Bore da i chi i gyd. Croeso i'r Pwyllgor Newid Hinsawdd, yr Amgylchedd a Seilwaith yn Senedd Cymru. Rŷn ni'n symud yn syth at yr agenda y bore yma. Croeso i Aelodau, wrth gwrs, am fod yma. Mae hwn yn gyfarfod fyddai fel arfer yn cael ei gynnal ar ffurf hybrid, ond dwi'n meddwl bod pawb sydd angen bod yn bresennol gyda ni fan hyn yn yr ystafell. Heblaw am unrhyw addasiadau, felly, yn ymwneud â gweithredu ar ffurf hybrid, mae holl ofynion y Rheolau Sefydlog yn aros yn eu lle. Mae eitemau cyhoeddus y cyfarfod yma, wrth gwrs, yn cael eu darlledu'n fyw ar Senedd.tv, ac mi fydd yna gofnod yn cael ei gyhoeddi fel arfer, wrth gwrs. Mae'n gyfarfod dwyieithog, felly mae yna gyfieithu ar y pryd o'r Gymraeg i'r Saesneg. Cyn mynd ymhellach, a gaf i ofyn a oes gan unrhyw un unrhyw fuddion i'w datgan? Jenny.
Yes. My partner is an adviser to Bute Energy, as is recorded on my declarations. I also want to draw Members' attention to the fact that, during the Stage 1 scrutiny of the Infrastructure (Wales) Bill, I was a shareholder in the Renewables Infrastructure Group Limited. Had I been aware at the time that it had invested in Garreg Lwyd windfarm in Powys, I would have declared that interest. Equally, during the Stage 1 scrutiny, I also had shares in JLEN Environmental Assets Group Limited, which I later found out had invested in five windfarms, at Castle Pill, Milford Haven, Ferndale in the Rhondda, Llynfi Afan, Abergwynfi, Moel Maelogan in Conwy, and Wear Point in Pembrokeshire. I would have declared this had I known this at the time. I no longer have any investment in either of these holding companies. I continue to hold shares in Siemens and Awel Aman Tawe, which are involved in power generation.
Wrth gyflwyno gwelliannau i'r Bil, dwi eisoes wedi nodi fy mod i'n byw yn nyffryn Tywi. Gall rhai o ddarpariaethau'r Bil a'r gwelliannau gael effaith ar ddyffryn Tywi, felly dwi wedi rhoi hwnna ar y record.
Dyna ni. Ocê. Diolch yn fawr iawn. Mae yna ymddiheuriadau wedi cael eu derbyn, gyda llaw, gan Janet Finch-Saunders, ac rŷn ni'n croesawu Joel James, sydd yma ar ei rhan hi. Mae Joyce Watson hefyd wedi ymddiheuro, ac mae Jayne Bryant yn ymuno â ni y bore yma—croeso, Jayne—ac mi fydd Sarah Murphy yn dod y prynhawn yma. Fel rŷn ni eisoes wedi gweld, mae Adam Price hefyd yn ymuno â'r pwyllgor heddiw, gan fod ganddo fe welliannau penodol y byddwn ni'n eu trafod yng nghwrs y cyfarfod.
Mae gwelliannau a nodir ag [R] yn dynodi bod yr Aelod wedi datgan buddiant cofrestradwy o dan Reol Sefydlog 2 neu fuddiant perthnasol o dan Reolau Sefydlog 13 neu 17 wrth gyflwyno’r gwelliant.
We'll move, then, to the main substantive item on our agenda today, which, of course, is to undertake the Stage 2 proceedings of the Infrastructure (Wales) Bill. Can I welcome the Minister, Julie James, the Minister for Climate Change, to our meeting this morning? Joining her is the chief planner from the Welsh Government, Neil Hemington, the head of national consenting at the Welsh Government, Owen Struthers, and lawyer Nicholas Webb as well, also from the Welsh Government. Croeso i chi i gyd—a warm welcome to you all.
Right, so, the first group of amendments relates to significant infrastructure projects, and they are miscellaneous amendments. So, the lead amendment in this group is amendment 95, and I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group. Joel.
Thank you, Chair. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank all who have been involved in the development of this legislation so far. To be frank, I think there are major lessons for the Welsh Parliament and the Welsh Government to learn from this Bill, which I wish to briefly touch upon here. We have only known the groupings of the amendments since Monday, meaning that work on 199 amendments ahead of this committee meeting today has had to be undertaken within the last two working days. I do believe that, in future, consideration should be given to given to providing more time between the confirmation of groupings and committee meetings. It will result in better scrutiny. This would also have a positive impact on Commission staff. I'm aware that one official was working on the groupings until after 9pm on Sunday evening.
The second, broader point I wish to make is that the volume of amendments is a reflection of the fact that this Bill is substandard and premature. In addition to Janet's amendments, a considerable amount have been presented by the Minister, too. Why did the Minister not realise that these changes were needed before now?
In complete conflict with the core aims of the Bill to deliver a streamlined and unified process and empower communities to better understand and engage, the Bill has 35 instances where detailed provisions will be included in regulations. That is excessive and has been described by Bute Energy as one of the Bill's key failings. This is unsurprising when you consider that there are a total of 59 powers in the Bill for the Welsh Ministers to make regulations. I genuinely think that this Bill would be more likely to achieve its aim if all the sections requiring secondary legislation were put out to consultation and then the Bill amended based on the replies. Nonetheless, this ineffective approach is what the Welsh Government have decided to pursue, so the Welsh Conservatives have made a major effort to improve what you have presented by submitting 100 amendments.
The first under consideration today is amendment 95. The purpose of this amendment is to clarify that 'significant' relates back to Part 1 of the Bill. If a project falls under one of the definitions set out in Part 1 of the Bill, it is defined as 'significant'. The purpose of this amendment is to provide clarity. Recommendations at Stage 1 included the difficulty in defining 'significant infrastructure projects'.
Amendments 97 to 111 relate to a series of developments specified in Part 1 as significant infrastructure projects. What the amendments would achieve is to address an error Natural Resources Wales highlighted that, while marine areas are mentioned in specific fields, such as electricity infrastructure, they were omitted in others. I agree with NRW that marine areas should be referenced in all relevant areas.
Finally, amendment 114 relates to cross-border projects. The potential complexity of cross-border projects was highlighted by multiple stakeholders. NRW informed the committee that, to navigate these complexities successfully, all involved parties should be well informed about the requirements of the different regimes. RenewableUK Cymru also highlighted the challenges for future cross-border projects, where concurrent applications for the Welsh and English consent processes might be necessary. Our solution is to include an amendment that sets a requirement in law for the Welsh Ministers to consult with the United Kingdom Government to seek to agree an approach in respect of that cross-border project. Thank you.
Thank you, Joel. Right, do I have any other speakers who wish to contribute to this group? No. There we are. Okay, I'll ask the Minister to respond, then.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I welcome the opportunity to debate the amendments to the Infrastructure (Wales) Bill today, and I also would like to express my thanks to all the members of the committee for their scrutiny of the Bill, and particularly to those Members who have tabled amendments to the Bill. I also want, Chair, to place on record my assurance to Members that I have considered carefully each and every amendment tabled, and whilst it hasn't been possible to support all the amendments tabled, I think there are a number of opportunities where the intention behind the amendments can be reflected within the Bill, going forward. And I'm very happy to work with Members towards Stage 3 amendments that might be drafted so that the Bill is more coherent overall but actually takes the policy intent into account. So, I'm very happy to do that, and I'll indicate as we go through where we think that's the case.
I'm afraid I don't support amendment 95. Section 1(a) already states that
'development specified in this Part as a significant infrastructure project'.
Therefore, the amendment has no legal effect and would create confusion through duplication. So, I ask the committee to reject this amendment.
I'd also like to thank Janet Finch-Saunders—and Joel James today for presenting them—for tabling a number of amendments that insert the words 'Welsh marine area' to various sections of the Bill. I'm going to speak on amendments 97, 98, 100, 101, 102, 104, 106, 108, 109, 110 and 111 all together. I can see the merits in including the words 'Welsh marine area' for certain developments, but I'm not certain it's required for all the development types proposed. So, I support amendment 97 and 98 on fracking and coal gasification, given the coalfields do extend beyond the land, into the sea, and we are aware of these developments and their national significance.
I also support amendments 108-111, which would place projects on waste water onto the face of the Bill, as we are all aware of the significance of waste water nationally.
I'm afraid I do not support amendments 100 or 101 on railways, 102 and 104 on dams, or 106 on transfer of water. I have concerns that inserting these words may create unintended consequences or are unlikely to happen in the sea. For example, a dam in the sea would be an unusual project in itself, but there are also drafting issues over what is a dam in the sea. Is it mud deposits? Is it a traditional dam? What exactly is it? So, I'm not saying that the project might not be significant, but they're better captured via direction-making powers, based on knowledge of the project and its effects, rather than the blanket insertion of the words.
Thank you, Chair. I'm grateful for the Welsh Government's support on the amendments that the Minister outlined. Nonetheless, we'd still like to proceed to a vote on the remaining ones.
There we are. Okay. Thank you for that. So, the question is that amendment 95 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There we are. Okay, we'll move to a vote, then. So, could I see all those in favour of amendment 95? Three. And against amendment 95? Three. There we are. No abstentions. That vote is tied, so I'm using my casting vote in the negative, that is against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii). So, the amendment is not agreed.
We move on to the second group of amendments, which relates to significant infrastructure projects: local ownership of energy projects. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 191.
Rwy'n ddiolchgar, Cadeirydd, a diolch am y cyfle i fod yn cynnig y gwelliannau hyn y bore yma. Mae gwelliant 191 a 195 gyda'i gilydd yn golygu, pe baen nhw'n cael eu pasio ac yn cael eu derbyn, y byddai’r gorsafoedd cynhyrchu trydan, fel sy'n cael eu diffinio o dan y Bil, ond yn brosiectau seilwaith arwyddocaol pe baen nhw'n bodloni gofynion perchnogaeth leol, ac mae yna ddarpariaeth yn y gwelliant hefyd sydd yn galluogi'r Llywodraeth i osod mas ar hyn o bryd mewn rheoliadau beth fyddai diffiniad 'gofynion perchnogaeth leol'. Mater i'w drafod, efallai, ymhellach fyddai hynny—hynny yw, y balans rhwng gosod pethau ar wyneb y Bil a rheoliadau yn gyffredinol.
Y cefndir polisi i hyn ydy polisi presennol y Llywodraeth, sydd, ers 2020, wedi dweud y dylai pob prosiect, yn ddieithriad, sydd yn cynhyrchu trydan fod ag elfen o berchnogaeth leol. Felly, dyna yw'r polisi ar hyn o bryd, ond does yna ddim grym statudol, mandadol, cyfreithiol i'r polisi ar hyn o bryd. Efallai bydd y Gweinidog â gwybodaeth ynglŷn â data, hynny yw, ble rydyn ni o ran canrannau sydd yn cwrdd â'r nod o 100 y cant yma mae'r Llywodraeth wedi'i gosod. Ond rwy'n credu bod digon o brofiad gennym ni fel Aelodau o blith ein gilydd, siŵr o fod, yn ein hetholaethau, i ddangos o ran prosiectau ynni gwynt, solar ac yn y blaen rŷn ni'n ymwybodol ohonyn nhw, sydd yn yr arfaeth neu sydd ar y gweill, nad ydy nod y polisi o gyrraedd 100 y cant yn sicr ddim yn cael ei gyrraedd ar hyn o bryd. Sgil effaith hynny ydy bod yna ymdeimlad cynyddol, ymhlith rhai cymunedau yn sicr, fod hanes Cymru yn ail-ddweud ei hunain. Rwy'n cyfeirio fanna at ofidiau byd-eang, a dweud y gwir, rŷn ni'n eu gweld ar hyn o bryd o ran economi echdynnu—extractive economy—lle mae'r elw yn gadael ond mae'r gost yn lleol. Mae hwn, wrth gwrs, yn adleisio hanes Cymru o ran ein hanes ni gyda mwyngloddio glo a llawer o fwynau eraill: buddiannau corfforaethol yn elwa a dim budd economaidd lleol yn llifo o hynny.
A hefyd mae yna elfen o ran democratiaeth ac atebolrwydd sydd yn berthnasol iawn i'r Bil yma, onid yw, o ran y system gynllunio ac yn y blaen, oherwydd mae yna ymdeimlad o—rwy'n mynd i drio bathu'r term Cymraeg—'ymyl-oleiddio'. Mae'n air hyll am broses fwy hyll fyth: peripheralisation, y teimlad bod penderfyniadau yn cael eu gosod ar gymunedau heb fod eu llais nhw'n cael ei glywed, ac mae yna drafodaeth byw ynglŷn â hyn yng nghyd-destun net zero a'r angen am just transition sy'n cynnwys cymunedau. Felly, dyna'r cefndir, a bwriad polisi y gwelliannau hyn, yn syml iawn, ydy ceisio lliniaru y ddwy ffenomenon hynny trwy ar y naill law mynnu quid pro quo, mewn ffordd. Hynny yw, os ydych chi fel prosiect, fel datblygwr, yn meddu ar y statws yma o brosiect seilwaith arwyddocaol ac felly yn mwynhau'r manteision hynny o ran sicrhau proses cyflymach, mwy chwim, mwy di-drafferth, yna mae'n rhaid wedyn fod yna quid pro quo o ran perchnogaeth lleol, a bod y prosiectau generadu trydan hynny yn delifro elfen o'r elw yn aros yn lleol, a hefyd, ochr yn ochr, mater i'w fanylu yn ei gylch yn y rheoliadau sydd yn diffinio perchnogaeth leol, ond mae Community Energy England, wrth gwrs, sydd yn ymgyrchu am isafswm mandadol o ran perchnogaeth leol ar gyfer prosiectau ynni, maen nhw hefyd yn awgrymu dylai fod y berchnogaeth honno â hawliau pleidleisio—felly, nid yn unig bod cyfran o'r elw yn aros yn lleol, ond hefyd bod yna commitment i sicrhau bod y llais lleol hwnnw yn cael ei ddelifro drwy hawliau i bleidleisio yn gysylltiedig gydag unrhyw berchnogaeth leol.
Mae cwmnïau mawr yn y sector yn gwrthwynebu'r awgrymiadau hyn. Dyw hynny ddim yn syndod. Mae’r sector ynni cymunedol yn eu cefnogi nhw—unwaith eto ddim yn syndod, a dweud y gwir. Y prif ddadl mae'r cwmnïau corfforaethol mawr yn ei defnyddio yw byddai hwn yn arafu'r broses o ddatgarboneiddio, ac mae'n rhaid rhoi ystyriaeth ddwys i hynny, onid oes, ond mae'r dystiolaeth yn awgrymu fel arall, wrth gwrs. Mae yna dystiolaeth eang, ers blynyddoedd nawr, fod sicrhau elfen o berchnogaeth leol yn cynyddu cefnogaeth a derbyniad lleol i brosiectau ynni adnewyddadwy, gan leihau gwrthwynebiad ac felly yn cyflymu'r broses o ddatgarboneiddio. Felly, mae sicrhau berchnogaeth leol, a dweud y gwir, yn cael yr effaith i'r gwrthwyneb. Mae o'n cyflymu'r broses o ddatgarboneiddio, ac mae yna enghreifftiau o lefydd eraill sydd wedi gwneud yr union beth dŷn ni'n ei awgrymu yn y gwelliannau hyn.
Mae Denmarc, un o'r arloeswyr byd-eang gydag ynni adnewyddadwy, yn arbennig gydag ynni gwynt, ers pasio Deddf ynni adnewyddadwy 2009, wedi bod â gofyniad statudol ar bob prosiect ynni gwynt i gynnig o leiaf 20 y cant o bob prosiect i berchnogaeth leol, a hynny heb liniaru o gwbl ar lwyddiant Denmarc yn y maes yma—maen nhw wedi arwain y byd, onid ydyn nhw? Mae'r dynesiad yma wedi llwyddo yn Nenmarc, ac mae wedi cael ei efelychu mewn llefydd eraill hefyd. Felly, yng ngwlad Belg, mae nifer o ranbarthau yng ngwlad Belg wedi deddfu ar hyd yr un llinellau ac wedi awgrymu elfen arall, gan gynnwys gofyniad i gynnig peth o'r berchnogaeth leol i awdurdodau lleol o fewn ardal y datblygiad.
I'm intrigued. I'm not totally persuaded, but I am intrigued. And if I can just say a word; I didn't intervene on the previous section, but it is pertinent that, having numbers of amendments like this coming forward, when we discussed the previous grouping, I don't think is a bad thing, because that actually inspires the debate that we do have. And whether it's 20 or 100 or 200 amendments, if they're worthy amendments, they're worth discussion. I genuinely am intrigued. I understand better now. I was trying to fathom what these amendments were seeking to do; now I understand. And I think they need, probably, in my mind—. I need to time to reflect on them, certainly, without a doubt. But I see what you're trying to do, and, certainly, the history of my area, with onshore windfarm developments—and we have many of them—has gone from 20 years ago, where there was no community engagement and involvement whatsoever, progressively to shift to the community pay-off, if you like, and now to community shares, community engagement and so on. But we're still a long way from that nirvana of actually having bolted down, by default, that communities will be part and parcel of big or small onshore windfarm developments.
For my community, much of it now is history, in a sense, until we come to the renegotiation of those. And there's an interesting thing to look at—at that point, what do we then do? But I am intrigued with what you're saying. It definitely goes to the heart of this tension between what the Bill is, overall, trying to do—as the Minister has tried to explain to us when she's come in front of us before—which is to actually make sure that there is community engagement and wider stakeholder engagement, but there's also actually an understandable timeline. Now, what you were saying, Adam, I think, is that this would not knock this off the timeline of development of projects and hitting decarbonisation targets, that it could aid. But I'd like to hear more about that and how that could be done when you're also trying to say, then, to some of these big developers, who will inevitably be partners in some of the bigger ones I think—short of us having a nationalised wind energy company—. Then I can see there are things to pull out from here as to whether that could work or not.
But I do get the intention of what you're trying to do and the start of a discussion here at this stage of the Bill. I think most of us on this committee would support what you've said about the idea of local ownership—not just local engagement, but local ownership—which is also within the Welsh Government's strategy as well to get there, and you're trying to put some rocket fuel underneath it to say, 'Well, we can do this within a piece of legislation.' And I think it's quite clever and ingenious, but I'm not sure I can support it today until I hear a little bit more, both from the Minister’s response, but also to, if not this, how we could do it, if you see what I mean. But I am intrigued. I think it's a great set of amendments to explore. So, that's my contribution for the moment. I think it's worthy of consideration, Minister, as to how we do this, whether this is of any help or not.
Dwi’n meddwl bod hyn yn syniad rili da. Byddai fe’n ymbweru cymunedau, byddai fe yn eglurhau polisi’r Llywodraeth. Efallai byddai fe’n tacluso’r sefyllfa, yn democrateiddio'r prosesau, a dwi'n cytuno 100 y cant gyda beth roedd Adam yn ei ddweud, a Huw hefyd, o ran—dwi'n gwybod doedd Huw ddim yn defnyddio’r gair yma, ond—yr hanes echdynnu o’n daearyddiaeth ni a fel dŷn ni ddim eisiau i'r hanes yna gael ei ailadrodd. Dŷn ni eisiau eto gwneud yn siŵr bod gan gymunedau nid yn unig yr opsiwn o gael llais, ond bod yr llais yna yn cael platfform sydd yna a'i fod e’n cael ei glywed. Achos os oes angen i bobl ffeindio cyfleoedd i ffeindio lle bydden nhw'n gallu cael platfform, dyw e jest ddim yn gweithio. Dyw bywyd ddim yn gweithio fel yna, yn sicr ddim ar gyfer cymunedau sydd yn wynebu cymaint o sialensau yn barod. Dwi ddim cofio sut roedd Adam wedi bathu'r gair am 'peripheralisation', ond let that run.
Certainly, I completely agree with your policy objectives. It's not something that we've really discussed at Stage 1, because it's complicated. I was on the environment committee that, in 2015, went to have a look at what was going on in Germany, and there are absolutely thousands of community energy projects alive and well in small communities, and probably larger ones too, in Germany. And it would be really interesting to examine further as to why, culturally, we haven't grabbed onto this, because it's absolutely essential that we have community energy schemes to keep the benefit in our communities. That's the principle of a foundational economy.
But it's complicated, isn't it? Because there are thousands of companies out there trying to encourage people who are eligible for ECO4 to take up the opportunity of that UK initiative, but so many people are just nervous about it, they don't understand it, they think that it'll end up being more expensive than it's being presented. Huge issues around that, and I think local authorities have really been sitting this one out. How many solar panels are on my schools across Cardiff? Very, very few. And I think just local authorities have to pay way more attention to this as a way of tackling the cost-of-living crisis and helping people understand what the benefits of community energy ownership would be.
But I think there's a real tension here between the urgent need to switch away from fossil fuels now in order to avert the climate disaster that's staring us in the face, because it will take time for people to get the confidence to want to be involved in community energy schemes. Just listening to people who have battled away on their own on this—Awel Aman Tawe is a good example, but the Corwen hydro scheme is another—the amount of time that individuals have had to invest in trying to move forward on what is proving to be such a complicated area—. So, like Huw, I'm certainly interested in pursuing this as a policy issue, and really raising the game of all the organisations like Ynni Cymru and others who need to be thinking and doing stuff in this space, because you cannot expect Mr and Mrs who live next door to know about this renewable energy. This is a really innovative way of generating energy, and why should people know about it unless they happen to have done a physics degree? So, I'd be interested to hear what the Minister has to say, whether this is the right place for this or whether this is something that we need to pursue more urgently as a policy objective.
Thank you, Chair. I'd like to thank Adam Price for bringing the matter of ownership to the fore, but he has followed the pattern the Minister has pursued, leaving actual detail to regulations. The amendment provides no definition of 'minimum local ownership'. That omission means that the Bill would again fail to deliver a streamlined and unified process, and fail to empower communities to better understand and engage with the legislation. Additionally, the local ownership idea is only targeted at section 2, which is electricity infrastructure. Did the Member want to exclude all other sections in Part 1? Finally, the idea of local ownership is flawed when considering that these are significant infrastructure projects that usually require involvement by major stakeholders, who may not necessarily be Welsh but have a vital role to play in our nation's infrastructure. I'll be voting against amendments 191 and 195 today. Thank you.
Indeed. It's just a point of clarification. I get amendment 195, which you predominantly spoke to, but it's actually picking up on Joel's point here. It seems to be partial in its application, to specific parts of the energy infrastructure. So my point of clarification is whether this is meant to be partial and only focused on them, or is it the broader issue of getting more community ownership. Because it doesn't seem to apply to the whole energy infrastructure that we're talking about within this Bill.
It is focused deliberately on electricity-generating projects. That's where the policy debate and focus around the question of local ownership is concentrated at this stage. But the principle, of course, could be applied in other areas. I'll respond to Joel's point, I think, in summing up, rather than here. Does that give you your answer? Okay.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. I'll just start by saying—. I'm echoing back on myself, sorry—that's very disconcerting. I'll just start by saying I have a huge amount of sympathy with what Adam is trying to achieve here in policy terms, but there are two problems, I think. The first is that this is a process Bill, it isn't a policy Bill. It doesn't have policies in it; it's intended to apply a process to all of the policies that lead to infrastructure developments across Wales. So, whilst I have a huge amount of sympathy with the policy aims that Adam Price has just put forward, I think there are better ways to achieve what he's trying to do, and I'm more than happy to work with him on attempting to do that, whether in this Bill or elsewhere. I'm very happy to start from that point.
I will speak on the two amendments together, as they're both concerned with the local ownership requirements. Amendment 195 would provide that electricity-generating stations within section 2(1)(a)-(d) of the Bill would not be categorised as significant infrastructure projects unless they meet the requirements for local ownership. The definition of the local ownership, as Adam said, would be in the regulations, and amendment 191 is consequential as a result of that. I think the difficulty with the way that this is drafted—and Huw touched on it a little bit—is that that doesn't prevent the development from coming forward. It isn't a planning policy, so it doesn't mean the development can't happen; it just means it wouldn't be subject to the processes in this Bill.
The amendment doesn't affect the ability of the Welsh Ministers to call an application in, or to put a holding direction on it, or indeed to recover it or any of the other things that happen, so I don't think it has the effect that Adam would like it to have, which is to actually stop the progress of a large-scale energy project that didn't have local ownership. That, I think, is what you'd like. And actually, just to be really clear, that's what the Government would also like. But I don't think it's effective to do that. What would happen is that an energy project that did not have local ownership would stay with the local authority to determine. One of the problems that we have with local authorities is that they really struggle to do that with the big energy projects. The likelihood is that the Welsh Ministers would call it in because they'd be asked to do so by local residents and all of the people subject to transmission line discussions and so on. The transmission lines don't necessarily stay within the same local authority, for example—there's a whole range of issues with that. So, I understand entirely the intention, but I don't think it's effective in doing what we would like it to do.
I'm very grateful to everyone who has responded, and to the Minister for those remarks. I'll try and go through them all in turn. I think 'intriguing' is a good word, and I think that, certainly, the intention in laying the amendments, at this stage, was to create a space for further discussion.
In response to Joel's point, yes, I think there is an argument to be had, in the context of the purpose of these amendments, as to what's the balance in terms of getting detail on the face of the Bill versus setting out more detail in regulations. Do you want to set out the minimum threshold, if that's the route that you want to go down, on the face of the Bill? There are further discussions and arguments on both sides in terms of the detail. I didn't think it was appropriate, at this stage, to set all of them out, because we could then end up having a discussion on the detail rather than on the principle.
