Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee

Jest gair byr i ddweud fy mod i'n gwerthfawrogi'r cyfle i gwrdd â chi unwaith eto, i roi'r wybodaeth fwyaf diweddar o ran gwaith yr AIDAC, sydd bellach bytu bod hanner ffordd drwy'r bedwaredd flwyddyn mewn bodolaeth. Mae'n braf iawn cael eistedd yma yn un o dair, yn hytrach nag ar fy mhen fy hun hefyd, a dwi'n falch iawn o benodiadau y dirprwyon.

Dwi hefyd wedi cael ychwanegiadau pellach i'r ysgrifenyddiaeth hefyd. Ymunodd Clare Stock a Tim Morris gyda ni ym mis Awst y llynedd, a hefyd mae Emma Davies wedi'i phenodi'n bennaeth newydd i'r ysgrifenyddiaeth ym mis Rhagfyr llynedd. Ond dwi hefyd eisiau mynegi fy ngwerthfawrogiad i David Beckett ac Elizabeth Clark am eu cyfraniadau nhw a'u hymroddiad gwerthfawr nhw hefyd i'r ysgrifenyddiaeth yn ystod y ddwy flynedd diwethaf. Er ein bod ni'n dîm bach, rydym wedi gwneud cynnydd sylweddol o ran hyrwyddo gwaith ar wahanol fentrau allweddol, a hyderaf eich bod wedi darllen yr adroddiad blynyddol, sydd yn datgan hanes y cyfnod rhwng 1 Mawrth 2023 a 28 Chwefror 2024.

Drwy gydol yr amser hwn, mae fy nhîm a minnau wedi ymroi yn ein hymdrechion i werthuso effaith deddfwriaeth sy’n ymwneud â diogelu’r amgylchedd yng Nghymru, ac i ymchwilio i ba welliannau y gellid eu gwneud i gryfhau ei heffeithiolrwydd.

Rydyn ni’n parhau i ddatblygu sawl adroddiad mewn cysylltiad â'r cyflwyniadau rŷn ni wedi’u derbyn. Y pum adroddiad sydd yn cael eu cynnal ar hyn o bryd yw: coed, gwrychoedd, safleoedd gwarchodedig, sancsiynau sifil ac ansawdd dŵr. Mae paratoi’r adroddiadau hyn wedi ymestyn y tu hwnt i’r llinell amser cychwynnol oherwydd cynnwys materion sy’n dod i'r amlwg, gan gynnwys canlyniadau pellach i’w hystyried ar y materion yma, a hefyd lefel y gwaith ychwanegol sydd wedi dod at AIDAC yn ystod y flwyddyn ddiwethaf.

Dwi’n siomedig nad ydw i wedi gallu sicrhau cyhoeddi adroddiadau yn ystod y cyfnod diwethaf yma. Ers 1 Mawrth y llynedd, rydyn ni wedi derbyn 10 cyflwyniad ychwanegol, sef dwbl nifer y flwyddyn flaenorol, sydd wedi gofyn am werthuso o fewn cwmpas ein prosesau adrodd cyfredol. Mae gan y cyflwyniadau hyn faterion manwl yn ymwneud â gorchmynion cadw coed, safleoedd gwarchodedig, allyriadau amonia, ansawdd dŵr a chynllunio datblygu lleol, gan ddod â’r cyfanswm presennol i 37. Felly, fel rŷch chi’n gallu gweld, mae yna amrywiaeth eang o wahanol faterion wedi dod o’n blaen.

Roedd un o’r rheini y tu allan neu y tu hwnt i gwmpas AIDAC ac, o ganlyniad i hynny, ni chafodd ei ddilyn ymhellach. Roedd y cyflwyniad hwn yn ymwneud â chloddio cast agored. Er hynny, er bod pethau, efallai, y tu allan i gwmpas AIDAC, rydyn ni’n cadw nawr i edrych ar y rheini bob chwarter i sicrhau a oes yna newid wedi bod i'r rheini, neu efallai oes yna rywbeth nawr sydd yn dod o fewn cwmpas. So, rydyn ni’n trial gwneud yn siŵr, er, efallai, fod pethau tu allan i'n cwmpas ni'n wreiddiol pan fydd materion yn dod atom ni, ein bod ni’n edrych ar y rheini ac yn cadw ailedrych arnyn nhw'n gyson.

