. This would result in greater bureaucracy and burden and slower decision making without delivering tangible environmental benefits.

This is not, by the way, just our view. While some stakeholders feel this approach would improve outcomes, many respondents to the White Paper consultation disagreed, viewing the application across the full range of public authority functions as unnecessary and disproportionate. In addition, the fire and rescue services highlighted in their response to the consultation that such requirements could hinder urgent, life-saving decisions, which I highlighted when I appeared in front of the Stage 1 scrutiny.

Whilst I remain open to reviewing this issue during the legislation's implementation to assess the effectiveness of the principles framework and consider any necessary refinements, I cannot support this amendment, for the reasons I've laid out, and we don't believe it's desirable or necessary.

I'll turn finally to amendment 126 in the name of Delyth Jewell. We've designed the duties in Part 1, Delyth, to be effective and enduring, and they're based on the environmental principles that are well understood and widely supported. We don't feel it will be proportionate to require Welsh Ministers to conduct regular reviews of the effectiveness of these provisions, particularly not on the timescales proposed by the amendment. We've seen similar statutory review requirements like this leading to, in different situations, cycles of reporting, and reporting rather than action. It's reporting for reporting's sake rather than getting on. And it can lead organisations to focus on compliance with reporting requirements rather than delivering environmental outcomes.

It's also important to note that provision such as this risks duplicating the oversight that we're bringing forward through the OEGW. We've seen a very good recent example of how the OEP has assessed the effectiveness of the UK Government's implementation of environmental principle requirements under the Environment Act 2021; that's the best place for such independent analysis.

Furthermore, two-year intervals will not provide meaningful data or allow sufficient time for policies to take effect. It risks conclusions being reached prematurely, being forced by the pace of two-year cycles, and it could encourage reactive legislative and policy changes that lack the robust evidence. It could even undermine the continuity and the confidence in the environmental governance frameworks.

Conducting a comprehensive review every two years, including—let's be clear—impact assessment, legislative analysis and reporting would require substantial staff time, expertise and financial resources and it could risk diverting capacity away from doing the job, implementing and improving environmental outcomes on the ground. And for that reason, while I understand why it's been moved, we would resist it.

I would therefore ask that Members approve and agree amendments 3 and 5 in my name, and, for the reasons I've outlined, do not agree amendments 55 and 56 or amendments 121, 122, 123, 124, 125 and 126 in the name of Delyth.

Diolch yn fawr. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to reply to the debate.

Let's just go straight to the vote.

The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we will take a vote on amendment 55. All those in favour, please show. One. All those against. Five. That means that amendment 55 is not agreed.

Janet Finch-Saunders, do you move amendment 56?

I do.

Yes, there we are. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we'll move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 56, please show. One. All those against. Five. Amendment 56 therefore is not agreed.

I move amendment 3 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. So, the question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 3 is therefore agreed.

Okay, croeso nôl. Welcome back. Apologies for the technical issues. I understand that they have now been resolved.

On amendment 10 in my name, this is an amendment to reorder the texts and related matters. So, section 7(1) is amended to reorder that text, to make clear that the requirement to consult applies to the preparation of a draft statement, and as there is no longer a need to state at section 7(1) that the requirement to consult applies to a revised statement as section 7(11), inserted by amendment 13—bear with me—now makes clear that section 7(1) to (6) and 7(8) to (10) apply in relation to any revised statement. So, it's a technical but necessary amendment.

If I turn to amendment 58 in the name of Janet, this is the amendment that would add 'members of the public in Wales' to the list of persons that Welsh Ministers must consult. In my response to your committee, I highlighted that the duty to consult at section 7(1) already includes the scope to consult the public, and with the necessary flexibility to do so appropriately in the circumstances. Now, such consultation must, of course, be carried out properly and fairly. Imposing a legislative requirement to consult 'members of the public in Wales' in the way proposed in this amendment would not only be unusual, but it would also be very uncertain in scope. It is not clear, for example, Janet, how it would be possible to determine exactly what such a duty requires, or even when the duty has been adequately discharged.

So, I don't consider—bearing in mind there is the ability to consult already within this—that a further amendment to the Bill in this way is needed or appropriate. The consultation approach will be supported, by the way, by the amendments I have tabled in response to the committee's recommendation 9, which provides a role for the Senedd in considering the statement.

In respect of amendment 11 in my name, this amendment clarifies that the environmental principles and integrating environmental protection statement must be laid in draft before the Senedd.

Amendment 12 in my name omits the reference to a revised statement from section 7(2)(a), as this is no longer necessary, as section 7(11), inserted by amendment 13, states that section 7(1) to (6) and 7(8) to (10) apply in relation to any revised statement. The amendment also makes a minor change to refer to 'together with', instead of 'and'.

Amendment 13 in my name sets out a series of amendments to the procedural requirements relating to the preparation of the environmental principles and integrating environmental protection statement at section 7. These amendments, to make clear, reflect our response to recommendation 9 of this committee’s report, and they include a provision providing an opportunity for the Senedd to consider the statement and to submit recommendations to Welsh Ministers. The Welsh Ministers will be required to consider and respond to such recommendations before the statement can be finalised and published. Provision is also made about reviewing the statement and setting a deadline for laying and publication of the statement.

So, subsection (3) provides that if the Senedd makes recommendations in relation to the draft statement within a 40-day period, then the Welsh Ministers must respond to the Senedd’s recommendations. Subsection (4) requires Welsh Ministers to lay a final version of the statement before the Senedd. But the final statement must not be laid before the Welsh Ministers respond to any Senedd recommendations—and I think that's important—under subsection (3), or, otherwise, the end of the 40-day period under subsection (5).

Welsh Ministers are required to lay the final statement before the Senedd no later than 31 March 2027— it's in subsection 7—which aligns with the planned commencement date for the duties under sections 3 to 5, further to amendment 37, which I will come on to in a moment. The Welsh Ministers must also publish the statement when it is laid before the Senedd—subsection (6).

Subsection (8) defines the '40-day' period, and ensures that the Senedd recess periods are discounted by excluding any period during which the Senedd is dissolved or is in recess for more than four days. This is to ensure that the Senedd is given an appropriate amount of time to consider the statement, and to avoid undesirable circumstances when the Senedd might not otherwise have proper opportunity to consider the statement—so, for example, if the statement is provided ahead of long recess periods, such as the summer recess. So, we're trying to build in here the adequacy for the scrutiny within the Senedd.

Subsection (9) requires Welsh Ministers to review the statement after each general election. This ensures the statement will be reviewed at least once per Senedd term. Subsection (10) clarifies the meaning of 'general election' in subsection (9), and the Welsh Ministers may also review the statement at any other time. Subsection (11) ensures the procedural arrangements detailed within subsections (1) to (6) and (8) to (10) also apply to any revised statement, and subsection (7) only applies to the first statement.

There are a couple more matters to deal with. My apologies, but there's a heap of amendments within here. Amendment 34 in my name is a technical amendment that updates the cross-reference in the definition of 'environmental principles and integrating environmental protection statement' at section 42, to the statement published under section 7, to reflect that, following other amendments, that statement is now published under section 7, not section 6.

Amendments 35 and 37 in my name mean that sections 6 and 7, other than section 7(1)(c), will come into force two months following Royal Assent, instead of six months after Royal Assent. It remains the case that section 7(1)(c) will be commenced by Order of the Welsh Ministers under section 44(4). These amendments support, in particular, the Senedd procedural requirements introduced in section 7, and they enable the statement to be developed, laid before the Senedd in draft and then finalised before 31 March 2027, when the duties under sections 3 to 5 will also come into force, in line with amendment 37.

Amendment 37 provides that sections 3 to 5 will come into force on 31 March 2027, instead of six months after Royal Assent. These revised timescales reflect the additional procedural requirements imposed in connection with the preparation of the environmental principles and integrating environmental protection statement. So, in particular, this will provide sufficient time for the Senedd to consider the statement and respond with any recommendations, and for Welsh Ministers to consider and respond to the recommendations and make any changes to the statement. Importantly, it also allows for further consultation to take place, if needed, so that the statement can be finalised and ready when the duties at sections 3 to 5 come into force.

So, in summary, Chair, I would ask that Members approve the amendments in my name: 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 34, 35 and 36, and also the amendments in the name of Carolyn Thomas, 50 and 51, but, for the reasons I've laid out, not to agree with amendments 57 and 58.

Amendment 37, I think, yes, not 36. Amendment 37 is in this group. Amendment 36 is in another group.

Sorry, let me just check. Let me just check.

Never mind. When you ran through them—

Yes. Yes, indeed. It's amendment 37—37.

Okay. There we are. Great. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you. I will now call on Carolyn Thomas to speak to the amendments in her name.

Thank you. I'd like to move amendment 50. The amendment imposes a new requirement on Welsh Ministers to explain in the environmental principles and integrating environmental protection statement how they consider the environmental principles should be interpreted. This strengthens and clarifies the application of this legislation to section 6, and reflects recommendation 6 of this committee's recent report. So, I hope that this committee—and the Minister has already said he will—supports this amendment today. Thank you.