In terms of the generality, everyone in Europe says that they want to have community ownership of energy, but there is definitely a policy divide between those jurisdictions that have gone down the voluntary route, with various ways of encouraging the sector and encouraging people to get involved, with variable degrees of success, it has to be said—Jenny, you're absolutely right—and those jurisdictions that I referred to in my opening remarks that have decided, actually, the only way that we can get the sector to move is to place a statutory duty on them.
I think it would be, certainly in the context of further discussions, useful to look at the 15 years of experience they've had in Denmark—successfully, despite protestations in Denmark, I'm sure. Denmark, of course, had a very, very large community-owned sector; in fact, the norm was community ownership in Denmark. But they started to see a shift towards the corporate sector coming in, and, as a result of that, they decided to create this minimum threshold. It hasn't prevented the continuing success of Denmark in terms of decarbonisation. So, there are practical examples there that we can look at—and not just in Denmark, but other people have looked at the Danish model and built upon it. Critically, I think, Jenny, you're right to point to the role of local authorities. The Belgian regions, for example, are aware that sometimes there's a situation where you're trying to grow the community sector, but also you're trying to encourage individual residents to take part in ownership schemes. Having local authorities there as a stakeholder is a very, very useful way of getting up to significant levels of local ownership, because they have the financial and other wherewithal to be able to engage in this kind of facility.
In Denmark, in terms of the practicalities, there has been a lot of debate: do you simply have a minimum threshold, and if you haven't got 15 per cent then you can't come in to this process, or do you have a commitment that they must offer a minimum level of ownership? Those are two different ways of meeting it. The reason that most of the examples that I refer to have gone down the second route is that it doesn't actually prevent any project from proceeding, as long as they're prepared to commit to offering that local ownership stake. One of the concerns that sometimes is raised is, 'Well, what if nobody actually buys a share? Does that mean that the project can't continue?' Well, if it's predicated on the idea of you must offer a minimum level of ownership, in a particular way, because one would want to avoid circumstances where you just sell 20 per cent to a wealthy local resident—. Well, that's not local ownership in the way that we would want it. So, you'd need to—and here, probably, some of these matters would need to be set out in regulation—make sure that it's an inclusive process, et cetera, that is truly reflective of local ownership. So, there's a bank of experience, there's a lot of discussion, about how you could use a statutory necessity for all renewable energy-generating projects to have this minimum ownership requirement, and I think that we can draw upon that.
I would be happy to agree to that if the rest of the committee are happy to agree to that because, obviously, I have formally moved. So, are you content for us to not proceed to a vote? Diolch yn fawr. And I presume when we come to the other amendment in that group later on, you will advise us accordingly. Okay, diolch yn fawr.
So, we'll move on then to the third group, which is significant infrastructure projects: energy. Projects for energy, sorry, I should say. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 192, again in the name of Adam Price.
Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. Diben gwelliant 192, fel sy'n cael ei ddisgrifio yn y nodyn esboniadol, ydy sicrhau bod llinellau trydan o dan y ddaear yn cael eu trin yn gyfartal â llinellau uwchben y ddaear yng nghyd-destun y Bil. Hynny yw, bod modd iddyn nhw gael eu cyfrif mewn projectau seilwaith arwyddocaol. Efallai bod y pwyllgor eisoes yn ymwybodol bod yna sawl gwlad sydd yn tanddaearu pob llinell 132 kV—yr Iseldiroedd, rwy'n credu, a Denmarc. A dweud y gwir, mae yna rai gwledydd erbyn hyn, fel yr Almaen, sydd nawr yn dechrau gosod llinellau foltedd uwch o lawer—400 kV—o dan y ddaear.
Ac mae'r symudiad polisi yma tuag at danddaearu wedi esgor ar arloesedd sylweddol o fewn y maes yma o danddaearu llinellau trydan, sydd wedi golygu lleihad sylweddol yn y gost gymharol â llinellau uwchben y ddaear. Ac rwy'n ymwybodol, Gadeirydd, fod gennych chi eitem, dwi'n credu, ar yr agenda nes ymlaen rŷch chi wedi'i thrafod o'r blaen ynghylch aredig ceblau—cable ploughing—sydd yn ddull cymharol newydd o osod llinellau trydan dan ddaear, ond sydd â manteision ariannol ac amgylcheddol sylweddol o gymharu â dulliau traddodiadol o osod llinellau drwy adeiladu ffosydd. Mae gan Gymru gwmni sydd yn arbenigo yn y maes hwn, a dwi'n meddwl bod y Gweinidog wedi ymweld â nhw neu'n bwriadu ymweld â nhw, ac mae gennym ni hefyd gwmnïau yng Nghymru sydd yn gweithgynhyrchu ceblau trydanol i fynd dan ddaear, ac mae yna dipyn o arloesi wedi bod yn y prosesau hynny—gwella dibynadwyedd ac ôl-droed carbon llinellau trydan dan ddaear.
Felly, bwriad syml y gwelliant yma a'r gwelliant cysylltiedig ydy adlewyrchu'r realiti cyfoes fod tanddaearu yn opsiwn cydradd o ran dosbarthu trydan ac y dylid adlewyrchu hynny, felly, yn y broses o ran SIP.
Jest i gyfeirio at rai o'r gwelliannau eraill, dwi'n credu bod gwelliant 96 yn enw Janet Finch-Saunders—os dwi'n ei ddarllen e'n iawn—yn ceisio cyflawni'r un nod, ond mewn ffordd arall. Os ydy'r Gweinidog yn derbyn y diben, efallai y cawn ni glywed hefyd pa ffordd ydy'r ffordd orau o ymgorffori hynny yn y Bil.
Bydd gwelliant 37 yn golygu y gall unrhyw linell trydan o unrhyw gilometredd gael ei chynnwys o dan y cymal hwn cyn belled ag y bod y llinellau trydan o dan 132 kV. Mae yna ddadl, o bosibl, o blaid cynnwys llinellau 66, 33 ac 11 kV o ran bod mor gynhwysfawr ag sy'n bosibl, ond y mae tu hwnt i fy ymwybyddiaeth dechnegol i roi cyngor i chi fel pwyllgor. O ran llinellau trydan uwch na 132 kV, sef 275 a 400 kV, mae'r pwerau dros y rheini ar hyn o bryd, fel dwi'n ei deall hi, yn gadwedig, ond byddwn i'n croesawu, fy hunan, cefnogaeth y grŵp Ceidwadol a'r Llywodraeth i drosglwyddo'r pwerau hyn. Ond a ydy'r cymal yma mewn perygl o osod y Bil mewn trafferthion o ran cymhwysedd? Efallai y cawn ni glywed mwy am hynny yn y man.
O ran y gwelliannau eraill yn y grŵp yma, o'm rhan i, mae yna welliant sydd yn gosod rhyw fath o broses er mwyn diffinio beth yw hyfywedd y project; hynny yw, mae e'n dweud na all project o linellau uwchben y ddaear gael ei ddynodi yn broject o seilwaith arwyddocaol oni bai bod yr opsiwn o danddaearu yn cael ei gau i ffwrdd, fel petai, oherwydd na fyddai'r project cysylltiedig, y project generadu trydan cysylltiedig, yn hyfyw yn economaidd. Y cefndir polisi i hyn ydy'r hyn mae 'Polisi Cynllunio Cymru' yn dweud ar hyn o bryd, a dwi'n dyfynnu yn fan hyn,
'Y safbwynt a ffefrir gan Lywodraeth Cymru ar linellau pŵer newydd yw y dylid eu gosod o dan ddaear lle bo’n bosibl. Fodd bynnag, cydnabyddir bod angen cymryd safbwynt cytbwys o ran costau, a allai olygu bod prosiectau a fyddai’n dderbyniol fel arall, yn anhyfyw.'
Felly, mae'r gwelliant ar un wedd yn ceisio cymryd y polisi yma sydd yn cymryd tanddaearu fel y norm, ac eithrio sefyllfaoedd lle byddai hynny yn gwneud projectau yn anhyfyw, ac ymgorffori hynny, mewn ffordd, yn statudol o fewn y system gynllunio. Un o fanteision gwneud hynny fyddai cael diffiniad a phroses glir o ran asesu hyfywedd. So, mae hyfywedd yn y polisi, ond dyw e ddim yn cael ei ddiffinio, na'r broses o ganfod yr hyfywedd hynny. Mae asesiadau hyfywedd yn rhan o brosesau cynllunio weithiau, yng nghyd-destun tai, er enghraifft. Felly, dyw e ddim yn rhywbeth hollol ddieithr yn y cyd-destun cynllunio. Ond does gennym ni ddim fframwaith neu weithdrefnau ar gyfer asesu hyfywedd o fewn y cyd-destun yma ynglŷn â thanddaearu neu adeiladu llinellau uwchben y ddaear, ac mae'r gwelliant yma, a'r gwelliannau hyn, yn syml iawn, yn ceisio datrys hynny.
Thank you, Chair. I move amendments 96 and 37 in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders. Amendment 96 adds 'or underground' after 'ground', meaning that the installation of underground electric cables can be considered a significant infrastructure project too. This follows a submission by Llanarthne and Area Community Pylon Group, who raised concerns about the exclusion of certain types of electrical lines, both above and below ground, from the Bill's definitions.
Similarly, Llanarthne and Area Community Pylon Group also expressed uncertainty surrounding why certain electrical line voltages were included or excluded, and how this might affect the overall objective of simplifying the application process. Consequently, amendment 37 leaves out 132 kV.
Whilst I'm voting against amendment 192, because it clashes with Janet's 37, we will be supporting some of Adam's work today, for example, amendment 194, which would mean that an energy project is not to include the construction of overhead electricity lines in environmentally and culturally sensitive landscape areas, restricting the way overhead electricity infrastructure projects can take place.
Welsh Conservatives support underground and not cables overhead. The amendment would be a positive step to encourage action to address the wider problem that the process of deciding whether underground is more expensive than overhead is now fundamentally flawed. Indeed the most comprehensive cost comparison is a 2012 report by consultants Parsons Brinckerhoff—I hope I've pronounced that right. Whilst the report found the cost of installing new power connections underground is always more expensive than installing overhead lines, that finding may no longer be valid today when considering the advancement of technology since 2012 and the greater use of techniques—as Adam outlined—such as cable ploughing.
I do believe that urgent action is required by the Welsh Government to establish if undergrounding new electricity lines is more expensive than overhead lines and pylons. Whilst we are waiting for the scales to tip in favour of undergrounding, amendment 194 will further help reduce the plague of pylons in rural areas.
I cannot support amendments 139 nor 140 by Delyth either. The inclusion of hydraulic fracturing and opencast coal mining in the Bill is responsible. In the time of global conflict, to the point that cargo ships on one of the world's most important shipping routes have been attacked, Wales must have the legislation in place to facilitate the process, for example, of applying to open coal mines in Wales. Thank you.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. Firstly, I'd like to move amendments 139 and 140 in my name, please. We're unsure here about why opencast mining, hydraulic fracturing for oil and gas and coal gasification are considered significant infrastructure projects, and, as Adam has already alluded to, how that aligns with the wider aims and principles that we as a nation have aligned ourselves to, both nationally and internationally in terms of our global responsibility. I'd argue there isn't a justification for the centralisation of these projects that are not needed in tackling the climate crisis, because there are other far more sustainable, far less potentially dangerous, and certainly dangerous to our environment, ways of doing that, and they are projects with hugely localised impacts as well. I think that, as a principle, they should be decided locally as a result, particularly when we look at some of the horrific examples of what's already happened with these types of projects. The amendment is to probe why those projects have been included in the Bill and to seek to delete them from the list of projects included in Part 1 that would require infrastructure consent. If they're removed from the Bill, those applications would follow the normal planning process for deciding.
Ar welliant 192 yn enw Adam, rwy'n meddwl bod rhaid i ni edrych ar ailgydraddoli'r system er budd cymunedau a hefyd er budd yr amgylchedd. O ran y costau, a beth roedd Joel wedi sôn amdano fanna, mae'n rhaid i ni edrych ar y gost mae cymunedau yn gorfod ei thalu pan mae cwmnïau allanol yn dod mewn ac yn echdynnu ac nid y gymuned sy'n gweld sgileffeithiau da. Efallai rhai cwmnïau bach neu grwpiau bach sy'n gweld buddion. Ond mae'n rhaid i ni edrych eto ar ailgydraddoli, achos pan mae pethau mawr yn digwydd i'n tirluniau ni mae yna gost fanna sydd ddim yn gost ariannol ond yn gost fwy haniaethol, efallai. Ac felly dwi'n meddwl bod angen ystyried hyn o ddifri.
I'm looking forward to the Minister's response to Delyth's point there as to why it's appropriate to have them in. There may well be very good reasons to have them within this Bill in terms of national infrastructure, because, again, it's that issue of the Welsh Government can set a policy, we can decide as a Senedd whether we agree with it or not, but this is a process Bill. So, I suspect, I'm guessing, that that is what the Minister's going to argue: they need to be in there because this is 'in the eventuality of', even though we have a policy firmly that is against that because of decarbonisation. So I'm looking forward to the response.
I wanted to touch on some of the other ones, because this does go to the heart of the tension with community engagement, community influence over things, highly controversial issues of trying to open up new areas for development of energy potential within Wales that bring with it good connectivity. Joel mentioned that phrase 'a plague of pylons'. I live in industrial south Wales. We have probably some of the highest density not only of wind turbines, but also of pylons, and always have had, and it's a curious thing that we never speak about. Ideally, I would like no intrusion; I'd like perfect peace and tranquility. I'd like to see no other human intrusion or even individual humans when I look out on the area. That's my style of walking and rambling as well, to be honest. But I know that's not an ideal world, because we are in an era where we have to rush very fast towards decarbonisation and hit our net zero targets. There's never a fuss made about 'a plague of pylons' within south Wales. And I make that point not out of a parochial interest, but, my goodness, have we done our fair share of lifting, and the challenge now is what other parts of Wales can do it and how we do it.
I can understand why these amendments are being brought forward, but I'm really interested in what the desired effect of them is. Because we've had representations to this committee before from people who've said we need complete undergrounding of cables. Maybe, in an ideal world, we would have that. I think the challenge of this committee back to them has been, 'Can you show us the cost comparisons of this, with overgrounding, and how this will either enable projects to proceed, or stop them dead in their tracks?' There's a real tension here, I think, on the amendments that are to do with undergrounding, as to whether this is viable. I notice that within amendment 193, the wording is that
'the above ground electric line is necessary for the associated generating station to be economically viable.'
I agree with my colleague Huw Irranca-Davies that amendment 196 does seem to set up a tension between those areas considered to be desirable areas and the rest—communities that just have to put up with what we've got.
I specifically wanted to probe the Government on why we don't need to specify, as per amendment 192—. Because section 2 is very specific on the things that are included in electricity infrastructure, but it's silent on the undergrounding of pylons, which seems to me an entirely useful technology that needs to be considered. As this is a process piece of legislation, what stakeholders want is certainty. So, I think it would be useful for them, for example, to know whether undergrounding was deemed to be something that would bring them into the scope of significant national infrastructures. I wait to hear from the Minister as to why we wouldn't want to specify the inclusion of the undergrounding infrastructure, as described in amendment 192.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. I keep hearing an echo of myself. I just want to start by emphasising the point I made at first: I have a lot of sympathy with a lot of the policy points being made, but we have been at great pains to say that this is not a policy Bill. The Bill does not have policy in it. The Bill has to be read against all of the planning policy documents that exist: 'Future Wales: the national plan', 'Planning Policy Wales', a whole raft of technical advice notes and various other things that sit alongside this.
The idea is to get a process Bill in place that covers the process for certainty for local authorities to be able to plan their resources accordingly, to make sure that we have the expertise necessary to deal with complex things that might only happen once in a local authority's lifetime and they wouldn't have the expertise for—they'd have to tool up, and then they would be tooled up, but they'd never ever deal with that again, because whatever it is has now been built in their area. This is about making sure we have both the expertise to be able to do it, which is best placed nationally, and to make sure that where local communities are hosting something that has national significance, they have both the benefit of that, because they get the community benefits, and, I would very much hope, profit shares as we develop the local ownership clauses, and they get the central process, if you like, expertise to come and help them with that. Some of these infrastructure projects cross many local authority areas, so it's not as if they're nicely contained within one local planning authority. Clearly, that is another consideration. But I can't emphasise enough that whilst I have a lot of sympathy with a lot of the policy debate we're having here, this Bill is not intended to deal with policy. It is intended to deal with process.
Turning to the specific amendments, amendments 192 and 96 are both concerned with section 2 on energy. They both relate to the consenting of underground electric cables in the Bill, so I'll just deal with them together. Welsh planning policy starts from a presumption that the grid should be underground wherever possible, to reduce visual impact. That is already the Welsh Government's policy. I absolutely support this policy by making the consenting of underground cables as easy as possible. It is now already the case that underground electric lines are a permitted development in many places, and that facilitates their roll-out. If you brought the undergrounding of electric cables in their entirety into this regime, you would actually have the opposite effect, by increasing their cost and making them go through planning cycles where they're currently permitted development. I don't think that's the intention, I'm sure it isn't, but we have to guard against unintended consequences. We don't think that the evidence supporting the projects and thresholds in the Bill supports them being brought into the regime for that reason. But, absolutely, I accept there will be individual projects where the extent of them is such that they might be brought into the regime. It certainly isn't all undergrounding of cables, because lots of people do that all the time for small projects without needing any planning consent at all.
Yes. Again, I'm very grateful for committee members' contributions and the Minister's remarks, and I'll try and go through them in order in relation to the set of amendments that I presented. So, I think, in relation to the first amendment, 192, which seeks to put underground electricity lines into the Bill, I’m interested in knowing more than I do currently about the precise legal framework here. The intention is to ensure that there is, at least in policy and in practical terms, parity in terms of the way that undergrounding is treated as a practical alternative to overhead lines.
Clearly, I can completely appreciate that, for small projects—connecting a house or a small area, where you’re using undergrounding lines—permitted development would be the norm. I’m struggling a little bit to imagine that, if a developer was to propose tomorrow a 70-mile undergrounding of an electricity line, that that would not go through a planning process. But I maybe would pause there. It would be certainly a new—
Right, okay. Well, if it depends, then I think maybe there is some role for something in the Bill, but shall we just press pause on that one? I would appreciate the ability to speak further with the Minister and officials to try and understand how we can achieve the shared goal, I think, and obviously echoed by Jenny as well. But let’s see what we need to do to get that in place.
In terms of the next amendment, which relates to economic viability—so, essentially creates an even stronger default—it only allows overhead versus underground to go ahead if you can demonstrate that the associated electricity-generating infrastructure project would not stack up economically otherwise, and it seeks to create a process around that. I think that, certainly from my perspective, there’s still value in having what is currently in policy set out in greater detail in terms of how you demonstrate—. It’s not enough, surely, for a developer just to say, 'Well, I'm telling you it wouldn't be viable—I'm the developer'. Well, they would say that anyway. There should be an independent process and then we need some words set out explicitly somehow, either in statute or in another format around that. So, what I would suggest there with the Minister—. And maybe there is a process somewhere that we didn’t know about—okay, well, let’s see the detail of that then, because I think we also need transparency, don’t we? We need people to understand how that would be defined and what the is process for establishing it, et cetera. So, let’s press pause as well on this probing amendment for the time being and have those further discussions, and there’s always an opportunity, if necessary, to return to it at a later stage.
In terms of the wider policy intent—and in the context of that discussion in terms of the existing policy and how that’s implemented, and how we could strengthen the existing policy even further—as the Minister said, yes, it would be really useful to have that discussion. I nevertheless would like to press 194 and its associated amendment, 196, to a vote, with your permission, Chair. I think there is an important point of principle here, which I think would be useful to press to a vote. But I will just say, in terms of Huw, just to be clear, my party's policy is to do what the Netherlands have done and to do what Denmark has done, which is to have a policy of undergrounding everywhere, not just for new lines, but also for existing lines—to respond to Huw Irranca-Davies's point. You can do that in phases, but that's exactly what they've done, actually, in the Netherlands. They've put everything underground, below 132 kV, and I think that's what we should do. And there are all kinds of reasons. There are good environmental policy reasons for that. As we get into more unpredictable weather, you get more outages, actually, from overhead lines. And certainly in terms of getting community support for the necessary, at-pace decarbonisation investment that we need, if we were to say, 'We're going to underground in Wales tomorrow', then instead of getting opposition, which is what we're currently seeing in those areas where overhead electricity line projects are being promoted, we'd get the communities actually backing these projects. So, I think there are good policy reasons why we need it.
Yes, amendment 96 has been moved. So, the question is that amendment 96 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 96, please show. That's three. All those against. Three. So, I, as Chair, cast my vote in the negative, meaning that amendment 96 falls.
The question is that amendment 37 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We'll move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 37, please show. One. All those against, please show. Three. Any abstentions? Two. There we are. So, amendment 37 falls.
Yes. I move amendment 194. The question is that amendment 194 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 194, please show. We have three in favour. And against. Three against. I therefore have to cast my vote, as Chair, in the negative, meaning that amendment 194 falls.
I believe that I'm not being asked to move amendment 195. It relates to the previous group around local ownership. There were two amendments in that group.
But I will be moving amendment 196 in the name of Adam Price. The question is that amendment 196 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 196, please show. Three. All those against. Three. Therefore, I have to cast my vote, as Chair, in the negative, meaning that amendment 196 falls.
Thank you. If amendment 139 is agreed, then amendments 97 and 98 fall. So, the question is that amendment 139 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those, therefore, in favour of amendment 139, please show. We have two. All those against. We have four. So, amendment 139 falls.
Yes, that's moved. Therefore, the question is that amendment 97 be agreed to. Does any Member object? We have no objections. Therefore, that amendment is agreed.
Yes, you do. There we are. The question is that amendment 140 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. Therefore, we'll move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 140, please show. That's two. All those against. Four. Amendment 140, therefore, falls.
So, before moving on to the next group, I think it's probably timely for us to have a short comfort break. We'll reconvene in 10 minutes, if Members are happy with that. Diolch yn fawr.
Okay, welcome back to the committee. We're moving on to the fourth group of amendments, which relate to significant infrastructure projects for transport. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 99, in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders, and I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment and any other amendments in the group. Joel.
Thank you, Chair. I move all the amendments in Janet's name in this section. It is imperative that the Bill is as clear as possible, so amendment 99 seeks to clarify what is meant by 'significant effect on the environment'. The definition provided is:
'a substantial, adverse change in any of the physical conditions within the area affected by the project including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, ambient noise, and object of historic or aesthetic significance.'
This should assist the Minister in deeming if a project does have significant impact on the environment. It also provides clarity to applicants, as it gives them a better understanding of what to avoid, so their application is more likely to be considered environmentally acceptable.
Similarly, the principle of providing as much clarity as possible in the Bill is the motivation behind amendment 38. The current harbour facilities section is too complex. Janet has amended the section to be simpler and to allow for more projects to be considered a SIP. Should anyone wish to oppose amendment 38, please can you clarify why, then, you wish facilities for container ships to be 50,000 TEU—why not more or less—facilities for roll-on, roll-off ships to be 25,000 units—why not more or less—and facilities for cargo ships to be 500,000 tonnes? Why not more or less? Thank you.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. Amendment 99 would add a definition of significant effect to the alteration or improvement of a highway. The amendment would create confusion with other regimes like the environmental impact assessment that use the term 'significant'. Guidance is better placed to provide clarification on the term 'significant', as that can include practical examples or methodologies for assessing impact.
Amendments 39 through to 43 are consequential to amendment 39, and so I'm just dealing with them all together. The amendments seek to replace our definition of an alteration of a harbour with a new definition of when an alteration to a harbour should be considered a SIP. In my view, the amendments would, together, make any alteration of a harbour subject to the new processes. This would be disproportionate to the effect of the development. I'm not really sure what the intent of the amendment is, but I think that would be the effect. That's because the amendment would mean that the harbour must be capable of handling those ships with no limitation on the extent of the amendment itself, only that the harbour can handle a large ship of different descriptions and that harbour is being amended.
There are other issues as well. In terms of amendment 40, the proposed wording would add a very wide interpretation into the provision. So, I consider that the wording of 'cruise ship' could include, for example, small boats that undertake day charters for fishing. This would mean any amendment to a port to accommodate a fishing boat would go through this process. This is also, clearly, disproportionate.
In terms of amendment 41, the Senedd does not have competence for reserved trust ports. Removal of these words would make the Bill less clear, as the reader would need to read the Bill and the Government of Wales Act 2006 together to understand the projects that fall under the Bill. I therefore ask the committee to reject the amendments in the group.
There we are. Okay, thank you. So, the question is that amendment 99 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those therefore in favour of amendment 99, we have three. All those against, we have three. Therefore, I cast my vote as Chair in the negative against amendment 99, which falls.
The question is that amendment 100 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 100, please show. Three. All those against. Three. I cast, therefore, my vote as Chair in the negative, and amendment 100 falls.
There we are, it's moved. All those in favour of amendment 101. Three. All those against. Three. Sorry, I should have asked whether there was any objection, but I can see that with three votes against that we can take that as read. [Laughter.] I therefore cast my vote as Chair in the negative, meaning that amendment 101 falls.
Yes. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] It's objected to, therefore, all those in favour of amendment 38, please show. That's one. All those against. That's five. Amendment 38 falls.
The question is that amendment 39 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those therefore in favour of amendment 39, one. All those against, five. Amendment 39, therefore, is rejected.