Hoffwn ddiolch hefyd i’r pwyllgor am ei waith yn cefnogi datblygiad trefniadau llywodraethu amgylcheddol AIDAC hefyd, a’r adroddiad a gyhoeddwyd y llynedd o ran ymarferoldeb y mesurau sydd gyda ni. Dwi’n hapus i dderbyn unrhyw gwestiynau ar rai o’r meysydd y gwnaethon ni drafod y llynedd o ran monitro ac yn y blaen, a’r gwelliannau oedd angen eu gwneud. Felly, wrth i ni symud ymlaen, mae’n hanfodol ein bod yn cynnal ein hymroddiad i wella diogelwch yr amgylchedd yng Nghymru trwy ddeddfwriaeth Cymru. Mae’n hanfodol bod y ddeddfwriaeth hon yn cael ei gweithredu'n effeithiol i esgor ar ganlyniadau amgylcheddol cadarnhaol. Mae’r dasg hon yn amlweddog, ac rwyf wedi ymrwymo i gydweithio ag amryw o randdeiliaid i ddatblygu atebion creadigol ac effeithiol ar gyfer cadwraeth amgylcheddol. Gobeithio y cawn ni gyfle, efallai, i drafod rhai o’r pethau rŷn ni’n gweithio arnyn nhw yn ystod y sesiwn. Diolch yn fawr.

Great. Thank you very much. That provides us with some context, and I know that some of the points you've made are issues that we'll be picking up during the course of the meeting. I'll invite Janet Finch-Saunders to start the questioning.

Thank you. What progress have you made since last year, when it was apparent much progress was needed? How do you believe the interim measures are working, following three years of operation? What impact has your work had, and what do you think could still be improved?

Mae sawl cwestiwn fanna. Mae’n anodd credu, rili, ein bod ni bellach ym mlwyddyn 4 ers i hwn gael ei greu, ac mae lot wedi digwydd yn ystod y cyfnod yna. Mae wedi bod yn gyfnod eithaf anodd mewn rhai ffyrdd hefyd, achos mae lot o bethau wedi bod yn dod mewn, lot o gyflwyniadau newydd ar ystod eang o ardaloedd, ac mae wedi bod yn anodd i gynllunio ymlaen ac i feddwl ymlaen amboutu beth ddylem ni fod yn gwneud, a chynllunio amser hefyd a’r adnoddau ar gyfer gwneud gwahanol bethau.

Ond dwi’n credu mai un o’r pethau y byddwn i’n gobeithio sydd wedi bod yn fwyaf llwyddiannus yw’r cysylltiadau sydd gyda ni gyda rhanddeiliaid, a’r ffaith ein bod ni yn cael trafodaethau cyson gyda rhanddeiliaid o fewn Cymru a hefyd gyda’r OEP a’r ESS y tu allan i Gymru, hefyd. Rŷn ni’n siarad â nhw yn gyson iawn er mwyn sicrhau bod y gwaith rŷn ni’n gwneud yn fan hyn yn cael ei ystyried, a’n bod ni’n edrych ar sut rydyn ni’n gallu cydweithio yng nghyd-destun rhai o’r ardaloedd rydyn ni’n edrych arnyn nhw.

Mae yna lot mwy o waith y byddwn i’n hoffi gwneud, a byddai’n neis cael amser i edrych ar bethau sydd tu hwnt i rai o’r cyflwyniadau sy’n dod mewn. Mae wedi bod yn help mawr i gael aelodau staff yr ysgrifenyddiaeth sydd gyda ni'n benodol. Fel roeddwn i'n dweud, mae dau yn benodol gyda ni nawr ar gyfer yr ysgrifenyddiaeth. Mae gyda ni hefyd ddau ddirprwy newydd wedi dechrau o fewn y ddau fis ddiwethaf, ac mae hwnna’n mynd i wneud gwahaniaeth mawr. Y gwirionedd, wrth gwrs, yw roedd angen Anna a Lynda arnom ni 16 mis yn ôl pan wnaethom ni drafod, ac rwy'n credu beth sydd wedi bod yn rîli defnyddiol yw, efallai, y rhagwelediad gan yr Ysgrifennydd Cabinet ac, wrth gwrs, y Gweinidog Newid Hinsawdd cyn hynny—yn lle apwyntio un, roeddwn i'n apwyntio dau, a dwi'n ddiolchgar iawn am hynny achos, yn amlwg, roedd angen y capasiti ychwanegol yna. Pa un a fydd hynny'n ddigon wrth i ni edrych ymlaen i'r ddyfodol, mae hynny'n rhywbeth, efallai, y byddwch chi'n moyn cwestiynu rhagor amboutu.

Ond efallai, ar yr ochr monitro, wyt ti'n moyn dod mewn ar hwnna, Anna, efallai?

Just before we come to monitoring, if I may, as you say, as we're in the fourth year, do you feel that you have reached the level where you'd hoped to reach, given the resource limitations? Are you happy that you've done as much as you could in that period, or do you feel that you could have been achieving more, even with those limitations?

Within those limitations, I think that we have managed to do a lot more than could have been expected of us. Having said that, I am disappointed because I would have liked to have done a great deal more, but there's only so much time available. And we've had this discussion in the past and I don't want to rehearse it, but, when the role was established, I thought we would have six submissions a year. The time provided for me to be involved with the role was up to 36 days in a year. It's been more like two days a week at least, if not more. So, those limitations in terms of time have meant that we haven't been able to do more.

