We will move now to group 3. The third group of amendments relates to the establishment of the Office of Environmental Governance Wales under Part 2 of the Bill, and related matters. The lead Amendment is amendment 33. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to speak to the lead amendment. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Amendment 33 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Diolch, Llywydd. This Amendment requires the Welsh Ministers to consult the Senedd's prevailing environment committee before making regulations to change the number of permissible non-executive members of the OEGW. This is a distinct and strong measure to protect the independence of the OEGW. Amendment 25 disqualifies a member of staff of the Welsh Government from being a member of the OEGW. Again, this is a measure to protect the independence of this body.

Amendment 26 calls for the OEGW to be funded from the Welsh consolidated fund and Senedd budget motion. This amendment will require Senedd Cymru to examine and review the expenditure and functions of the OEGW regularly. I thought, at one stage, we were going to try and change that acronym, but heigh-ho. It is due to this that my Welsh Conservative colleagues and I will not support amendment 32, as we believe that our amendment 26 encapsulates the intention of amendment 32. Thank you.

We support amendments 33 and 25 in Janet's name, although we do oppose Amendment 26.

I'll speak to the amendments in my name in this group. Firstly, Amendment 46 would ensure that any non-executive member of the OEGW can only be appointed with the Senedd's approval. This would be a straightforward safeguard that would strengthen the body's independence, I think. It would mean that Welsh Ministers could not appoint members alone, and would ensure greater transparency, democratic oversight and public confidence in the OEGW from the start. Having said that, I do appreciate some of the points that have been made at Stage 2, and, again, I would be interested to hear the Dirprwy Brif Weinidog's response on that point.

To speak to amendment 48, now that would remove the OEGW from section 6 of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015. I have tabled this as a probing amendment only. I will not be pushing this to a vote. Now, the reason I've tabled it is that the OEGW is an oversight body, not a service delivery body. So, technically, including this reference could potentially distract from its core functions. It was a point that was raised with us during scrutiny at committee level. The auditor general confirmed that it is more comparable with bodies like the ombudsman and that it could not reasonably be 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. Now, I wanted to make this point, Llywydd, as it was raised during scrutiny, but I do anticipate similar points might be made in response to those that were made at Stage 2 about the optics. And, of course, I firmly support the idea of the well-being of future generations Act. I'm not currently minded to push this to a vote, though, because of those technical points that were raised with us, I thought it was important for us to air these during Stage 3, merely to get on the record how the OEGW and the office of the future generations commissioner will interact. Diolch.

I'd like to speak to Amendment 32 regarding sufficiency of funding for the OEGW. This amendment would mean that, if the OEGW considers that Welsh Ministers have not provided sufficient funding, and chooses to reflect this in its annual report, then the OEGW must submit the report to the Welsh Ministers. This is in addition to the existing requirement to lay annual reports before the Senedd. The intended outcome is to strengthen safeguards around the OEGW's funding by increasing accountability and heightening political scrutiny on the funding arrangements if the OEGW considers there to be a deficiency. The fact that the amendment sets out the consequences of an annual report indicating that the OEGW considers that it has not received sufficient funding also makes clear that the OEGW's existing reporting and ancillary powers allow it to express its views on sufficiency of funding. And importantly, this will remain a discretionary matter for the OEGW.

It's important that the OEGW has the power to give its view on funding, and this amendment sets out an additional requirement when it does so for the purposes of increasing accountability and scrutiny. This is an important measure, and I encourage all Members to support this amendment. Thank you.

During Stage 2, Janet Finch-Saunders proposed an Amendment that would have ensured that the office would not only have a website but, more importantly, would include on that website a list of the public authorities that are subject to the oversight of the office. And I think this is important in the name of transparency.

I didn't think that there was a problem with the amendment, but it didn't receive Majority support. It follows, therefore, that I’ve considered how we could actually achieve the legal aim, namely to ensure that the office does have a website that’s visible to the public. And there is precedent here, as you full know, Deputy First Minister—the Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Act 2025. Part 71 says this:

'The Authority must establish and maintain a website, or other electronic facility (such as a software application), which the public can access without charge.'

If you’re not going to support the amendment—and from the slip here, I see the red markings very clearly next to my amendments—would you be as kind as to explain why the website is necessary in relation to disused coal tips, but not to this office? And why will you not ensure that the office takes advantage of good practice from the offices in England and Northern Ireland? Thank you.