There we are. The question is that amendment 40 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] It's objected to, therefore, all those in favour of amendment 40, please show. One. All those against. Three. Any abstentions? Two. There we are. Amendment 40 falls.
There we are. The question is that amendment 41 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so all those in favour of amendment 41, please show. One. All those against. Five. Amendment 41, therefore, falls.
There we are. The question is that amendment 42 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 42, please show. One. All those against. Five. Amendment 42 falls.
There we are. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] It's objected to, therefore we move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 43, please show. One. All those against. Five. Amendment 43 is rejected.
Joel moves. Yes, thank you. The question is that amendment 102 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour, therefore, of 102, please show. Three. All those against. Three. As Chair, therefore, I cast my vote in the negative, and amendment 102 falls.
So, we come to the fifth group of amendments, and the fifth group relates to significant infrastructure projects for water and waste water, and the lead amendment in this group is amendment 44, in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders, but I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment and any other amendments in that group. Joel.
Thank you, Chair. I move all amendments in Janet's name in this section. Amendments 44 and 45 change the original feature stated at section 12(a), the construction or alteration of a dam or reservoir in Wales, from 10 million cubic metres to 30 million cubic metres, so as to match the Planning Act 2008.
Similarly, amendments 103 and 105 strive to have a more consistent approach by introducing a new threshold, which means that the deployable output of dams or reservoirs is considered when it comes to determining if a development is an SIP. The proposed threshold is used by the UK Government for projects to determine nationally significant infrastructure projects. I do not see why we would wish to differ on that point. Amendment 107 makes it so that development relating to the transfer of water resources is an SIP if the development does or does not relate to the transfer of drinking water. At present, the Bill is drafted in a way such that a development cannot be considered an SIP if it relates to the transfer of drinking water.
Finally, amendment 112 makes provision for the following developments to be an SIP: the construction of a waste water treatment plant; the construction of infrastructure for the transfer or storage of waste water; the alteration of a waste water treatment plant; and the alteration of infrastructure for the transfer or storage of waste water. We've added this additional subsection to provide that infrastructure, including pipeline replacement, will be an SIP if the replaced infrastructure has a storage capacity exceeding 350,000 cubic metres. Thank you.
Thank you, Joel. Are there any other Members who wish to contribute? No. There we are. Thank you. I'll therefore call on the Minister to respond to this group.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. I will speak on amendments 44 and 45 together. Amendment 44 would increase the threshold for dams from 10 million cubic metres to 30 million cubic meters. Amendment 45 would make the same change for amendments to these structures. The 10 million cubic meters is the same criteria we currently operate for developments of national significance. The threshold also aligns with the Reservoirs Act 1975, and the requirement for increased regulation and oversight of these structures by NRW. I see no evidence that the threshold is inappropriate, and I therefore call on the committee to reject amendments 44 and 45.
Gadeirydd, I will also speak on amendments 103 and 105 together. These amendments would add a new criteria to require the reservoirs' deployable output to be expected to exceed 80 million cubic litres per day. I do note a similar metric is used in England. However, the NSIP regime has this as an alternative threshold to the capacity of the reservoir. This reflects different types of reservoirs, for example capture reservoirs or holding reservoirs, that have no natural catchment but are used in transfer schemes. This amendment is restricting a reservoir to one that fulfills both criteria. The threshold of 80 million cubic litres per day would also align to the 30 million cubic meters threshold proposed in amendments 44 and 45, and would need to be reconsidered if such a metric was brought in. We've had no evidence that the threshold is inappropriate, and I would certainly want to consult before any such change was made. Therefore, I cannot support these amendments.
Turning then to amendment 107, that would bring the transfer of water resources for drinking water into the Bill. However, the amendment as drafted would mean that any water pipes, including those water pipes supplying houses on a new housing estate, would need to be considered in case they fell within the threshold. No evidence has been presented that the threshold is inappropriate, and I would certainly want to consult before such a change was made. I therefore ask the committee to reject the amendments.
Amendment 112 would insert a requirement that the replacement infrastructure for the transfer or storage of waste water is an SIP. I'm not really certain what the amendment is intending to capture. Is it the entire replacement of a project, or replacement of part of a project? So, for example, would replacement of 100m of pipe mean the whole system would fall within the Bill? It's not clear, unfortunately, from the amendment. I consider 'replacement' would be a 'construction' of new infrastructure to replace old, or, possibly, an alteration of the old infrastructure, depending on the extent of the alteration. So, I don't know that the amendment is required and it's not clear.
There we are. Thank you. So, amendment 44 has been moved. Therefore, the question is that amendment 44 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we'll have a vote. All those in favour of amendment 44, please show. That's one. All those against. Five. Amendment 44 is therefore not agreed.
There we are. The question is that amendment 103 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. We have an objection. All those, therefore, in favour of amendment 103, please show. One. All those against. Five. Amendment 103 is therefore rejected.
Thank you, Joel. The question is that amendment 104 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, therefore we will vote on 104. All those in favour, please show. Three. All those against. Three. I therefore cast my vote as Chair against the amendment, which subsequently falls.
Thank you. The question is that amendment 45 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 45, please show. One. And those against. Five. Amendment 45 falls.
Yes, you do. The question is, therefore, that amendment 105 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour, therefore, of 105, please show. One. All those against. Five. Amendment 105 is rejected.
You do. There we are. The question is that amendment 106 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We therefore move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 106, please show. Three. All those against. Three. I therefore cast my vote as Chair against amendment 106, which therefore falls.
Yes, there we are. The question is that amendment 107 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We therefore move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 107, please show. One. All those against. Five. Amendment 107 is therefore rejected.
Yes. Thank you. The question is that amendment 112 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We'll move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 112, please show. One. All those against. Three. Any abstentions? Two. Amendment 112, therefore, is rejected.
So, we'll move next to the sixth group of amendments, which relates to significant infrastructure projects, power to amend. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 46, in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders, and I'll call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group. Joel.
Thank you, Chair. I'd like to move both amendments in the name of Janet. The amendments relate to the power to add, vary or remove projects. RWE Renewables highlighted the Bill's shortcomings in addressing upcoming infrastructure necessary for the energy transition. Examples include hydrogen distribution pipework, carbon dioxide-related facilities, shared heat networks and water supplies specific to green hydrogen electrolysis. The company drew attention to the Bill's omission of stand-alone hydrogen production and related facilities. Bute Energy concurred, saying,
'we note there is an absence of emerging and future technologies such as hydrogen infrastructure and related activities within the definition of SIPs. Whilst there are provisions under Section 17 that grant powers to Welsh Ministers to add, vary or remove types of SIPs, it is disappointing that this is not accounted for in the current document. We would welcome this addition given the Welsh Government’s push to develop a hydrogen strategy as part of the pathway for net zero.'
Amendments 46 and 113 are a reflection of the calls made by stakeholders to the committee. Thank you.
Thank you, Joel. Do we have any other Members wishing to contribute to this discussion? No. I'll ask the Minister therefore to speak to this group of amendments.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. Amendment 46 amends section 17. Section 17 allows the Welsh Ministers to amend Part 1 by regulations in order to add a new type of project to the definition of 'significant infrastructure project', or to vary or remove the existing significant infrastructure projects defined in the Bill. Projects may only be added or varied if the new project, or any variation to an existing project, is for the carrying out of works in the fields of energy, flood prevention, minerals, transport, water, waste water and waste, and the works that are to be carried out in Wales or the Welsh marine area.
We consider this amendment would require consultation before regulations are made. I understand where the amendment is coming from, but we already have a commitment to consult in accordance with general public law principles and in line with our consultation policy. Further, this provision is subject to the draft affirmative procedure as set out in section 137(3) and (4), which means a further level of scrutiny and Senedd approval of any changes.
In terms of the specific amendment, I feel the wording would need to be reconsidered in the interests of clear law; for example, there is uncertainty over who determines what persons are necessarily to be consulted. So, we think it's a confusing addition and not necessary.
Amendment 113 would amend which projects could be added or altered to the Bill. I understand the intent of the amendment, which appears to be to anticipate projects that may come forward in the future, but our existing wording would enable us to capture all of these projects. And importantly, the amendment would mean we cannot change the existing thresholds in the Bill, or add new categories of development in certain fields. For example, flood prevention schemes would fall outside of categories listed in the amendment and could not be added.
I therefore call on the committee to reject amendments 46 and 113.
Thank you, Chair, and I'd like to thank the Minister for her understanding of the reasons why these amendments were put forward, and I'd still like to proceed to the vote.
There we are. Okay. The question is therefore that amendment 46 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] It's objected to, so we will move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 46, please show. One. All those against. Three. Any abstentions? Two. Amendment 46 therefore is rejected.
Thank you. The question is that amendment 113 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we'll vote on 113. All Members in favour, please show. One. All those against. Three. Any abstentions? Two. Diolch yn fawr. So, that amendment is also rejected.
There we are. The question is that amendment 114 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We need therefore to move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 114. One. All those against. Three. And abstentions. Two. Amendment 114—
Group 7, then, of amendments. The seventh group relates to Part 2, requirement for infrastructure consent. Now, the lead amendment in this group is amendment 156.
Thank you, Chair. I've tabled amendments 156 and 157 to ensure powers contained in other relevant—I can't speak now—relevant legislation and the Bill are consistent and avoid duplication. These are technical amendments, which have no effect on any policy contained within the Bill.
Amendment 156 relates to the removal of references to section 110 of the Highways Act 1980 in section 20 of the Bill. The amendment ensures any references to the Highways Act 1980 is consistent with the powers contained within the Bill.
Amendment 157 is consequential to amendment 156, and ensures that any references to the Highways Act 1980 is consistent with the powers within the Bill.
Amendment 47 removes section 22. Section 22 is the ability to direct a specific development as a significant infrastructure project.
Amendment 48 removes section 23. This section is the ability to direct an application is to be treated as an application for infrastructure consent.
Section 22 relates to to directing a development, whereas section 23 relates to directing an application. However, they achieve the same outcome, and therefore I do not support amendments 47 and 48. First, the evidence presented to this committee by WWU and SP Energy Networks supported the ability to direct a project into the regime. Secondly, it is important to be able to direct specific projects or applications, and these sections recognise that the threshold is a blunt instrument, and that other factors may affect a scheme’s significance. This power will stop developers ‘gaming the system’, and avoiding the project coming above the threshold with a development of, for example, 49.9 MW. Thirdly, the provision also enables responses to new and novel technology.
Amendment 49 removes section 24. Section 24 is the ability to direct that a development is not a significant infrastructure project. I do not support this amendment. The evidence this committee received from NRW, Bute Energy and RenewableUK Cymru all identified the importance of cross-border projects. This provision is designed to address those concerns. The provision means that we can respond to a development that crosses borders, not only on land, but also in the sea.
Amendment 158 has been brought forward following consideration of recommendation 11 in the LJC committee report. The amendment inserts a new section (a) and (b) into section 24, and covers directions specifying that the development is not a significant infrastructure project. The amendment will also insert a new subsection into section 24 that requires publication of any direction made and for a statement to be made to the Senedd that a direction has been made, and the reasons it has been made.
I do not support amendment 50, which removes the general provisions that apply to directions under section 22 to 24, and amendment 51, which removes directions under section 22, regulations about procedure, as these sections are needed to ensure our system of direction works. These include the time frame, form of requests et cetera in the system.
Thank you, Chair. We are able to support several of the Minister's amendments in this group, and I would kindly ask that you all consider doing the same for the amendments in Janet's name, especially amendment 47. This amendment removes the whole of section 22 from the Bill, directions specifying development as an SIP, as it gives Ministers too much power. The powers of direction in section 22 and 24 could be misused for political advantage, allowing decisions with negative political implications to be sidestepped. Clear criteria should be established by the circumstances in which the powers could be used. Without that clarity there's a real risk that the Welsh Government could pass the buck to planning authorities, which we already know are overwhelmed. In fact, there are as many as 135 vacancies in the planning sector in local authorities. The impact of the staffing crisis in planning departments is apparent in authorities such as Flintshire, which has warned of planning delays due to a shortage of staff and high volumes of work. We should reduce the risk of more pressure being passed from the Welsh Government to planning authorities by making it impossible for Welsh Ministers to specify that a development that would otherwise be a significant infrastructure project is not a significant infrastructure project. Thank you.
I will resist amendments 47, 48 and 49. It seems to me that the Minister has already mentioned the idea of a developer gaming the system, and I think it's really important that we have section 22, 23 and 24 to ensure that developers aren't simply putting in a little wiggle of English pipeline or development that would enable the UK Government to try and argue that this wasn't just a Welsh development. I think it's really clear that we need to have the powers to ensure it can be specified as significant where there is a border issue. We can't simply just allow the UK Government at the other end of the M4 to determine it for us. So I will be voting against those three amendments.
Just a couple of things. I just want to speak in favour of the Government amendments here, because it is true that the evidence that we heard was very much about enabling those cross-border projects to proceed within the framework of the legislation, and certainly not to impair them, but also the evidence that we had from the Minister on justifying why that need for a power to direct was sometimes required. But I do welcome, on that basis, the fact that you've responded very warmly to the LJC committee's recommendation—we've got two members of the LJC committee on this committee today as well; it's the necessity of the way we work in the Senedd with 60 Members—that you need to put that in front of the Senedd when you actually use that direction. So, I support those entirely, and for the reasons I've just outlined, that's why I wouldn't support the other amendments being put forward by Joel today, because the evidence we've heard would argue against that. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. I'm very grateful to Members for their remarks on the group. Just to reiterate that I ask the committee to support the Government amendments in this group, but to reject amendments 47 through 51, tabled by Janet Finch-Saunders. They don't recognise, as Huw's just said, the evidence presented by stakeholders to the committee, or the clear need for a system of direction. Just to reiterate, this is not an à la carte system where the developers get to choose whether to opt in or not; this would be opposite to the clarity that all stakeholders require. We have the power in the Bill to direct that applications below those thresholds can be considered a significant infrastructure project, called optional projects. A better term might be 'directed applications'.
I think we can all imagine—and, actually, we've had some examples today in the discussion—where medium-scale projects might nevertheless have national significance, or wider than a single community significance. So, it is very important to be able to take more criteria than simple thresholds into account, and that's why it's important not to have a system so rigid that it can be gamed. So, the 49.9 MW example is a very clear and good one, but there will be many others where it would be possible to just game the system if you were relying just on a standard threshold. So, I think it's very powerful to have the power to direct.
I do appreciate what Joel said about the capacity of local planning authorities—of course we take that into account. As I said very clearly in earlier evidence in this session to the committee, we are very keen to ensure that local planning authorities are not asked to tool up, so to speak, for very significant projects, which they are very unlikely to ever have to deal with again. So, again, a simple threshold criteria might not be sufficient to put the project into this category, and so we think that those amendments should be rejected and ours should be supported. Diolch, Chair.
Diolch, Weinidog. The question is that amendment 156 be agreed to. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Amendment 156 is, therefore, agreed.
I move amendment 157 in the name of the Minister. If amendment 157 is not agreed, amendment 184 falls. The question is that amendment 157 be agreed to. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Therefore, amendment 157 is agreed.
It's moved in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders. The question is that amendment 47 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll move to a vote, therefore. All those in favour of amendment 47, please show—one. All those against—five. Amendment 47, therefore, is rejected.
The question is that amendment 48 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour, therefore, of amendment 48, please show—one. All those against—five. Amendment 48 falls.
If amendment 49 is agreed, amendment 158 falls. The question is that amendment 49 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 49, please show—one. All those against—five. Amendment 49, therefore, falls.
I move amendment 158, in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 158 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We'll therefore have a vote. All those in favour of amendment 158 please show. That's five. All those against—one. Amendment 158 is, therefore, agreed.
Thank you. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We'll therefore vote. All those in favour of amendment 50, please show—one. All those against—five. Amendment 50 falls.
If amendment 51 is agreed, amendment 1 falls. The question is that amendment 51 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those, therefore, in favour of amendment 51, please show—one. All those against—five. Amendment 51, therefore, falls.
I move amendment 1 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 1 be agreed to. Does any Member object? There are no objections. Amendment 1, therefore, passes.
We've come to the eighth group of amendments, and this group relates to applying for infrastructure consent: assistance for applicants. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 115 in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders, and I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in the group.
Thank you, Chair. I move all of the amendments in Janet's name. As it stands, section 27 could lead to both planning authorities and Welsh Ministers providing pre-application services in relation to infrastructure consent. Amendment 115 removes planning authorities from this section. This means that only Welsh Ministers would be required to provide assistance to applicants, rather than local planning authorities.
The case for this is apparent when considering the evidence I've already referenced proving that our local planning authorities are overwhelmed. According to the UK Government and local authorities, planning permission should typically be determined within eight weeks. Bridgend takes on average 1,825 days—that's 260 weeks.
Similarly, we're opposed to the Minister's amendment, which seeks to include Natural Resources Wales as a body that will be required to provide pre-application services. Again, the Welsh Government is placing further strain on a body that is already under considerable pressure. The principle Janet is pursuing is that significant infrastructure projects should be determined by Welsh Ministers and result in the least possible increase in workload for any other public body.
Amendment 52 is a consequence of the overuse of regulations in this Bill. Janet has proposed that a timescale is stipulated on the Bill, and has suggested 21 days. Should you be unable to support this, please could you clarify how many days should be provided? I fear that none of the committee knows what the number should be because the Bill is premature and, as a result, and as a consequence, is reliant on regulations being developed, the detail of which is yet to be established. Thank you.
Just to speak very briefly to amendment 115, I actually agree with the point that is being made: that our local government planning officers and planning departments are overstretched. It has been that way for a while, and it's probably a wider discussion beyond as to why they're overstretched. However, their local knowledge, Joel, I would argue, is vital in pre-application processes. I've seen it in my own patch. Without their input, I think local people would be significantly disadvantaged. So, I think, in terms of shaping a Bill like this, on the face of the Bill we absolutely need to say that, and then we can have the wider discussion elsewhere, actually, about how we get the resources into local government to deal with the back-office functions that are critical to the functioning of local authorities and providing those services to local people—how we can actually turn the tap back on once again, in future, but that's a wider discussion beyond this committee. But actually having local authorities as part of this pre-application I think is critical.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. I'd like to thank Janet and Joel for moving, and the other members of the committee for their comments here. Amendments 115 and 116 would remove the ability for local planning authorities to provide applicants with pre-application services, if requested. The amendment is detrimental to front-loading the consenting process as local authorities do have detailed knowledge on specific matters at the local level, such as the relevant planning history of a site, any relevant local policies and any local individuals, groups or societies it may be appropriate to consult.
Just to say that if you did remove local planning authorities from a pre-application process and made it the responsibility of the Welsh Ministers, the Welsh Ministers would have to consult the local planning authority in order to get the information required, because there's no conceivable world in which the Welsh Government would have such information, so I'm not really sure—I think it might actually make it worse for the local planning authority, not better, so I don't think that holds water. I agree entirely with Huw Irranca-Davies's point that we absolutely need to discuss the resources available to local planning authorities, but this Bill is not the vehicle for it, Chair.
Amendment 116 would require the Welsh Ministers to publish the pre-application services offered, along with a list of fees, on a website owned and maintained by them. It would also remove any requirement for the local authority to undertake such activity. As I said, removal of the local authority is the issue. I absolutely agree that making information available is vitally important, for the pre-application services to be made clear. Our existing provision at section 27 already does this. However, local planning authorities and NRW must also be required to provide pre-application services if requested, because of their knowledge and expertise in their respective areas, and they can offer details and information that would be beneficial to developers and, indeed, to the local community, which the Welsh Ministers may not. So, I ask the committee not to support those amendments.
I have tabled amendments 2 and 3 to allow regulations to be made that will require Natural Resources Wales to provide pre-application services, where requested, in a similar manner to local planning authorities and the Welsh Ministers. Because local planning authorities can only provide pre-application services for development within their area, this is limited to development on land, and it is important that applicants have the opportunity to seek pre-application services, where development is in the Welsh marine area, from the most appropriate authority. In this case, that would be Natural Resources Wales.
There we are. Okay. So, if amendment 115 is agreed, amendment 2 falls. So, the question is that amendment 115 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We'll move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 115, please show. One. All those against. Five. Amendment 115 therefore falls.
I move amendment 2 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those therefore in favour of amendment 2, please show. Five. All those against. One. Amendment 2 is therefore agreed.
Thank you. If amendment 116 is agreed, amendment 3 falls. So, the question is that amendment 116 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those therefore in favour of amendment 116, please show. One. All those against. Five. Amendment 116 therefore falls.
I move amendment 3 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those therefore in favour of amendment 3, please show. Five. All those against. One. Amendment 3 is passed.
Thank you. The question is that amendment 52 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We will vote on amendment 52. All those in favour. One. All those against. Three. Abstentions. Two. Amendment 52 is therefore rejected.
It is. Thank you. The question is that amendment 53 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those therefore in favour of amendment 53, please show. One. All those against. Three. And abstentions. Two. Amendment 53 falls.
So, the ninth group of amendments is next, and it relates to applying for infrastructure consent, the pre-application procedure, section 29. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 159.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. These Government amendments respond to recommendation 3 by the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee or they're technical in nature. I'll deal with the Government amendments first. These all relate to section 29, which requires a developer to give notice of a proposed application to certain parties. Amendment 159 will require applicants to notify community councils and each Member of the Senedd and Member of the House of Commons representing an area in which the proposed development is located.
Amendment 4 will require applicants to notify Natural Resources Wales of their proposed development if it is in the Welsh marine area, prior to carrying out their mandatory pre-application consultation requirements. This will give Natural Resources Wales notice of an application at the earliest opportunity that a development is proposed in the Welsh marine area.
Amendments 160 and 161 modify the list of those persons who are to be notified of a proposed application for infrastructure consent in the Welsh marine area. These amendments require applicants to notify any community council, Member of the Senedd and Member of the House of Commons they consider appropriate. All of these amendments respond to recommendation 3 by the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee to put more detail on the face of the Bill. NRW or other parties would have been listed in regulations made under this section, however, this amendment provides that certainty on the face of the Bill.
Amendment 5 has the same effect as amendment 1, debated in group 7. The amendment makes it clear that the regulations can set a single person or a group of people to be notified, who must be notified. It is a technical amendment and has no policy effect and only makes the drafting consistent throughout the Bill. On the basis that these amendments add further detail to the face of the Bill, I ask the committee to support them.
Turning, then, to the non-Government amendments, amendment 117 is, in my view, an unnecessary and potentially harmful technical amendment. The amendment will have no practical effect. The current requirement is for the notice to comply with requirements specified in regulations. The amendment would require the notification to be submitted in a form published by the Welsh Ministers. The information submitted in both circumstances would therefore be set out by Welsh Ministers, but the amendment would limit this information to being submitted in a form. This may limit how this can be submitted in the future, potentially causing unintended consequences. I therefore cannot support the change and I ask the committee to do the same.
On amendment 118, the purpose of this amendment is to require applicants to submit a statement of how they intend to carry out pre-application consultation with their notification of an application, and amendment 119 is consequential on this amendment. The amendment would require applicants to submit a statement of how they intend to carry out pre-application consultation with their notice of an application. I can see the merit in this proposal. It will enable developers to set out what they intend to do, which, of course, might be the statutory minimum, but some developers may use this as an opportunity to express their wider intentions. However, as section 29 of the Bill already works as intended, and I could deliver this proposed amendment in subordinate legislation, I would propose to retain the existing drafting. I do see the merit, although I have concerns that it will just result in developers stating that they will do the statutory minimum, and I would commit to consult on this as part of our proposals. On that basis, I ask the committee not to support the amendments. Diolch.
Thank you, Chair. I move the amendments in Janet's name in this group. The rationale for amendment 117 is similar to what I have said already in terms of over-reliance on secondary legislation. Instead of simply stating that the details of the notice of proposed application will be specified in regulations, we are proposing a more streamlined system, where the Welsh Ministers develop a specific form that applicants are required to complete. We've gone a step further too by trying to help you with the required detail of the form in amendment 118.
I repeat that this Bill fails because key detail is missing. Even if you are unwilling to support the amendments that add further detail, I'd hope that the effort we are making highlights to you all one of the major flaws today—that the Bill is premature. Thank you.
I just want to thoroughly welcome the initiative that the Minister and her officials have taken to put more detail on the face of the Bill in response, particularly, to the three amendments that are responding to LJC committee recommendations.
There is a choice here that Ministers quite often will argue, 'Well, we can bring this forward in regulations, or we can specify it elsewhere in guidance somewhere', but to actually have—. If you look at 159, which is making sure that when we have notice of proposed applications for infrastructure consent, then the Members of the Senedd in that area, the Members of Parliament in the House of Commons, but also the community council and the county council will be informed. Now, that should happen anyway, but if it's going to happen anyway, I just really welcome that and 160 and 161, where the Minister has taken a conscious decision to respond positively and put this on the face of the Bill, where it makes sense. So, just as a matter of course, I'd say 'well done' on that. Thank you very much.
Diolch, Chair. It's always nice to be praised by the LJC committee. I spend a lot of my time not being praised by them, so I like to grasp at any small straws. [Laughter.] Absolutely, we have tried very hard to respond to the LJC committee requirements, and I'm very happy to do so.
On the informing Members, a large number of Members from across the Senedd, from all political parties, have told me over a number of years, particularly through the DNS process, that they found out late about an application in their area and were unable to represent their constituents adequately. I thought that was a fair point, and so we've included the specific proposal that they should all be informed as appropriate, because I really do feel it's very important to have local representatives properly informed and able to support their constituents to make all of the commentary that we've all discussed at great length. I do think this very much enhances the ability of the local community to have their voices heard as part of the Bill, so I'm very pleased to have introduced that. Diolch.