So, I'm disappointed that we haven't been able to do more, but, given those limitations, I think we've done very well indeed. But I think it's become very clear, with Anna and Lynda having been in the role for two months, how much more we can do. I can now spend time on drafting reports, and that simply wasn't possible when I had to deal with new submissions and deal with staekholders and all of the other things involved with the role.

Thank you. Anna.

To what extent—

Sorry, Janet, I think Anna wants to come in as well.

There's no need to press the button.

Thank you. I'll speak in English because I'm more confident talking about technical issues in English.

So, I just wanted to address the element that is about monitoring the impact of the work of the IEPAW, and I know that that's something that this committee has raised in previous sessions. It has been, as Nerys said, with limited resources over the last year or so, quite difficult to prioritise that kind of monitoring of impact. Nerys has been having conversations with some of our partner organisations, the Office for Environmental Protection and Environmental Standards Scotland.

Sorry to interrupt. So, just for clarity, that's challenging because you're busy doing your job and firefighting, and you don't have the capacity to reflect on the impact that's having.

Exactly.

Yes, okay, just for clarity.

So, what we have tried to do in the last couple of months since Lynda and I have been on board, what we've done is we've set up ourselves a formal monitoring process. So, there are three levels to monitoring the impact, as I see it. One is the Welsh Government should be monitoring what we're doing and seeing whether we're providing value for money, and I believe that's something that they are working on, and we're quite happy to work with them on that.

The thing that the committee has asked us about—. There were two levels to it that you asked us about last year. One was monitoring the impact of the recommendations that we make in terms of how they are being implemented by the bodies to whom we address those recommendations. And the second is what's the real-world environmental impact of those recommendations. Although we only still have one report that's out in the world at the moment, we have a series of reports that will be coming over the coming months. So, what we've done is set up a framework for monitoring those impacts, looking at each of the recommendations that we make: what is the baseline scenario at the moment, what does success look like in terms of those recommendations being taken on board, and how will we measure that success?

That, I will say, is much easier in terms of the impact that we have in terms of the implementation by those bodies to whom we address the recommendations. That's much easier for us to measure than the environmental impacts that follow, partly because we're not a scientific organisation and we will be relying on either information that is provided to us or information that's in the public realm, but also because some of those environmental impacts, I suspect, are going to be a little bit longer term. So, we will do our best to monitor that and to report on that. We plan to publish that with our annual report every year and make that as transparent as possible, and that will apply to every one of the recommendations that we make in all of our reports.

Diolch yn fawr. Janet, did you want to come back in?

Yes. So, I mean you have had extra resources to help impact monitoring, going forward. How effective do you believe this is, but also to what extent has the Welsh Government been monitoring the work you're doing, if you like?

Yes, the first tier of monitoring. Yes.

We are in discussions with Welsh Government in terms of how they intend to do that monitoring and, clearly, it's something that is in the terms of reference, that—

Sorry to interrupt. Does that mean no monitoring? The question was: to what extent has the Government been monitoring? Are you saying they haven't, as yet?

I think that's a question to Welsh Government, really, isn't it, and not to us, because, clearly, they have the task of—

Well, no. You would know whether you've been monitored or not as yet, or have you not?

So, we haven't had a report from them to say, 'We've monitored your work and this is what we think the position is', if that's what you're asking, no. But we have had discussions with them about monitoring.

Thank you.

The other thing that I would add is, in addition to what we've set up to monitor how our impact is having an impact in the world, the other thing that we're planning to do is to have a better monitoring, evaluation and learning of our own internal how we're spending our time—because, obviously, all three of us have limited time—and making sure that we're spending that time in the most effective way for us. So, I'm hoping that that work—. Although we're not planning on publishing that publicly, because a lot of it will be confidential, I'm hoping that that will help Welsh Government to evaluate whether we're doing the right things. We're determined to try and make the best use of our time, and I'm hoping that that will help to show that.

And we're determined that you make the best use of your time as well.[Laughter.]

A couple of points. Chair, a couple of points here.

Janet, yes.

Yes, a couple of points here. So, I am concerned when you say, 'We won't be making the reports public.' It's taxpayers' money; the public have a right to know, certainly us as a scrutiny committee have a right, so I would hope that those reports are not kept confidential. And also, I'm a great believer in transparency and accountability. You've got two new deputies now, there's going to be more expectation put on you, because you've had more resources put in, so you can understand alarm bells for me, really, when, you say, 'We won't be publishing this.' And the other question was: how are you collecting and using data, then, in your own monitoring of yourselves?

Okay.