And regarding amendment 51 as well—I'll take this at the same time—this amendment builds on an amendment brought forward by the Government relating to the new provision at section 3(4). This amendment imposes an additional requirement on Ministers to explain in the environmental principles and integrating environmental protection statement how they propose to determine whether a policy would have no effect or negligible effect on the environment. This will help to ensure further clarity around how the Government will apply the duty, and in particular how the Welsh Ministers will consider whether the threshold of no or negligible effect on the environment has been met. And given that this builds on the Welsh Government's own amendments, I hope it can be supported today, as it strengthens it. Thank you.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you. Janet.

So, I'm going to move amendments 57 and 58. These amendments will ensure that the Welsh Ministers review the section 6 statement at least once every two years. While the environmental principles are already well recognised internationally, it is the statement that will determine their meaning and how that will be applied in a Welsh context. As the Deputy First Minister is aware, our climate change committee have raised several and serious concerns that, as drafted, section 6(5) provides the Welsh Ministers with complete discretion. Healthy Air Cymru and academics have also raised these concerns. This is extremely important, particularly as we go into elections. And it also holds the feet to the fire of any Welsh Government Ministers, going forward, certainly where we could end up in a situation after the next election with a new Government who may not be as committed to this legislation.

Amendment 58 requires Welsh Ministers to conduct public consultations on the section 6 statement, and I'm really, really determined to see more engagement with our public on such matters and, indeed, laws, going forward. Now, this has been called for by stakeholders such as RenewableUK, FUW, the Countryside Alliance, WWF Cymru and others. There is clearly major public interest in this, and I'm surprised that it wasn't incorporated into this. I remember clearly there being more support for it when we were taking evidence. Too often, our constituents feel so disenfranchised with the Welsh Government when legislation is going through, and indeed afterwards. If you take, for instance, major pollution incidents, when they occur, they're ignored. Reporting pollution incidents is seen to be very frustrating by individual constituents and, indeed, organisations such as Surfers Against Sewage. When they report pollution incidents—take a water pollution incident—the process of Dŵr Cymru informing NRW, as that's their duty, then action being taken is often seen as much too delayed. This, in turn, does destroy our environment. And I have to say that you never see, as an elected Member, any consequences for these pollution incidents, and there is ongoing damage to our environment. I actually do believe that not all politicians know everything, and we rely—. They are our eyes and ears in our community, as we are, and I do believe that our citizens should have a much stronger voice on environmental governance. Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr. Jenny.

I think that we're in danger of overcomplicating the legislation in Delyth's amendments, because I think the explanatory memorandum is the place to define what policy means, or matters like that. I just feel that those amendments are potentially—. We've already got making policy; if those lawyers don't understand what all of that is about, they can go to the explanatory memorandum. I feel that there's a danger of weakening the legislation here.

On Janet Finch-Saunders's proposal in amendments 58 and 57, the whole purpose of this legislation is to set up the office of environmental protection, and clearly the office will be the vehicle for reporting breaches of the law, and the whole purpose of this office is to investigate serious issues such as you describe. I just feel that we're double-bagging here. There are already measures for consulting the public, but you don't need to do it on changing the shape of windows in a particular heritage building.

Thank you. The Deputy First Minister to reply to the debate.

Indeed. I've listened with interest to the contributions, and just to reflect on the final contribution from Jenny, I think that there is that danger of confusing the purpose and the intent of this piece of legislation, which is not to duplicate the role of existing regulators and their enforcement, including on things such as acute river pollution, and so on. We know that we've got to do more on that as well. But, within this legislation, there can indeed be a challenge to environmental law. So, if there is a systemic failure, if there is a failure in guidance that has been put out from Ministers in respect of river pollution or the regulator, NRW, in terms of river pollution, then that can be done, but this is not, Janet, an issue of saying that we're setting up another regulator to respond to a discharge into a stream on the River Taf in Carmarthenshire—it's not specifically that. So, it's horses for courses here. What we are trying to do is actually strengthen the voice not only of the new OEGW, but also the citizen within that, in order to raise, 'We have a failure in environmental law.' And it could be to do with a number of things, not just water quality. But, yes, the other aspect is that there is already the ability to consult and there are well-established doctrines within Welsh public bodies about how that consultation takes place. It's already in there, so why would we, in the phrase that's been used, double-up on that, double-bag it? It's already there, the ability to do it. So, I would say once again to the committee, I understand why this is being raised and there are ways in which to deal with those issues, whether it's river pollution, water pollution and so on, but on the question of environmental law, I think the proposals we have here and the amendments that we have put forward and the reasons why we're, with respect, opposing the two you've put forward, I've explained in my introductory remarks, Chair.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you very much. Okay, we'll move to a vote, then. So, the question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 4 is agreed.

Delyth Jewell, do you wish to move amendment 121?

No, owing to what the Cabinet Secretary said about the explanatory memorandum, I will not. Thank you.

I move amendment 5 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary, and if amendment 5 is not agreed, then amendment 51 falls. So, the question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. There we are. Amendment 5, therefore, is agreed.

I move amendment 6 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection.

Delyth Jewell, do you wish to move amendment 122?

No, for the same reason.

The same reason. Thank you. Diolch yn fawr. We'll move on, then. So, Delyth, would you wish to move amendment 123?

I would, please.

There we are. Okay. The question is that amendment 123 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. We'll move to a vote. Those in favour of 123, please show. Three. And those against. Three. So, it's a tied vote and I therefore use my casting vote in the negative against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii), meaning that amendment 123 is not agreed.

Delyth, do you wish to move amendment 124?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 124 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. We'll vote. So, all those in favour of amendment 124, please show. Two. And those against. Sorry, Janet? All those for—

Yes.

—124. So, we're three in favour of 124. And against. Three. Again, it's tied. Therefore, in accordance with Standing Orders, I use my vote in the negative, meaning that amendment 124 is not agreed.

Delyth, do you move 125?

Yes, please.

There we are. We move to a vote on—. The question is that amendment 125 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so now we move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 125. Three. All those against 125. Three. So, again, it's tied and I use my casting vote, in accordance with Standing Orders, against amendment 125, which subsequently is not agreed.

I move amendment 7 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 7 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 8 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 8 is therefore carried.

Carolyn, do you wish to move amendment 50?

I do.

There we are. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. There we are. Amendment 50 is therefore agreed.

Carolyn again, do you wish to move amendment 51?

I do.

There we are. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 51 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 9 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. Now, if amendment 9 is agreed, amendment 57 will fall. So, the question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. Therefore, we move to a vote on amendment 9. All those in favour, please show. Six. And all those against. Well, there's nobody against, so, amendment 9 is agreed.

That means that amendment 57 therefore falls. Janet, do you wish to move amendment—? Amendment 57 has fallen, hasn't it?

Amendment 57 was agreed and 9 falls.

If amendment 9 is agreed, amendment 57 falls. Amendment 9 was just carried, six votes to zero, so amendment 57 falls.

I move amendment 10 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections.

Janet, do you wish to move amendment 58?

I do.

There we are. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Object. Okay, we'll move to a vote on amendment 58. All those in favour, please show. Three. And all those against. Three. The vote is tied, so I use my casting vote in the negative, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 58 is not agreed.

I move amendment 11 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 11 is therefore passed.

I move amendment 12 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 12 is therefore passed.

I move amendment 13 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 13 is agreed.

Delyth, do you wish to move amendment 126?

Yes. There we are. The question is that amendment 126 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We'll move to a vote, then. All those in favour of amendment 126 please show. Three. And all those against. Three. The vote is tied, so I use my casting vote against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 126 is not agreed.

Thank you, Janet, and I'm sure you didn't mean to suggest that our scrutiny or pre-appointment scrutiny of the newly appointed chair of NRW was a farce. You can describe the wider process in whichever way you choose, but, obviously, we were clearly undertaking our work diligently as a committee.

No, I actually agree with what I've said, because I came along thinking that I was taking part in an interview and that my views would be taken into account. They weren't.

Okay, fine. Well, you were maybe under somewhat of a misapprehension that it was—. The rules of our role in terms of pre-appointment scrutiny are clear. Your views around how meaningful that is in terms of Government deliberations and considerations is maybe one that others share, but not to cast aspersions on the committee's work, I'm sure. But thank you for your contribution. [Laughter.]

Right, Carolyn.

It's kicking off.

It is, yes.

Could I move amendments 118, 119 and 120, please, and speak to them? These amendments strengthen the role of the Senedd and the appointment panel for non-executive members of the OEGW and the OEGW's first chief executive. This is in accordance with the second option in this committee's recommendation on this topic in our recent report. The first amendment enables a Member of the Senedd to be part of the appointment panel for non-executive roles. The second and third amendments make the revised appointment procedure more workable from a practical perspective. The second amendment excepts the nominated Member of Senedd Cymru from being required to have the specific knowledge and expertise set out for the other panel members, because I would imagine that Senedd Members and the relevant Senedd committee would be likely to nominate a Member with some expertise under environmental law and policy, but this may not be guaranteed, and it's not necessary for this to be demonstrated in the same way as for the independent panel members.

The third amendment ensures that processes around the appointment do not get held up if there is not a timely response to the request for a nomination. The Senedd is therefore given 21 days, not including recess periods et cetera, to nominate a Member. If no nomination is received within that time, the appointment process may continue without the inclusion of a Member of the Senedd. I appreciate the constructive conversations that committee members have had with the Deputy First Minister on this topic of strengthening the Senedd's role in this process, and I hope the Government will be able to support these amendments today.

