Climate Change, Environment, and Infrastructure Committee

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, Minister. Thank you. There we are. I call on Joel, then, to reply to that.

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.

I move amendment 191 in the name of Adam Price, and I call on Adam Price to speak to his amendment and any other amendments in this group.

I'm grateful, Chair, and I thank you for the opportunity to move these amendments this morning. Amendment 191 and 195 together would mean, if they were accepted by the committee, that electricity generation stations, as defined under the Bill, would only be major infrastructure projects if they met the requirements of local ownership, and there is provision in the amendment that would enable the Government to set out currently in regulation what the definition of 'local ownership requirements' would be. That's a matter for further discussion, perhaps, in terms of the balance between what's on the face of the Bill and what's in regulations more generally.

The policy background to this is the current Government policy, which, since 2020, has stated that every project, without exception, that produces electricity should have an element of local ownership. So, that is the policy at present, but there is no statutory, mandatory, legal force to that policy at the moment. Perhaps the Minister will have some information on data, in terms of where we are in terms of the percentages that meet that policy aim of 100 per cent, set by Government. But I do believe that we as Members have enough experience in our own constituencies and regions to demonstrate in terms of solar and wind energy projects that we're aware of, which are in the pipeline or are already moving forward, that the policy aim of reaching 100 per cent certainly isn't being achieved at the moment. The impact of that is that there is a growing feeling amongst some communities, certainly, that the history of Wales is repeating itself. I'm referring there to global concerns that we're seeing developing now in terms of extractive economies, where the profits are extracted but the costs are borne locally. This of course reflects the history of Wales in terms of our history with mining coal and other minerals: it's the corporate bodies that benefit, with no local benefits.

And there's also an issue of democracy and accountability that is very relevant to this Bill too in terms of the planning system and so on, because there is a feeling—and I will try and come up with a Welsh term—of peripheralisation. It's an ugly word for an even uglier process: peripheralisation, that feeling that decisions are imposed on communities without their voices being heard, and there is a live discussion on this in the context of net zero and the need for a just transition and the inclusion of communities in that. So, that's the background, and the policy intention of these amendments, quite simply, is to seek to mitigate those two phenomenons, by on the one hand insisting on a quid pro quo, if you like. If, as a project or a developer, you have this status of a significant infrastructure project and would enjoy the benefits of that in terms of ensuring a swifter, accelerated process, then we also have to have that quid pro quo in terms of local ownership, and that those electricity generation projects do deliver an element of the profits remaining locally, and also, alongside that, and we would need to look at the details of this in the regulations that define local ownership, but Community Energy England, of course, who are campaigning for a mandatory minimum in terms of local ownership for energy projects, they too suggest that that ownership should come with voting rights—so, not only that a percentage of the profits would remain locally, but that there is also a commitment to ensure that that local voice is heard by providing voting rights in relation to any local ownership.

Large companies in the sector oppose these amendments. That's no surprise. The community energy sector, however, supports the amendments—and that's no surprise either, to be honest. The main argument that the major corporations use is that this would slow down the process of decarbonisation, and of course we need to give real consideration to that, but the evidence suggests otherwise, of course. There is broad-ranging evidence, over a period of years now, that ensuring an element of local ownership does increase support locally for renewable energy projects, reducing opposition, and therefore accelerates that decarbonisation process. So, ensuring local ownership does have a contrary impact. It actually accelerates decarbonisation, and there are examples from elsewhere where exactly what we suggest in the amendments has been done.

Denmark, one of the global innovators in renewable energy, particularly wind energy, since the passing of the renewable energy Act of 2009, has had a statutory requirement for all wind energy projects to provide at least 20 per cent of every project for local ownership, and that without having any influence on Denmark's success in this area—they are world leaders. And this approach has succeeded in Denmark and has been emulated elsewhere too. So, in Belgium, there are a number of regions of Belgium that have legislated along the same lines and have suggested another element, including a requirement to provide some of the local ownership to local authorities within the area of a development.

Thank you very much. A number want to contribute. I'll start with Huw.

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.

Diolch Huw. Delyth.