There are a few things there, which I'm sure you can—

Yes, I'll try and explain. So, I'm not saying that we won't be transparent about what we're using our time on; that's not the intention. The level of detail that we are hoping to collect will be quite granular. It's probably too much. We will still issue an annual report, which will say what we have been working on, and we'll explain that. There's not an intention here to not be transparent about that. But the way that the monitoring, evaluation and learning framework that we're looking at works is that we set for ourselves—and we're still working on this, so it's not set in concrete yet, but—we will set for ourselves a series of goals of what we would like to achieve, what are the metrics by which we will measure, internally, whether we are achieving that. And then we will, as a group, monitor what we're doing against those goals, and ask ourselves questions and learn from anything that—. You know, 'Well, maybe, actually, we spent too much time on stakeholder events' or 'Maybe we should have done more public-facing work' or, you know, that's the sort of granular level that I'm talking about. So, it may not be appropriate to put that, to publish that, on the website, because it's probably going to be very internal cuisine, if you like.

Yes, okay, but you hear the message about being as open and transparent as you can.

Absolutely. It's not an intention—

And maybe some of that might be reflected in your annual report in terms of the share of your time spent. Please, Lynda—yes.

Just to help there, briefly, I think part of the problem I've found, when you come on, you really find it—. You don't know how long something is going to take you to do when you've just started, and, certainly for Anna and I, we are very much in a learning phase. But, to some extent, so is Nerys, because Nerys has not had to work with us two before either. So, we are trying to set goals for ourselves: when are we going to finish those recommendations, when are we going to write that report, when are we going to do this? And it's very, very hard to put a concrete figure on that at the moment, because we're learning as we go on. I would say, within the next couple of months, we will be much clearer about that and there will be much less need for that sort of, 'Well, we got that a bit wrong, didn't we? We overestimated what we could do there. We couldn't do this; we couldn't do that.' It's that sort of thing that I think you wouldn't be putting out in a public report.

Okay. Thank you. We'll move on to Joyce, therefore.

Good morning. I just would like to ask, you've got the additional staff that you've got, and they're very welcome to you, I'm sure, and they'd be welcome to us too, but the question would be: would you have liked to have seen any other resource changes, apart from the ones you've got, to help you do your job?

I think it's important that we're clear on this issue of extra staff. We had two members of staff and we had two new members of staff to replace those two staff. So, in a way, we've had half an additional member of staff in the past year. I think it's important that we're clear on that. However, despite that, we've clearly had two new deputies, and that is quite a bit of extra capacity for us, but we also need to emphasise that it's two days a week that the deputies work. So, they have two days a week each, and my days haven't been expanded, so I'm hoping that they'll go down from what they've been over the past 12 months, according to the contract at least. I just wanted to be clear on that. And, as I said, because we needed the additional resources in terms of getting those deputies in place 12 months ago, we do have some catching up to do, because we haven't had the capacity to turn things around in the way that we would have liked to have done over the past 12 months, so we need to bear that in mind.

In terms of additional resources, I would like to have greater resources within the secretariat so that we have people working within the secretariat consistently, and one thing that would be of great benefit to have is to someone with legal qualifications within the secretariat so that we would have those resources internally, because, in the past 12 months, we've had to go externally, and that means following procurement rules, you have to train that person in terms of our systems and so on. So, it would be a great advantage to have those people within the team.

What we have managed to get, of course, is PhD students, who have been assisting. They have been very, very useful to us as a team, but clearly they're with us for three months, maybe six months—as we have Rhys at the moment for six months—part time. Again, it's a temporary arrangement; they learn our systems and learn how we work, and then they leave. So, I think it would be very beneficial to have someone on a more permanent basis. So, if you're asking whether it's sufficient, it's very difficult to be certain of that at the moment, because we now have to see how much we can cope with, with Lynda and Anna in post, how much difference that will make. But I think in around six months I can be a little more certain in terms of what we can deliver with the team that we have now and what we will need in the future.

I'm also concerned, perhaps, that, as we move forward to the more permanent body, our workload will increase, because we have seen an increase in the number of submissions, and I think, as the role is highlighted and people become more aware of the role and what we do, then we have seen an increase in the work too. So, we have to be mindful of that: if there is more work coming in, then we will have more work in dealing with those submissions, of course. So, it's very difficult to say with any certainty, but I would say that we probably do still need more resource. And if you compare it with the resource available to similar organisations, I know that they're not the same, because their powers are different, of course, but our funding is very different too.

Okay.

So, in terms of that you've mentioned legal particularly, and we've done many inquiries where we're being told that that's a very scarce resource anyway in Wales, and you're up against it in trying to manage even to get anyone legal to work with you, how much of your time is spent searching for people, or do you have arrangements in place where, if you need to call on that help, you know it's there?