Diolch, Carolyn. Delyth.

Diolch, Cadeirydd, ac rwyf i'n siarad i welliannau sydd wedi eu gosod yn fy enw i, sef 149, 150, 163 a 154.

So, to speak to amendment 149, firstly, this would ensure that any non-executive member of the OEGW can only be appointed with Senedd approval. This would act as a safeguard to strengthen the body's independence and it would mean that Ministers cannot appoint members alone. It would ensure greater transparency, I would argue, and democratic oversight, not to mention public confidence in the body. I believe this would be a preferable approach compared with amendments 78, 79 and 80. It would, in effect, result in a shared appointment process.

Now, on amendment 150, I would like to thank the Welsh Government for preparing this amendment, for working with me to table it. I really appreciate the constructive approach taken by the Government, taking into account a lot of the recommendations made by the committee. Now, to speak to amendments 150 and 163, they focus on ensuring that the OEGW is properly resourced. Amendment 150 would place a clear duty on Ministers to provide funding that's sufficient. I'd draw Members' attention to the fact that, in evidence, both the Office for Environmental Protection and the Environmental Standards Scotland emphasised how important such a duty is. Natalie Prosser, the CEO of the OEP, explained to us that it ensures ministerial attention on the budget and that committees can hold Ministers to account. In practice, it has helped secure adequate funding. Now, amendment 163, I think, complements this by requiring the OEGW to report in its annual accounts if it has not been properly resourced, and this transparency allows scrutiny by future committees and reduces the risk of political interference with its funding. Taken together, I think that they would work well.

And then finally in this group, amendment 154. This would remove the OEGW from section 6 of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. The OEGW is an oversight body and not a service delivery body, so, including it there, some have argued would be disproportionate. It could potentially distract from its core functions, notwithstanding the points, of course, that were made in the first group by other Members, which, of course, I take into account there. The auditor general confirmed that it is more comparable with bodies like the ombudsman and it couldn't be reasonably expected to set objectives across all well-being goals. Its relationship with the future generations commissioner is already covered through requirements in the Bill to avoid duplication. And I would just emphasise the points that I made in responding to the first debate, that this is not meant, in any way, to lessen the application of the future generations Act, but merely to ensure that its application doesn't have the perverse consequence of, were a future Government to look at it in a more sinister way, detracting from the environmental core objective.

Diolch yn fawr. Do we have any others? Julie, yes, and then Jenny.

Yes. I want to move amendment 117. This amendment is about strengthening the independence of the OEGW, and it makes express provision about the independence of the OEGW from Welsh Ministers by requiring Ministers to have regard to the independence of the OEGW when exercising functions in relation to it. I think that the independence of the body was one of the strongest themes that emerged during Stage 1, and we had lots of expressions of concern that the office would not be independent. So, I think this is an important amendment and I think we probably all agree that independence from the Welsh Government is absolutely crucial for the success of the OEGW. We know that this has got the strong support of the environmental groups, and we also note that Mark Roberts, CEO of Environmental Standards Scotland, called such a duty 'an invaluable safeguard'. So, we hope that the Welsh Government will agree to this amendment.

Thank you, Julie. Jenny, did you want to come in?

I'll start by discussing Janet Finch-Saunders' amendment around who should appoint this office of environmental governance. The pre-appointment hearings are delicate matters. There's no doubt that it is a difficult balance between scrutiny and not undermining the future role of the person who has been selected by the panel as the best person to fit the job. But it is a really important safeguard, because were the appointment panel to make a decision on somebody who simply wasn't able to convince the committee that they had the qualities to carry out that role, then you can use what is a pretty fierce and difficult to wield decision to say, 'We do not support this appointment'. It is a safeguard, and normally it's not necessary, but I think it's an important safeguard, nevertheless.

I think there's an important intellectual argument to be had about whether it should be the Senedd or the Welsh Government who makes this appointment, but I note that it goes beyond the committee's recommendations in your earlier Stage 1 discussions, and therefore I think that you haven't managed to tie this down in your Stage 1 sufficiently to come to an agreement that that is what is needed. And having been involved in the process for appointing senior people in the past, both appointed by the Senedd and by the Government, I think both processes are very rigorous, apply the normal standards you would expect about equal opportunities, as well as rigorously applying the person spec.

I think that Carolyn Thomas's amendments are very helpful, because they enshrine into law that a member of the relevant committee has to be on the appointment panel and they don't need to be an environmental expert. That gives you that political angle that is important. I don't support Janet's amendments, because I don't think you've managed to make the case sufficiently at Stage 1. I think that Carolyn's amendments are important, but, obviously, the most important amendment in this for me is Julie Morgan's amendment about the independence of the office of environmental governance.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you. I call on the Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Cadeirydd. Can I say that that was a very useful discussion around a big batch of amendments, some of which are trying to wrestle with the issue of independence? We agree, by the way, and I've said powerfully before that we really want the OEGW to have independence. But, there are different proposals here in the way that we actually resolve that—different ways to skin the cat. Not that any of us are in favour of skinning cats—I'll make that point straight away. [Laughter.] Different ways to get to the right resolution, perhaps.

Let me first of all turn to the amendments put forward by Janet—quite an extensive range of amendments, 77 to 80, 85 to 104, and 107 to 109. These proposed changes are really substantial and would make the Senedd, rather than Welsh Ministers, responsible for administrating processes around the OEGW, including the appointment of non-executive members of the OEGW and, indeed, the first chief executive, and removing non-executive members, approving remuneration arrangements, and so on. I don't agree with these amendments. I would point out right at the outset that these go beyond the amendments that were put forward by this committee in recommendations 13 and 14. They put the responsibility for the vast majority of functions contained in Schedule 1 on the Senedd rather than on Welsh Ministers. So, it goes above and beyond what you recommended as a committee, for good reason, I have to say as well, to try and get that balance right.

The current approach grants access to civil service recruitment systems and processes, which are very well practised, I have to say, at handling very complex public appointments. In my view, requiring the Senedd to approve the appointment of five to seven non-executive members could actually slow down the appointment process, could slow down Senedd timetables, could be impacted by recess periods as well, and committee schedules, indeed, could create bottlenecks and potentially delay the establishment and the functioning of the OEGW, which would then undermine the timely commencement of the statutory duties. There's a range of reasons why I think the recommendations put forward by the committee were in the right ballpark on this, rather than going with this approach. It's my view that the independence of the OEGW, and I'll come to that in some detail, is better safeguarded through other amendments that have been tabled, a number of which have been referred to, including having duties on the Welsh Ministers to have regard to the need to protect the OEGW's independence, and the amendment to provide for a Senedd Member to sit on the appointment panel and the pre-appointment hearings for key roles. That's a real step forward. What is proposed in other amendments, and what we've proposed in ours, better reflects the committee's recommendations. It mirrors not just existing but well-established appointment processes, such as the process for appointing the Welsh Language Commissioner, indeed, and others.

If I turn to amendment 81 specifically for a moment, which is that Welsh Ministers must consult a committee of the Senedd with the remit for environmental protection before making regulations to change the number of non-exec appointments, I am open to including express provision requiring Welsh Ministers to consult the relevant Senedd committee before making regulations to change the number of non-executive members. If we're going to include such provision, I would be minded to include a requirement to also consult the OEGW and any other persons considered appropriate—so, beyond that. So, whilst I don't agree to the recommendation as it's proposed, I am content to work on bringing forward a Government amendment at Stage 3—this is in relation to amendment 81—that will require the Welsh Ministers to consult the relevant Senedd Committee, the OEGW and any other persons considered appropriate before making regulations to increase the number of non-executive members. So, I wonder, Janet, if you're minded to withdraw amendment 81. I'm very content to work with you and other committee members and bring forward an amendment at Stage 3 that will go beyond what you're proposing, and get it absolutely pitch perfect and right.

On amendment 82, Janet, which would result in staff of the Welsh Government being added to the list of persons disqualified from being a member of the OEGW, the purpose of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Bill is to disqualify members of senior public and/or political offices from being members of the OEGW. This is because there could be a direct conflict of interest in these cases, particularly in relation to organisations that the OEGW is directly overseeing. But in all other circumstances, including members of staff of those organisations, we consider it appropriate and normal for such conflicts of interest to be managed through appropriate administrative procedures. We do not consider that there is a strong rationale to single out members of staff of the Welsh Government. These can be managed effectively and appropriately along with members of staff from other local authorities, NRW or other organisations listed where holders of public office are disqualified. Furthermore, the regulation-making power at paragraph 3(1)(i) will enable the Ministers to make regulations to include other organisations, including their members of staff, on the list of disqualifications, if this is considered necessary in the future. This will enable the Welsh Ministers to maintain a watching brief as to whether more disqualifications are necessary. So, as such, I consider this amendment shouldn't be supported.

On amendments 83 and 84 in Janet's name, well, the Bill as introduced provides that a person may only be appointed as a member of the OEGW for two periods of office. This provision is designed to balance the need for continuity and flexibility within the OEGW’s senior team against what will be a developing policy context and a developing framework, which will benefit, I've got to say, from new insight and new ideas, and being able to refresh that pool. We consider that setting a limit of two periods of up to four years each strikes this balance. Permitting longer tenures risks the organisation actually becoming stagnant, and it could result in the same individuals occupying those same posts continuously. So, that's why, Janet, we wouldn't support this amendment.