I move amendment 4 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. It's therefore agreed.
I move amendment 160 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 160 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. It's therefore agreed.
I move amendment 5 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 5 is agreed.
It has been moved. The question is that amendment 117 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There we are. We have an objection. All those in favour, then, of amendment 117 to please show. One. All those against. Three. And abstentions. Two. Amendment 117, therefore, falls.
Thank you. The question is that amendment 118 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those, therefore, in favour of amendment 118, please show. One. All those against. Three. And abstentions—I nearly said 'objections'—abstentions—
The question is, therefore, that amendment 119 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those, therefore, in favour of amendment 119, please show. One. All those against. Three. And abstentions. Two. Amendment 119 falls.
So, the tenth group of amendments relates to applying for infrastructure consent, the pre-application procedure, section 30. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 120, and I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in the group. Joel.
Thank you, Chair. I move all the amendments in Janet's name. Amendment 122 adds more information to section 30 on the face of the Bill regarding pre-application consultation and publicity. We have replaced section 30 of the Bill with Chapter 2 of the Planning Act 2008. As a consequence, the applicant would have to consult Natural Resources Wales, the planning authority for each area in which the proposed development is located, every owner, lessee, tenant or occupier of the land to which the proposed application relates, the local community living in the vicinity of the land on which the proposed development is located, and other persons specified in regulations. Bearing in mind that amendment, we are unable to support 141 and 142 by Delyth, because they clash with 122.
We have also made a further effort to add more information on the face of the Bill, such as giving Welsh Ministers the option to issue guidance about how to comply with the requirements of this part and requiring applicants to take into account any relevant responses received in deciding whether the application should be in the same terms as originally proposed. The additional information we are proposing to go on the face of the Bill has a legal basis, the Planning Act 2008. Thank you.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. I move amendments 141 and 142. The purpose behind these amendments is the fact that communities and people need time to respond to major changes when they're proposed in their area. Now, ordinary people may well be looking at applications after work or when they have childcare pressures in the evenings, around their daily lives, but they nevertheless have a right to be involved in the decision and have a right to have a say in what happens in their community. The amount of documentation that can be attached to these developments takes a lot of time to process, as well. One stakeholder has likened it to reading the entirety of Bleak House three times to get through the detail, and when she said that to me I was put in mind of one of the characters in Bleak House, Lady Dedlock, whose name might be a little prescient in this way. But I’ll leave that there.
Now, sometimes issues with applications aren’t necessarily going to be honestly acknowledged upfront. They’d have to be investigated and checked, and that, again, takes time. It’s also very likely a developer will have little knowledge of the local area, the local situation. There are questions arising about where they get that information, but local people will have an intimate understanding of the traffic, the weather conditions and other parts of the environmental context in which they live over seasons, years. During the course of each day, this knowledge is invaluable in working out the effects that a development could have, and, in a democratic society, where people’s input isn’t just sought but should be valued, I think that’s an essential part of the process to understand the local context, and many projects have proven again and again that they’ve failed to understand or adapt to the place in which the applicant or developer decides to place the project. So, for those reasons, I hope that these amendments could be supported.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. All of these amendments relate to section 30, which requires a person who proposes to submit an application for infrastructure consent to carry out consultation on a proposed application prior to its submission. So, I will deal with the Government amendment first—amendment 6. The purpose of this amendment is to add the words, 'persons of a description' to the drafting. This amendment has been covered in groups 7, 8 and 9 so far. The effect of this amendment ensures there is clarity that the regulations may specify categories of persons as well as specific persons.
Turning to the non-Government amendments, amendment 120 would set out on the face of the Bill certain parties who must be consulted as part of the pre-application consultation and publicity procedure. I absolutely understand the intention behind this. Involving local communities in the process is a fundamental part of this Bill, and I have a huge amount of sympathy for it. But there is a fundamental drafting issue with this amendment. The amendment would use the term 'local community living in the vicinity of the land on which the proposed development is located'. This is not defined, and it is not possible to define it, as it will be different in each case that comes forward. The classic example is: what do we mean by 'local community' and what do we mean by 'vicinity'? Importantly, what happens where someone who feels they should have been consulted wasn’t because they were not deemed to be living within the vicinity? I can't help but use your Bleak House analogy, I'm afraid, Delyth, where I think you'll remember that the lawyers are only happy when they've spent the whole proceeds. I can't help but feel that this is a little bit—and I speak as a recovering lawyer—of a charter in which you can litigate until there's nothing left. So, although I sympathise hugely with the intention, I think we need to have very specific definitions of things in order to be able to ensure that the people we all know that we're talking about are the ones who end up being consulted and that we don't end up just having a massive litigious nightmare about who should and shouldn't be consulted.
Again, amendment 141 proposes a similar amendment, to require
'those who are likely to be affected by the application'
to be consulted. Specifying in legislation who is likely to be affected by an application is very subjective and very difficult to implement in practice, and it leads, again, to confusion, complaints and challenges where someone isn’t consulted as it was deemed they would not likely be affected, whereas they believe they would be affected, for example—and where's the line? So I don't support the amendment for the same reasons, and I ask the committee to do the same, but I have a lot of sympathy with what you're trying to achieve. I think there are better ways of achieving it in the regulations that will follow.
Thank you, Chair, and I'm grateful for the Minister's support in principle for some of the amendments that we've submitted and for her commitment to strengthening at later stages. But, with that in mind, I'd still like to proceed to a vote.
Okay. Thank you. So, the question is that amendment 120 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 120, please show. Three. All those against. Three. I therefore, as Chair, cast my vote against amendment 120, which subsequently falls.
I move amendment 6, in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 6, therefore, passes.
Yes. The question is that amendment 141 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour, therefore, of amendment 141, please show. Two. All those against. Four. Amendment 141 falls.
Yes. Thank you. The question is that amendment 142 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 142. Two. All those against. Three. Any abstentions? One. Amendment 142 falls.
Yes. The question is that amendment 121 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 121, please show. Three. All those against. Three. I therefore have to cast my vote against amendment 121, and that falls.
Yes. The question is that amendment 122 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 122, please show. Three. All those against. Three. As Chair, I cast my vote against amendment 122, which falls.
The eleventh group of amendments relates to applying for infrastructure consent: application procedure. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 197.
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Gadeirydd. Mae hwn yn grŵp eithaf mawr o welliannau a dwi'n mynd i gyfyngu fy sylwadau i’r ddau welliant sydd yn fy enw i, ac fe wnaf i adael i Aelodau eraill sy'n bresennol sôn am y gwelliannau eraill.
Mae gwelliant 197 yn darparu bod adroddiadau buddion cydweithredol yn cael eu gwneud yn rhan o’r broses gydsynio o dan y Bil yma. Mae gwelliant 198 wedyn yn creu'r pŵer i wneud rheoliadau i osod mas beth yw'r gofynion manwl ar gyfer adroddiadau o’r math yma.
Mae adroddiadau buddion cydweithredol yn bodoli yn barod fel cysyniad, fel ffurf, fel gweithdrefn, ac yn bennaf, os ydw i'n iawn, Weinidog, yng nghyswllt yr hyn yr oeddem ni'n trafod yn gynharach o ran perchnogaeth leol ar gyfer prosiectau generadu. Dylwn i fod wedi dweud, wrth sôn am welliant 197, yn unol â'r drafodaeth gynharach, mi fyddai'r ddarpariaeth yma yn ffocysu ar brosiectau generadu, cynhyrchu trydan, yn unig oherwydd dyna le mae adroddiadau buddion cymunedol wedi tyfu fel cysyniad.
Ond, ar hyn o bryd, mae'n wirfoddol—hynny yw, mae datblygwyr yn medru cynhyrchu adroddiadau buddion cydweithredol, ond mae e i fyny iddyn nhw. Mae rhai yn gwneud, mae yna rai sydd ddim. A dyw peidio â chynhyrchu un—. Nid yn unig dyw e ddim yn orfodol, dyw e ddim chwaith yn cael ei ystyried fel ystyriaeth cynllunio materol. Felly, does dim modd herio datblygiad oherwydd nad ydych chi wedi cynhyrchu adroddiad o'r math yma.
Y fantais o'i wneud e'n ofynnol, a'ch bod chi yn cynhyrchu adroddiad o'r math yma os ydych chi yn dod ymlaen â datblygiad cynhyrchu trydan, wel, unwaith eto, buasai'n gwneud y cwestiwn o fuddion cydweithredol i'r gymuned, ac yn y blaen, yn ganolog. Buasai'n ei wneud e'n greiddiol bwysig, a buasai'n glir ar yr agenda, fel petai. Ac, wrth gwrs, yn y gwelliant procio yma, fel petai, rydyn ni unwaith eto yn ei adael e am y tro i fyny i'r rheoliadau i ddweud yn union beth mae'r adroddiadau yma fod i gyfro, er, mewn canllawiau a dogfennau polisi, mae tipyn wedi cael ei ysgrifennu ynglŷn â hyn yn barod. Gall fod penderfyniad i gymryd peth o'r agweddau yna i mewn i'r Bil. Ond, yn fras, beth fyddai'r adroddiad yn cyfro yw cwestiynau yn ymwneud â pherchnogaeth leol. Pe bai datblygwr wedi mynd i lawr y llwybr o sicrhau perchnogaeth leol, byddai modd amlygu hynny mewn ffordd strwythuredig mewn adroddiad.
Ond, nid yn unig berchnogaeth leol—hynny yw, mae yna ffurfiau eraill o fuddion, onid oes e? Roedd Huw Irranca-Davies wedi cyfeirio at rai ohonyn nhw'n gynharach o ran cronfeydd buddsoddi lleol a phosibiliadau hefyd o ran disgownt ar gostau trydan i drigolion lleol. Ac mae yna ffurfiau eraill. Mi all adroddiadau o'r math yma ymhelaethu ynglŷn â rheini, a dod â nhw ynghyd mewn un lle fel bod modd gweld beth yw'r buddion er mwyn cael asesiad clir o ran y penderfynwyr ynghylch y prosiect, ond hefyd o ran tryloywedd i'r gymuned leol, a'u bod nhw'n meddu ar adroddiad sydd yn crynhoi hynny, a hefyd yn ei wneud yn norm, yn rheidrwydd, yn hytrach nag anogaeth fel arfer da—dweud, 'Mae'n rhaid ichi ei wneud e. Mae'n ddisgwyliedig fel rhan o'r broses.' Gyda hynny, fe wnaf i gloi fy sylwadau dechreuol i.
Thank you, Chair. I support amendments 197 and 198. A collaborative benefits report detailing the benefits to the communities is a sensible idea. I would like to know, though, why this has not been targeted at sections in Part 1 also. Maybe that is something that we could consider for Stage 3.
Amendment 54 requires the Welsh Ministers to make a decision on the validity of an application within 28 days of receipt of the application. The figure is supported by both NFU Cymru and Lightsource BP. Similarly, Bute Energy have complained that the section, as drafted by the Welsh Minister, has no information on what criteria will be applied or the timescales involved.
Amendment 123 replaces a minimum representation period specified in regulations with a minimum representation period of five weeks, which is in line with the Planning Act 2008.
Amendment 55 is rooted in the wish to have complete transparency. Rather than give the Welsh Ministers freedom to extend the deadline by which they should have received representations on the application, the amendment makes it so Welsh Ministers have to publish a statement that outlines the reasons they have decided to extend the deadline.
As Bute Energy have rightly stated again, allowing such a broad mechanism for extending consultation periods compromises the overall objective, timelines and efficiency of the Bill. It is important to listen to stakeholders. The same goes for what NRW have said. For example, in relation to section 36, where there is a requirement for Natural Resources Wales to prepare a marine impact report for submission in accordance with this section, we've added a requirement for Welsh Ministers to reimburse NRW in respect to the costs of obtaining advice from a marine archaeological expert. That action leads on from NRW reporting that they do not currently have the resources, staff or funding to do this job under current circumstances. The amendment makes sure Welsh Ministers properly equip NRW to produce marine impact reports.
The alternative approach taken by the Minister in amendment 11 is completely unacceptable. She is trying to remove—. Oh, I don't like the word 'she' there. The Minister is trying to remove—sorry—features of archaeological or historic interest in such areas with a definition of the marine environment. That is completely out of order because it means that the impact of infrastructure development on marine archaeology would not be considered. Would you be content to take such an approach to castles and archaeological sites on land? I suspect not. In fact, Cadw rightly states online:
Diolch. I speak to amendments 143 and 144. Amendment 144 is a probing amendment that inserts a new subsection requiring consultation on the proposed marine plan. This is because the upcoming decades of major infrastructure development in the Welsh marine area to which this Bill applies will inevitably have a significant effect on that marine area, so we'd like to see the Bill strengthened to reflect that.
A gair o gefnogaeth i welliannau 197 ac 198. Rwy'n meddwl gall y gwelliannau hyn helpu amlygu mwy o dryloywder. Mae unrhyw dryloywder yn mynd i fod yn help yn y system yma, sydd mor opaque. Felly, o ran democrateiddio'r system, dwi'n meddwl byddan nhw'n bethau da i weld.
Thank you. I just want to probe Adam Price's two amendments on collaborative benefits. Because, obviously, the policy consideration is something I think is important, but the whole point of the deadlines for examining applications is that most of the heavy lifting has to be done at the pre-application stage or they don't even get to pass 'go'. And so they have to have already consulted stakeholders and provided evidence of it, and I'm pretty certain that simply sticking a notice on a lamppost is not going to get accepted as evidence of consultation. Just listening to all the evidence we've gathered at Stage 1, the applicant will have to demonstrate that they've heard the views of the community engagement, and in the event that they don't feel able to amend or modify their proposal, they would have to give concrete reasons as to why that was. It seems to me that otherwise, they'll be asked to go back and do further work before they submit their application. So, I feel that this ought to have been carried out at the pre-application stage in order to prevent all that to-ing and fro-ing, and to enable applicants to benefit from the local knowledge of local communities, who will know their own areas.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. Just in general, I remind the committee that section 31 requires an application for infrastructure consent to be made to the Welsh Ministers and provides that infrastructure consent may only be given if an application is made for it. This section also enables the Welsh Ministers to make regulations about the form and content of an application, supporting documents, and other procedural matters that form the nuts and bolts of submitting an application.
Turning to the amendments, amendments 197 and 198 make collaborative benefits reports a mandatory part of the application where the project is related to energy projects, so I will be responding to those amendments together, for obvious reasons. As Adam pointed out, we discussed the matter of community energy ownership back in group 1. I really like the idea of a collaborative benefits report in the application process. I can absolutely see what the purpose of the amendment is. I feel like Jenny made a very important point about where it should be in the process. We also feel very strongly that although a collaborative benefits report should obviously be taken very seriously, it shouldn't be given precedence over all of the other reports, and putting it on the face of the Bill when all the other reports are not on the face of the Bill might conceivably have that effect by giving it precedence, if you like.
There is a whole series of other reports that will also be produced, and I'm very keen to work with Adam to make sure that we do have these collaborative benefits reports, but I think a mandatory part of the pre-application process is probably where it should be, and then they need to be considered alongside the other reports that need to be produced, not as the top-level one, if you see what I mean. There are an enormous number of other ones that need to come into consideration. So, again, as I said before, Adam, we're very happy to work with you to make sure that we can get the spirit of the amendment in place, but at an appropriate part in the process. We are very keen that developers, as Jenny said, do a lot of the heavy lifting before they pass go and I think this is probably part of the heavy lifting that they ought to do.
Turning to amendment 54, that would amend section 32, which covers whether an application is valid and notifying the applicant. The amendment introduces a 28-day period for validating an application for infrastructure consent following submission. Again, we don't feel a blanket 28-day period for validation is appropriate for the Bill, given the varying nature of developments it will deal with. As set out in the statement of policy intent, I believe a 28-day period would be suitable for development not requiring an environmental statement, but this should be extended to 42 days where an environmental statement is required. This would allow the Government sufficient time to assess potentially complex and detailed information submitted with an application, ensuring everything that is needed is present to proceed to examination.
Amendment 123 would insert a minimum representation period of five weeks for consultation into section 33. I don't feel the committee will be surprised in any way that I do not feel that a blanket five-week period for representations to be made is appropriate for the Bill, given the varying nature of developments it will deal with. As I set out in the statement of policy intent, I believe a minimum 21-day period would be suitable for development not requiring an environmental statement, but this should be extended to a minimum of 30 days where an environmental statement is required. This will ensure proportionality in the consenting process, as smaller, less complex projects, or those that did not raise any significant concerns during the pre-application process, can move swiftly through the system. However, the powers as drafted do allow for longer time periods for representations to be made if considered necessary and proportionate.
In terms of whether the specific timescales should be on the face of the Bill or not, nobody will be at all surprised to find that I feel strongly they should be specified in subordinate legislation, consistent with other areas of the Bill where specific timescales are reserved for subordinate legislation, and I'm afraid, therefore, I do not support this amendment.
Amendment 55 would require Welsh Ministers to publish a statement outlining the reasons for extending the deadline of public consultation. In the interests of openness and transparency in the consenting process for all parties, I can see the merits in requiring a statement of reasons being made available where a deadline for submitting representations is extended. This will help certainty and clarity in the process, and I am happy to support this amendment, but there are drafting issues and I would, therefore, very much like to work with the Member on a stage 3 amendment that sorts out the drafting issues and gives effect to the policy intent.
Amendment 9 and amendment 10 are technical drafting amendments, for consistency. Amendment 9 is who the Welsh Ministers may direct the applicant to give notice to of an application for infrastructure consent. Amendment 10 ensures that there is clarity that the regulations may specify categories of persons as well as specific persons on whom the requirements to respond to a notice under section 33(2) are imposed, and that drafting is consistent throughout the Bill.
Amendment 143 amends section 35, which sets out when a planning authority must provide a local impact report, or when a community council may provide a local impact report.
—to the amendments that are in my name, and I crave the indulgence of the committee in that.
I welcome the commitment by the Minister in principle to inscribe within the process somewhere in timing and either in legislation or in regulations a requirement for a collaborative benefits report. I'm happy to have further discussions on that basis. In terms of the issue of timing, then, I suppose that's a technical question in some ways: where's the best place for it to happen? My assumption would be that, if it's going to reflect the collaborative benefits that will be delivered, it needs to come at the end of the pre-application process, really, because it reflects the end product that has emerged out of that. But there's a lot of moving parts here in terms of a local impact report, a community consultation process. So, this is a technical question, I think.
Where I think—and the Minister will have to forgive me here—there is some distance between us still, is the question of whether this should be on the face of the Bill precisely because it is such an important issue. It should be given precedence; it should be given top billing, if you like. There are many, many reports, more than I'm aware of, that the Minister alluded to, but I think, speaking for myself, and I think for my group and my party as well, we believe that this issue actually needs to be given precedence, so we're prepared to have a further discussion on that, but, on that basis, Chair, I would like these two amendments put to a vote.
So, if amendment 197 is not agreed, amendment 198 falls. So, the question is that amendment 197 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. Can I see, therefore, everyone in favour of amendment 197? Please show. That's three. And against. Three. I therefore have to cast my vote as Chair against amendment 197, which subsequently is not agreed, and also subsequently amendment 198 falls.
Thank you. The question is that amendment 54 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those therefore in favour of amendment 54 please show. One. All those against. Three. Any—
I move amendment 7 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 7 therefore passes.
I move amendment 162 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 162 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. It therefore passes.
I move amendment 163 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 163 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections; 163 is agreed.
I move amendment 164 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 164 be agreed to. Does any Member object? One hundred and sixty four is agreed.
I move amendment 8 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed to. Does any Member object? The committee agrees, therefore, to amendment 8.
Thank you. The question is that amendment 123 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those therefore in favour of amendment 123, please show. One. All those against. Three.
Thank you, Joel. The question is that amendment 55 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 55, please show. One. All those against, please show. Three. Abstentions. Two. Thank you. Amendment 55 is therefore rejected.
I move amendment 9 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 9 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. That amendment is therefore passed.
I move amendment 10 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 10 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 10 is therefore agreed.
Bearing in mind what the Minister said to me about working on an alternative, with the committee's permission, I'd be minded not to put that to a vote.
It's moved by Joel. The question is that amendment 56 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 56, please show. Three. All those against. Three. As Chair, I therefore cast my vote against amendment 56, which subsequently falls.
I move amendment 11 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Joel objects. We move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 11, please show. Three. All those against. One. Abstentions. Two. Amendment 11 is therefore passed.
I move amendment 12 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] It's objected to. All those in favour of amendment 12, please show. Five. And all those against. One. Amendment 12 is agreed.
I move amendment 13 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 13, please show. Five. All those against. One. Amendment 13 is therefore agreed.
I move amendment 14 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 14 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 14 then, please show. Five. And all those against. One. Amendment 14 passes.
I move amendment 15 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 15 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 15, please show. Five. All those against. One. Amendment 15 is carried.
I move amendment 16 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 16, please show. Five. All those against. One. Amendment 16 is agreed.
I move amendment 17 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 17 then, please show. Five. And all those against. One. Amendment 17 is therefore agreed.
Right. We've got to around half way through our groups of amendments. I suggest this is probably the best time for us to have a lunch break, and can I suggest that we reconvene for 1.25 p.m., in the hope that we can actually kick off by 1.30 p.m., if that's okay? Diolch yn fawr. We'll therefore take a lunch break. Thank you all. Diolch yn fawr.
Croeso'n ôl. Welcome back to the Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee. We will continue with our work of disposing of amendments at Stage 2 of the Infrastructure (Wales) Bill. Can I welcome Sarah Murphy, who is here in place of Joyce Watson, who apologises for her absence today?
Right, okay, we'll move on to group 12. The twelfth group of amendments relates to examining applications, examining authority. And the lead amendment in this group is amendment 124, and I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment, and the other amendment in this group. Joel.
Thank you, Chair. I move all the amendments in Janet's name. This clarifies that the examining authority is Planning and Environment Decisions Wales. As it stands, we have no idea who will be appointed, so I hope that your response will clarify your stance on the role of PEDW in relation to examining applications. Thank you.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. I move amendment 145, and I note that, if amendment 124 is agreed, then this amendment would fall. This is a probing amendment, and it's enabled to discuss or to explore and find out from the Minister how the expertise of the examiner will be assessed. Now, I'd welcome any further explanation, please, about this, because of the apparent lack of a requirement for the panel or examiner to be of a certain experience or expertise. But if there's anything that I can gain reassurance from, from the Minister, I'd be grateful.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. As Members have said, section 39 covers the appointment of an examining authority. This covers their appointment, revoking an appointment, setting out a document specifying criteria for appointment, and regulations governing matters of appointment, such as any conditions. The Bill does not currently specify who the examining authority is, but we do anticipate that this would be the Planning and Environment Decisions Wales body, or PEDW.
Amendment 124 would specify that the body responsible for the examination of applications for infrastructure consent would be PEDW. Now, of course, we all recognise the role that PEDW will play in the new consenting process, and we therefore understand why the Member considers this should be specified on the face of the Bill. However, we would say that we need to retain an element of flexibility on who will examine infrastructure applications, to account for potential future changes in operational requirements. We can't rule out circumstances where, in future, a body other than PEDW may be deemed more appropriate to examine a specific type of infrastructure application. For example, a new body only dealing with these applications could be established, with PEDW focusing on other applications and appeals. The committee might just use the example of when we split PEDW away from the overarching UK authority, and, if we'd specified that on the face of a Bill, then we would have had to do an amendment to a piece of primary legislation. So, that covers that circumstance, I think. So, I don't support the amendment for that reason, and ask the committee not to do so.
And then, turning to amendment 145, currently, the Bill requires the Welsh Ministers to publish the document setting out the criteria to be applied in deciding whether to appoint a person or panel of persons. Amendment 145 would require the document setting criteria for persons to be appointed to make provision for the assessment of the expertise or experience of those persons under consideration. Whilst I completely understand what you're trying to do with the amendment, I do see issues with drafting a tightly drawn set of criteria. So, for example, are we saying an inspector needs to have certain qualifications, or is experience enough? If it's experience, how does an inspector ever determine their first case, if experience of a SIP is necessary? We want to be able to assign them to consider applications on the basis of their individual issues and the associated level of expertise required for one type of infrastructure application, which might be very different to another. So, you can see, if you're doing an electricity application, that might be very different from a harbour revision Order and flood defence programme, for example, or a windfarm application, where somebody has sole expertise in transport schemes, or—. You can easily see the complexity there.
There we are. Okay. So, if amendment 124 is agreed, amendment 145 will fall. So, the question is that amendment 124 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 124, please show. One. All those against. Three. Any abstentions? Two. Amendment 124 is, therefore, not agreed.
So, we'll move on, then, to the next group of amendments. The thirteenth group of amendments relates to examining applications: choice of inquiry, hearing or written procedure. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 146, and I call on Delyth Jewell to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. Group 13, unlucky for some. [Laughter.] I move amendments 146, 147 and 148; I'll speak to amendment 155, although I know that that's not in this group, Cadeirydd. To me, these are all about aiming to increase transparency. It seems inconceivable to me that a major infrastructure project should be decided by written representations, because that would go against the principles of allowing a fair hearing to the people who are affected. It would undermine trust; I'd argue it would undermine transparency and public legitimacy for the decisions. This means that, at present, there will be fewer opportunities and rights to be heard for people in Wales compared with the situation in England, as there is no mandatory open-floor hearing.
There are no minimum requirements for allowing participants to respond and be able to engage. This, I think, is hugely detrimental to a fair and objective approach to the evidence. It demonstrates, I fear, that speed and not quality would be the governing principle behind the procedure, as it's proposed, and provisions (e) and (f) in particular would undermine fair process, I think. There's no minimum time frame set and decisions can be made if no representations are received on a time frame that could be completely impossible to meet, for example, for interested parties in local communities.