Well, procurement rules and finding that expertise has been something that's taken some time for the secretariat over the past 12 months and, as you say, those resources are difficult to access, never mind appointing someone to that role. So, that's been a challenge in terms of acquiring that assistance. We've been fortunate to have some help with the reports on civil sanctions and on protected sites too—we've had some additional external resource for that. But, again, it's someone coming in to do a piece of work and then leaving, when it would be far easier to have someone on a permanent basis who could work on those projects in the longer term. So, it would make a huge difference to have that consistency within the team.

Thank you.

Right. The 'beg, steal and borrow' approach isn't great, is it, to undertake such key work when it comes to protecting the environment in Wales, so I think that underlines the need to move to a more permanent model.

Just before we move on to Janet again, could I ask two brief questions? There's no need for long answers. You say that there's a need for more secretariat support. That's more important to you, perhaps, than maybe adding to the hours of the assessor or having a permanent full-time assessor—. Sorry, not 'permanent', a full-time assessor. Do you feel that that secretariat support is more important?

I think the model we have now, with the three of us in place, is a very good model, because we all have different skills and experiences. We all bring different things to the table, if you like, and I do think it's very beneficial to have that opportunity to discuss issues, and we've had some very interesting discussions already on some of the reports that we're working on. That was something that was missing when it was just me in the role. So, certainly, when there was only one person, it would have been better if that individual was working full time, in terms of the time available, but I do think that the model of having three of us is better in any case, because it does mean that you have that experience, different skills, different experiences, and the time to discuss and to share responsibilities. So, I think it would—

I understand; that makes sense, really, when you say it like that. But it leads quite nicely to my next question: I assume, therefore, that the new deputies lead on different aspects.

Yes.

Yes. And is that something that you can share with us?

Do you want to talk about which ones you're leading on?

Yes. I’ve picked up the protected sites report. We already have quite a lot of draft material there. The evidence that has been prepared for that has been analysed to some extent and put together in a report, which I can now take forward and lead us into getting some recommendations on that one.

I've also recently taken up the lead on what started off as being a submission on polychlorinated biphenyls and contaminated land. Now, we're not at the stage of saying there will be a report on that, and I certainly don't think we're going out for a big call for evidence or anything, but I can see that there are some serious potential issues there with these sorts of sites that goes far beyond looking at PCBs. So, I am taking up that one, and that is going to be quite a major piece of work, I think.

Okay, thank you. Anna.

So, I've taken on one file that we have, which is about special protected areas, so international bird sites. That's unlikely to result in a report, because it's a submission that has also been made to the OEP in England and the ESS in Scotland, and there are significantly more issues in terms of their regions. We are discussing with them, in some detail, the investigation, and they have much bigger investigatory powers than we do, so I'm working with OEP and ESS on that file. I can see a hand.

Yes, sorry, Delyth.

Briefly, if possible.

Forgive me. Yes, very briefly. If you could, please, keep us up to date on the work that you're doing on PCBs and beyond that, I'd be really interested to see that. Thank you so much.

I thought you might be interested in that.

And the second thing that I'm working on is water quality. So, that's a fairly chunky file. We have issued a call for evidence, which we're hoping will close at the beginning of August, and that will be an ongoing, fairly large piece of work over the next few months. Delyth's hand is up again.

Delyth, do you want to come in again?

Forgive me. Diolch yn fawr iawn. It was actually on that call for evidence specifically. I understand that it excludes agricultural sources of pollution. I'm sure that you'll be very aware that lots of environmental groups have raised concerns about that. They've pointed out that agricultural pollution is the most significant source of freshwater pollution. As I understand it, the control of agricultural pollution regulations review won't include pollutants like phosphorus and sediment. Would you commit to extending the scope and time frame of the review to ensure that that is robust and that it takes into account those concerns?

Our work does include all of that stuff, it's just not in the current call for evidence. There's a difference between what we're looking at overall and what's in the current call for evidence. It's a vast area of law, water law, and I am trying to take it almost in sections. At the moment, it didn't make sense to us to include agricultural sources of pollution, because there is an independent chair about to be, I hope, appointed to look specifically at the nitrate part of it in those regulations. So, we have parked agricultural pollution in terms of the call for evidence. It doesn't mean we're not working on it. It doesn't mean it won't form any part of the final report. I am very conscious that it's one of the key contributors to water pollution in Wales. So, thank you for the opportunity to clarify that. It's absolutely part of the work. It's just that we may well need to take this in sections because it's such a huge area.

That makes sense. Thank you for that. I apologise, I have taken the opportunity to ask a few extra questions there. Time is against us a little, perhaps. We'll see how things go. Back to Janet.

Thank you. You'll have to excuse me going back to this reporting business. There's a reticence, I feel, on behalf of all three of you, about, 'Well, we're doing this work, but we won't be able to do the report.' I see little point in that kind of work that you're doing if you can't justify and have evidence to produce the report. What are these barriers to producing reports? We do it. I get briefings and things, and this is me myself. I'm quite happy to write a report on it. What are these barriers to writing and then publishing reports?