I think that this is a really good idea. It would empower communities, and it would explain and clarify the Government's policy. It might tidy up the situation and democratise the processes, and I agree 100 per cent with what Adam said, and Huw too in terms of—I know that Huw didn't use this word, but—the extractive history in terms of our geography and landscape and that we don't want that story to be repeated. We want to ensure that communities not just have the option of having a voice, but that that voice is heard and has a platform. Because if people need to seek opportunities to find out where they can access that platform, it just won't work. Life doesn't work like that, particularly for those communities that are facing so many challenges already. I don't remember exactly how Adam came to the term 'peripheralisation', but let that run.

Let's make that word happen.

I would agree. I support.

Diolch, Delyth. Jenny.

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.

Can I come in again before the Minister?

No, I'm afraid you can't. Is it on a point of clarification? Think about it. Joel next.

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.

Thank you, Joel. Huw is asking for a point of clarification from Adam, I think.

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.

We can elaborate further later, if you wish. Minister.

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.

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.

Diolch, Weinidog. Adam to reply.

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.

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.

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.

So, I move amendment 192 in his name and call on him to speak to his amendment and any other amendments in this group.

Thank you very much, Chair. The aim of amendment 192, as has been described in the explanatory note, is to ensure that underground electric lines are treated equally to those above-ground electric lines in the context of the Bill. That is, that they can be included among significant infrastructure projects. Perhaps the committee is already aware that there are several nations that place all electric lines of 132 kV underground—the Netherlands, I believe, and Denmark. And truth be told, there are other nations, such as Germany, that are starting to place far higher voltage lines—400 kV—underground.

And this policy shift towards placing electricity lines underground has led to a great deal of innovation within this field of placing electricity lines underground, which has led to a significant decrease in the comparative cost, as compared to above-ground electric lines. And I'm aware, Chair, that you have an item on the agenda later on that you've discussed already with regard to cable ploughing, which is a relatively new method of undergrounding, but that has significant financial and environmental benefits as compared to traditional methods of undergrounding through the construction of ditches. Wales has a company that specialises in this field, and I believe that the Minister has visited that company already, or intends to do so. We also have companies in Wales that manufacture cables to be undergrounded, and there has been a great deal of innovation in those processes too, with regard to improving the reliability and carbon footprint of underground electricity lines.

So, the simple intention of this amendment and the related amendment is to reflect the contemporary reality, namely that undergrounding is an equal option in terms of electricity distribution, and that should be reflected, therefore, in the process in terms of SIP.

Just to refer to some of the other amendments, I believe that amendment 96 in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders seeks—if I've read it correctly—to achieve the same aim, but in another manner. If the Minister accepts that objective, perhaps we'll hear which is the best way of incorporating that into the Bill.

Amendment 37 will mean that any electricity line of any kilometre length can be included in this clause as long as the electricity lines are under 132 kV. There is an argument, perhaps, in favour of including electricity lines of 66, 33 and 11 kV in terms of being as comprehensive as possible, but it's beyond my technical knowledge to give you the advice as a committee on that. In terms of electricity lines above 132 kV, namely 275 and 400 kV, the powers over those, as far as I understand it, are reserved, but I would welcome, myself, the support of the Conservative group and the Government to transfer those powers. But is this clause is in danger of placing the Bill in difficulties in terms of competence? Perhaps we will hear more about that in a moment.

In terms of the other amendments in the group, on my part, there is an amendment that sets out a kind of process to define the viability of a project, namely, it states that a project of above-ground electricity lines cannot be designated as a significant infrastructure project unless the option of undergrounding is closed off, as it were, because the related project, the electricity generating project, would not be viable economically. The policy background to this is what 'Planning Policy Wales' currently states, and I quote here,

'The Welsh Government’s preferred position on new power lines is that, where possible, they should be laid underground. However, it is recognised that a balanced view must be taken against costs which could render otherwise acceptable projects unviable.'

So, the amendment on one hand seeks to place this policy that assumes that undergrounding is the norm, excepting situations where projects wouldn't be viable, and incorporate that, in a way, on a statutory footing within the planning system. One of the benefits of doing that would be to have a definition and a clear process regarding assessing viability. So, viability is noted in the policy, but it isn't defined, nor is there a process set out for assessing that viability. Viability assessments are part of planning processes sometimes, in the context of housing, for example. So, it isn't an entirely new concept in the context of planning. But we don't have a framework or procedures to assess viability in this context in terms of undergrounding or constructing electricity lines above ground, and this amendment, and these amendments together, seek very simply to solve that issue.