On amendment 149 in Delyth's name, many of the points made in response to amendment 77 apply here. Requiring the Senedd to approve the appointment of five to seven non-executive members risks that slowing down substantially of the appointment process. The independence of the appointment process can be better safeguarded through other amendments that have been tabled, including those duties on Welsh Ministers to have regard to the need to protect the OEGW’s independence and the amendment to provide for a Senedd Member to sit on the appointment panel and for pre-appointment hearings for key roles. So, in my view, to come back to that cat again, these other amendments would better balance the recommendations of the committee with the need to ensure the appointments are able to be delivered in good time. This approach would mirror existing and established appointment processes, such as that I referred to earlier on with the Welsh Language Commissioner.

If I turn to amendments 118 and 119 in the name of the committee member Carolyn Thomas, these amendments, indeed, reflect the second part of the CCEI committee report recommendation 14 and, alongside, as the Member introduced these amendments, amendment 120 will provide a role for a nominated Senedd Member in appointing non-executive roles and, indeed, the OEGW’s first chief executive. Amendment 118 strengthens the independence of the appointment process by requiring a Member of the Senedd to be included on that panel, to give recommendations to the Welsh Ministers on appointments, unless the conditions in amendment 120 have not been met. Amendment 119 excepts the nominated Member of Senedd Cymru from being required to have the specific knowledge and expertise of environmental law and policy, et cetera, that is required for other members of the panel. I think that is the right approach, because whilst it's expected that Senedd representatives may have experience of these matters, this cannot be guaranteed. We do not intend creating an unnecessary barrier to a Member of the Senedd from the relevant committee being appointed to this panel, so I'm very happy to support these amendments.

In respect of amendments 105 and 106 in Janet's name, can I refer you to my response to amendments 83 and 84 earlier, which we don't support, and they flow from that?

Amendment 120 I've dealt with already, and that's why we'll be supporting it. It builds on amendments 118 and 119 and provides that the Senedd must nominate that Member within 21 days of receiving a request for nomination, not including recess periods. I think this is a very measured, considered approach to doing it. If no response is provided or the request declined, the appointment process can proceed without the Senedd representative. This ensures the appointment process is not unnecessarily delayed, so I'm happy to support this.

In my name, if I can turn to amendment 41, this amendment allows the OEGW to choose to only have one independent member on the review committee if it so wishes, and you'll find that this is a theme of mine today—'if it so wishes'. It's in response to concerns from certain stakeholders around the number of independent members potentially outweighing those of the OEGW. The review committee is responsible for conducting a review of compliance notices when this is requested by a public authority.

Amendments 42, 43 and 44 in my name respond to the concerns that have been raised around Welsh Ministers' role in the review committee process, and specifically the holding of the list from which the OEGW must select independent members for its review committee. The combined effect of these amendments is that the OEGW will hold the list from which they must appoint an independent member to the review committee, not the Welsh Ministers, and that the OEGW may not include persons on its list unless it considers they have experience of and capability in environmental law and policy, environmental science and/or investigatory and enforcement proceedings. Now, the process of the OEGW appointing independent members from a list held by the Welsh Ministers was intended to enhance the fairness of the review process by providing a degree of separation from the OEGW, who will have made the initial determination, as well as enhancing transparency by providing for this list to be published. However, we’ve reflected on the feedback that we have heard from certain stakeholders, and the committee's views as well, expressed in recommendation 22, that this balance may not be quite right. So, on this basis, we brought forward these amendments to provide that it’s the OEGW that holds and publishes the lists of independent members.

Amendment 110, in Janet's name, is a significant amendment, and I would say it holds a substantial amount of risk, injects a substantial amount of risk and inflexibility into the funding arrangements for the OEGW. We considered the funding source for the OEGW at an early stage, including the potential use of the Welsh consolidated fund. Now, we consulted on this matter as well in the White Paper and concluded there’s a significant benefit to funding the OEGW through Welsh Government budgets. Now, the clearest benefit of this is the flexibility that this provides. Experience has already shown both the OEP and the ESS, the sister organisations, have had highly variable budgets in their formative years, and UK and Scottish Ministers have had to increase and decrease their funding allocations accordingly. Now, I appreciate that funding from the Welsh Government could be seen as less independent, but we are confident that this is not the case in practice, and we note that committee members have tabled other amendments that would much more effectively safeguard independence, in particular provisions that would require Welsh Ministers to have regard to the OEGW's independence and the requirement to provide sufficient funding, which was a piece that came up regularly in your evidence. Now, those are, in my view, more sensible ways to strengthen and safeguard the role of the OEGW without exposing it to unnecessary risks around funding and flexibility on that funding as well. So, I don't agree with these amendments, but I understand why they are being put forward.

On amendment 150, in the name of Delyth Jewell, this amendment indeed reflects committee recommendation No. 15. It places that duty on Welsh Ministers to ensure the OEGW receives such sums as the Welsh Ministers consider sufficient to enable the OEGW to carry out its functions, and clearly, in line with the other amendments that I think put this into a good place, I’m happy to support this amendment being made to the Bill.

On amendment 163, we don't support this amendment introducing a statutory requirement for the OEGW itself to assess whether funding was sufficient, because we don't believe it's necessary. The OEGW already has the discretion to comment on funding given to it—the funding adequacy—using its reporting powers. It can express that opinion quite clearly and quite forcibly. If we actually place a specific duty on the OEGW that tells them they have to comment on the sufficiency of funding, we're in the space again of eroding its independence; it's telling OEGW what it must do. They may not wish to comment on the sufficiency of funding, which this amendment would force them to do, but if they do wish to comment, Delyth, they already have the powers to do so. And alongside those other amendments on sufficiency of funding, I think that's powerful. I consider the approach under amendment 150 to be the appropriate approach, because it places those clear funding duties on Welsh Ministers, to which the OEGW can indeed respond, if it wants to, using the existing powers within the legislation.

In respect of amendment 111, the Bill, in a broad, encompassing and futureproof way, ensures that any Welsh public authority that is subject to environmental law could fall within the scope of the OEGW’s functions. This means that any changes that establish a new public authority, or bring an existing one into the definition of a Welsh public authority, would be captured, as well as new environmental law requirements placed on existing public authorities.

We did consider and we consulted on an alternative approach to list all the public authorities that would fall within scope, but this was considered high risk. It's feasible that there could be public authorities with only one function relating wholly or mainly to environmental law, and whilst it is intended that they be captured, a list-based approach risks these bodies not being included—by omission, by lack of oversight.

Asking the OEGW to do this presents the same risk, as if it doesn’t identify an organisation on its website in accordance with this amendment, but subsequently decides to issue them with a compliance notice, the public authority in question may have grounds for a challenge to that notice if it is not listed. The OEGW must then decide on a case-by-case basis whether a public authority falls within the scope of the definition.

I don't consider that this provision would add clarity. In fact, it could be detrimental to the wider approach within the Bill and could add unnecessary burden and, potentially, restrictions to the OEGW. I'm therefore, for those reasons, unable to support this amendment.

Amendment 117 in the name of Julie Morgan, which I note already has had signalled support from other committee members—. I'm not surprised, because this reflects the committee recommendation 12, and it provides that express provision—and that's critical—about the independence of the OEGW from Ministers. We heard that from stakeholders. We heard what you were hearing as well. This strengthens the independence of the OEGW from the Welsh Government by placing that duty on Ministers to have regard to the need to protect the independence of the OEGW when exercising functions in relation to it. So it's no surprise that we would support the amendment in Julie Morgan's name.

On amendment 33, the effect of this amendment is that if regulations are made under the provision to be inserted by amendment 40, they are to be subject to the Senedd approval procedure. This amendment inserts a provision enabling the Welsh Ministers to make regulations to substitute a different period for the time being specified in the Bill, which, via amendment 39, will initially be a 24-month period. The initial 24-month period is based on a reasonable expectation as to the length of time required to set up a public body of this nature. I know we've discussed this in the committee before. Together, amendments 38, 39 and 40 reflect recommendation 10 of your committee’s report.

On amendment 49 in my name, this consequential amendment will list the OEGW in section 148 of the Government of Wales Act 2006 so that its records will be classed as 'Welsh public records'. This second amendment will provide that the OEGW will be liable to be required to comply with service delivery standards, policy-making standards, operational standards and record keeping standards in respect of the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011. This is particularly necessary in reflection of the OEGW’s public-facing role, and it reflects, indeed, recommendation 42 of this committee.

On amendment 154 in the name of Delyth Jewell, let me state that the OEGW will have a substantive role in assessing and advising on changes to environmental law in Wales. This oversight directly supports the well-being of future generations Act aim of improving social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being. As you mentioned, we rehearsed some of these arguments in, I think, the first group of amendments.

Recognising the OEGW as a public body under the Act ensures that its actions align with sustainable development, and, again, it helps avoid those siloed decision-making issues that we raised earlier. If we exclude the OEGW, it could undermine the integrated governance approach envisaged by the Bill. It will weaken accountability, and risk a more fragmented approach, separating the environmental governance framework from the wider Welsh policy framework. The environmental governance framework cannot operate in isolation from that. The combined framework also strengthens collaboration with other public bodies, and it supports OEGW’s progressive and escalatory enforcement strategy. If we leave OEGW out, it would erode that joined-up, holistic, accountable approach to well-being across Welsh public services.