I don't think there's a reticence to publish reports. I think there are different approaches to be taken on different matters, though. Some will necessitate a report. Some of them, though, need some work happening with stakeholders as well, to move things forward in relation to a particular area. That doesn't mean that we perhaps don't send correspondence to people, that we don't publicly state what the position from our point of view is on those, but we feel that sometimes there are some things where we need to move on in a slightly different way. It might be that we document, at some point, then, in our annual report, or in a very brief report, 'This is what we've done on this, and this is the outcome of it.' But when we're talking about reports, we're very much talking about quite substantial pieces of work, I suppose. So, in our minds, we're distinguishing between them like that, and perhaps that's an issue for us to be more clear about.

I'll just ask this one question, then. Yesterday, most of the questions were on water quality. We're all, as Members, very concerned about our water quality in Wales. There's a lot of work going on monitoring that. Is there a risk that you could be duplicating some of the work that's already ongoing on water quality?

That's precisely the risk that we're trying to avoid by parking the agriculture part for the moment, or not including that in our current call for evidence, because we want to make sure that we're not duplicating work that's being done elsewhere. I am very keen to make sure that we gather information from all of the stakeholders that are working in water. We are in active conversation with many of those groups. Part of the point of having a call for evidence is to try and receive as much of that information as we can, because honestly we don't have the time or the resources to be duplicating other people's work. It will make much more sense for us to make sure that we are using that. The slight difference, I suspect, will be that we are coming at it from a legal point of view. So, where a lot of people will be looking at the implications or the environmental outcomes, we will be very much looking in detail at how is the law working, could it be working better, are there laws that we're currently not using that we should be or do we need an entirely new law for this specific problem.

But you have no powers on any work that you do.

What we have the power to do is provide recommendations to the Welsh Ministers. When I talk about a report, what I mean is making those recommendations to the Welsh Ministers, which says, 'Here are all the problems and here are the things that you should do.'

And we, as a scrutiny committee, will have access to those.

They'll be publicly available. Yes.

That eases me somewhat.

Thank you, Janet. Can I ask, therefore, how disappointed are you that so few reports have been published? Because we did have promises in previous sessions that more would be forthcoming, but we haven't seen those.

As I said at the outset, that's what I'm most disappointed about during the past 12 months, but the problem we have in terms of resources—. Dealing with submissions that come in is important, because we have obligations in terms of doing that. But, I do think, over the past two months, we have made progress with the reports that we do have, and we have done quite a bit of work. And I do very much hope that the reports will be better because we can work together—

The translation is not working for me.

The translation isn't working for Joyce. Can we just check it? We've lost translation, have we? Okay. We'll pause a moment, then.

Sorry. It's fine now.

There we are. Sorry. Carry on. Thank you very much. I am aware that time is moving on, so specifically I wanted to ask about the forestry report. And also there were four reports that you said that you were working on that we'd like you to discuss with us.

In terms of the forestry and hedgerow reports, those reports have been drafted and they are going to be published. We have agreed on recommendations, and I know that Lynda wants to say something on that.

I was just going to say that, at our last meeting, we went through the forestry report in detail, looking at the way the recommendations have been actually formed, the actual wording of them. So, not looking at what they were going to be but how we were presenting them. So, that's virtually ready.

I've taken away the hedgerow report, which is also ready. We've looked at the recommendations for that. And, having said we can't really commit ourselves because, at this stage, you never know how long things are going to take, I am optimistic that, by the time that we next meet, I will be able to present what I hope will be acceptable as a near final version of the hedgerows report, which means that that should be out very shortly.

It's likely, then, therefore, that it will go to the Cabinet Secretary at some point over the summer. The Cabinet Secretary, obviously, gets it for six weeks before we publish the report, so that the response from the Cabinet Secretary and our report get published at the same time. So, that gives you an indication of the time frame on those two.

In terms of civil sanctions, that work—. We have actually prioritised water so that we can get it out. So, once the call for evidence on water closes, we will then move on to civil sanctions, and that will be something that I will be working on during the rest of this year. And then, as Lynda has already mentioned, in terms of the protected sites, that report is drafted, but we need to spend some time together on those recommendations. So, we'll be looking more, in terms of that, towards the end of the year.

Okay. We need to move on, I'm afraid. We'll move straight to Carolyn, if that's okay.

What discussions have you had with the Welsh Government regarding permanent arrangements?

We have regular discussions with them about the permanent arrangements.

We, clearly, want to see that body in place as soon as possible, because obviously—

There's no translation.

We've lost the translation again.

We want to see that body in place as soon as possible, and we are very keen to make sure that the transition from us to that new body is as smooth as possible. And that is very much the flavour and the content of the conversations that we are having as well with the environmental governance team at the Welsh Government. It's about how do we make sure that that is as smooth as possible as well.