There we are. Thank you very much, Adam. Joel

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.

Thank you. Delyth.

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.

On amendment 192 in Adam's name, I do think that we have to look at redesigning the system for the benefit of communities and the environment. In terms of the costs that Joel mentioned there, we do have to look at the cost borne by communities when external companies do come in and extract and it's not the community that sees the positives of that. Perhaps it's small companies or small groups on a local level that see those benefits. We do have to look at rebalancing this, because when major developments happen on our landscape there is a cost there, which isn't a financial cost but a more abstract cost. So, I do think we need to consider this seriously.

Thank you, Delyth. Huw wants to say a word on this group.

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.'

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

Thank you, Huw. Jenny, and then we'll come to the Minister, and then we'll come to Adam to conclude on this.

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.

Thank you, Jenny. Minister.

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.

Thank you, Minister. Adam Price to respond to the debate.

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—

It depends.

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.

Okay. So, can I just be clear, then, as I moved 192, are you asking me to withdraw amendment 192?

Yes. Yes.

Is the committee content with that? Yes. Thank you.

Okay, we'll move on to the next amendment, then, amendment 96 in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders. Joel, do you move?

I move.

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.

Amendment 37. Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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.

So, Adam, amendment 193, you do not wish me to move.

Yes, with the permission of the committee.

There we are, and if committee is content, we will not move amendment 193.

Amendment 194, I believe, Adam, you want me to move.

Yes.

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.

In that case, then, no.

Not to. Yes, there we are. So, are Members content for that not to be moved? Diolch yn fawr.

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.

Amendment 139, in the name of Delyth Jewell. Delyth, do you move the amendment?

Yes.

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.

Amendment 97 in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders. Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 98 in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders. Joel, do you move?

Yes. Okay. The question is that amendment 98 be agreed to. Does any Member object? We have no objections. Therefore, amendment 98 is passed.

Delyth Jewell, amendment 140. Do you move?

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.

Thank you, Joel. Do we have any further Members wishing to speak? No. Minister.

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.

Thank you, Minister. Joel to respond.

Thank you, Chair. I'm conscious of the Minister's response, but I, nonetheless, would like to proceed to the vote.

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.

Amendment 100. Joel, do you move the amendment?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 101 in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders. Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 38 in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders. Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 39. Do you move, Joel?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 40. Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 41. Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 42. Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 43. Joel, do you move?

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.

Amendment 102. Do you move?

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.

Thank you, Minister. Can I invite Joel to respond to the Minister?

Thank you, Chair. And I'm conscious of the Minister's comments, but I'd still like to proceed to a vote.

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.

Amendment 103. Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 104 is moved.

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.

Amendment 45. Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 105. Do you move, Joel?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 106. Do you move?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 107. Do you move, Joel?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 108 is moved by Joel.

Thank you. The question is that amendment 108 be agreed to. Does any Member object? We have no objections, therefore amendment 108 passes.

Amendment 109. Do you move, Joel?

Yes, you do. The question is that amendment 109 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 109, therefore, is agreed.

Amendment 110. Joel?

Moved. There we are. The question is that amendment 110 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. The amendment, therefore, passes.

Amendment 111 is moved.

Yes, it is. The question is that amendment 111 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 111 is therefore agreed.

Amendment 112. Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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, Minister. Can I invite Joel to respond?

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.

Amendment 113. Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 114. Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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—

Chair, can I change that—? No, it's too late to amend that to against, isn't it?

It's too late, yes.

Too late.

Yes, okay. But that amendment has been rejected, so there we are. Diolch yn fawr.

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.

And I move amendment 156 in the name of the Minister, and call on the Minister to speak to her amendment and other amendments in the group

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.

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.

Thank you, Minister. Joel.

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.

Thank you, Joel. Jenny.

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.

Thank you, Jenny. Huw.

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, Huw. I see no other Members indicating. Minister, would you like to reply to the debate?

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.

Amendment 47, Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 48, Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 49, Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 50, Joel, do you move?

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.

Amendment 51, Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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.

Thank you, Joel. Do we have any other speakers? Huw.

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.

Thank you, Huw. I call on the Minister.

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.

Diolch, Gweinidog. Joel, to reply to the debate.