My apologies for the length of my contribution, but this is the biggest group of amendments.

That's fine.

Amendment 36 in my name is a technical amendment. It's consequential to the amendments to Schedule 4 that insert additional consequential amendments to place requirements on the OEGW under the Government of Wales Act 2006 and the Welsh Language (Wales) Measure 2011.

Amendments 38, 39 and 40 in my name reflect recommendation 10 of the committee’s report, and provide that the OEGW’s substantive functions will come into force no later than 24 months after Royal Assent. It responds to that recommendation 10. However, the Welsh Ministers may make regulations—but they have to do this in full sight—to amend the 24-month period, up to a maximum of 48 months after Royal Assent.

If amendment 33 is accepted, the regulations will be subject to the Senedd approval procedure; so, the time period may only be amended with the approval of the Senedd. So, anybody who wants to come back and adjust that timescale, they're going to have to do it in the full light of this Senedd. I think that's a robust way forward. The Welsh Ministers may want to use this power to specify a longer period, if it appears to them unlikely that the OEGW's substantive functions can be effectively commenced at the end of the initial 24-month period—though I know we all want to see that happening within the 24 months.

Sorry for the extensive response to those amendments, but I hope that explains why we think there are amendments here that are really worth supporting. But I recognise that all the amendments are raised to try and do, in a different way, the same thing.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Cabinet Secretary. I call on Janet to reply to the debate.

I just find it rather fascinating that you choose to support the amendments put forward by members of your own group. I said right at the beginning let's try and keep this non-political.

It's not political. It's—

Well, we'll see. Anyway, after all that, I'm happy to withdraw amendment 81, and let's see if we can work together on it at Stage 3. I'm standing firm on amendment 82. I'm also happy to withdraw amendments 83 and 84, on the pretext that maybe we can work together on that, because I wasn't quite convinced by your arguments on amendments 83 and 84. Let's move to the vote.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. The question is that amendment 78 be agreed to, first of all. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. We'll move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 78, please show. It's in your name, Janet. One in favour. Those against. Three against. Abstentions. We have two. Amendment 78 is not agreed.

Janet, do you move amendment 79?

I do.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 79 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll move to a vote on amendment 79. All those in favour of 79, please show. One. Against. Three. Abstentions. Two. Amendment 79 is not agreed.

Janet, do you move amendment 80?

I do.

The question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we will vote on amendment 80. All those in favour, please show. One. Against. Three. Abstentions. Two. Amendment 80 is therefore not agreed.

You've suggested, Janet, that you don't wish to move amendment 81.

No. I'll withdraw.

We'll move on. Janet, do you wish to move amendment 82?

I do.

The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 82, please show. Three. Those against. Three. That's a tied vote, meaning that, in accordance with Standing Orders, I vote in the negative, against amendment 82, meaning that amendment 82 is not agreed.

Janet, you've also suggested that you do not wish to move amendment 83.

Correct. I'll withdraw.

And likewise amendment 84.

Correct.

I propose that amendments 85 to 100, which appear consecutively on the marshalled list, are disposed of en bloc, given their nature. Does any Member object to them being grouped in that way? No. Thank you. Janet, do you move amendments 85 to 100 en bloc?

I do.

The question is that amendments 85 to 100 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We will move to a vote on amendments 85 to 100. All those in favour please show. One. And all those against. Three. And any abstentions. Two. That means that amendments 85 to 100 are not agreed.

Janet, do you move amendment 101?

I do.

The question is that amendment 101 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We will vote on amendment 101. All those in favour please show. One. All those against. Five. Diolch yn fawr. Amendment 101 is not agreed.

Delyth, do you move amendment 149?

No, I'll withdraw that, please.

Janet, do you move amendment 102?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 102 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. We'll vote on amendment 102. All those in favour please show. Three. All those against. Three. The vote is tied, so I vote in the negative, according to Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 102 is not agreed.

Janet, do you move amendment 103?

I do.

The question is that amendment 103 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 103 please show. Three. And all those against. Three. Again, it's tied, meaning that I use my casting vote against amendment 103, which consequently falls.

Janet, do you move amendment 104?

I do.

If amendment 104 is agreed, then amendments 118, 119 and 120 all fall. The question is that amendment 104 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We will vote on amendment 104. All those in favour please show. One. All those against. Five. Amendment 104 is therefore not agreed.

Carolyn, do you move amendment 118?

I do.

If amendment 118 is not agreed, then amendments 119 and 120 fall. The question is that amendment 118 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Janet objects. We will move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 118 please show. Five. And against. One. So, amendment 118 is agreed.

Carolyn, do you move amendment 119?

I do.

The question is that amendment 119 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. We will vote. All those in favour of amendment 119 please show. Six. Amendment 119 is carried.

Janet, do you move amendment 105?

I do.

The question is that amendment 105 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We will vote on amendment 105. All those in favour please show. One. All those against. Five. Amendment 105 is therefore not agreed.

Janet, do you move amendment 106?

The question is that amendment 106 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. We will vote on amendment 106. All those in favour of that amendment please show. One. All those against. Five. Amendment 106 is not agreed.

Carolyn, do you move amendment 120?

I do.

The question is that amendment 120 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We'll vote on amendment 120. All those in favour please show. Five. And against. One. Amendment 120 is agreed.

Janet, do you move amendment 107?

I do.

The question is that amendment 107 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. We will vote on amendment 107. All those in favour please show. Three. All those against. Three. It's tied, so according to Standing Orders, I use my casting vote in the negative against amendment 107, which subsequently is not agreed.

Janet, do you move amendment 108?

I do.

The question is that amendment 108 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. We will vote. All those in favour of amendment 108 please show. Three. All those against. Three. It's tied again, so I'll use my casting vote once more in the negative, against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 108 is not agreed.

Janet, do you move amendment 109?

I do.

The question is that amendment 109 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. We will vote, then. All those in favour of amendment 109, please show. Three. All those against. Three. The vote is tied, so I use my casting vote against amendment 109, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that it falls.

I move amendment 41 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. So, the question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, we'll vote on amendment 40—[Interruption.] 41, apologies. All those in favour of amendment 41, please show. Five. All those against. One. Amendment 41 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 42 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 42 is therefore agreed.

I move amendment 43 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 43 is agreed.

I move amendment 44 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 44 is therefore agreed.

Janet, do you wish to move amendment 110?

I do.

There we are. If amendment 110 is agreed, then amendment 150 falls. So, the question is that amendment 110 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. We will have a vote, therefore, on amendment 110. All those in favour, please show. One. All those against. Five. Amendment 110 is not agreed.

Delyth, do you wish to move amendment 150?

I would be delighted to.

There we are. The question is that amendment 150 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Okay, there's an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 150, please show. Five. And against. One. Meaning that amendment 150 is agreed.

Delyth, do you wish to move amendment 163?

No, I won't.

There we are. Okay. That's not moved.

Janet, do you wish to move amendment 111?

Yes, please.

There we are. The question is that amendment 111 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. All those in favour of amendment 111, please show. Three. All those against. Three. I therefore use my casting vote in accordance with Standing Orders against amendment 111, which subsequently falls.

Julie, do you wish to move amendment 117?

I do.

There we are. The question is that amendment 117 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 117 is agreed.

Yes. I move my amendments 59 and 112. Amendment 59 severs the link to the environmental objective in connection with the OEGW's purpose and replaces it with a requirement to contribute towards the attainment of a high level of environmental protection, an improvement of the environment and ensuring the effectiveness of environmental law. The wording that I have outlined was highlighted by the Wales Environmental Link, and is similar to suggestions made by the Green Alliance and RSPB Cymru. My hope is that the new wording provides greater clarity than what the Welsh Government have included in the Bill. That change is needed is backed also by the comment from Professor Lynda Warren that the OEGW's general purpose is too broad.

There we are. Thank you, Janet. Rhys.

Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. I wish to speak on amendments 157 and 161, and place on the record my thanks to my friend Janet Finch-Saunders for being willing to move my amendments and to speak on my amendments in group 8 and in group 13, as I'm unable to be with you this afternoon, and I'm grateful to the committee for being willing to accommodate that.

Both amendments 157 and 161 relate to the Aarhus convention and follow on from correspondence I've received from Friends of the Earth. The amendments are simple in nature and suggest saying that the OEGW must exercise its functions with regard to the Aarhus convention. Now, some of you might wonder what does that exactly mean. The subject of the convention goes to the heart of the relationship between people and government. The convention is not only an environmental agreement, it's also a convention about government accountability, transparency and responsiveness. It guarantees three key rights when it comes to environmental issues, and these rights are something we often hear about from our constituents. Firstly, the right of access to information. We had an example in the Petitions Committee on Monday about frustrations about a lack of access to information. That guarantees the public the right to receive environmental information held by public authorities. The second, and this is another huge issue with our constituents, is public participation. They don't feel that they're involved in decision making. So, that refers to the right of the public to participate in environmental decision making. And the third is access to justice, so gives the public a right to review, by a court or another independent body, the authority in respect to access to information, to public participation and also environmental law in general.

