So, they're not being. The point of this Bill is that we know that we have data gaps all over Wales—that's absolutely the point. So, we might have some data on ammonia, but it won't be sufficient and it won't be nuanced, and so on. And we know that, for example, from the nutrient management boards of our various rivers that we've got ammonia in various rivers, but it's very different, depending on the river, for all kinds of obvious reasons. So, this Bill is giving the Government the power to collect the data for Wales—because it's UK at the moment as well, lots of this—and for us to be able to nuance it. So, ammonia will be very different in different parts of Wales, depending on what's going on; it will be different in, I don't know, the Wye than it is in the Cleddau, for example—I know it is, because I know what the river nutrients look like.
So, what we're trying to do in this Bill is give ourselves the power and the ability to collect the data so that we can set realistic, stretchable targets for Wales. And I've discussed at great length with all of you, I know, the very important point that we set an achievable, stretching target. Because we know that, in the past, we've set targets that just could not be achieved, and everybody just throws their hands up, and says, 'Oh, that can't be done', and that doesn't get us anywhere. So, we also want—. The Bill gives us the power to continue to set those targets as more data becomes available, and also, frankly, as various organisations around the world change their minds about what suitable levels of various pollutants are. We know that they've changed quite substantially very recently.
So, I've got no problem—. We're going to collect the data for ammonia, and a whole range of other things—that's the whole point of the Bill. The issue, I think, Janet, isn't that we wouldn't set a target for ammonia—we absolutely will; it's whether we're under a duty to set the target and in what timescale. So, at the moment, we're giving ourselves a duty to set a target for PM2.5 only, and the power to set the targets for everything else. So, that's where we are at the moment. So, we obviously intend to use that. The issue is, if you want to put us under a duty to do that—and I absolutely understand why the committee would want to do that; I'm not arguing against it—then, again, what we want is a practical application in the Bill of how that would work.
So, I can't set a target for ammonia tomorrow—I have no idea what that should be. So, we have to have the—. So, you'll have to have—. There has to be a process by which we arrive at a target for these things, which has been consulted on and that the experts agree, and we've got the right advice, we've got the right data. So, what this Bill is doing is giving us a process to do that. So, these targets—in case anybody thinks we're going to do this in August—these targets are going to take a while, because the data is going to take a while, and there's a lag in the data. So, the monitoring stations come in, there's typically, I think Roger told me very recently, an 18-month, or so, lag in the data. [Interruption.] You can speak for yourself, Roger. So, we're not in a position to do it—that's the point. We're obviously working on soil issues and river issues as well, but this is about the air quality itself, isn't it, so it's a different component part.