The Cabinet Secretary, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. First of all, thanks to all Members for moving these amendments. It’s a bit of a mix here, so I'll try not to take too long, but I'm going to begin on the positive. I'm going to turn to Janet's Amendment, first of all, amendment 33. Janet, I'm pleased to say I fully support this amendment in your name. [Interruption.] Yes, I know. [Laughter.] Indeed, Janet brought forward an amendment at Stage 2 that would have required the Welsh Ministers to consult with the committee of the Senedd with the remit for environmental protection before making regulations to change the number of non-executive appointments. I outlined at Stage 2 that I thought there was merit in her proposal, but we actually thought the provision could even go further and include a requirement to also consult the OEGW and any other persons the Welsh Ministers consider appropriate. So, given the inclusion of consultation with the OEGW in your amendment, I'm pleased to be fully able to support it, and I would urge other Members to do the same.

If I can turn then, having started on a positive, to Amendment 25, which is an amendment similar to one that was tabled and rejected during Stage 2, the purpose of paragraph 3 of Schedule 1 to the Bill, which this amendment would amend, is to disqualify members of certain 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. Now, there is currently no provision to disqualify members of staff of those organisations, as we consider it appropriate for any conflicts of interest to be managed through the appropriate administrative procedures. We just do not consider there to be a strong rationale to single out and disqualify Welsh Government members of staff. Any potential conflicts of interest here can be, and indeed are, managed appropriately as would be done in the case of members of staff from local authorities, NRW or any other organisations listed where holders of public office are disqualified.

Furthermore, the regulation-making power at paragraph 3(1)(i) will enable the Welsh Ministers to amend the list to include members of other organisations and those organisations' members of staff if that were considered necessary in the future. So, there is provision to do this. This will enable Welsh Ministers to maintain a watching brief as to whether more disqualifications are necessary in future. So, for those reasons, I don't consider this amendment appropriate to be made.

If I turn to amendment 46, again this was tabled at Stage 2, or a similar one, but was withdrawn during the session based on the arguments we outlined at the time. But, if it helps again, Delyth, and also the wider Siambr, I'm very happy to lay out the rationale again for why I wouldn't support this. So, requiring Senedd approval for the appointment of five to seven non-executive members could indeed add delays into the process. They may be short, but they could be significant, bearing in mind the way that the Senedd works and the process works.

During Stage 2, we did a number of things. We strengthened the independence and the integrity of the appointments process through amendments that we brought forward to require Welsh Ministers to have regard to the OEGW's independence when exercising their functions in relation to it, including in appointing non-executive members, and by requiring the appointment panel to include a Senedd Member. So, we strengthened these aspects as we went through Stage 2. Now, this is in addition to the requirements on Welsh Ministers to consult the relevant Senedd committee before appointing or reappointing a chair and a deputy chair. Now, we feel strongly that these measures are a much more practical way to enhance the appointments process whilst also ensuring we get timely appointments and no delays, aligning, by the way, with the established process used for roles such as the Welsh language Commissioner. So, that's why I wouldn't support this amendment.

On amendment 26, Janet, this is another one that was tabled and then rejected at Stage 2. This is because this significant amendment would add a substantive risk, we believe, and inflexibility into the funding arrangements for OEGW. We did consider the funding source for the OEGW at an earlier stage, as I outlined at Stage 2 discussions, including the potential use of the Welsh consolidated fund. We consulted on this matter in the white paper and concluded that there is a significant benefit to funding the OEGW through Welsh Government budgets. Let me explain why. The clearest benefit would actually be the flexibility this provides. We know from experience now, from looking across the borders, that both the Office for Environmental Protection in England and Environmental Standards Scotland in Scotland have had highly variable budgets in their formative years, and Ministers across the border have had to increase and decrease their funding accordingly as those years have gone by.

Now, I appreciate that funding from Welsh Government could be seen as less independent, but we're confident the provisions of the Bill, as amended at Stage 2, which I just highlighted, to require Welsh Ministers to have regard to the OEGW's independence, and the requirement to provide sufficient funding, are a much more effective safeguard. Those, in my view, are more practical and sensible ways to strengthen and safeguard the role of the OEGW and its funding without exposing them to risks around funding and flexibility, which we believe amendment 26 would do. So, that's why I can't support this amendment.