Earlier this year, a case was brought by Friends of the Earth to the compliance committee of the Aarhus convention. Now, it found that the UK had failed to ensure proper public participation when drafting post-Brexit legislation. Now, it also found the UK lacked a consistent system for consulting citizens on new laws with significant environmental implications in general. The UK refused, however, to endorse the findings. Now, this is a conflicting message, because it recently said that it was willing to uphold its obligations under the convention. So, I can't see how the two marry together. And it also said that it remains committed to the Aarhus convention. So, in terms of the Welsh Government and this Senedd, I think, by accepting my amendments, we send a clear message today that we are committed to the important Aarhus convention, so I'd ask you all to support the amendments. Diolch yn fawr iawn.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Rhys. Okay, any other Members wishing to speak? There we are. I call on the Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you very much, Chair. First of all, can I say I do understand the spirit and the intention—the spirit behind these amendments and the intention behind them as well? But I'll explain why I think there are more appropriate ways forward on both of these sets of amendments here in the names of Janet and Rhys as well.

If I turn to amendment 59, first of all, the Bill as we've currently got it, as introduced, links the general purpose of the OEGW to the environmental objective set out in section 1, and that environmental objective is, it's important to state, the attainment of a high level of environmental protection and an improvement of the environment. And the objective also recognises connected outcomes that can be achieved through a level of environmental protection and an improved environment and which are unique to the policy and the legal framework in Wales, including the well-being goals, and hence it places particular focus on those areas.

So, in this way, it's my view that the environmental objective complements and supports the work of the OEGW and, importantly, it embeds it directly into the framework in Wales. This echoes previous discussions that we've had as well. The effect of the amendment, this amendment, as drafted, would be to lose the express link between the OEGW's duties and the matters listed in paragraphs (a) to (d) of section 1(1). So, on this basis, we can't agree with this amendment. We consider it right that the OEGW carries out its oversight in the context of the uniquely Welsh framework.

Furthermore, I do not agree with the way in which the amendment emphasises OEGW's role in respect of ensuring the effectiveness of environmental law over its other equally important roles—so, for example, its roles in things such as non-compliance. It needs to be able to make its decision on where it puts the emphasis on these, and it has various roles there.

Amendment 112, Janet, in your name—this amendment is consequential, of course, to amendment 59, which changes the general purpose of the OEGW. So, for the same reason as outlined, I can't give my support to that amendment.

If I turn to the issues on the Aarhus convention, and those that are picked up in your amendments 157 and 161, I'll try and explain why we don't support these amendments, because we don't think it's appropriate to require OEGW to exercise its functions in accordance with the Aarhus convention, respected as it is, long and enduring as it is. The Aarhus convention is an international treaty ratified by UK Government. It sets out broad principles rather than precise statutory duties. Now, as such, requiring the OEGW to exercise its functions in accordance with the Aarhus convention could actually open the door not to clarity, but to substantial interpretation disputes, and potential challenges to that as well. It opens the door to that.

Furthermore, the OEGW’s remit is to oversee devolved provisions in areas that are wholly or mainly related to environmental law. The Aarhus obligations are more wide-ranging. They often require systemic measures—for example, as you mentioned, access to courts—beyond the OEGW’s powers and resources. If we impose this duty, it could create unrealistic expectations of the OEGW. But monitoring compliance with Aarhus is already handled at a UK level, and, of course, by the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe compliance committee.

And amendment 161 is consequential on amendment 157. I would say as well, though—and I suspect that we'll come to these in other groups—that there are other ways in which citizens are empowered within this legislation to engage with, and be consulted by, the OEGW. We touched on a couple of them earlier on, in the earlier groups, but we'll come to them in later groups as well. So, there are other ways in which that citizen voice can be ensured, and, I would say as well, in an escalatory approach, up to and including the OEGW bringing judicial reviews.

So, that is already there within the legislation, and if it requires me as the Minister to clarify that subsequently, in other groups, where that can be done, I will more than happily do that. Hence why—. I do understand the spirit and intention behind these, but Welsh Government will not be supporting these amendments.

Diolch. Thank you. So, I call on Janet, then, to reply to the debate.

Let's move to the vote.

Let's move to the vote. Okay, there we are. So, the question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. Therefore, all those in favour of amendment 59, please show. We have three against, three in favour. The vote is tied. So, in accordance with Standing Orders, I use my vote in the negative, meaning that amendment 59 is not agreed.

Janet Finch-Saunders, do you move amendment 157 in the name of Rhys ab Owen?

I do.

There we are. If amendment 157 is not agreed, then amendment 161 falls. So, the question is that amendment 57 be agreed to. Does any Member object?

157, yes?

Sorry, 157. So, if amendment 157 is not agreed, amendment 161 falls. So, the question is that amendment 157 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. Therefore, we move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 157, please show. That's three. All those against. Three. It's tied. I use my casting vote then, in accordance with Standing Orders, against amendment 157, meaning that amendment 161 falls.

Janet, do you wish to move amendment 112?

Yes, please.

There we are. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. We will vote, therefore, on amendment 112. All those in favour, please show. Three. All those against. Three. It's tied, so I use my casting vote against amendment 112, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 112 is not agreed.

Diolch yn fawr, Janet. Delyth

Diolch. Byddaf i'n siarad i'r gwelliannau yn fy enw i yn y grŵp yma, sef 151, 153 ac 148.

Amendment 151 would require the OEGW to set out its strategy—that is, how it intends to work with the Climate Change Committee, the CCC. This ensures the OEGW co-ordinates with this oversight body, and while the OEGW would liaise with a range of organisations, of course, this amendment would give clarity and would strengthen accountability around this important relationship—well, I'd say 'crucial' relationship.

Amendment 148 simply defines the CCC on the face of the Bill to make it clear exactly which body is being referred to, and to support transparency.

Amendment 153 would give the OEGW the power to review its strategy at any time. As things stand, the Bill only requires a review every four years. I think that this would be an amendment that would add flexibility. It's important, because it would allow the body, the OEGW, to respond to changing circumstances, without waiting for the four-year cycle, and that flexibility would help the OEGW futureproof its work and focus its resources on the areas of greater strategic need.

Diolch yn fawr. Okay. I don't have any further speakers, so I'll invite the Cabinet Secretary—. Oh, you—

I'm supposed to be moving my amendments.

The Cabinet Secretary is responding first—

And then I'll come back to these. All right.

—and then you're closing the debate, and then we go to a vote. So, Cabinet Secretary.

No, no—about moving amendments 60 and 61.

That's the next group.

We haven't got to that group yet.

I beg your pardon. Sorry.

Right, let's stick to one group at a time. [Laughter.] Cabinet Secretary.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. So, first of all, if I can turn to amendment 113, in Janet's name, which deals with issues of cross-border considerations, I just want to say, in terms of amendments and legal drafting, it's not clear what is meant by 'cross-border considerations' in this amendment, so it's very difficult to offer this my support. But in any event, the amendment isn't necessary. The OEGW must exercise its functions for the general purpose of contributing to the environmental objective. It must set out in its strategy how it intends to exercise its functions, and exercise those functions accordingly, and, as already noted, this would include areas of common or cross-border concerns, where these applied in relation to Wales. So, that ability is already there within the legislation.

On amendments 114 and 115, relating to the Drinking Water Inspectorate and Ofwat, I consider—I've got to be clear—that there is very limited overlap between the functions of the OEGW and the Drinking Water Inspectorate and Ofwat, specifically, in terms of this amendment. It's therefore unnecessary to include an express requirement for the OEGW strategy to detail how the OEGW will avoid overlapping functions with these particular bodies. However, I have agreed with the principle of broadening the scope of this provision as introduced, by placing a requirement on the OEGW to set out how it will exercise its functions in such a way that it avoids overlap with functions of any other person—the legal terminology of 'person'—whose functions it appears to OEGW to be capable of overlapping with its own. So, this will be based—and I come back to this point again; it's going to be my common theme—on the independent expertise, professional judgment and assessment of the OEGW itself making those determinations, where it sees the overlap and where it has to then respond to it. This is actually there within amendment 45.

In amendment 151, in Delyth's name, this is quite an interesting one, because it refers to how the OEGW sets out in its strategy how it intends to avoid any overlapping functions. This does relate to the committee's recommendation 60. So, you'll note that amendment 45, which I just touched on, requires the OEGW's strategy to set out how it intends to avoid overlap with any person—legal terminology—whose functions appear to the OEGW to be capable of overlapping with its own functions. This could include the UK Climate Change Committee. So, at present, I'm very content that amendment 45 is sufficient for the OEGW to cover in its strategy any overlap with the UK Climate Change Committee. That's why I won't be supporting this amendment. However, I will continue to consider, because this is different from the previous amendment, where it's hard to see—. It's a very limited overlap, if anything. But, in terms of the Climate Change Committee, I will continue to consider in advance of Stage 3 whether such an express provision is appropriate in relation specifically to the UK Climate Change Committee. I think there's a case there to be made, but we have to think it through.

If I turn to amendment 45, in my own name, the purpose of this amendment is, as I've just described, to require the OEGW to set out in the strategy how it intends to avoid overlap with any persons whose functions appear to be capable of overlapping with the OEGW's functions. But it's for them to determine that, and I think that's important. The effect of this is to broaden the current requirement in the Bill beyond just the bodies listed in paragraph 1(1)(e) of Schedule 2 to require the OEGW to include in its strategy how it will avoid that overlap. This is intended to reflect the principle that's set out in this committee's recommendation 16 by making it clear that the OEGW's strategy must set out how it intends to avoid overlap beyond those who are listed in the Schedule.