Now, I draw on a previous case that I've been made aware of. In the case of the Covanta incinerator application in Merthyr Tydfil in 2010-2011, the community had six weeks to respond once the application was accepted, and the clock immediately started ticking. A 13,000-name petition was submitted to the Welsh Government alongside thousands of representations. Some members of the community complained about the difficulty in dealing with the paper forms, and would have preferred to register their objections verbally. Around 100 community representatives attended the pre-examination meeting to make their views heard on the matters that would be dealt with by the examination. The open-floor hearing, I think, is a crucial part of listening to local voices, just like the opportunity to speak at planning committee. It's important for democracy that people feel that their voice is heard.
On amendment 147, this again relates to open-floor hearings and written representations. There's no minimum time limit for written representations to be received. I'd question what happens if the time expires and no submissions are received. It's very hard—I think virtually impossible—with a majority Government, finally on this, to defeat affirmative procedure. It would be very poor practice to leave the details, I think, of this process, which are the principles of accountability, to secondary legislation. In other parts of the legislation, time frames are specified, and in this case Members are being asked to vote in primary legislation that then allows the Government to decide on time frames through secondary legislation.
Gadeirydd, amendment 148 again relates to open-floor hearings, and I've explained already the points that we want to put across there.
Just very briefly—I'm aware of time—on the other amendments in this group, I'd be in favour of Government amendment 165. I think that it provides clarity on the procedures for examining applications by making an open hearing the default position. I think that would make proceedings far more accessible, for the reasons I've set out. I would seek further clarity from Joel on how amendment 125 would work, and I'd like to hear what the Minister's thoughts are on that as well, please. I'd be in favour of Government amendment 18—again, in favour of that for clarity. I note that I think that if amendment 146 is agreed, my understanding is that amendment 57, is it, would fall—
Thank you, Chair. I move the amendments in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders MS. You will see that we seem fundamentally opposed to Delyth's approach of removing the provision for an application to be examined through written representation. Indeed, Janet's amendment 57 makes clear that written application is the preference, unless other procedure is more appropriate. Essentially, this makes the written procedure the default.
I will tell you why that should be the case. Janet has been directly involved in a number of planning inquiries and speaking on behalf of the community she has faced barristers and days' worth of hearings. Whilst the community did go on to win the planning inquiry after days of hearings, such an outcome consumed a considerable amount of time and resources. More so, you should bear in mind that at inquiries or public hearings developers usually have lawyers, barristers, specialists in the sector, whereas the community rarely have access to such resources. For example, Janet once faced a barrister from London and was cross-examined for an hour on her stance in relation to the subject of the planning inquiry. Of course, Janet went on to win, but we do consider that the risk of being cross-examined is off-putting to objectors. The most appropriate way forward is for interested parties to take time—sorry, Chair—to make careful—[Laughter.] I haven't written this, you see. [Laughter.] The most appropriate way forward is for interested parties to take time to make careful written submissions. Janet's first-hand experience led her amendments in the section and we hope that both the Welsh Government and Plaid Cymru will support them. Thank you.
I just feel that the amendments that are coming from the other side of the room are designed to be too specific, when this is intended to be a framework for all the potential significant infrastructure projects, which could include laying a cable from a point somewhere to connect it up with the grid, which didn't impact on a community, where the only people who might need to be consulted would be the fish. And, in which case, I would have thought that NRW's evidence would be sufficient to ensure that it wasn't going to cause any problem, and it was, in any case, a repeat of something very similar that had occurred already in that area, but nevertheless might be an extremely expensive and extremely important linking up of infrastructure.
So, I'm just concerned that we're trying to focus this down too much. Amendment 148, yes, we want an open-floor hearing, but supposing somebody is seriously ill, who can't be present in order to hear what somebody who opposes their view—isn't available. I think it doesn't give flexibility to the examining authority under specific circumstances that are quite difficult for us to predict in advance.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. Amendment 146 would remove the requirement from section 41 that allows for the examination of an infrastructure application to be made on the basis of the application itself and any representations received in writing. In effect, it would mean the application is only to be examined by way of hearing or inquiry only. The wording would likely prevent the appointed inspector from being able to properly consider that written evidence, as that evidence will not have been examined in a hearing or inquiry. I'm not sure that's the intention, but it is the effect of the amendment.
I must stress that where evidence is to be considered in its written format as part of the examination, the current drafting at section 41 provides for appropriate flexibility by allowing a mixed-mode approach where a hearing or inquiry can still take place. So, as I think Jenny has just been pointing out, there may be circumstances where it's entirely appropriate to consider an application solely on the basis of the written evidence. For example, everyone might be in agreement on the issues raised or there is widespread support for the proposal. It doesn't seem to me appropriate to limit the process to examination by hearing or inquiry in those circumstances, where consideration of the written evidence would be a proportionate way to examine the application. For those reasons, I'm afraid I don't support the amendment and ask the committee not to do so either.
Amendment 165 will amend section 41 of the Bill on the procedure for examining an infrastructure application to make a hearing the default procedure. It allows the examining authority to deviate from examining an application by hearing if it is not considered to be of assistance, or alternatively the issues to be considered are of such significance they provide for the application to be determined by inquiry. This amendment is designed to ensure the face of the Bill is clear, and if you read the Bill alone you would understand a hearing is the likely mode of examination. And so, I ask the committee to support the amendment.
Amendment 125 would amend section 41 to remove the ability to specify a time in regulations by when the examining authority has to determine the examination procedure for an application. It would instead specify on the face of the Bill that the determination has to be made before 28 working days of the Welsh Ministers validating the application.
Unfortunately, there is a drafting issue here. It is not clear whether the intention is to determine the procedure 28 days before or after the application has been accepted as valid. And secondly, for DNS, the procedure is determined after the consultation period closes, and this is because the consultation period provides the information needed to determine the procedure. For example, do all the parties agree, or do matters need to be tested at a hearing? This is when a body can determine the procedure, and I would expect a similar situation in the new SIP process. Thirdly, this time frame is proposed to be specified in regulations as it is a technical matter on procedure, which may need amending in future. For example, in considering practically how it is working alongside other procedural time frames to be prescribed in regulations, such as the time frame for submitting representations. This may necessitate a future update to particular time frames to ensure continued efficiency of the consenting process. I therefore call on Members to reject that proposed amendment, also.
Amendment 18 covers section 41, which is the choice of a procedure for an examination. This is a technical amendment only and has no effect on the policy contained within the Bill and is intended to ensure that the drafting is consistent throughout the Bill.
Amendment 57 would provide that the written representations procedure would be the default for examining an infrastructure application, unless circumstances dictate otherwise. I support the spirit of what Janet Finch-Saunders's amendment was clarifying in the Bill, where the usual procedure would be for determining an infrastructure application. However, I think members of the committee should be aware that our evidence suggests that due to the scale and nature of these applications, the majority are, in fact, likely to be examined by way of hearings or mixed-mode examinations involving a hearing. Therefore, I can't support that amendment as it does not reflect the likely procedure for examination of the majority of significant infrastructure projects.
I have tabled amendment 165, which will provide clarity on examination procedure and I will call on Members to reject amendment 57.
Amendment 147 affects section 42 on the examination procedure. The amendment would remove the ability of the Welsh Ministers to determine an application where representations have not been submitted. This, in effect, requires representations in writing to have been received by the Welsh Ministers or examining authority on an application in order for them to be allowed to make a report or decision, even where there is sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion. The requirement to submit representations on an application will be very clearly set out under this new process and all interested parties will be made aware of that requirement. If all parties are fully aware of the process for submitting representations and nobody provided comments in response, I do not agree that it should stop the process where there is sufficient evidence for the determining body to be able to write a report and make their decision. Such an approach would not tie in with our aims for an efficient consenting process. In addition, before the Welsh Ministers use this power, they are required to inform the parties, which would enable those interested to have a further opportunity to make the representations that they had previously not made. So, I call on Members to reject amendment 147.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. Thank you to Members who spoke there. I wasn't persuaded by what Joel said about Janet's amendments, I'm afraid, but it does make more sense now, so thank you for setting that out.
Jenny, I take your point about very small projects, like a very small bit of pipe, and how it would be, potentially, a great waste of money to be having a full open hearing on something that didn't go anywhere near any people but only went near fish, as you said, and especially the point about people who couldn't be there in person. It wasn't the intention of these amendments for things like that to happen. I think that that is very much an unintended consequence. At the same time, I wouldn't want to disempower people who would find it more difficult or impossible to submit written evidence, so I'm not sure how to achieve that balance properly. I'd be happy not to put these to a vote, to take this away and to reconsider that ahead of Stage 3. If the Minister would be open to discussing that, I'd be happy not to put them to a vote, Cadeirydd.
I move amendment 165 in the name of the Minister. The question is that 165 is agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so all those in favour of amendment 165, please show. That's five. All those against. One. Amendment 165 is therefore carried.
You do. The question is that amendment 125 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 125, please show. One. All those against. Three. Any abstentions? Two. Amendment 125 is therefore carried.
I move amendment 18 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 18 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 18 is, therefore, agreed.
Did I? I apologise; you're absolutely right. Thank you for that. We've come to amendment 57—yes, that wouldn't have been a good look, would it? Amendment 57, do you move?
You do. Thank you, Joel. The question is that amendment 57 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 57, please show. One. All those against. Five. Amendment 57 falls.
Grŵp 14: Rhan 4 – Archwilio ceisiadau: Cynnal ymchwiliad, gan gynnwys mynediad at dystiolaeth a chymorth i wrthwynebwyr (Gwelliannau 166, 126, 127, 167, 128, 149, 150, 151, 58, 59, 60)
We come on now to group 14. The fourteenth group of amendments relates to examining applications: operation of inquiry, including access to evidence and assistance for objectors. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 166.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. First, the Government amendments, then. They respond to recommendations 19 and 20 of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee’s report on section 43 of the Bill. Section 43 is the power to enter land as part of examination. The section provided a power to set provision for entering land in subordinate legislation. I agree with the committee that this provision could be set on the face of the Bill.
Amendment 166 adds detail to the face of the Bill. In doing so, it provides clarity on the principles and criteria that would allow persons to enter land for the purposes of site inspection during the examination of an infrastructure application. In particular, it provides that persons may be authorised to enter land only if this is given in writing by the Welsh Ministers and where suitable notice is given to the occupier. It further provides detail on when a criminal offence would be committed if a landowner refuses entry. As this amendment clarifies the arrangements for entering land on the face of the Bill, the regulation-making power is not required and has been removed from the Bill.
Amendment 167 follows on from amendment 166 and makes specific provision for entering Crown land. It provides that permission must be given by the Crown authority, or an appropriate person, in order for the site inspection of Crown land to be carried out during the examination of an infrastructure application. On the basis that the amendments add further detail to the Bill, I ask the committee to support them.
Turning to the non-Government amendments, amendments 126 and 127 propose to clarify the regulation-making power on entering land for the carrying out of a site inspection during examination of an infrastructure application. They would clarify that consent must be sought from the landowner or occupier. I consider that further requirements for entering land should be set out on the face of the Bill, and I have proposed amendments 166 and 167 to bring about changes. On the basis of the Government amendments, I therefore call on the committee to reject amendments 126 and 127.
Amendment 128 amends section 44, which allows an examining authority to hold a local inquiry for the purposes of examining an application. It proposes to insert a requirement under section 44 for the examining authority to publish their reasons for holding a local inquiry in examining an infrastructure application. The Bill already makes provision requiring the publishing of criteria that must be applied by the examining authority in determining examination procedure under section 41. Because criteria will already be publicly available by which the reasons for holding a local inquiry will be made transparent, this amendment will add an unnecessary procedural layer to the consenting process. I therefore consider that it's not required and ask the committee not to support it.
Amendment 149 will amend section 45 on 'access to evidence at inquiry'. It will make it a requirement for an inquiry to be held as close to the development site as is reasonably practicable. Whilst I accept where Delyth is coming from on this amendment, the current drafting does not provide the right level of flexibility on the holding of an inquiry. For example, it does not take into account where events would only be able to be held virtually, as was the case during COVID. In those circumstances, the location would not be a factor, and the examining authority would not be able to comply with such a requirement. But I do recognise that it would be advantageous for the inquiry to be held as close to the development site as possible, where this is practicable. So, whilst I don't accept the amendment as drafted, I'd really like to work with you, Delyth, on a suitable form of wording to come forward as an amendment at Stage 3.
Thank you, Chair. I move the amendments in Janet's name. We are pleased to support all amendments in this section. One in particular I wish to highlight is amendment 128. Should you agree to it, the examining authority would have to publish a document outlining their reasons for making the determination to hold a local inquiry. The purpose of this is to ensure that there is complete transparency as to why that process is being followed.
Cost is an important factor that influences whether members of the public participate in the planning process. There's a real risk that the legislation as drafted would lead community groups without resources to fund professional representation and be lumbered with costs because they objected. In fact, the Llanarthne and Area Community Pylon Group expressed concerns about provisions in this section that would permit the Welsh Ministers to issue costs against an objector. They felt that such provisions could deter individuals or community groups from pursuing legitimate objections due to the fear of financial repercussions. I agree with the concerns raised and, as such, ask you to support amendments 59 and 60.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. I speak to amendments 149, 150 and 151. The intention behind these amendments has been set out very usefully already by the Minister. The importance of deciding a development in close proximity to those affected, as close as is practicable, I think, is very important, and, as well as that, it should be accessible by public transport so that people aren't excluded from participating because they don't own a car or because they can't afford to get there.
A case I've been made aware of was a fracking case at Preston New Road in Lancashire. In that case, the public inquiry was live streamed. As I understand it, over 100 people spoke at the inquiry, including children. A whole range of different occupations and interests were represented, and, crucially, the applicant and the decision maker, in those cases, then, is obliged to sit and to listen to the concerns of people, which is so fundamental to a well-functioning system. Now, I do take on board the points that the Minister was making, again, about unintended consequences, about flexibility. Because of the principles underpinning these, I would be minded to put these to a vote, but I would be very pleased to work with the Minister ahead of Stage 3 and to find a way of getting the balance right again and achieving these principles without losing that flexibility.
Thank you, Chair. I don't have many further remarks to make. I'm obviously very pleased to be agreeing with the LJC committee in their reports and putting more detail on the face of the Bill. I'm very happy to work with Delyth to make sure the amendments can be drafted in a way that gives effect to the principle, which I absolutely support. I feel obliged, Chair, to point out to Joel that he's arguing that members of the community don't have sufficient representation and are unlikely to win, having told us all that Janet had several times won in circumstances that were exactly that. So, it's a little bit of a contradiction there. Many local residents are well placed to make their views known to representatives, so we don't accept those amendments.
Thank you, Minister. So, if amendment 166 is agreed, amendments 126 and 127 will fall, but if amendment 166 is not agreed, then amendment 167 will fall. So, the question is that amendment 166 be agreed to. Does any Member object? We have no objections, so amendment 126 and amendment 127 fall as a consequence.
I therefore move amendment 167, in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 167 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection, so amendment 167 is carried.
Yes. There we are. The question is that amendment 128 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 128, therefore, please show. One. All those against. Three. Any abstentions? Two. So, amendment 128 falls.
You do. There we are. The question is that amendment 149 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, therefore, we will move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 149 to show. Three. All those against. Three. I therefore cast my Chair's vote in the negative and amendment 149 falls.
Yes. The question is that amendment 150 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 150, then, please show. Three. All those against. Three. I therefore, again, cast my vote as Chair in the negative and amendment 150 falls.
There we are. The question is that amendment 151 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote, then. All those is favour of 151, please show. Three in favour. And against. Three. I therefore cast my vote against amendment 151, as Chair, meaning that amendment 151 falls.
You do. The question is that amendment 58 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] All those in favour of amendment 58, then, please show. One. All those against. Three. Abstentions. Two. Amendment 58 falls.
Yes. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll move to a vote, then. All those in favour of amendment 59, please show. One. All those against. Three. And abstentions. Two. Amendment 59 is defeated.
Yes. The question is that amendment 60 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll move to a vote, then. All those in favour of amendment 60, please show. One. All those against. Three. And abstentions. Two. Amendment 60 falls.
That brings us to group 15, and the fifteenth group of amendments relates to the function of deciding applications. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 61, and I call on Joel James to move and speak to the amendment.
Thank you, Chair. This amendment ensures that Welsh Ministers have the function of deciding an application for infrastructure consent and that the examining authority only has the role to advise. The decision should ultimately rely on the Welsh Ministers, and this amendment ensures they're not able to pass this responsibility on. RSPB Cymru have emphasised the potential democratic deficit if decisions were taken by examining authorities rather than elected officials. They believed Welsh Ministers should retain the final decision-making power due to their political accountability. Kelvin MacDonald also believed that politics couldn't be removed from major infrastructure decisions and emphasised the importance of accountability. Hannah Hickman supported that view. Steve Ball, Cardiff Council, felt that significant national infrastructure projects should be the subject of decisions by Ministers, and that final decisions should be made by someone who is democratically accountable, like the Welsh Ministers. Thank you.
Yes, I'd just like to say that I think that section 52 provides the flexibility needed for ensuring that, where something is an important but technical matter, the Minister doesn't need to be involved, because where it is contested and there are people in favour and against, clearly, political authority has to be involved, because that is the role of the Government. So, I think that this is unnecessarily fettering the power of the Government to delegate where the matter is a technical issue that doesn't require political involvement.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I thank Members for their comments on amendment 61. Just to reaffirm my understanding of what the amendment would achieve, it removes the direction and regulation-making powers from section 52 of the Bill that would allow the examining authority to determine the application for infrastructure consent on behalf of the Welsh Ministers. These provisions were included in the Bill to give appropriate flexibility on determination where in future it may be recognised that certain types of infrastructure development are more straightforward in terms of reaching a decision, and can be determined more quickly and do not warrant increased scrutiny by the Welsh Ministers.
I don't agree that they result in a loss of political accountability, and we think it's vital that flexibility is retained to allow for a proportionate and efficient decision-making process. Again, Chair, if I could just make the point: sometimes we have some novel things and people are very concerned about them for a while, and they want that to have a very heavy level of scrutiny, but once the technology becomes well understood and much less controversial as a result, then what people want is an efficient and effective way of getting it forward, and I would put hydrogen very closely into that. At the moment, it's very novel and contentious. I think we can all foresee a time when it is neither novel nor contentious, and many windfarms would automatically have an electrolyser attached to them. I have to say there's a very good Janet Finch-Saunders remark on the difference between electrolysis and electrolysing, which I would refer you all to, in one of the Plenary debates, but perhaps not for now. I do understand the point that is being made about the Welsh Ministers being accountable—we do, of course, appoint the Planning Inspectorate—but I do think there will be many well understood examples where what you really want is a swift expert decision on a technical matter and not a political decision. So, I recommend that we reject the amendment.
There we are. Okay. Diolch yn fawr iawn. The question, therefore, is that amendment 61 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 61, please show. One. All those against. Five. There we are. So, amendment 61 is not carried.
We move on to the sixteenth group of amendments now, which relates to deciding applications: statutory policies. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 62, and I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.
Thank you, Chair. I move the amendment in Janet's name. Amendment 62 would require the laying of policy statements before the Senedd where the Welsh Ministers have published a new statutory policy that is relevant to one or more significant infrastructure projects. As it stands, there's no parliamentary scrutiny of policy statements required in the Bill. For example, Kelvin MacDonald highlighted that although the Bill states that policy statements will take precedence over national plans, the Bill makes no provision as to the process by which they would be adopted. He explained that the Bill would not require these statements to be approved by the Senedd, and suggested that, given the importance of these documents, the committee may wish to consider whether such a requirement should be on the face of the Bill. I agree with this suggestion. Similarly, Annie Smith, from the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds Cymru, agreed that it was concerning that infrastructure policy statements would take precedence over national plans subjected to public consultation, examination and scrutiny, such as the national development framework. She felt they should undergo a thorough process similar to national policy statements under the Planning Act 2008.
Amendment 129 would insert a new section—the national marine infrastructure development plan for Wales. It would create a legal requirement for there to be a plan prepared and published by the Welsh Ministers to be known as the 'national marine infrastructure development plan for Wales'. The Welsh Parliament has previously supported Janet's legislative proposals on this matter. Additionally, this committee has heard evidence, such as from RSPB Cymru, who felt the existing marine plan wasn't comprehensive enough for marine environment decisions. Along with the Marine Conservation Society, they advocated for a marine development plan. For example, the committee heard an additional, much-needed solution to consenting barriers would be the introduction of a marine development plan covering both inshore and offshore marine areas. This would guide development within a defined geographical area by setting out both the spatial planning context and a set of detailed planning policies that decision makers can use to determine individual applications. An assessment and allocation of sites via the marine development plan would provide greater clarity and a degree of acceptability to schemes at an early stage, which could limit the scope of conflict at application stage, and thus has the potential to speed up the consenting process whilst also protecting the fragile marine ecosystem. The case in favour of the amendment seems to be abundantly clear.
Finally, we are pleased to be able to support the proposal by Delyth that will require Welsh Ministers who have a duty to decide applications to include those projects that have the desire to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Thank you.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I speak to amendment 152. The amendment is to ensure that climate change and the environment are part of the decision-making process. The intention is that it would ensure that there's a duty on Ministers, or the examining authority, to have regard to climate change, or, rather, mitigating and adapting to it.
Only very briefly. It would just be good to get the Minister's response on the marine issues. It's been a long-running issue and a long-running campaign to drive forward our marine planning, to get the whole thing in place. There are all the challenges over it about data collection, about what we know and what we don't know, and whether you go for a big-bang approach, which would be the ideal thing. Ideally, you'd sit down and you'd just go, 'Let's plan this properly, like we do with terrestrial planning', but we don't actually know what's out there, to a large extent. So, if she can explain if not this—because you can understand where the environmental organisations are coming from on this—then, without straying too far from it, if this isn't the right place to do it, whether we can have some clarity on how we're going to do it, because these plans will come forward and, in which case, they need to help us fill that map.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I thank all the Members for outlining the proposed amendments to part 5 of the Bill, and I will turn to those amendments first. So, amendment 62 proposes that the Welsh Ministers delay any new statutory policy of relevance to significant infrastructure projects before the Senedd. I support the principle of this amendment, as I agree the Senedd should be made aware of any statutory policy prepared to support a new consenting regime. However, I cannot, I'm afraid, support the amendment in its current form. Some of the statutory policies listed in the Bill are already subject to requirements in current legislation being laid before the Senedd, including the NDF, under the requirements of the Planning (Wales) Act 2015. So, I accept there is potential to look at the notification process for infrastructure policy statements, and I really want to look at the drafting further before supporting a change. So, Joel, I'm happy to work with you, or Janet, depending on which one of you is taking it forward, to work on the drafting. I understand the policy intent, but the drafting isn't acceptable in its current form.
On amendments 129 and 130, in combination they will require a new national marine infrastructure development plan to be prepared and for it to be a statutory consideration in determining applications under a new consenting regime. As you asked, Huw, I'll just reiterate my priorities for marine planning. I set them out in my March 2023 written statement. We already have an existing marine plan in place, which is based on an extensive evidence base and stakeholder engagement, and has many important policies, including those of the enhancement of our marine environment. In our view, it would be a very big waste of time and resource to duplicate the existing marine planning process, and we really don't have a substantive justification for this approach, given the budgetary pressures we're all under and the amount of resource that it would take up.
I'm committed to delivering benefits through the existing plan, and my officials are working with the stakeholders to have effect. If there is a need to deliver specific policy on infrastructure in respect of the marine environment, we have the means by which we can use our existing policy tools to do this by publishing supplementary marine planning guidance alongside our existing statutory policies, or indeed we could simply designate a document as a policy statement. I'm sure the committee doesn't want us to do that, but it would need to be drafted in a way that didn't mean that a future Minister—I can guarantee I won't do this—couldn't just say, 'Okay, then, here's the marine plan.' Because that's not what people are trying to achieve; what people are trying to achieve is exactly as you set out, Huw, which is a proper map of where resources are, where they should be, where we should direct them to and so on.
Just for clarity, in light of the amendments, how does the approach that you're taking enable that live development of the approach to it, but also, as a point of clarity, safeguard against inadvertent development as well? Because it's more live, it's more slightly—. 'Ad hoc' is the wrong word, but we're doing it as we go, which is a challenge.
What we're suggesting is we put supplementary marine planning guidance in place when we know that we have applications coming forward. We're already working on some aspects of a marine spatial plan, so there have been a couple of written statements very recently about proposed areas for things. I'll digress from the Bill for a moment, Chair, but I think it's worth explaining to Members where we are. It's not dissimilar to the conversation we just had about why we've got things like fracking and other things that are very unpalatable to the current Government and most of the committee members, but nevertheless we need a process for that.
In developing a marine spatial plan, for example, you have to say where gravel extraction might be allowed. We all think that marine spatial plans are fluffy and include things about fish, but unfortunately they also include things about sand and gravel extraction, dredging and all sorts of other things that are highly controversial and require very specific processes and policies to be around them, and many of those have existing policies. Some of them don't, because they're novel. Floating wind is an obvious example of a new and emerging technology; there will be others. So, what we're proposing is that we develop a set of supplementary planning guidance that goes alongside our existing policies to protect that while we map it out.