In respect of amendment 32, moved by my colleague Carolyn Thomas—Carolyn, thank you for laying this, and I can say that I'm fully supportive of this amendment. You've laid it out in detail, but this amendment provides that the OEGW exercises its discretion to include in its annual report a statement about whether the sums allocated to it have been sufficient to enable it to perform its functions. I think this is crucial. It must submit that report to Welsh Ministers. This is in addition, of course, to the requirement that already existed for all annual reports to be laid before the Senedd. This amendment is good and appropriate. It does not compromise the OEGW’s independence, the importance of which I have been repeatedly clear on, and I think committee members have as well. But it also effectively makes clear that the OEGW has the necessary discretion to make a statement about sufficiency of funding and the consequences of including such a statement in their annual report. So, I'm very happy to support this amendment, Carolyn.

If I can turn to the issue of websites—and can I assure you, it's not because I'm against websites—it just isn't necessary to legislate for the OEGW to establish and maintain a website. Its approach to outwards communications is going to be a matter for its own independent judgment in line with the requirements of the Bill, allowing it to make its decisions on operational matters. Can I say that I fully expect, unless technology moves on massively over the next few months, that the OEGW will, indeed, want to have a website as part of that outward facing—? But that's a matter for them, in the same way as we would also expect that they'll want to have a logo, branding, an office space, et cetera, et cetera, all of which are matters that just don't require express provision in this piece of legislation. So, that's why I'm not supporting it—it's not because I don't like websites, honestly.

Amendment 48—Delyth, thank you for this, and we did discuss this previously as well. The OEGW will have a substantive role in assessing and advising on changes to environmental law in Wales. This is in direct support of the thing we're proud of, the well-being of future generations Act’s aim of improving social, economic, environmental and cultural well-being. So, recognising the OEGW as a public body within that Act ensures its actions align with sustainable development and it helps avoid the situation we were in previously with siloed decision making. So, excluding the OEGW would undermine the integrated governance approach envisaged by the Bill. It could weaken accountability, risk fragmentation of approach and separate the environmental governance framework from that wider Welsh policy framework.

Now, the environmental governance framework cannot operate in isolation. This combined framework also strengthens, by the way, the collaboration with other public bodies, and it supports OEGW’s progressive, escalatory enforcement approach. If we left OEGW out, it would erode that holistic, accountable approach to well-being across Welsh public services. Now, Delyth will note that we support changing the general purpose of the OEGW to be more environmentally focused, which includes removing reference to the environmental objective in provision about the OEGW’s general purpose. So, in that context, it's even more essential that the connection between the work of the OEGW and the well-being of future generations Act is preserved through this provision. And I know some people, just finally, have suggested that there is some similarity here with other public bodies, including things like the public services ombudsman, but we would say that's missing the point. It's misguided. Good environmental governance is actually central to achieving the well-being of future generations Act's objectives. The framework developed through this Bill recognises and complements it. If we excluded it, it would have that detrimental impact I've outlined. So, it's for these reasons that I won't support this amendment.

Janet Finch-Saunders to respond.

Diolch, Llywydd, and thank you, Cabinet Secretary, for giving way on that Amendment. And also we will be supporting you, Delyth, on the one that you put forward. Diolch.

The question is that Amendment 33 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. [Interruption.]

Yes, 33. Any Opposition? No. 

Amendment 33 is therefore agreed. 

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

Amendment 25.

Amendment 25. Is it being moved, Janet Finch-Saunders? 

Amendment 25 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Move.

Are there any objections? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore open the vote on Amendment 25. The vote is tied, and therefore I will close the vote and exercise my casting vote against amendment 25. And therefore, the amendment is not agreed, with 24 in favour, no abstentions and 25 against.

Amendment 25: For: 24, Against: 24, Abstain: 0

As there was an equality of votes, the Llywydd used her casting vote in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii).

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 46. Is it moved by Delyth Jewell?

No. 

It is not moved. So, there will be no vote on Amendment 46.

Amendment 46 (Delyth Jewell) not moved.

Amendment 26.

Amendment 26. Is it being moved, Janet Finch-Saunders? 

Amendment 26 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Move.

Yes, it is. 

Are there any objections to Amendment 26? [Objection.] There are. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 26. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 13, no abstentions, 35 against. The amendment is not agreed.

Amendment 26: For: 13, Against: 35, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Carolyn Thomas, Amendment 32. 

Is it being moved, 32? 

Amendment 32 (Carolyn Thomas) moved.

Yes.

Are there any objections to Amendment 32? [Objection.] There are objections. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 32. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 36, no abstentions and 12 against. Therefore, amendment 32 is agreed.

Amendment 32: For: 36, Against: 12, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been agreed

Amendment 8, Rhys ab Owen. It is not moved. So, there will be no vote.

Amendment 8 (Rhys ab Owen) not moved.