On amendment 116, Janet, as with my response to amendment 58, I just have significant reservations around an amendment requiring the OEGW to consult members of the public, because of the uncertainty in its scope. It isn't clear, for example, how it would be possible to determine exactly what such a duty requires and when the duty has been discharged. So, I don't consider that further amendment to the Bill in this way is needed or appropriate. The approach has not been taken in other similar Acts, and the extent to which—and here's my running theme again—the OEGW consults on their strategy should be a matter for them as an independent body, albeit guided by the same principles on all public bodies when carrying out their functions. But let us give them the power to decide when they need to go out and consult there.

On amendment 153, in Delyth's name, as I explained in my response to recommendation 19 of the committee's report, the effect of this amendment is already provided by paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 2, which requires the OEGW to review its strategy before the end of the period of four years, beginning with the day it is first published, and subsequently before the end of each period of four years, beginning with the day the previous review is concluded. The OEGW will be empowered to review its strategy at any point within the four-year time frame, and, after this review, the four-year clock starts again. But, just to repeat, at any point within that four-year time frame, the OEGW has the discretion to review the strategy at any point within that four-year timescale. It comes back to my point: let's give it the powers to get on and decide what's right within its expertise. So, I don't think that this amendment adds anything further.

On amendment 148, Delyth, this is consequential to the substantive amendment to include the UK Committee on Climate Change in the list of bodies that I've referred to, so my comments from my previous remarks on that substantive amendment stand.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Janet, do you wish to reply?

Yes. Thanks for that, climate Secretary. As regards 116 in particular, I feel really strongly on this, because I think, by not accepting this amendment, we're undermining once again the voice of the public. The OEGW will be a significantly larger office than my own office, for instance, and yet, on my portfolio responsibilities in particular, I’m able to engage with the public in Wales. So, I find it a bit worrying that it seems to be an onerous task for this new body being set up, at great expense, again, to the taxpayer, that it’s not considered that it is within their remit to engage with the public. I find that really disappointing. So, let’s just go—.

Okay. Thank you, Janet. The question is that amendment 113 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we'll vote on amendment 113. All those in favour, please show. Three. All those against. Three. It's tied, so I use my casting vote, according to Standing Orders, against amendment 113, meaning that it falls.

Janet, would you wish to move amendment 114?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 114 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We will vote on amendment 114. All those in favour, please show. One. All those against. Three. Any abstentions? Two. There we are. So, amendment 114 is not agreed.

Delyth, do you wish to move amendment 151?

I would like to, please.

There we are. If amendment 151 is not agreed, then amendment 148 falls. So, the question is that amendment 151 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 151, please show. Three. All those against. Three. It's tied. I therefore cast my vote in the negative, according to Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 151 is not agreed and amendment 148, therefore, falls.

I move amendment 45 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 45 is therefore agreed.

Janet, do you wish to move 115?

Yes, please.

The question is that amendment 115 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, we'll vote on 115. All those in favour of amendment 115, please show. One. All those against. Three. Abstentions. Two. There we are. Amendment 115 is therefore not agreed.

Just for Members' information, I will try to dispose of, if we can, two further groups before we break for lunch. I think that probably makes sense, doesn't it?

Diolch yn fawr. Janet.

Thank you. I move my amendments, 60 and 61. These amendments require the OEGW to monitor biodiversity targets set under the new biodiversity target setting regime in Part 3 of the Bill, and section 6 plans prepared and published by the Welsh Ministers under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. Although the Bill enables the OEGW to monitor and report progress towards delivery of targets, it is not required to do so. So, this was a concern raised with me by many contributors, members of the public and NGOs, and one that this committee shared. Strong evidence in support of the amendment is clear when looking at what's happening in England, Northern Ireland and Scotland. The OEP is required to monitor and report on progress towards environmental targets for England and Northern Ireland, including biodiversity targets. If the Scottish Bill as drafted becomes law, ESS will evaluate progress towards Scotland's biodiversity targets. I will also be supporting the other amendments in this group.

Diolch, Janet. I don't have any other speakers, so I'll call the Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you very much, Chair. First of all, again, I understand the spirit in which these amendments are put there, but I'm going to explain why my worries around these are actually to do with fettering the discretion and the independence of the OEGW and its expertise within that body. But I do get the point that's been raised repeatedly in several groups of these amendments about guarding against the sinister motives of future Governments, and I do get that very clearly.

So, let me try and explain my thinking on this. First of all, in terms of Delyth's amendment 152, this would place a requirement on OEGW to set out in a strategy how it intends to monitor and investigate breaches of environmental law relating to contaminated land, and I do recognise, Delyth, the many exchanges we've had around this issue and the importance of this issue. But as with amendments 60 and 127 and 128, I consider that mandating the specific elements of environmental law that the OEGW must oversee actually undermines its own independence and its discretion; it's counterintuitive, actually, for an independent body of experts. They may well choose to focus relentlessly on this, but let us give them the ability to decide that that's one of their priorities to set on.

I understand the spirit and the intent of this, but let us make it for the OEGW to decide what it will monitor, what it will investigate, and breaches relating to contaminated land already clearly fall within the scope of the OEGW. So, they can, Delyth, if they choose to, in their independence, with that body of expertise, say that is a priority, if they so want. But let's not have us tell them that that is the only one, and fetter them in any way.

But it is also notable that stakeholders have already raised concerns around Schedule 2 being overly prescriptive, and specifying additional requirements could actually exacerbate that view, that we are trying to determine in advance of the establishment of the OEGW exactly what their priorities will be.

Now, in terms of amendment 60, I get the spirit of what's being put here, but on amendment 60 and 61, similar to amendment 152, amendments 60 and 61 together require the OEGW to monitor and report again on a specific area of environmental law. In this case it's referring to progress to achieve the targets set in accordance with amendments to be made by Part 3 of the Bill, and I note that this reflects a part of the committee's own report.

When I responded to that report, I explained that I just don't consider it appropriate to set out specific elements of environmental law that the OEGW must oversee, as, again, I consider that this undermines its independence and its discretion. Evidence from stakeholders, including the OEP, has been clear and consistent that the ability of the OEGW to focus on areas that it considers a priority is paramount. Indeed, in her evidence to this committee, Dame Glenys Stacey, chair of the OEP, said, and I quote,

'I wouldn't want us to be told by Government that some targets are more important than others',

and in my view, this is what's proposed within this amendment.

But I understand the spirit of it again, and the issue it's highlighting, but let us give that independence to the OEGW. It's already clear from the Bill, and from explanatory materials, that the OEGW can use its independent expertise to determine which targets to monitor, and to what extent. So, on this basis, whilst understanding the spirit, I do not consider this amendment should be supported.

And if I can turn then briefly to amendments 127 and 128 in Delyth's name, as with the other amendments in this group, it's the same argument: let us not risk undermining the independence and discretion of the OEGW. This is just counterintuitive for what we're all trying to establish, which is an independent body. It is already clear from the Bill and the explanatory materials that the OEGW can use its independent expertise to determine what it targets, what it monitors, and to what extent.

Diolch yn fawr. Delyth to reply to the debate.

Diolch. Only to say that on amendment 152, I do appreciate the points, of course, that the Cabinet Secretary is making. This was an amendment tabled to be probing, because I appreciate that this is, of course, something that would be within the remit of the OEGW. I wanted us to have this debate to—not to reassess, to re-say, I suppose. I can't think of the word. To say again.

Reassert.

Reassert, thank you. My gosh, my brain wasn't working. To reassert—thank you—how important tackling the issue of contaminated land is. So, I'm happy not to push 152 to a vote. With the other amendments in the group, I would still like to, but with 152, I'm happy to withdraw it.

Fine. Are committee content, therefore, given that it has been moved, for amendment 152 to be withdrawn? Yes, there we are. Okay, amendment 152 is therefore withdrawn.

There we are. Well, there'll be an opportunity to hear that in a minute. Janet.

I'm happy to speak on behalf of Rhys ab Owen, my colleague. So, even the Bill, unamended, requires as a general principle for the OEGW—and I'm speaking to amendments 158, 159 and 160. Key opportunities have been missed to help guarantee that.

My amendments—Rhys's amendments—would require any reports in connection with an investigation undertaken by the OEGW to be published as soon as reasonably practicable. Bearing in mind GDPR, I have made the requirements subject to section 25, so that the OEGW will not be forced by the provision to breach confidentiality rules.

At the heart of these amendments is the wish for the new body to be at least as transparent as the Office of Environmental Protection. There is nothing that annoys residents more than the thought of England doing something better than Wales. So, let this be a warning. I've taken time to peruse the OEP website and can see that they publish regular reports detailing the complaints they are handling. The added benefit of this is that it reduces the need for others to submit complaints about an issue that is already being investigated. If they can do it in England and Northern Ireland, we can do it even better here. So, I hope that you will all support Rhys and Wales today. Diolch.

Thank you, Janet. Jenny.