We're also very keen to make sure coastal communities come along with us. Last time we tried to put marine protected zones in place, we all had a very bad experience. The communities, the Government and absolutely everybody else involved did not enjoy the process. I'm very determined that that's not going to happen again. We need to learn the lesson of that. So, in introducing those zones and the spatial planning that goes with them, we need to have regard to what all the fisherfolk want. There's a great deal of complexity here. So, we're doing it gradually by means of supplementary planning guidance and marine impact plans and all the rest of it, so that we get there.
I understand. In a perfect world, we might be able to snap our fingers, freeze the world and do a lot of work on marine, but that's just not where we are. So, what we're doing here is, I suppose, making the best of the resource we have, and the best of the process we have, to make sure that we protect the environment whilst also allowing the kinds of developments we'd all like and preventing the kinds of developments we're all very keen to prevent.
I'm afraid I've several more pages to plough my way through.
Turning to amendments 129 and 130—. Sorry, no, I'm going back on myself. Amendment 152 would make it a duty on the face of the Bill to have regard to mitigating and adapting to climate change in determining an application for infrastructure consent. The requirement to take into account climate change is already prescribed in our existing planning policies, under the goals of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015 and under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. In determining applications for infrastructure consent, the Bill will not be read in isolation, and the important issue of impacts on climate change would be considered for each application. I completely understand where you're coming from, Delyth, in that climate change is a crucial issue and it would emphasise its importance to list it on the face of the Bill as an important consideration in the decision-making process for applications. Therefore, I am going to support the amendment, even though it's reinforcing things that already exist in the law.
On amendment 168, amending section 53 of the Bill, which covers the determination of applications in accordance with statutory policies, the potential for an amendment to this section of the Bill was raised at the session with the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee in October 2023. The principal amendment in this section removes the hierarchical approach to be applied to statutory policies for the determination of applications, but this has resulted in wider drafting changes. In summary, the amendment retains the requirements to determine applications in accordance with the statutory policies, but it removes the hierarchy of policy documents that was to be applied in decision making. The new provisions retain a requirement to allow decisions to be made in accordance with other relevant considerations, where considered appropriate. The amendment will therefore ensure the decision maker can weigh up and balance conflict accordingly in determining applications, as is established practice. A similar approach is prescribed under section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004, where decisions on planning applications must be made in accordance with the development plan, unless material indications indicate otherwise. I'm sure the Chair remembers that conversation very well that we had at the committee.
Amendment 169 replaces the term 'material consideration' with 'relevant consideration' in listing what can be accounted for in decision making on an infrastructure application. The term 'relevant consideration' is a more modern approach to the drafting, is easier to understand for non-planning practitioners, and is in line with changes being made in the forthcoming planning consolidation Bill, in accordance with the recommendation of the Law Commission. This is only a terminology change and it's not intended to have any substantive legal effect.
Thank you, Chair, and thanks for that very positive discussion about amendment 62. If that offer is there for Janet and the Minister to link up, to try and bring something better to Stage 3, I'm happy to withdraw that specific amendment.
The question is that amendment 129 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so all those in favour of amendment 129, please show. Three. All those against. Three. As Chair, I therefore vote against that amendment, meaning that 129 is not agreed, and subsequently amendment 130 falls.
I move amendment 168 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 168 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 168 therefore passes.
I move amendment 169 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 169 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 169 is carried.
I move amendment 170 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 170 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 170, please show. Five. And all those against. One. Amendment 170 therefore is agreed.
We move on to our next group of amendments. The seventeenth group of amendments relates to deciding applications: timetable and decision. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 199, and I call on Jenny Rathbone to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in the group.
Thank you. I move amendment 199, bearing in mind what has already been said by Adam Price and others that the purpose of this Bill is to streamline the process so that it obtains the certainty that stakeholders seek that if they tick all the boxes, comply with the rules, they should reasonably be able to expect that they will then be able to obtain permission for whatever it might be. This was very much emphasised in the stakeholder event I attended in September in the centre of Cardiff, which was organised by the the Royal Town Planning Institute and the National Infrastructure Commission for Wales.
Our intention in this Bill is to improve certainty in the process, and speed up the process that is not sufficiently agile in the way in which we are dealing with matters of developments of national significance. Therefore, I think it's really important that the developers are able to plan projects with more accuracy, with the certainty of fixed timetables.
We very much benefited from the expert advice of Mark Southgate, who was able to outline how the process works in England, and we shouldn't be ashamed to take on good practice from other parts of the United Kingdom. What is different about this particular amendment is to ensure that there isn't just a timetable that the expert adviser, or whoever the examining authority is, has to determine the matter within three months, and then three months to write their report.
It's also important that the ministerial decision also has a really clear timetable to it of six months. And where that isn't possible because of matters that have been unforeseen—there might be a major environmental issue that needed to be investigated because it might have material implications for a particular development—I think it's really important that the Minister must come before the Senedd to explain why it isn't possible to meet the six-month deadline that I would argue this amendment would require us to do.
That isn't just because a Minister might simply be lacking the political will to take a decision that might not be the most popular, but also simply just to concentrate the minds of civil servants to ensure that the Minister's going to have to go and explain why they haven't been able to meet the six-month timetable. Therefore, there has to be a good reason that's going to then not cause difficulties for the Minister when they appear before the Senedd. And it is the Senedd that must examine this, because it's our job to ensure that the law is being adhered to, and that includes the Government as well.
I would urge us not to accept amendment 63, because that simply doesn't go far enough. Simply publishing a direction as to why it hasn't been possible to do something within six months doesn't pass muster. We absolutely have to have the ability to cross-question the relevant Minister on why they haven't been able to meet the timetable. It isn't just about pushing something into the long grass because it's politically inconvenient; it's also about ensuring that the resources are there to meet that timetable, and if we're serious about the amendment we've just passed, which was proposed by Delyth Jewell, the desirability of mitigating and adapting to climate change, we've just got to get on with it.
So, I would also support amendments 19, 20 and 22, because they provide clarity on the need for Welsh Ministers to notify not just the applicant, but also specified stakeholders who have an interest in the decision. I think that amendment 64 goes too far. I feel that it’s an example of a job creation scheme for lawyers because it opens the door to judicial review. If you have 1,000 people taking a position on a particular application, if 999 got a notification and the thousandth one didn’t, that person could be entering into a vexatious judicial review. So, I think it’s perfectly fine for the specified organisations in amendments 19 and 20 and 22 to be sufficient as being the main stakeholders who need to be informed of whatever the decision might be, and anybody else will no doubt be given some notification if they’ve already registered their interest, but I don’t think we should put that into law, because it should be sufficient for everybody to be able to look at the relevant website locally or nationally.
Thank you, Chair. I move the amendments in Janet's name. You've heard me speak previously about the importance of transparency. It should come as no surprise to you, then, that one of our amendments in this section would require Welsh Ministers to publish a statement of the reasons for making the direction to extend the 52-week period for making a decision on an application for infrastructure consent. Such a change is in line with this committee’s previous recommendation. Thank you.
Diolch, Cadeirydd, and thank you to all Members for their comments. I'll respond to each of the amendments proposed in turn.
So, amendment 199 would ensure that, if the Welsh Ministers determine to extend the 52-week time period for deciding an infrastructure application, they must lay a statement before the Senedd to notify Members of the decision and why it was given. The amendment will follow other changes we are proposing to the Bill in terms of making directions and notifying the Senedd, for example, under section 24. Therefore, I am supportive of it. The amendment supports recommendations of the Senedd committees considering the Bill, who wanted any extension of time for determining applications to be by exception, and for the Senedd to be notified accordingly. So, I'm pleased to be responding to that. The 52-week time period for determining applications at section 56 is provided as a duty. So, I want to be very clear with the committee that the Bill is therefore very clear this time frame must be adhered to. The direction is quite clearly an exception to the usual time frame for determination, and we will be setting out clear time frames for specific parts of the consenting process in secondary legislation, including for pre-application procedures. So, I completely agree with Jenny that, where the 52-week limit is breached, the responding Minister ought very rightly to be in front of the Senedd explaining what exactly has gone wrong, because the Bill puts a duty on the Ministers and their officials to do that in that time period. So, you're talking about a force majeure, really, and you'd be rightly expecting the Senedd to be very grumpy indeed if that was something that happened anything other than once in a blue moon.
Amendment 63 is very similar to amendment 199. So, it requires further notification where the Welsh Ministers propose to extend the prescribed 52 weeks for determining an infrastructure application, in the form of publishing a statement of reasons. I'm sure Joel will be astonished hearing me say this, but I agree with it, and all of its imports, but I don't think it goes far enough. I don't think I've ever said that about a Conservative amendment before, so we probably ought to triple underline it. As I just said, I think it should only be in exceptional circumstances where this would be allowed. It's appropriate for the Senedd to be sighted on any directions to do this and the reasons for doing so. So, I think 199 goes much further in saying what Welsh Ministers would do, and I, therefore, support 199, and not amendment 63, in the circumstances.
I thank the Minister for her remarks. I think that this would bring us in line with the efficiency with which the English legal framework is operating, and will ensure that we will be determining applications within the 12-month period, unless there are exceptional circumstances, which the Minister at that time will have to come to the Senedd to explain. And there may well be exceptional circumstances, but they will need to be scrutinised. It ensures that the efficient procedures in Government actually do take place.
There we are. Thank you, Jenny. Okay. So, the question is that amendment 199 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour, then, of amendment 199, please show. Five. And against. One. Amendment 199 is carried.
Yes, thank you. The question is that amendment 63 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 63, then, please show. One. And against. Three. And abstentions. Two. Amendment 63 is therefore not agreed.
I move amendment 19, in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. No objections. So, amendment 19 is agreed.
I move amendment 20, in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. So, amendment 20 is agreed.
I move amendment 21, in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 21 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 22 be agreed. Sorry, I move amendment 22, in the name of the Minister. And the question is that amendment 22 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 22, please show. Five. And against. One. So, amendment 22 is carried.
Yes, thank you. The question is that amendment 64 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, amendment 64 will be put to the vote. All those in favour of amendment 64, please show. One. All those against. Three. And abstentions. Two. So, amendment 64 is agreed—is not agreed, apologies. Yes, apologies. It is a bit repetitive, and the record just got a bit stuck there, I think. [Laughter.]
So, the next group is the eighteenth group, which relates to infrastructure consent orders. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 65, and I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.
Thank you, Chair, and I move the amendments in the name of Janet. Amendment 65 relates to compulsory acquisitions. The change we are proposing will mean that, in each case, no more land than is needed is authorised to be acquired compulsorily. Such an amendment has been suggested by NFU Cymru. Amendment 66 ensures that tolls cannot be authorised on highways that are considered a SIP. This is to ensure that no further road charges are placed on motorists in Wales through this Bill. Such a move is in line with the public will. Indeed, over 10,000 people have so far signed the petition titled, 'Cease all further planning for road charging in Wales'.
Another concern that has been raised is potential mistakes in infrastructure consent orders. So, to reduce the risk of an error being made, amendment 131 would allow for the applicant to check for any mistakes prior to publication. Such a change is in line with what the committee heard from RWE. They cited their prior experiences with the Planning Act 2008, where finalised development consent orders often contained minor mistakes. They found the procedure of needing an applicant to ask for corrections to be inefficient, suggesting that to reduce such delays the Welsh Ministers might share the prospective final version of an infrastructure consent order with the applicant to address any minor drafting issues.
Finally, amendments 132 and 133 are based on the principle of transparency that I've been advocating throughout this session. Thank you.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. Dealing with the non-Government amendments first, I'm thanking Janet, as always, for tabling the amendments. Unfortunately, I am asking you to reject amendment 65. Subsection (2) of section 61 ensures that no more land than is needed would be included in a compulsory acquisition of land authorised by an infrastructure consent order. This is because it provides a condition that states that the authorised land must be required for the development; therefore, the amendment is not required.
I also cannot support amendment 66, in relation to the charging of tolls on highways. The Welsh Ministers could only introduce the charging of tolls in relation to a highway if this was part of an original application for infrastructure consent. The Welsh Ministers could not introduce a charge without this set out in an original application. This would mean that all parties would be able to comment on the merits of that part of the application. This amendment would also remove the one-stop shop. The power for Welsh Ministers to charge tolls in relation to highways already exists in other legislation, so this amendment would result in two systems being followed. I call on the committee to reject this amendment, as it overcomplicates the process.
Amendment 131 would add a new section into the Bill that will make it a requirement to share a draft of an infrastructure consent order with the applicant prior to it being published. I understand what the purpose of this amendment is; it's to ensure developers are made fully aware of the proposed order. However, the drafting of the amendment does create some issues. If the Welsh Ministers propose no changes from those contained in the submitted application, is there really a need to consult them? In that circumstance, it adds an obviously unnecessary layer to the process.
Where the Welsh Ministers propose to make an order that is materially different to the application, there are already regulation-making powers under section 57 that will specify the procedure to be followed in those circumstances. For example, if we were to look at the procedure for sharing a draft order with the applicant, it may also be appropriate to share it with other statutory bodies to ensure a fair and equitable process. Therefore, whilst I understand the idea, I cannot accept the amendment as it stands and call on Members to reject it.
Turning to amendment 132, there are occasions where a decision document may contain an obvious and correctable error. It is important that there is a procedure in place to ensure the speedy correction of a decision document. This amendment is not necessary, as an error will always be corrected in the interests of clarity. However, if it was considered to be desirable to require Welsh Ministers to make a statement explaining the reasons for correcting an error, this can be set in secondary legislation. And therefore I ask Members to reject this amendment.
Thank you, Chair, and I thank the Minister for the comprehensiveness there, then, but, all said and done, I'd still like to move to a vote for Janet's amendments.
There we are. Okay. Thank you very much. So, the question is that amendment 65 be agreed to, then. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 65, please show. One. All those against. Five. Amendment 65 falls.
Thank you. The question is that amendment 66 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 66, please show. One. All those against. Five. Amendment 66 falls.
Yes. The question is that amendment 131 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] It's been objected to. So, amendment 131, all those in favour, please show. One. All those against. Three. Abstentions. Two. So, amendment 131 is rejected.
Yes, okay. The question is that amendment 132 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 132, please show. One. All those against, please show. Three. And abstentions. Two. So, amendment 132 is rejected.
Thank you. The question is that amendment 133 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 133. One. And against. Three. Abstentions. Two. So, amendment 133 is defeated.
I move amendment 171 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 171 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour, then, of 171, please show. Five. And against. One. So, amendment 171 is agreed.
I move amendment 23 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 23 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. The amendment is carried.
I move amendment 172 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 172 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. The amendment is agreed.
I move amendment 24 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 24 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. It's agreed. Thank you.
I move amendment 34 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 34 is agreed.
I move amendment 35 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 35 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 35, please show. Five. And those against. One. So, amendment 35 is carried.
I move amendment 36 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 36 is carried.
I move amendment 25 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. Amendment 25 is therefore agreed.
I move amendment 26 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 26 is agreed.
I move amendment 27 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 27 is, therefore, agreed.
I move amendment 28 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 28 is carried.
I move amendment 29 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. So, amendment 29 is also agreed. Diolch yn fawr.
We move on to the nineteenth group of amendments that we're discussing this afternoon, and this one relates to enforcement. And the lead amendment in this group is amendment 67, and I call on Joel James to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Joel.
Thank you, Chair. I move the amendment in Janet's name. Amendment 67 relates to enforcement. The change being proposed is that Welsh Ministers become the enforcement body rather than planning authorities. The case for this is simple: planning authorities are overwhelmed. Royal Town Planning Institute Cymru have warned that local planning authority departments are significantly underfunded, and research shows that planning services are suffering most severely of all local government services due to budget cuts.
Bute Energy believe that the biggest barrier in terms of the implementation of the Bill is the resourcing of public authorities. EDF Energy warned that it is unrealistic for all LPAs to have the necessary in-house expertise. The burden of this Bill should fall on your shoulders, not add further weight to planning authorities. As Janet has said on several occasions, the Welsh Parliament has evolved into a body that over-legislates for local authorities.
Amendment 73 changes the time a person has to respond to an information notice. We've increased the period of time from 21 days to 28 days, given that it is a criminal offence. Such a change has also been requested by NFU Cymru.
Amendment 134 addresses the concern raised by Newport City Council that stop notices could only be served for a brief 28-day period. Given the time needed to investigate and charge an individual, such a temporary notice might prove ineffective, therefore, we have doubled the time frame from 28 to 56. Thank you.
Thank you, Chair. All of these amendments relate to the enforcement system, which is designed to act as a deterrent against unauthorised development and breaches of infrastructure consent orders, whilst providing the necessary tools to carry out enforcement action where required.
I'll deal with the Government amendment first. Amendment 173 replaces the words
‘for a purpose mentioned in section 103’
with
‘to assess whether an offence under section 100 or 101 is being, or has been, committed on or in respect of the land’.
This will provide clarity and certainty on the face of the Bill of the circumstances in which a warrant can be sought to enter land for the purposes of investigating whether an offence under section 100 or section 101 has been committed.
Turning to the non-Government amendments, amendment 73 would amend the period for complying with an information notice from 21 days to 28 days. I can see some merit in offering a longer period here, but I don't consider 21 days to be unreasonable for providing information requested by the enforcing authority.
Practically, the information requested will usually be easily obtainable and require little effort from the person on whom the notice is served. Furthermore, I feel that, with 21 days, it strikes the right balance between providing a reasonable amount of time for compliance, whilst being short enough for further enforcement action to be taken if considered appropriate. So, I'm afraid I therefore don't support the amendment.
Amendment 134 would amend the period within which a temporary stop notice has effect from 28 days to 56 days. I don’t myself believe that temporary stop notices should have effect beyond 28 days. They are designed to act as a short-term measure to halt development to enable the relevant enforcing authority some time to decide whether to pursue formal enforcement action or not. I believe a period beyond 28 days would be excessive for this.
Secondly, DNS projects that will be consented through the Bill are already subject to a 28-day period for temporary stop notices and there are no reasons to indicate this time period has not been adequate. Therefore, I cannot support this amendment and I ask the committee to do the same.
Amendments 67 through to 72 and 74 to 91 are all based around the same principle of removing local planning authorities from undertaking any enforcement duties and, instead, rely solely on the Welsh Ministers. I can understand the concerns regarding local authority resources and they are legitimate concerns. I have to say that I do find it very difficult when the Conservatives bring this up, as, clearly, the local authorities have suffered from austerity for a very long period now and these officers are the very ones always referred to as back-office staff, who are somehow expendable. However, this Bill is a very clear example of why they are neither expendable nor inessential.
Thank you, Chair, and I thank the Minister for her comments. Obviously, I don't necessarily agree with all that was said, and so I'd like to put it to a vote.
Thank you. There we are. Okay. So, the question is that amendment 67 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 67, please show. One. All those against. Five. So, amendment 67 falls.
I move amendment 173, in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 173 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. The amendment, 173, is carried.
Yes. The question is that amendment 68 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, all in favour of amendment 68, please show. One. All against. Five. So, amendment 68 is rejected.
Yes. There we are. The question is that amendment 69 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 69, please show. One. And all those against. Five. Amendment 69, therefore, falls.
Thank you. The question is that amendment 70 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 70, please show. One. And all those against. Five. So, amendment 70 is rejected.
You do. Thank you. The question is that amendment 71 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll have a vote. Amendment 71, then, all those in favour, please show. One. And against. Five. So, amendment 71 is rejected.
Yes. Thank you. The question is that amendment 72 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll have a vote. All those in favour of amendment 72, please show. One. And all against. Five. So, amendment 72 falls.
Yes. Thank you. The question is that amendment 73 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we'll vote on amendment 73. All those in favour. One. And against. Five. So, amendment 73 is rejected.
Yes. Thank you. The question is that amendment 74 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so let's vote on amendment 74. All those in favour, please show. One. And against. Five. So, amendment 74 falls.
Yes. Thank you. The question is that amendment 75 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. All those in favour, therefore, of amendment 75, please show. One. And against. Five. So, amendment 75 falls.
Yes. Thank you. The question is that amendment 76 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so all those in favour of amendment 76, please show. One. And anyone against. Five against. So, amendment 76 is rejected.
Yes. The question is that amendment 77 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll vote on amendment 77. All those in favour, please show. One. And against. Five. So, amendment 77 is rejected.
Yes. Thank you. The question is that amendment 78 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll vote on amendment 78. All those in favour, please show. One. And against. Five. So, amendment 78 falls.
Yes, you do. Thank you. The question is that amendment 79 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll vote on amendment 79. All those in favour, please show. One. And against. Five. So, amendment 79 falls.
Yes. The question is that amendment 80 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll therefore move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 80, please show. One. And against. Five. So, amendment 80 is rejected.
Yes. Thank you, Joel. The question is that amendment 81 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. So, all those in favour of 81, please show. One. And all those against. Five. So, amendment 81 is defeated.
Yes. There we are. The question is that amendment 134 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. So, all those in favour of 134, please show. One. And against. Five. So, amendment 134 is defeated.
Yes. Thank you. The question is that amendment 82 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] An objection. Therefore, we'll vote on 82. All those in favour of amendment 82, please show. One. And against. Five. There we are. So, amendment 82 has been rejected.
Yes. Thank you. The question is that amendment 83 be agreed. Does any Member object. [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll vote on amendment 83. All those in favour. One. And against. Five. So, amendment 83 is defeated.
Yes. Thank you. The question is that amendment 84 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 84, please show. One. And against. Five. So, amendment 84 is defeated.
Yes. The question is, therefore, that amendment 85 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we'll vote on amendment 84—85, sorry. All those in favour, please show. One. And against amendment 85. Five. Okay. So, amendment 85 falls.
Thank you. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour, therefore, of amendment 86, please show. One. And against. Five. So, amendment 86 is rejected.
Thank you. The question is that amendment 87 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 87, please show. One. And against. Five. So, amendment 87 is rejected.
Yes. Thank you. Okay. So, the question is that amendment 88 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour, therefore, of amendment 88, please show. One. And against. Five. So, amendment 88 is not agreed.
Yes. The question is that amendment 89 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we'll vote on amendment 89. All those in favour, please show. One. And against. Five. So, amendment 89 is defeated.
There we are. The question is that amendment 90 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We move to a vote, then. So, all those in favour of amendment 90, please show. One. And against. Five. So, amendment 90 is not agreed.
Thank you. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 91, please show. One. And against. Five. So, amendment 91 is rejected.
We move on to the twentieth group of amendments, which relate, this time, to supplementary functions: general. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 174, and I move amendment 174 in the name of the Minister and call on the Minister to speak to her amendment and the other amendments in the group.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'll speak about the Government amendments first. Amendment 174 seeks to provide greater clarity on the language used in respect of the requirements to enter land for the purposes of survey and makes it clear in the Bill that one of the requirements for undertaking survey work is that it must be on land that is in connection with a valid application for infrastructure consent.
Amendment 175 provides additional principles in respect of the requirements to enter land for the purposes of survey by allowing other persons to be taken onto land where necessary and require land to be secured as it was on entry, in respect of land where survey work is to be undertaken.
Amendment 176 is necessary to limit the disapplication of certain principles specified under section 122(3) when undertaking surveying of Crown land. The amendment will only disapply the 14 days' notice period specified under section 122(3) but to ensure the other principles are retained when undertaking surveying of Crown land.
Amendment 30 is a technical amendment to correct an error in translation only. The English text of the Bill is unaffected.
Amendment 31 allows regulations to be made that can require Natural Resources Wales to maintain a register of all requests for pre-application services made to them, as well as what services were provided for each request. This amendment will ensure consistency in the process as the Bill already specifies the same requirements for both the Welsh Ministers and local planning authorities when providing pre-application services. This is related to amendments 2 and 3, which were discussed as part of group 8, and which require NRW to provide pre-application advice. This amendment ensures a register of advice is kept, which provides for transparency and monitoring of effectiveness of the service.
Amendment 177 will require the Welsh Ministers to publish any direction given under section 128 of the Bill for disapplying requirements and to also to notify Senedd Members where a direction is made to explain its effect and why it was made.
Turning, then, Chair, to the non-Government amendments, amendment 92 seeks to amend the level of fine where access to land is restricted under section 122 of the Bill from unlimited to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. Given the potential size and scale of developments captured by the Bill, we need to ensure suitable deterrents are in the place to minimise any offences. Furthermore, by not limiting fines to a level on the standard scale, it provides the courts the flexibility to assign a proportionate level of fine to an offence on a case-by-case basis. Because of these reasons and to ensure parity with other areas of the Bill that allow for fines to be issued for certain offences, I cannot support this amendment and I'm asking the committee not to support it either.
Amendment 93 seeks to include a requirement for the Welsh Ministers to designate a document as an infrastructure policy statement, which is to be laid before Senedd Cymru for a minimum period of 56 days before it is designated. I believe this period of time is excessive for the publication of these statements, where they should be turned around relatively quickly, as they would be mechanisms to make swift changes to policy where the consenting process may require clarity on an emerging infrastructure issue. Therefore, I cannot support the amendment as proposed, but I am willing to explore with the Member how the Bill can ensure some form of suitable notification for these statements.
Amendments 94 and 154 would introduce new sections in the Bill to consult Network Rail and Community Energy Wales on any valid application for infrastructure consent. I do thank the Members for these suggestions. I acknowledge the importance of notifying and consulting various stakeholders and communities in the consenting process. The involvement of all these parties is vital to the function of the determination process. However, this amendment would require these parties to be consulted on all applications, which is neither appropriate nor proportionate. Furthermore, it would list them on the face of the Bill, while all other consultees would be listed in subordinate legislation, and I think this would be a very confusing split. So, although I can't support the amendments and would encourage the committee not to support them either, I will commit to including Network Rail and Community Energy Wales as consultees in subordinate legislation where the types of applications they are consulted on can be tailored more appropriately. Diolch.