The translation is back, I believe, if Members wish to use it.

We did have a meeting a few months ago where we invited stakeholders to come together to discuss the issue so that we could seek views from them. At the moment, we are also discussing whether we should be drafting a brief report on our experiences to date as an interim body. That could then be published and that would help with the development of the new body—for example, lessons learned in terms of collaborating with other parts of the UK, how we ensure that we get quality submissions and so on and so forth. So, we’ve been discussing whether we should be doing that, and I think we should perhaps be producing that kind of report and talking more of the lessons learned over the past three years. That perhaps echoes some of the points made earlier in terms of reflecting on our work. I think that would be useful for us in terms of the deputies joining, too, in terms of reviewing our processes. But we do regularly review our processes in order to improve our systems.

Thank you. Would you advocate for the establishment of a shadow body prior to the relevant statutory powers coming forward, as was the case with the Office for Environmental Protection and Environmental Standards Scotland?

I've had many discussions with the OEP and ESS regarding this issue, and certainly, there's an advantage in terms of those things having been put in place before the permanent body is ready, so that it can start as soon as possible. I think the question to ask, perhaps, is how is that going to look in terms of the interim role. Because we do have an interim role, which is different, so what is the best way practically to transfer from that interim role into the shadow body, as you mentioned, or can it be one or the other. Those are the sorts of discussions we are having with the department that's developing this. But clearly, those decisions are for the Welsh Government.

I think all of us would agree that the most important thing is that we get it done soon. None of us want to be sitting in this interim role for a long time; it's important for the environment in Wales that a permanent body is put in place as soon as possible.

That was my other question. You've been appointed in the interim for three years, so I was just wondering how that would work together. You're anticipating that it carries on till May 2027.

There is a suggestion that the body would be in existence before then, potentially.

That's not in our hands.

The appointments of the deputies have been made for three years to make sure that there is at least continuity into that new body, whenever that happens. I think the idea was to put it as far as possible forward so that there was definitely no gap between the two.

Do you have any comments or concerns regarding the White Paper that was published on the proposals for the governance body coming forward?

I don't think we've got any specific comments on the White Paper. I think, as I said, one thing perhaps that we could be doing is writing a short report about what we've learnt during the last three and a half years that might help inform that. But obviously, it's a decision for the Welsh Government as to what they want to do in terms of that new body.

That sounds a useful suggestion. I think my concern was that we did have experts on the new body, and not just somebody appointed from the civil service who didn't have that expertise—so, to get that priority. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Back to Janet.

You plan to leave the role in February; how will you ensure that your learning will be passed on to any successor, and indeed the Welsh Government?

My contract was extended until 28 February 2025. There needs to be further conversations about what happens after that date in terms of my role, and whether it's extended or not. Certainly, one of the things that we've been talking a lot about over the two months—. Obviously, we've had the joining of the deputies, so we've spent a lot of time in terms of processes, et cetera, making sure everybody understands how it all works. So, we all understand how everything works between us, but we've then got designated roles within that.

In terms of succession and continuity, I think something that's also really important to me as well is to make sure that if something were to happen to me or if there was an issue in terms of illness or whatever, there was that cover available; we have that cover now, and I think that's a really important point to make. So, I don't envisage there would be any issues in terms of that transition, if there were any.

Thank you very much. We'll go on to Delyth.

Hello again. Is the translation working?

Yes, everything's working.

I wanted to ask you about engagement with your—what's 'counterparts' in Welsh—counterparts in England and Scotland. What have you learnt from that work you're doing jointly with them, or the engagement that you have with them?

I'm coming to this new, of course. My immediate reaction is that they are incredibly welcoming, really keen to hear what we have to say, and really keen to tell us all the things that they found difficult on the way and things we might do differently et cetera. I know that Nerys has had regular meetings with them over the years, and we do have a memorandum of understanding set up with them to facilitate collaboration. As Anna mentioned earlier, we're all working together on that report on SPAs, because it's the same question going to all three bodies, so it's a good example there. They're also working on protected sites, and I'm engaging with them on that. So, they're looking at very similar issues in relation to that.

We've had face-to-face meetings. It was a very good meeting last year that I attended, before I was a member of this group, at the UK Environmental Law Association meeting in Reading, which facilitated a discussion on governance between the three bodies, and Nerys spoke at that, and then at the conference this year, which was held last month in Manchester. What was good was that a lot of the staff that are working—not at the board level, though there were board members there—there were senior working staff, not the bosses, as it were, but the ones that are leading on the projects. So, I had an opportunity to have really good collaboration with them and talk to them, and had invitations to carry on that work and meet with them whenever. So, I'm very, very positive. I think we have a lot to learn from them, and they, I'm very glad to say, consider that they've got a lot to learn from us.

