Group 7 is next. This group of amendments relates to representations made to and investigations undertaken by the OEGW. Amendment 38 is the lead amendment. Delyth Jewell to move the amendment.

Amendment 38 (Delyth Jewell) moved.

Thank you, Llywydd. You're hearing from me again, I'm afraid. I'm grateful to the Deputy First Minister and his officials for their help with amendments 38 and 39, and I do move those amendments.

Amendment 38 clarifies that a person may make representations to the OEGW in relation to the matters that the OEGW may investigate. I feel very passionately about this because I think it's really important that this is on the face of the Bill. It would put beyond doubt that individuals and organisations will be able to raise concerns directly with the environmental governance body, rather than that right simply being implied or left to procedural guidance alone. It is about democratic accountability. It is about giving people a voice.

Amendment 39 is a consequential amendment that reinserts the requirement for the OEGW to prepare and publish a document setting out the procedure to be followed when representations are made. Together, these amendments would ensure both clarity of right and clarity of process. The ability for people to make representations is a fundamental part of effective environmental governance. Communities are often the first to experience environmental harm, whether that is through pollution, flooding or failures in enforcement. Therefore, making it explicit on the face of the Bill that people can make representations and that there must be a clear published process for doing so would strengthen transparency, accessibility and public confidence in the OEGW's role. I hope and trust that the Senedd will support this.

Transparency is at the heart of Amendment 2. In response to this amendment at Stage 2, the Deputy First Minister said that there was a risk that this change would cause the office to make decisions at too early a stage. I didn't understand that at the time, and I still don't understand it, so perhaps you could explain that to me in greater detail. One Labour member of the committee said that we sometimes have to remember that people who raise environmental concerns get unfavourable publicity and comments, and, clearly, we don't want that to happen. But, I think, to respond to that concern, this amendment will be subject to section 27, which relates to the confidentiality requirements of the office. So, I don't think we need to be concerned on that point.

Amendment 3 would introduce a register of representations. I've taken time to look at the OEP website, and I can see that they publish regular reports on that website, detailing the complaints that they deal with. For example, there are current investigations into DEFRA, the environmental agency, on water quality and altering special areas of protection in England, and the same in Northern Ireland. The clear benefit of this, of course, is that it reduces the need for others to introduce complaints on issues that are already being investigated. It would save time and resource for the office. Indeed, people won't need to make a complaint because they will be able to see that that complaint is already being investigated according to the register, or that the issue has already been considered or has been rejected for an appropriate reason. So, I think that this could save a great deal of time for the office and make its work far more efficient, and make the office far more transparent to the public too. I encourage the Senedd to ensure that the office does learn from good practice from other offices in England and in Northern Ireland. Thank you.

The Cabinet Secretary to contribute, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch, Llywydd. If I could turn to Amendment 38 and consequential amendment 39 first of all, I do indeed support these amendments, because even though I believe they don't provide the OEGW with any additional functions, it's that question about being explicit, which is what we heard in earlier committee stages. Individuals, we believe, can already make representations through the Bill as introduced, but that strength of feeling from both wider stakeholders and, indeed, committee members as we went through Stage 2 about this means we can see the benefit in making this explicit within the legislation. And it's worth ramming home that we see enhancing citizens' access to environmental justice as a real priority within this legislation. I am pleased that we've worked again constructively with committee members and with the Member moving this motion on an amendment that clarifies appropriately that a person, be under no doubt, may make representations to the OEGW and the grounds on which those representations may be made. So, I'm very happy to support these amendments and I would urge other Members to do the same.

If I turn to amendment 2, in Rhys's name, I'll try to explain again why we don't believe it is necessary or desirable to require the OEGW to publish reports on all investigations, although I have to say we consider that, in most cases, the OEGW will want to publish reports, but not in all cases, to force them to do it, and I'll try to explain why. There may well be some cases where the OEGW itself, in its independent expertise and view, does not consider it reasonable or in the public interest to do so, and where the OEGW does consider it reasonable to publish a report, it should have the discretion to publish it at the time it considers appropriate. Why is this important? Because, within the Bill, it adopts this escalatory approach to enforcement that is intended to enable co-operation and collaboration wherever possible to resolve environmental concerns, rather than automatically progressing up the scale to formal enforcement action. So, there may be very good reasons in this scenario why the OEGW would exercise its discretion and choose not to publish a report, or to choose it at a certain point in time, especially if the OEGW and the relevant public authority are working through an appropriate resolution together to its concerns without resorting to formal mechanisms. So, requiring the OEGW to publish reports on its investigations in this way could lead to a reach to those premature conclusions, which would, in my view, reduce the chance of what could be swift and more effective resolutions. It may, in fact, force the OEGW into those formal mechanisms where this otherwise might not have been needed and there could have been swifter resolution.

Just to say as well, paragraph 1(3)(e) of Schedule 2 already requires the OEGW to set out in its strategy how it intends to publish information related to its investigations. We think this is a more appropriate approach, allowing it again to come back to this issue of independent expertise, allowing the OEGW to maintain its discretion, to exercise its professional and expert judgment. So, that's the reasoning behind our objection to this amendment.

If I turn to amendment 3, the Bill as drafted provides for the OEGW to set out in its strategy its policy on publishing information relating to representations. Indeed, an amendment was agreed at Stage 2 to require the OEGW to prepare and publish a document that sets out how these representations are to be made and how persons will be kept informed. 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 really strongly believe that this is a matter that should be left to the OEGW.

I note that there is indeed a caveat around according with data protection legislation, but I also believe that the fact that such a register would exist and would be publicly accessible may lead, Rhys, to some hesitancy from individuals and organisations who wish to provide information confidentially. I understand why you're probing at this, but I consider the approach should be designed by the OEGW using its expertise and its independent professional judgment, as informed, though, by further consultation on the strategy, which I just laid out. This is provided for in the Bill. It's for this reason that we wouldn't support these amendments.

Delyth Jewell to reply.

Thank you, Llywydd. I'm grateful again for the Deputy First Minister's comments. With the amendments that I have in this group, this is one of the reasons why I prefer the Welsh word 'gwelliant' to the English word 'Amendment', because sometimes there is a way to improve the legislation. It's neutral in English, where we say,

'We are amending'. In Welsh, we say that we are improving the legislation. 

Transparency, of course, is vital, and I think that that's the intention of every Amendment in the group.

The measure of the success of this Bill and the body it establishes will be the extent to which members of the public and communities feel empowered. It should not just be about processes, it should be about people—people who've seen their land, their water, their air polluted and exploited for generations. I hope that these will be supported. 

The question is that Amendment 38 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 38. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions, two against. Therefore, amendment 38 is agreed. 

Amendment 38: For: 46, Against: 2, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been agreed

Amendment 39. Is it moved?

Amendment 39 (Delyth Jewell) moved.

It is. Are there any objections to Amendment 39? [Objection.] Yes, there are objections. We will therefore open the vote on amendment 39. Close the vote. In favour 46, no abstentions, two against. Amendment 39 is agreed. 

Amendment 39: For: 46, Against: 2, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been agreed

Amendment 2. Rhys ab Owen, is it moved? It is not moved to a vote. 

Amendment 2 (Rhys ab Owen) not moved.

Next is Amendment 3. Is that moved? No. Amendment 3 is not moved.

Amendment 3 (Rhys ab Owen) not moved.