Thank you, Chair. I move the amendments in Janet's name. Amendment 93 relates to the previous points I've made about the importance of Senedd scrutiny. We've applied the same principle to infrastructure policy statements. The change would require documents to be laid before the Senedd for a minimum of 56 days prior to designation.
Amendment 94 adds Network Rail as a statutory consultee. Network Rail have noted the relevance of this section to their operations and requested to be recognised explicitly as a statutory consultee within the infrastructure consent process. Thank you.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. I speak to amendment 154. I'd argue that consulting Community Energy Wales about infrastructure consent applications would greatly assist the Welsh Government's ambition to expand community energy in Wales. I do appreciate the points that the Minister was making about the unintended consequences, and I'm grateful for the commitment that the Minister has just made about what work will be taken forward with this in mind. CEW serves as the foremost representative body for the community energy sector in Wales. It advocates for its interests and it facilitates collaboration with various different stakeholders, and, given its expertise and its deep-rooted connections within the community energy landscape, I think that finding ways of making the most of their insights into the challenges, the opportunities and the requirements of these initiatives would be imperative. By consulting with them, the Government can tap into this wealth of knowledge about the projects that they're involved in and that they would advocate. CEW can provide crucial input on matters like project feasibility, community engagement strategies, regulatory compliance, and would enhance through that the effectiveness and sustainability of initiatives. As I say, I do take on board what the Minister has just said, and I do welcome what will happen as a result.
Thank you, Chair. I'm very grateful to Members for their remarks on the group. In my pursuit of brownie points from the LJC committee, I just want to point that they have called for detail on the face of the Bill, and the Government amendments in this group address those requests in full. I'm asking Members to support, therefore, the Government amendments in the group. I've outlined the reasons I'm not supporting Janet Finch-Saunders's amendments, due to their consequences, and I also am asking Members not to support Delyth's amendment as it stands, but I absolutely agree with everything you just said, Delyth, and I'm very committed to making sure that we have those as consultees, as appropriate, for the right kinds of projects in the legislation.
Diolch yn fawr, Gweinidog. So, the question is that amendment 174 be agreed to. Does any Member object? We have no objections. So, that amendment, 174, is carried.
I move amendment 175 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 175 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections; 175 is agreed.
Yes. There we are. The question is that amendment 92 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, we'll vote on amendment 92. All those in favour, please show. One. And against. Three. And abstentions. Two. Therefore, amendment 92 is rejected.
I move amendment 176 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 176 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 176 is agreed.
So, we come to the twenty-first group of amendments, this time relating to supplementary functions, biodiversity net gain. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 153, and I call on Delyth Jewell to move and speak to her amendment.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. So, I speak to that lone amendment. And what we're suggesting here, as the Chair's just set out, is that there should be a requirement to bring forward proposals or regulations relating to biodiversity gain, to highlight as well that there is a model in England through which private finance will contribute to biodiversity delivery. I believe that's something the Minister has recently discussed with our committee. The Minister will be aware—and Members will be aware—that the Environment Act 2021 has introduced a statutory requirement for biodiversity gain, which applies to most types of development in England under both the Town and Country Planning Act 1991 and the Planning Act 2008. When fully introduced, this would apply a requirement for biodiversity gain of at least 10 per cent to nationally significant infrastructure projects.
Given the scale and duration of NSIPs, this clearly isn't enough. Now, the Welsh Government could, and indeed, I believe, should, take a similarly ambitious approach to biodiversity benefit for significant infrastructure projects, and go further. The Infrastructure (Wales) Bill provides an opportunity to legislate for this. I would welcome the Government going further than that, of course. Yes.
Sorry, Chair. I thank Delyth for the amendment. My major concern is that the proposal, like so much of the Bill, relies on introducing regulations. On that basis, we cannot support it today, but, for Stage 3, should you be able to bring forward an amendment with more detail, we would be pleased to reconsider.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. So, as Delyth has already said, amendment 153 would introduce a new regulation-making power into the Bill that would make it a requirement to support biodiversity net gain for specific types of infrastructure projects in Wales. There is an existing duty under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 to maintain and enhance biodiversity and to support the resilience of ecosystems. Our national planning policy promotes the concept of biodiversity 'net benefit', which provides a more holistic approach to the consideration of biodiversity, and goes well beyond net gain. The concept is clearly articulated in 'Future Wales' and 'Planning Policy Wales', which will be important considerations in determining infrastructure applications.
So, whilst the proposed amendment doesn't really match our current legislative requirements, I understand where the Member is coming from completely, and I really want to do something on the Bill to just emphasise the point. So, I'm really happy to work with you, Delyth, to make sure we can bring something forward at Stage 3 that makes sense of the legislative process, but also includes the matters that you've just considered, so that we can have a coherent piece of legislation that does what you'd like it to do.
Diolch, briefly. I'm intrigued by Joel's points—thank you for that—and I'm very happy and very grateful to the Minister for setting out that commitment, and I would be very pleased to take the Minister up on that.
There we are. The the question is that amendment 93 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 93, please show. One. And against. Three. And abstentions. Two. So, amendment 93 is rejected.
I move amendment 30 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 30 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. So, amendment 30 is agreed.
I move amendment 31 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 31. All those in favour, please show. Five. And against. One. So, amendment 31 is carried.
The question is that amendment 94 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 94, please show. Three. And against. Three. So, I cast my vote as chair against amendment 94, meaning that amendment falls.
Yes. There we are. The question is, therefore, that amendment 154 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour then of 154, please show. Two. And against. Four. Amendment 154 falls.
I move amendment 177 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 177 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. So, 177 is agreed.
Thank you, Chair. Dealing with the Government amendments first, amendments 178 and 179 relate to the section of the Bill that requires Minister of the Crown consent. The committee has rightly had a strong interest in our discussions with the UK Government over Minister of the Crown consent, and I am pleased to say that consent has been granted. These amendments add new provisions for which consent was granted. We agree these provisions require consent where they affect a reserved body. I have agreed to consult the UK Government when we make regulations under these powers. In the interests of open and meaningful consultation we would always consult those affected by our proposals, so I'm happy to commit to consult them.
These amendments reflect the consent received and will ensure requirements can be imposed on reserved bodies. If these amendments are not agreed, then requirements could not be imposed on reserved bodies where an application to amend a consent was made. This may negatively impact the consenting process.
Amendments 180 to 182 respond to a number of recommendations of the LJC Committee report—23, 30, 43, 46 and 50 to be precise, the recommendations. The effect of the amendments is to require those provisions to be subject to the draft affirmative procedure. The provisions affected are: No. 52, on function of deciding applications; 55, on matters that may be disregarded when making decisions on applications; 56, on the timetable for deciding application for infrastructure consent; 127 on giving directions to public authorities; and 129 on applications made by the Crown.
Amendments 32 and 184 to 190 are technical drafting amendments only, and have no effect on the policy contained within the Bill. The amendments ensure consistency in drafting throughout the Bill and make consequential amendments across a number of relevant pieces of legislation.
Chair, turning to the non-Government amendments, amendments 135 to 138 would change the Senedd procedure of subordinate legislation to draft affirmative. I'm afraid I’m asking Members to reject these amendments. I don't support the amendment as it would remove necessary flexibility within the SIP process. Using the negative procedure for these regulations allows for the opportunity to respond to changes in a timely manner to ensure the infrastructure consenting system is kept up to date. For example, the way in which notices are published in the future may be amended to account for new technology. The negative procedure is considered appropriate for these sections as they relate to procedural and technical elements of the processes for applying and deciding infrastructure consents that will require consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. It would be beneficial for all parties involved that any procedural adjustments relating to pre-application consultation are carried out promptly.
Amendment 155 would insert the section referred to in amendment 148 to section 138, covering the procedure on regulations. Following my position outlined in group 13 in relation to amendment 148, I'm asking Members to reject amendment 155. Diolch.
Thank you, Chair. I move the amendments in Janet's name. Amendment 138 adds section 34 to the list in 138, paragraph 4, which will mean that regulations made under section 34 would follow the affirmative procedure. This means that the Senedd would get to see draft legislation, which has to be approved by a resolution of the Senedd. Thank you.
I move amendment 179 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 179 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. So, amendment 179 is agreed.
Yes. There we are. The question is that amendment 135 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll move to a vote on amendment 135. All those in favour, please show. One. And against. Three. Abstentions. Two. So, amendment 135 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 136 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll vote on amendment 136. All those in favour, please show. One. And against. Three. And abstentions. Two. Amendment 136 therefore is not agreed.
Yes, you move that. The question is that amendment 137 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 137, please show. One. And against. Three. And abstentions. Two. Amendment 137 falls.
Yes. The question is that amendment 138 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 138, please show. One. And against. Three. And abstentions. Two. So, amendment 138 is rejected.
So, we'll move on to me moving amendment 180 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 180 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we'll move to a vote on amendment 180. All those in favour, please show. Five. And against. One. So, amendment 180 is agreed.
I move amendment 181 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 181 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. So, amendment 181 is agreed.
I move amendment 182 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 182 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. So, 182 is agreed.
I move amendment 32 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 32 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. So, amendment 32 is agreed.
I move amendment 184 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 184 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 184 is passed.
I move amendment 185 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 185 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection; 185 is agreed.
I move amendment 186 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 186 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. So, amendment 186 is passed.
I move amendment 187 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 187 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No. There we are. Amendment 187 is agreed.
I move amendment 188 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 188 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. So, that amendment, 188, is agreed.
I move amendment 189 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 189 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection; 189 is agreed.
I move amendment 190 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 190 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection to amendment 190. So, that amendment is agreed.
We come then to our final group of amendments. The twenty-third group relates to transitional arrangements. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 183.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. Amendment 183 relates to transitional provisions in the Bill, and inserts a new section. The amendment has been tabled in part as a result of recommendations from this committee. I've also listened to feedback from stakeholders, and this amendment will help ensure that transitional provisions are workable in practice. This amendment provides that clarity. The new section on transitional provisions will work in connection to the revised statement of policy intent I identified in my response to recommendation 6 of your report. My officials have undertaken engagement with stakeholders to help develop current drafting. I intend to undertake focused engagement on these proposals prior to the wider consultation on elements of subordinate legislation. The result of consultation will help inform the final form and content of the transitional provisions.
The amendment provides clarity on the transition between existing consenting regimes and the infrastructure consenting process the Bill introduces. This will help to ensure a smooth change from existing regimes to the new IC process and aims to reduce the impact on matters already in train. Diolch.
Thank you, Minister. Any Members wishing to speak? Oh, go on. Surely somebody. [Laughter.] No. Okay. Thank you. Minister, would you like to respond to your own comments?
Only, Chair, because it'll be my last chance to do so, to thank you very much indeed for running the meeting as you have, and to thank all the Members for their really helpful and engaged comments all the way through this process. Diolch.
Diolch, Gweinidog. Okay. But we need to conclude the voting first. So, the question is that amendment 183 be agreed to. Does any Member object? We have no objections, so amendment 183 is agreed.
Can I also thank you, Minister, and your officials for your attendance? And, as always, I advise you that you will be sent a transcript of the meeting to check for factual accuracy. I would also like to thank the clerking team, the research team and the legal team, as well, for the support that they've provided all of us as Members. And that completes Stage 2 proceedings. Stage 3 begins tomorrow, but the relevant dates, of course, for Stage 3 proceedings, will be published in due course. Standing Orders make provision for the Minister to prepare a revised explanatory memorandum, taking account of the amendments agreed today, and the revised memorandum, of course, will be laid at least five working days before Stage 3 proceedings. So, with that, I thank the Minister.
We as a committee have a few items still to dispose of on our agenda. We have, as item 4, a number of papers to note, from 4.1 to 4.7. Would Members wish to comment or are you happy to take them as noted? Yes. Okay. Diolch yn fawr. We'll note those papers.
The final item, therefore, is that I propose, in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi) and (ix), that the committee resolves to meet in private for the meeting taking place on Wednesday 6 March. Are Members content? There we are. Thank you. If you are content, that concludes our meeting, and can I thank you all once again for a very productive day? Diolch yn fawr.
And then, turning to 114, I do understand the intention of the amendment. Early engagement with our English counterparts will be essential to striking the right balance and ensuring co-operation between determining authorities, but we don't think it's necessary to place a requirement on the face of the Bill. So, just to give the committee an example, a project may have the majority of its development in Wales and a very small part in England. I would see that project as an SIP and it would go through the new process in Wales as the project has significant impact in Wales. In such circumstances, there'd be no need to consult on our approach as it would be completely clear. I understand the intent, but it's about good practice between consenting bodies, rather than a matter for legislation. We believe it's better developed in that way.
And therefore—I hope I'm going to get this right—I call on the committee to support amendments 97, 98, 101, 102, 104, 108, 109, 110, 111, and to reject amendments 95, 100, 106 and 114. Diolch, Cadeirydd.
Mae'n berthnasol i nodi hefyd y crëwyd yr hawl i Weinidogion San Steffan fynnu hawl i berchnogaeth leol yng nghyd-destun prosiectau ynni adnewyddadwy drwy Ddeddf Seilwaith 2015, os nad oes anogaeth gwirfoddol ar y sector ynni i leoleiddio yn gweithio. Ond, fel yng Nghymru, buaswn i'n dadlau, dyw'r dynesiad gwirfoddol hwnnw ddim wedi gweithio. Ond, serch hynny, hyd yma, dyw'r Gweinidogion yn San Steffan ddim wedi defnyddio'r hawl yna sydd ganddyn nhw i greu rheoliadau i wneud yr hyn dŷn ni'n ceisio'i weithredu yn y gwelliannau yma.
Jest i gloi, felly, trwy gyflwyno elfen o berchnogaeth leol, byddai gwneud hyn yn norm yn hytrach nag yn eithriad a fyddai'n medru cyflymu cyflawni nod polisi y Llywodraeth. A chyda hynny o eiriau o gyflwyniad, Cadeirydd, rwy'n credu y gwnaf i ei adael e yn fanna a gadael i Aelodau eraill gyfrannu ac i'r Gweinidog ymateb.
There was a small debate, I know, about Adam trying to say that it's about electricity—and you have said that in the amendment—but I think there are some issues around the fact that this is all infrastructure projects. Although we talk a lot about energy infrastructure projects in the development of this Bill, they are of course intended for all infrastructure projects, and so there are large numbers of infrastructure projects where local ownership is not something you'd want to consider. I can think of several. There are some that you would. You might, with a flood management scheme, want to consider some local ownership, for example, but there are several that we can all think of where it wouldn't be at all appropriate. So, I think there are some issues there.
The complexity of some of these projects means that we've wanted very specifically to have a streamlined process that brings them in to the Welsh Ministers for determination, in order to have the expertise to be able to develop that, so that's very much the point of this whole process. I can't emphasise enough that this is not a policy Bill; this is a Bill that's meant to have longevity, because it sets out a process that applies to all policies into the future as far as we can see. So, if you change 'Planning Policy Wales' to reflect some of the things Adam has just said, and some of the ways that that's enforced, then that would be enforced, through this Bill, in that way. The process Bill itself, I don't think, is the right place for it at all.
There were a number of things that were said then around issues with local ownership and so on. I'll just point out that, of course, we do have a whole series of things going on in the policy domain that are not part of this Bill. For example, as part of the co-operation agreement, we have Ynni Cymru, which is very rapidly developing the kind of community energy that Jenny Rathbone spoke about in Germany. It's very much modelled on that. We've been working together as a group of parties to facilitate that across the piece. We've also, of course, very recently, made a state-owned energy company in this space, which would be very much looking to take share parts in large energy projects across Wales, for precisely the reason that Adam set out, because we don't want to be in a situation where the profits of this are exported away from Wales. I couldn't agree more with that sentiment.
Unfortunately, we don't think that what you're proposing here achieves what you're trying to do. I'm more than happy to continue that conversation with you, though, to see whether we can find a way of doing some of it in this Bill, but I think, more likely, we find a policy way of doing it that achieves the end, so that this Bill applies, then, to the process. So, as I said, I can't support the amendments, but I'm more than happy to work with the Member to see what we can achieve afterwards.
In terms of the Minister's remarks, this explicitly, to avoid some of the problems in terms of the wider ambit of this infrastructure Bill, is very much focused on electricity-generating projects. There's a debate, maybe, to be had about other bits of infrastructure where local ownership could play a valuable role, but it's only focused there, it's only meant to have an effect there. It is within scope of the Bill, so it is relevant to the Bill, otherwise I wouldn't be here moving it. I would say that it is relevant to the policy intent of this Bill, which is about having a streamlined process, yes, but one that gets the balance right then in streamlining, but also ensuring community voice and community involvement and engagement for the communities that are included in this process. I think, based on very, very strong academic evidence, going back over many decades now, actually, having a local ownership clause in this increasingly difficult area helps with the policy purpose of the Bill, which is to have streamlined infrastructure, particularly in the context of these amendments for energy projects.
Nevertheless, I think it was drafted as a probing amendment. I think that the offer to explore other ways in the context of this Bill, that would be the preference. I have to say, we can have all the best policies in the world, but the sector, the corporate sector, will not move unless they are forced to move, and so we need to do something more than we're currently doing. Policy intent is not enough, and that's the purpose behind this Bill. 71
I take the Minister's point. What this would not prevent is that, if I'm a corporate developer and I don't want local ownership, I could then go through the existing local planning route. But those same corporate companies say, 'Oh, we can't get any projects through the local planning route; it takes years and years and years, even longer than the existing development of national significance streamlined process, which this is meant to improve upon.' And so, actually, practically, if you close off the SIP route, effectively you are in actual fact compelling those corporate developers to sit down and engage, and properly deliver a reasonable, some would say modest demand for local ownership. 72
So, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss with other Members and with the Minister other ways, preferably in the context of this Bill, where we could move from the voluntary aspect of the current framework to something that actually will secure a compulsion on companies for everyone's interests to reflect local ownership. So, on that basis, I would be happy if you would withdraw the amendment on my behalf, if the committee was to consent to that. [Laughter.]
O ran gwelliannau 194 a 196, mae'r gwelliannau hyn yn ceisio cau mas y posibilrwydd yn llwyr o brojectau llinellau uwchben y ddaear yn cael eu dynodi fel SIPs, fel projectau o seilwaith arwyddocaol, mewn ardaloedd o dirweddau sensitif, fel maen nhw'n cael eu disgrifio yn y gwelliant, ac wedyn mae'r gwelliant yn rhestru rhai o'r prif gategorïau o dirweddau dynodedig. Mae hwn yn adleisio, i ryw raddau, y polisi cynllunio yn Lloegr sy'n dweud na allwch chi gael peilonau, llinellau trydan uwchben y ddaear o gwbl mewn parciau cenedlaethol ac AONBs, ardaloedd o harddwch naturiol eithriadol. Mae'r polisi yna wedi esgor, hyd yn oed, ar danddaearu llinellau presennol, gan gynnwys, a dweud y gwir, yng Nghymru dwi'n meddwl—ym Mharc Cenedlaethol Eryri. Mae hwn yn cymryd yr egwyddor honno, ond yn ei hymestyn mas i ddynodiadau tirweddol eraill, yn fras. Felly, dyna'r set yna o welliannau.
Mae gwelliannau 139 a 140, os ydw i'n dehongli yn iawn—dwi'n edrych ar fy nghyd-Aelod i a fydd yn gallu dweud mwy am hyn—yn ceisio cau mas y posibilrwydd o ddynodi projectau ffracio—o ddefnyddio'r term mwy dealladwy—neu lo brig yn brojectau o seilwaith arwyddocaol. A hynny, siŵr o fod, er mwyn cael cysondeb ag ymrwymiadau rhyngwladol y Llywodraeth fel sylfaenydd, er enghraifft, y rhwydwaith o wledydd tu ôl i'r Beyond Oil & Gas Alliance. Ond fe wnaf i adael i fy nghyd-Aelod Delyth Jewell ymhelaethu ynghylch hynny os yw'n dymuno gwneud.
Gobeithio, Gadeirydd, fy mod i wedi cyfro mewn digon, a dim gormod, o fanylder y set o welliannau yn y grŵp yma.
That's a fair form of wording, because what we're hearing at the moment is that the cost comparisons have not been effectively proven that this can be all done entirely with undergrounding, even though we might will it to happen. But the bit that's probably missing from that is 'economically viable and also can contribute to our decarbonisation targets'. There are some real tensions here within it. The interesting part within amendment 196 is where it refers to the long list of areas, and it includes within that things such as
'special landscape areas or their equivalent included in Local Development Plans'.
We have not only pylons, but also turbines in my constituency in heritage areas of conservation. We already have them. In fact, as you look across my area, I could go back retrospectively and argue that we should strip a lot of this out. I'm not sure what it would do to the Minister's plans on decarbonisation, and this is where the tension lies, once again. So, I just wonder about the impact. If you were to exclude not just national parks right at the top of the list, if you like, but down to these other ones, what would it do to the roll-out of some of these larger infrastructure projects that we know that we need? Because everybody often says, 'Let's not do the onshore wind'. I mean, in England at the moment, there's an absolute moratorium on onshore wind. So, they say, 'Let's do the offshore wind', and then you have the objections to the offshore wind and then you have proposals for the Severn barrage and then that gets stopped in its tracks.
My point is this—sorry, Chair. My point is that these seem to be very well intentioned in terms of saying, 'Let's get the right development in the right place, with undergrounding of cables, let's protect those special areas', but then I stand on top of the Bwlch mountain in my part of Wales, which I would argue is every bit as spectacular as any landscape—it's the southernmost tip of several post-glacial species—and think, 'Well, hold on here, we've sucked it in', because we accept that we have to hit those decarbonisation targets as well. So, there's something that I worry a little bit about in this—that it will pull it slightly in the other direction if it's not carefully considered. Because this, in its entirety, I worry, is something that's designed to actually militate against us achieving our decarbonisation targets. I understand the spirit of it, but a plague of pylons from the south Wales industrial areas?
We would, of course, continue to have, as the Bill sets out, the power to direct that a project is a Welsh Government project of significance. So, there is that, and, as I said in answer to Adam's previous set of amendments, it doesn't prevent developments coming forward by taking them out of this regime, it pushes them back to the local planning authority. As Adam summed up, he was saying about the disincentive. I don't disagree with that, but you have to bear in mind that there is also a provision where, if the local authority doesn't do it fast enough, they can be taken for non-determination and that comes back to us anyway. So, there are double loops in the planning system that need to be taken into account. Whilst I accept the disincentive point, I also don't want local authorities to be being prosecuted for non-determination all over the place because they have neither the expertise nor the resource to deal with projects that have been taken out of the Bill. We're dealing with quite a complex set of processes. You almost need a flow diagram to show you what happens if something is in or out of the Bill. I do think it's important that the committee understands the consequences of removing things from the Bill. I hope that points out where we're trying to go. So, I'm asking the committee to reject these amendments.
I will say, though, Adam, that I'm more than happy to work with you—and you're right that I have visited the company; I am very keen on undergrounding, and the Welsh Government policy is to underground it—to have a look at whether we can strengthen 'Planning Policy Wales' in any way to make that a much more inherent part of the system. I have a lot of sympathy with what you say.
I just want to say, on the policy point—although this is a process Bill, and it's not really what we should be dealing with—the current policy does talk about cost disincentives, and that is absolutely right, but there are other disincentives. So, I have just spent an enormous amount of Welsh public money restoring peatlands right across mid and west Wales. I obviously don't want them dug up for cables, nor do I want them crossed by pylons. So, there are lots of things where what you're actually talking about is an alternative route, and if you look at a map of Wales with a policy hat on, which I don't think we should be doing today, but, if we did do that, you would see that there are routes that we all can see are the only real routes that are viable for big transmission networks.
We know that west and mid Wales do not have sufficient grid. We know that the people in the communities in the area need more grid. We have to find a route to get that grid to them that has the least environmentally damaging and visual aspect-damaging point. I have a lot of sympathy with communities who are not wanting massive high-voltage overhead power lines, but they want the electricity, so we have to find a solution for them is the point I think Huw was also making, really.
Turning to amendment 37, which is attempting to amend the type of cables that can be consented, we only have competence for those lines that have a nominal voltage of 132kV. So, removal of the words simply makes the Bill less clear. It doesn't take it out of competence because our competence is set out by the Government of Wales Act 2006, but it would mean that somebody trying to figure out what the Bill affects would have to read the Government of Wales Act 2006 together with the Bill, as opposed to just being able to read it on the face of the Bill, and that's why it's included. So, I don't think it's helpful to take them out; it just helps the person reading the process to understand what is within the competence of the Welsh Government and what isn't.
I couldn't agree more with Adam's proposal that we'd like to have more competence—we argue for that all the time. This is clearly an arbitrary limit on it, but, nevertheless, that's the situation for competence. So, removing them doesn't—. I don't think it takes—. It wouldn't render the Bill unenforceable, or whatever; it would just make it more difficult to access. And one of the reasons that we are very keen to keep this Bill as a process Bill and keep the policy stuff in the policy Bills is for the accessibility tof Welsh law project, which we are very keen to make sure people can understand, because as Welsh law, rightly, diverges from English law, we want people to be able to access it in the most advantageous way possible. So, making it as clear as possible on the face of the Bill is where we are.
And then, just on amendments 193 and 194, which are probing amendments that I think you were looking at, again, removing developments from the Bill doesn't mean they don't come forward. It doesn't mean that there isn't a necessary assessment of these applications. It just means it goes back through the local planning process.