I just want to highlight that, that the co-operation has been great between the OEP, ESS and us, and we are going to be welcoming them to Cardiff next month for an annual meeting of each one of us together in Cardiff. We invited them to Cardiff, given the changes that are happening here, thinking that would be beneficial to us in Wales to learn from their experiences. But we had that meeting last year in Edinburgh, and we're having that meeting in Cardiff this year, and it's an opportunity for us to discuss strategies, issues that are important to us across the different nations. I can't emphasise enough the importance of that and the beneficial use of that co-operation. It's been very useful.

That's great to hear. Thank you for that, and just—I think you've answered most of my questions already. So, the final thing from me: in terms of the Welsh Government, do they tend to contact the OEP and ESS directly, or are you a point of liaison for that?

My understanding is that they get in touch with them directly as well as us, because, clearly, our role is different and independent to Welsh Government, so we engage with them on the work that we're doing, but my understanding is that the environmental governance team also gets in touch with them on a regular basis and asks questions of them about the new arrangements and so forth. So, my understanding is that that happens as well.

Okay. Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Delyth. We'll move on to Joyce.

The final question is this: you gave some advice to Natural Resources Wales that resulted in them introducing a public register and they created a regional advisory committee as a sub-body of their land management committee after you gave submissions to them. So, my question is: has that given you confidence that the work that you do is being taken note of and, more importantly, has it given you a new impetus to produce reports as a result of that?

Interestingly, that was in relation to a submission that was outside of our remit, because it related to a potential breach, and as a result of that, it wasn't within our remit to develop a report on it. However, what we did was we contacted and spoke to NRW about it, said that we'd had this submission and said, 'Well, is there something that could be done about this? and 'Could you consider this?' And it's resulted, as you said, in very positive action. So, that's an example of how, perhaps, the way we work, the liaison we have, the good relationships that we've built can actually achieve results and change without, necessarily, the expense and the cost of a report and the time being spent in relation to that. So, it's all about those positive outcomes, really, isn't it? So, that is an example of one where that's happened without the need for a report.

Just on NRW, we meet regularly with NRW at various levels and on various issues that we're considering, and one of the things that we did earlier this year was hold a legislative review session in January with NRW, where we had a very open and frank discussion about areas of environmental law in Wales that could be considered to have issues where we could be improving their effectiveness. And that was an opportunity for a two-way dialogue in relation to those issues. So, those kinds of proactive discussions and opportunities to have conversations do sometimes have really worthwhile impacts as well, without, perhaps, going through the formal procedure of a report as well.

Thank you. I just thought it would be nice to finish on a high. [Laughter.]

Well, we're not finished yet, I'm afraid.

Because I did want to ask, given the broadcasting of Y Byd ar Bedwar on S4C earlier this week, is that—? Some of the allegations made by the whistleblowers on the levels of bureaucracy and problems in responding to environmental incidents—is that something that you'll be looking to discuss with them?

That's certainly something we can discuss with them, and we do discuss all sorts of issues when we have our regular meetings with them, including providing feedback to them on things that have been brought to our attention through submissions, but also through the discussions that we have with other stakeholders. So, we do provide that feedback and information to them regularly, yes.

Okay. Could I just also ask on the submissions that you receive, the subjects that come to you? Clearly, the numbers go up and down and back up again, and some may say that it's a good sign that people feel that there are things that should be referred to you, or perhaps it's a weakness, if there are fewer and not so many people know about you. How do you feel about the public awareness of your role, the awareness of your existence? Are you confident that that is increasing, or do you think that people are still oblivious to your existence?

No, I think it is increasing. Obviously, I think there's always room for improvement there, and we could be doing more there, but I do think that awareness is far higher than it was at the outset. I also think that that highlights itself not only in terms of submissions received but also in the work that we do with stakeholders and the fact that the stakeholder list is constantly growing longer and more people are being asked to be added to that. We have quarterly meetings with all of our stakeholders online, which is open to anyone who wants to join, and that provides us with an opportunity for a lively discussion on the various issues that we want to raise. So, I very much hope that that has improved awareness of the role and what we are doing.

We've also been working on making improvements in terms of our external communications too, and we do have a strategy for that too. And we are currently developing that publicly—it will be coming out over the next few weeks, as it happens.

There we are. Okay. Are there any further questions from Members or any further issues you'd like to raise? No. Well, that's it, then. May I sincerely thank the three of you for your evidence and for being with us this morning as part of the annual scrutiny? We will be sending a draft transcript to you, just for you to check. If you are standing down in February, perhaps you won't be before the committee again, certainly in terms of annual scrutiny, so may I thank you for the contribution that you've made and for providing the foundations for the interim arrangements that hopefully will develop into a more permanent arrangement? We are indebted to you for that and we're very grateful that you've attended for scrutiny today. Thank you very much for being with us. Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

We will continue with our meeting, therefore, as you leave. Thank you very much.