I think we're in danger of micromanaging the office of environmental protection, because there are sometimes reasons why you don't want to rush into publishing something, and we have to bear in mind that, sometimes, people who raise environmental concerns are then the subject of adverse publicity and comment, and we don't want people to be prevented from sharing their concerns due to feeling that they're going to be in the public eye. There may be good reasons for that. It might be their landlord that they're complaining against, or something like that.

So, once again, I think the office is going to need to set their own timetable and ensure that the way in which they handle public representation doesn't, if you like, disable them. Because we're all aware of people who get the answer they don't want and then they keep going. So, I think there have to be mechanisms to both ensure that they are hearing about areas of concern, but it not being abused in order to cripple the work of the office.

Diolch yn fawr. Cabinet Secretary.

Thank you very much, Chair. It's a good discussion again. I think one of the things that's coming out of some of these discussions and groups of amendments is the areas that Members, either individually or collectively, would want the OEGW to turn its attention to. But I keep coming back to the point—. That's good, that's good, and they're probably going to hear it when this is established because they'll go back over this. But what we don't want to do is fetter their discretion and their independence to make those choices based on what they are hearing. But let me just deal with some of the—. So, we don't want to micromanage, you're absolutely right. But actually flagging those areas that are of high concern, whether it is on things such as contaminated land or water quality and so on, is a good thing to be putting on record now.

But let me come to my response to these various amendments. Amendment 164, which is consequential to amendment 162, removes requirements on the OECW to set out in its strategy how it intends to enable persons to make representations and manage representations. This is now dealt with under the new section, the new document proposed in amendment 162.

I'm going to come to my amendment 14. Thanks to my colleague for bringing me the detail of this. I wanted to see the full detail of it here as well, which I'll come to in a moment. Amendments 46, 47 and 48 in my name are amendments made in consequence of the substantive amendment on representations made at amendment 14. That goes to the heart of some of the comments that have been made, so let me go straight to that.

In line with my response to the CCEI committee's recommendation 21, this amendment inserts a new section to impose a requirement on OEGW to publish a document setting out how representations will be made to it relating to compliance, et cetera, with environmental law. The document must also set out the OEGW's policy on keeping those persons who've made representations informed about its response and any actions taken. And if you look at that amendment 14, it's publishing the document; setting out the procedure by which the representations may be made on public authorities' compliance with environmental law; how that environmental law is implemented and applied; the effectiveness of environmental law; and also setting out the OEGW's policy on keeping those persons informed, et cetera, and the actions that have been taken. Now, that's quite powerful. It deals with the committee's recommendation 21 and some of the matters being discussed in this batch of amendments.

On Delyth's amendment 129, I'm very glad you've raised the issue here specifically around water quality. It's another one of those areas that it may well be that the OEGW will want to turn its attention to. But as with amendment 127, it's just not our intention to prescribe the elements, to micromanage, in effect, the areas of environmental law on which the OEGW should focus. We want the OEGW to use its discretion and independent expertise to judge what's a priority or what isn't a priority in line with its functions and to contribute to the environmental objective.

Amendment 14 in my name, I've dealt with. On amendment 162, I think I can helpfully clarify here how this will actually work in terms of making representations. I refer you to amendment 14 there. The amendment that you put forward provides that any person may make representations to the OEGW in relation to matters that they might investigate under section 15. But, as I've explained, members of the public already have a right to make representations to the OEGW. We are not seeking to constrain this in any form, as amendment 14 makes very clear. It's in contrast, by the way, to the approach taken in the Environment Act 2021. On the point you made, Janet, about, 'Let's make this really good and better in Wales', under the Environment Act 2021, complaints can only be made where the public believe there has been a failure to comply with environmental law. This is wider ranging.

Just to make clear, there's no point in giving members of the public powers or rights through amendments that they already have. It's there. There's nothing stopping individuals from making representations to the OEGW at any point. That amendment 14 is designed to provide that clarity about citizens' access to environmental justice and what to expect when submitting a representation, by requiring the OEGW, in the document that they'll have, to set out the process of how they make representations, how it'll keep people informed, and the actions they're taking. This gives real clarity and transparency, without, Delyth, duplicating the rights that already exist.

In response to the amendments moved by Janet not in a committee member's name but another Member of the Senedd's name, I don't consider it necessary or desirable even for pressure to be exerted on the OEGW to publish reports on its investigations, unless they consider it is reasonable and right to do so. Our overall approach in this legislation reflects an escalatory approach to enforcement. It opens the door very early on for co-operation and collaboration, to resolve environmental concerns before they escalate. There can be very good reasons why the OEGW would choose not to publish a report on an ongoing investigation, unless they're satisfied it's in the public interest to do so, especially if it is working through an appropriate resolution to concerns without resorting to those formal mechanisms.

If we require the OEGW to publish reports on its investigations in this way, it could force us to a point where we have premature conclusions being reached, which could reduce the chances of very swift and effective resolution of a matter in different ways. It may, in effect, force the OEGW into formal mechanisms where this could be avoided and swifter resolution is delivered. Paragraph 1(3)(e) of Schedule 2 already requires the OEGW to set out in its strategy how the OEGW intends to publish information relating to investigations, and this is a more appropriate approach that makes it a matter for the OEGW's professional and expert judgment. Those are the reasons why we wouldn't support that amendment.

In respect of amendments 159 and 160, as I've mentioned, the Bill as introduced provides for the OEGW to set out its strategy and its policy on publishing information relating to representations. I've tabled further provision through amendment 14, which I refer Members to. Including an express requirement to publish a record of representations in the manner suggested by this amendment could be detrimental to the overall effective handling of representations. I can give the committee a clear example. Whilst I note there's a caveat within the amendment around complying with data protection legislation, the fact that such a register exists and is publicly accessible could lead to hesitancy from individuals and organisations who want to, for example, provide information confidentially. I consider the decision to take this approach has to be one for the OEGW. Its powers, by the way, do not provide any barriers to doing so, if it wished. But let's put it into their hands. On this basis, that's why I wouldn't support this amendment.

Diolch yn fawr. Delyth to respond.

Diolch, Gadeirydd. First, on the points that Janet was making on behalf of Rhys, it's difficult to disagree with those when we're called on not just to support the amendments but indeed Wales. I do support the amendments that Rhys has tabled and that Janet has moved—diolch.

Amendment 129 was meant as a probing amendment, in the same way as the amendment about contaminated land, so I'm happy not to push amendment 129 to a vote. I'm happy that we've had that debate to reassert—now I remember the word—the importance of that area.

On amendments 164 and 162, I do appreciate the points that Jenny was making about potentially exposing members of the public to scrutiny, and, like the Deputy First Minister said, about how it could lead to hesitancy from members of the public. Jenny has also talked about the need to guard against undertaking this in bad faith—people abusing the process. Evidently, I support amendment 14 that the Deputy First Minister has tabled, and I appreciate the points that the Deputy First Minister made about amendment 14.

It does still, though, amendment 14, set out the process, which again I welcome, without setting out the right itself. The committee had felt that the right itself should be made more explicit. We'd said that it was hidden in the Schedules. I appreciate they're not going to pass. I will still push them to vote because I feel that having that right on the face of the Bill would be important, but I understand that, before Stage 3, perhaps, I'll need to look again if there's another way of doing this that would not lead to the unintended consequences that Jenny and the Deputy First Minister have set out. Diolch.

There we are.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. If amendment 164 is agreed, amendments 46, 47 and 48 will fall. The question is that amendment 164 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 164, please show. Two. All those against. Three. Do we have an abstention? No abstention. Amendment 164 falls.

I move amendment 46 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 46 is, therefore, agreed.

The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. That means that amendment 47 is agreed.

I move amendment 48 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 48 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. All those in favour of amendment 48, please show. Five. All those against. One. That means amendment 48 is agreed.

Janet, do you move amendment 116?

Yes.

The question is that amendment 116 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. We'll go to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 116, please show. Three. All those against. Three. That vote is tied, so I use my casting vote in the negative against amendment 116 according to Standing Orders, meaning that it is not agreed.

Delyth, do you move amendment 153?

I believe that I do. I'm trying to remember which one it was, but, yes.

The question is that amendment 153 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. All those in favour of amendment 153, please show. Two. All those against. Three. Any abstentions? One abstention. Amendment 153 is not agreed.

Janet, do you move amendment 60?

I do.

If amendment 60 is not agreed, then amendment 61 falls. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed. Does any member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll vote on amendment 60. All those in favour, please show. Three. All those against. Three. It's a tied vote, so I vote in the negative against amendment 60 in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 60 is not agreed and, subsequently, amendment 61 falls.

I call on Delyth to move amendment 127.

I move it, please.

If amendment 127 is not agreed, then amendment 128 falls. So, the question is that amendment 127 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we have a vote on amendment 127. All those in favour, please show. Two. All those against. Three. Any abstentions? No abstentions, meaning that amendment 127 is not agreed, also meaning that amendment 128 falls.

Delyth, do you wish to move amendment 129?

No.

No, you don't. You did indicate earlier. Thank you.

I move amendment 14 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 14 is, therefore, agreed.

Delyth, do you move amendment 162?

I do, please, yes.

The question is that amendment 162 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we will vote on amendment 162. All those in favour please show. Two. All of those against. Three. Abstentions? No abstentions. That means that amendment 162 is not agreed.

Janet, do you move amendment 158 in the name of Rhys ab Owen?