I just want to be really clear with amendments 139 and 140 while I'm doing this. The Welsh Government is a member of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance. Our policy on fossil fuel extraction could not be any clearer. I disagree entirely with what Joel James said. We are not including those things in this Bill in order to facilitate their removal from the soil, but because we have to have a process, and the process of ensuring that the Welsh Government's policy of no extraction of fossil fuels is best followed is by having a process in place that brings those matters into the Welsh Government for determination. So, it's actually reinforcing the policy. We can't not have a policy; we can't prevent speculative developers from all over the world deciding to have a go—I've got several of them ongoing at the moment, as it happens—but we have a robust policy to see them off, and what this is doing is putting a process in place to see them off. A future Welsh Government might change its mind, but currently our policy is both robust and vigorously pursued, but we must have a policy to do that because we can't prevent people from speculatively coming forward with these developments. So, I just want to be really clear that the reason for including them is to have that process. It is not about watering down a policy of any sort. But the policy documents are elsewhere; this is simply the process. Diolch, Cadeirydd.
I think what this amendment does, as Joel James said, is it takes a step towards that, isn't it? It strengthens that default position even further, because it makes it much more difficult, certainly, to advance those overhead projects in the specific areas. It's an amendable list, it's an expandable list, and that is up for further discussion, certainly, but the reason that we included not just the national parks and the areas of outstanding natural beauty, which is the position in England, but a much wider section of areas was precisely to respond to the point that Huw Irranca-Davies made: special landscape areas exist in Valleys communities throughout south Wales. So, it reflects the fact that environmentally, culturally sensitive areas exist throughout Wales, and they should also be protected equally. I look forward to the further discussions, but, on this particular set of amendments there, I would like to press that to a vote, if I may.
Again, no evidence has been presented that the threshold is inappropriate, and we would again want to consult before any such change was made. I therefore ask the committee to reject all the amendments in this group.
Finally, Government amendment 1 is a technical drafting amendment only, and has no effect on the policy contained within the Bill. Section 26 relates to the procedure where a direction is given specifying a project as a SIP, or that it is not a SIP. This amendment ensures there is clarity over a procedure applying to a singular or group of persons, and is intended to ensure the drafting is consistent throughout the Bill. The amendment makes it clear the regulations can set a single person or a group of people when a direction is made. Diolch.
Amendment 3 will allow regulations to require the services provided by NRW to be published. This amendment will improve transparency by ensuring prospective applicants can easily find and clearly understand what details and information they could expect to receive from pre-application services provided by NRW.
Amendment 52 would amend the Bill to specify that the timescale to be set out in regulations for responding to a notice on land interests must be set at 21 days as a minimum. I'm afraid, I cannot support this amendment and I would ask the committee not to support the amendment. It would provide less clarity in the reading of the legislation, by having the power to set a time frame in regulations and then to limit this time frame on the face of the Bill. The setting of procedure for the giving of a notice on land interests in regulations has been decided because it is one where we need to retain a degree of flexibility in future to respond to stakeholders during our consultation and in the future on any changes. Just by way of example, the minimum proposed 21 days for responding has not been justified anywhere that I know of, and stakeholders may prefer 14 days for this notice, and that would align to section 52 of the Planning Act 2008. So, it might have the unintended consequence that I have just outlined there.
Amendment 53 would insert that a fine under section 28 for failing to comply with a notice for obtaining information about interests in land cannot exceed level 5 on the standard scale. The current wording of a ‘fine’ means an unlimited fine, as would the term a 'level 5' fine. So, the amendment has no effect whatsoever and I cannot, therefore, support it. Diolch.
Amendment 142 would provide that the pre-application consultation period would be for a maximum of 28 days. The Bill does not in general set specific time frames as these are matters best covered in subordinate legislation to allow the necessary flexibility for time frames to be amended. I absolutely, again, completely understand why you're bringing forward the amendment, but I am resisting, I'm afraid, Chair, all the way through the Bill putting specific timescales on the face of the Bill for all of the reasons that I've outlined on a number of occasions. However, I am committed to including a period of no less than 28 days in subordinate legislation as a minimum. So, I just want to reiterate, it's not the time frame itself that is the issue, it's where it is included in the legislation.
Amendment 121 would allow the Welsh Ministers to publish guidance on the pre-application procedure, which developers must have regard to when undertaking their pre-application consultation. Again, I support the principle of publishing guidance, but I don't, I'm afraid, like the particular amendment. I understand the importance of effective and comprehensive pre-application engagement with stakeholders and local communities, and we will seek to strengthen this in as many ways as possible. But publishing guidance that developers must have regard to raises legal concerns about legislating through guidance, which is not considered to be appropriate. I have to say, and I want to make it very clear, that this is my own personal view as a recovering lawyer, but having regard to guidance is very difficult, because all you have to do is show that you had regard to it; it doesn't bite, it's not statutory in that sense. I think there might be better ways of dealing with that.
I am committed to producing detailed guidance for the consenting process as a whole, including the pre-application consultation stage. The committee will have a great deal of say in what those statutory instruments look like. I'm very keen to ensure that we have proper scrutiny from the Senedd and from its committees in terms of those regulations, but the regulations are, of course, more flexible than the primary legislation that supports them.
Amendment 122 would place a duty on applicants to take account of responses to consultation and publicity. The only reason I don’t support this amendment is because we believe that the effect of the amendment is already achieved in the Bill. When applying for infrastructure consent, applicants must include a pre-application consultation report with their application, and section 31 of the Bill specifies that a pre-application consultation report must give details of the responses received from persons consulted and how they have taken account of those responses. So, we would say that that's already included in the Bill. Diolch.
'Britain is an island nation and our shores have long been the points of contact with the outside world. Trade, invasion and defence, exploration, settlement, leisure and industry have all left distinctive marks on the shores and in the seas of Britain. Wales is certainly no exception. This maritime heritage is a valuable resource and all evidence can be used to tell the stories of our connections with the sea. Shipwrecks and hulks are obvious sources of information'.
The report could include marine archaeology. Should that not be the case, there is a risk that legislation would be in conflict with the Welsh Government's own publication, 'Managing the Marine Historic Environment of Wales', which includes commitments such as
'The marine historic environment should be managed and protected to the same standard as the terrestrial historic environment.'
In terms of whether the specific timescales should be on the face of the Bill or not, as you know, Chair, I have said repeatedly, and with the risk of repeating myself one more time, I feel very strongly they should be specified in the subordinate legislation, because although the proposed timescales I have mentioned are appropriate at the moment, changes to the application process may be made in the future, which would have a direct impact on the validation periods, potentially shortening or extending them. Therefore, sufficient flexibility is required to amend these swiftly if required. This would also be consistent with other areas of the Bill, where specific timescales are reserved for the subordinate legislation, and I ask the committee therefore not to support that amendment.
Amendment 7 amends section 33 to remove some minor words. Section 33 covers the notices of accepted applications and publicity requirements that will be undertaken. This amendment is a technical drafting amendment only and has no effect on the policy contained within the Bill. The effect of this amendment provides clarity on which section of the Bill applies where an application is accepted as valid, as the existing reference to section 34 is unnecessary and is likely to cause confusion.
Amendment 162 is a technical drafting amendment only and has no effect on the policy contained in the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is to clarify the wording relating to which planning authorities the Welsh Ministers are required to give notice to for an accepted application.
Amendments 163 and 164 modify the list of those persons who are to be notified where the Welsh Ministers have accepted an application for infrastructure consent in Wales as valid. This amendment seeks to offer greater transparency in the consenting process by requiring the Welsh Minister to notify each Member of the Senedd and Member of the House of Commons representing an area in which a proposed development is located.
Amendment 8 amends section 33 to leave out 'persons or descriptions of person' and insert 'person or person of a description'. This amendment has been covered before and is a technical drafting amendment only. It has no effect on the policy contained within the Bill, but provides consistency with similar drafting elsewhere.
Amendment 144 relates to section 36. This is the section that specifies that, where the draft order submitted with an application for infrastructure consent contains provision for a deemed marine licence, Natural Resources Wales must produce a marine impact report. These reports must give details of the likely impact of a proposed development on the land or marine environment.
I'm afraid I don't support amendment 143 or 144. These documents are factual representations from bodies on the likely effects of a development on an area. They are not a representation of the public’s views on the impact of the development. Stakeholders and the public will have an opportunity to comment on the merits of a proposal at the pre-application stage, and during the consultation phase, once an application is accepted. The requirement would represent a duplication of consultation, and would place a burden on the bodies preparing the consultation, with uncertainty about how to take account of representations received. The amendment creates differences with other consultees in the process. I am, though, very happy to give further consideration to how giving the public the opportunity to view submissions from statutory consultees could be achieved in the process as part of the subordinate legislation. I'm very happy to work with you to see whether we can get the policy intent to have better effect. So, I'm afraid I'm asking the committee not to support those amendments, but I do see the point and I will be looking to work with you, if that's okay, to see what we can do about it.
Amendment 56 also relates to section 36. The effect of this amendment is to reimburse NRW for the cost of providing advice in relation to marine archaeological features. Government amendment 11 removes the requirement for the marine impact report to give details of the likely impact on features of archaeological or historical interest in the marine environment. Therefore, amendment 56 will not be necessary should amendment 11 be accepted, as there will be no expectation for NRW to seek advice from a marine archaeological expert in relation to the marine impact report. The bodies responsible for advising on features of archaeological or historic interest in the marine environment are Cadw, the Welsh archaeological trusts and the Royal Commission on the Ancient and Historical Monuments of Wales. These bodies will be statutory consultees set out in regulations under section 126 of the Bill, and will provide comment on the impact of a proposal on features of archaeological or historical interest in the marine environment. Therefore, I would ask the committee to support amendment 11 and not amendment 56.
Government amendments 12 through to 17 affect section 38, which covers consultation post application in relation to compulsory acquisition. These amendments address recommendation 16 of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee report. In my response to the committee, I agreed that the drafting could be clearer, and clear legislation is something that I and I'm sure everyone else on the committee thinks is very important. These changes ensure there's clarity on there being one regulation-making power in respect of consultation post application for an infrastructure consent, as confirmed by the revised section 38(1). The detail of what that regulation power can include is prescribed under the revised section 38(2). The amendments need to be considered together, and I ask the committee to support them.
The committee will be delighted to know that that brings me to the end of my remarks.
So, we need the process for appointing inspectors to be flexible in being able to adapt to what experience or expertise is required for appropriately determining an application. So, we oppose setting out an absolute provision on the face of Bill that would require such an assessment to take place. But I do understand what you're driving at and, obviously, we'd be looking to ensure that a person who is appointed an inspector would have appropriate expertise/professional qualifications for each specific application, and we'd set those out, we would suggest, in regulations, so that they're appropriate.
And therefore I call on Members to reject all the amendments in this group, Chair.
Amendment 148 inserts a new section to make it a requirement for the examining authority to hold an open-floor hearing on an application where at least one interested party requests to do so. I fully support anyone interested being involved in the determination process. I think we all agree that ensuring that people are able to make representations is absolutely a vital part of the process. My concern is whether this provision gives the impression that written evidence is not as good as evidence presented in person, as well as a few practical issues on their handling. I think that's the point, Jenny, that you were making, where, if somebody wasn't able to be present in person and submitted written representations, you wouldn't want them to have less weight than somebody who was able to give evidence in person. Inspectors take into account all representations submitted by interested parties, and written representations carry entirely the same weight as oral submissions. Would this provision make that less clear? For example, would a person seek to have a hearing if they thought it gave more weight to their views than somebody who was only able to put their representations in in writing? Where an examination includes a hearing, interested parties may participate at topic-based hearings. Therefore, on issues that cannot be considered by written representations, the public have the opportunity to address the inspector.
Turning to practicalities, we've just worked through how they would affect the examination process. For example, would they potentially cause difficulties, inefficiencies and delays in the consenting of an application? How would we administer who are the interested parties that would be entitled to speak or not? Importantly, there would also be a fairness issue and natural justice, in that the applicant or consultee would not be present to hear what is said and therefore would not have the opportunity to reply. I completely support the involvement of people in the consenting process, but I'm not sure that this adds value to the involvement. So, I'm afraid I'm rejecting the amendment, although I'm very happy, Delyth, to have a continued conversation with you, because I understand what you're trying to achieve. It is about trying to get it proportionate and not have unintended consequences to what we're setting out.
In summary, Chair, I call on Members to support Government amendments 165 and 18, and reject amendments 146, 125, 57, 147 and 148.
Amendment 150 will amend section 45 to make it a requirement for an inquiry to be accessible electronically, with a live stream available for those unable to attend in person. The current drafting of the proposed amendment would require hybrid events to be held for each inquiry. Logistically, and from an IT perspective, the required resources to host hybrid events may not be readily available for applications in certain locations. The restriction would not allow for the required level of flexibility into how an inquiry is to be conducted that would account for extenuating circumstances. For example, during COVID, events could not be held in person due to the restrictions in place at the time. And finally, the current default position for holding inquiries for similar development types is for virtual events in the first instance. However, I do see the benefits of providing a live stream of an in-person event, where practicable. This would allow interested parties to be able to view the event in the spirit of openness and transparency. So, whilst I don't accept the amendment as drafted, as it does not give the required level of flexibility for the holding of an inquiry, again, Delyth, I'd like to work with you to find a suitable form of wording to come forward as an amendment at Stage 3.
Amendment 151 would amend section 45 to make it a requirement for documentary evidence presented at the inquiry, conducted for examination, to be made available in person and via electronic means. This raises an interesting point of how we handle information, and I do thank the Member for it. Again, I'm afraid—although I absolutely know where you're coming from, Delyth—it doesn't allow the required level of flexibility in making documents available. For example, there may be circumstances where, if the event is only able to be held virtually, only electronic versions of documents would be produced. There are also practical issues. For example, must it be produced on request, or produced as a matter of course? Would it be available at one location, or at a variety of locations? There is also uncertainty over how the drafting would work with our existing requirement under section 136, which covers the duties to publish.
Again, I need to work with you to just try and get to the bottom of what we're trying to achieve here. I think, just to put it in plain English, we don't want to cut down three temperate rainforests to hold an inquiry because we have to produce written information at five different locations in the vicinity of five different local authorities for one application. It might be that there are perfectly good reasons why individuals who are affected might need to have hard copies, if you like, whereas everybody else might be perfectly well served with electronic copies. So, I think we have to acknowledge the point, but we have to have sufficient flexibility to make it efficient and effective, so we have to work together to try and figure that out.
Just on the IT point, I don't know if Members remember, but during COVID, we went to completely virtual meetings and we had to have provision for what happened if the Chair suddenly became disconnected or other Members became disconnected. It's the same with virtual streaming: there are provisions for local authorities to have virtually streamed meetings, but you need provisions that stop the proceedings becoming invalid if the streaming goes down for any reason or is only available afterwards. So, again, I totally get where you're coming from, but you need to have all of the saving provisions in there to stop any unintended consequences of sudden disconnection or failure of the equipment. So, if we could work together to just make sure we cover off all of those points, that would be really great.
Forgive me, Chair, but I've got several more pages to get through. Apologies.
Amendment 58 inserts a new section that would provide a regulation-making power enabling the creation of a fund for objectors to infrastructure applications to take part in the decision-making process. The provisions in the Bill and supporting regulations will allow for individuals and organisations to input into the decision-making process through comprehensive consultations that will be required to be carried out by developers at the pre-application and submission stage. The proposed amendment would weigh in favour of objectors and would not result in a fair and balanced process for allowing all comments to be given equal weight on an application.
I don't think cost is a barrier to involvement. The system will not impose a cost for those with an interest to make their views heard as developers will be required to go over and above in their engagement to ensure local communities and others with an interest can be appropriately engaged and can appropriately respond. If individuals do need further support in participating, there are tools out there and support will be available. Planning Aid Wales already provides an excellent service that provides communities with invaluable advice and information on how to engage in development proposals. So, I'm asking the committee to reject that amendment.
Amendment 59 proposes to add a new subsection to section 50. Section 50 is the power to direct further examination. The amendment would specify that the Welsh Ministers must publish a statement of reasons when directing the examining authority to reopen the examination of an infrastructure application. Again, I fully agree with the spirit of the amendment in that, when an examination into an infrastructure is reopened, the reasons for doing so must be clear and transparent. However, in making such a decision, public law principles would apply that would require the reasons for reopening the examination to be provided. A statement of reasons may not be the appropriate mechanism for doing this and I would wish to explore the proposed drafting further, but I am supportive of the principle. So, once again, we need to work on the amendment to make sure that it has the intended effect.
Amendment 60 proposes to add a new clause at section 51 that would not allow the Welsh Ministers under any circumstances to order an individual objecting to an infrastructure application to pay the costs of another party in connection with the examination of the application. I cannot support this amendment. If an individual is behaving unreasonably, whether in support of or objecting to an application, it is only right and proper they may have to pay any unnecessary and wasted costs incurred by another party in response. The proposed amendment would enable vexatious objectors to add unreasonable costs to the examination process, and I don't think that's acceptable. The bar set is very high for the awarding of costs—and rightly so—and both tests must be met. First, they must be unreasonable and, second, that person’s unreasonable behaviour must have caused the other party to incur unnecessary or wasted expenditure. So, it's already a very high bar, but we can all see circumstances in which an individual might fall foul of that bar. So, I am asking, Chair, the committee to reject that amendment, too.
I've said many times, I've had many conversations with the environmental NGOs and others on this, that what we need to do is develop that plan as we go along. So, for those of you who remember the making of 'Future Wales: the national plan 2040', which Neil and I certainly do, it took many, many years and thousands of hours of consultation, expert evidence and so on. What we don't want is to just stop while we do that, and the planning system effectively did stop while we did it, which we don't want to do. So, I'm seeking to find a practical way of implementing what we all agree is required, which is a comprehensive marine planning strategy, while we do it, rather than stopping, doing the work, and then trying to implement the policies, because the world will have moved on by the time we do that, particularly in view of the floating wind sector and so on, which is a huge consideration for us. So, I'm afraid I don't support the amendments in their present form for those reasons.
Amendment 170 responds to recommendation 24 of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee on section 55 of the Bill. Section 55 specifies matters that may be disregarded when making decisions on applications, and for those matters to be specified in regulations. The recommendation of the LJC Committee considered the power too broad. On reflection, I consider certain matters can be specified on the face of the Bill. The amendment therefore provides clarity on matters the examining authority or the Welsh Ministers may disregard in deciding an application for infrastructure consent. Those matters are representations that are vexatious or frivolous, relate to the merits of policy set out in statutory documents, or relate to compensation in respect of the acquisition of land or its interests. It also provides a regulation-making power enabling the amendment of this list, and that power will be subject to the draft affirmative procedure
Finally, for the reasons I've outlined, I ask the committee to reject amendments 62, 129 and 130, but accept amendments 152, 168, 169 and 170. Diolch.
Amendment 64 requires Welsh Ministers to notify all persons who've participated in the application process of the decision. I absolutely agree there needs to be transparency in the decision making. The amendment requires each and every person who participated in the determination of an application to have provided their contact details to the decision maker in order to inform them of the outcome. I just can't see this amendment working as it would likely place undue and unachievable notification requirements on the Welsh Ministers, as Jenny pointed out, but I do agree that we should be notifying persons, where appropriate. The power under subsection (3) to provide a copy of the statement of reasons to persons specified in the regulations will allow us to specify those individuals that it would be possible to notify, while enabling us to respond to different procedures of examination, such as a hearing or written representations, and it allows for updates in future, where those are deemed necessary. So, I'm afraid I don't support the amendment, and I'll ask the committee to do the same.
And then, turning to my own amendments, amendments 19 and 20 relate to section 57 and cover the determination of an application. They will ensure the Bill provides clarity on those bodies who will be notified on a decision for infrastructure consent. The amendment specifies circumstances where the relevant planning authority, community council and Natural Resources Wales will be notified of a decision, in addition to the applicant. The amendment also introduces a regulation-making power that can specify any other persons who are to be notified on a decision. As the amendments provide clarity in decision making, I ask Members to support them.
Amendment 21 is technical, makes no policy change or any change in the powers of the Bill as a result of the change. The amendment simply replaces 'that' with the words 'to which' to clarify the language on the making of an infrastructure consent order. This simply provides clarity of law in the making of an infrastructure consent order, and I therefore ask the committee to support it.
Amendment 22 will ensure the Bill provides clarity on those bodies or persons who will be provided with a statement of reasons about a grant or refusal of infrastructure consent, namely it specifies that the applicant will be provided with a statement of reasons and circumstances where the relevant planning authority, community council and Natural Resources Wales will be provided with this statement. This amendment also ensures clarity on the regulation-making power, which may specify persons who will be provided with this statement, ensuring drafting is consistent throughout the Bill. The amendment is made, again, in response to recommendation 32 by the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee to provide the applicant with a statement of reasons for a decision, and therefore I ask Members to support it.
In conclusion, Chair, I would ask the committee to reject amendments 63 and 64, and to support amendments 19 to 22 and amendment 199, for the reasons I've just outlined.
Amendment 133 intends to place a duty on Welsh Ministers to publish a statement of their reasons for changing or revoking an infrastructure consent order. As with other notification requirements through the consenting regime, I agree that it is important that applicants and other relevant parties are informed of the Welsh Ministers' or the appointed person's decision in a timely manner. To promote transparency and reach as wide an audience as possible, I consider it appropriate for the Welsh Ministers or the appointed person to publish reasons for a decision. The purpose of the amendment can be facilitated through the requirements of section 89. And therefore, I ask Members to reject this amendment also.
Turning, therefore, Chair, to the Government amendments, the majority of the Government amendments are concerned with technical drafting amendments only to ensure clarity and consistency within the Bill. I ask the committee to support all the Government amendments.
Amendment 171 amends section 87. Section 87 is the power to change or revoke an infrastructure consent order. The amendment removes the words 'or on behalf of' from the section referring to who can make an application for infrastructure consent. This makes no legal change to who can make an application. The amendment must be considered in the context of section 88, which sets out the procedure for changing or revoking an infrastructure consent. Section 88 did not contain the same wording, and so there was inconsistency in drafting, when the intent is the same. This amendment ensures that the drafting is consistent.
Amendment 23 is a technical, drafting amendment only, and has no effect on the policy contained within the Bill. The amendment ensures consistency in drafting throughout the Bill. The amendment will insert the word 'be' to improve the structure of the sentence under section 88(1)(c). Section 88 is the power to set the procedure for changing and revoking infrastructure consent orders.
Amendment 172 provides clarity and certainty on the face of the Bill regarding who is to be notified of a change or revocation to an infrastructure consent order. The effect of this amendment is that the applicant, successor in title or the person who made an application, if different, is given notice of a change or revocation of their order. This amendment is made in response to recommendation 38 by the LJC committee, which recommended that section 88 should be amended to make it a requirement for a notice issued under subsection 6 to be provided to the person who originally applied for the infrastructure consent order in order to improve the accessibility of the legislation.
Amendment 24 is a technical, drafting amendment only, and ensures that there is clarity regarding who may have a function conferred on them under section 88 and to achieve consistency in drafting throughout the Bill. This amendment replaces the wording on the regulation-making powers in respect of who the Welsh Ministers may confer a function on under section 88.
Amendment 33 provides clarity in relation to the process of compensation for changing and revoking an infrastructure consent and the definitions within Schedule 2 to the Bill. Amendments 34, 35 and 36 are consequential to amendment 33. Amendment 33 ensures that all disputes about compensation that could arise under Schedule 2 are to be referred to the upper tribunal. As drafted, if there was a claim for compensation that did not include compensation for depreciation, there is no dispute resolution procedure, as paragraph 10 is only in force where the minimum compensation for depreciation is met. The intention is to allow all compensation disputes that arise out of the provision in paragraph 1 to be referred to the upper tribunal.
Amendments 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29 are technical and make no policy change, or any change in the powers of the Bill as a result of the change. The amendments will ensure the correct reference to the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in terms of blighted land. Therefore, Chair, I ask Members to reject amendments 65, 66, 131, 132 and 133, and support amendments 171, 23, 172, 24, 33, 34, 35, 36, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29. Diolch.
There are, however, several reasons why it's important for local planning authorities to be the relevant enforcing authority in the first instance for any perceived or actual offences on land. Firstly, local planning authorities already undertake the enforcement of projects that will be consented through the Bill via existing regimes, such as DNS and NSIP processes, and, therefore, it doesn't create any additional burden on resources. Similarly, as the new infrastructure consenting process will deal with more large-scale projects, the potential need for enforcement action is expected to be very low, particularly as developers will have considerable financial investments tied up in them and are unlikely to risk having their developments stopped and incurring significant costs.
Secondly, local planning authorities have detailed and expert knowledge of their respective areas, which means they are in a position to act swiftly against any perceived or actual offences that may have occurred. And, finally, local planning authorities will already be familiar with the enforcement tools available to them through the Bill, meaning less time and money will be needed to train staff on a new enforcement system. I am committed to providing any support local planning authorities require to carry out the enforcement action efficiently and effectively.
The committee will also wish to note that, in practical terms, the Welsh Ministers will also have the same enforcement powers as local authorities on land, which would only be used if it is considered necessary or expedient to do so, and they will also have primary responsibility for enforcement in the territorial sea via the Welsh Government marine enforcement officers. The only exception is the ability to issue temporary stop notices as such a tool is normally used swiftly, pursuant to local knowledge of a breach, and it's unlikely the Welsh Ministers would ever be able to act in such a timely manner. This also aligns to similar powers used within the wider planning system.
I think that the amendments as proposed would be detrimental to the enforcement system as a whole and would take powers away from those who, in the first instance, are best placed to carry out any necessary enforcement action. So, I'm afraid, Chair, I do not support the amendments and I'd ask the committee not to support them either. Diolch.