Thank you, Chair. I'd like to thank everyone for their comments there, and, if possible, I'd still like to proceed to a vote.

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.

Amendment 116 moved, Joel?

Yes, please.

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.

Amendment 52 moved, Joel?

Yes.

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.

Amendment 53 moved?

Yes, please.

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.

I move it in the name of the Minister and call on the Minister to speak to her amendments and other amendments in the group.

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, Minister. Joel.

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.

Thank you, Joel. Huw.

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.

Thank you, Huw. The Minister to reply.

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.

Diolch. Okay. So, the question is that amendment 159 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 159 is agreed.

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 161 in the name of the Minister. The question is that amendment 161 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. It's 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.

Amendment 117, Joel, do you move?

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.

Amendment 118, Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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—

I'd put my hand up before you said a word at all. [Laughter.]

Two. There we are. Well, amendment 118 falls.

Amendment 119, Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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.

Thank you. Joel. Delyth.

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.

I invite the Minister, therefore, to contribute.

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.

Diolch, Weinidog. Joel to respond.

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.

Delyth Jewell, do you move amendment 141?

I move.

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.

Delyth, do you move 142?

Yes.

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.

Joel, do you move amendment 121?

Yes, please.

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.

Do you move 122, Joel?

Yes.

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.

I move amendment 197, in the name of Adam Price, and call on him to speak to his amendment and the other amendments in the group. Adam.

Thank you very much, Chair. This is a relatively large group of amendments and I'm going to restrict my comments to the two amendments in my name, and I will allow other Members in attendance to cover the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 197 provides for a collaborative benefits report to be made as part of the consenting process under this Bill. Amendment 198 then provides the powers to make regulations to set out the detailed requirements for such reports.

Collaborative benefit reports do already exist as a concept, as a procedure, and mainly, if I'm right, Minister, in the context of what we were discussing earlier in terms of local ownership for generation projects. I should have said, in reference to amendment 197, in accordance with the earlier discussion, this provision would only apply to energy generation projects, because that's where community benefits reports have developed as a concept.

But, at the moment, it is voluntary. Developers can produce collaborative benefits reports, but it is their decision. Some do and some don't. And failing to produce such a report—. It's not only not compulsory, but it's not taken into account as a material development matter. So, we can't challenge a decision because of the decision not to produce such a report.

The benefit of making it mandatory if you do bring forward an energy generation development is that then it would make the question of collaborative benefits for the community a central part. It would be of key importance and would be clearly set out on the agenda as these developments are taken forward. And, of course, in this probing amendment, once again, we leave it for the time being for regulations to set out exactly what these reports should cover, although a lot has been written in guidance and policy documents already in this regard. It could be a requirement to take some of those aspects into the Bill, but, broadly speaking, as to what the reports would cover, well, they would be questions of local ownership. If a developer had gone down the route of securing local ownership, that could be highlighted in a structured manner within such a report.

But, it's not only local ownership; there are other benefits. Huw Irranca-Davies referred to some of those earlier in terms of local investment funds, for example, and possibilities, too, in terms of discounts on electricity charges for local residents. And there are other forms of benefits. Reports of this kind could expand upon those, but also bring them together in one place so that one could identify the benefits in order to have a clear assessment in terms of decision makers on the project, but also in terms of transparency for the local community so that they would have a report that clearly summarises all of those issues. And it would make it the norm, make it mandatory, rather than voluntary, as good practice. It would be mandatory as part of the process. I will conclude my comments there.

Diolch, Adam. Joel.

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:

'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'.

Thank you, Joel. Delyth.

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.

And a word of support for amendments 197 and 198. I believe these amendments could help bring about greater transparency. Any transparency is going to be of assistance in this system, which is so opaque. So, in terms of democratising the system, I think they would be very beneficial.

Diolch, Delyth. Jenny.

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.

Thank you, Jenny. Diolch yn fawr. Minister.

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.

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.

Well, there's a large number of amendments in this group, in fairness, Minister, so thank you for that. Adam Price to reply.

And unfortunately I will be replying—

To all of them. [Laughter.]

—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.

There we are. Thank you very much, Adam. Okay.

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.

So, we move to amendment 54. Joel, do you move?

Yes, please.

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—

Abstentions.

—abstentions. I have a mental block. Abstentions. Two. Thank you. Okay. Well, amendment 54 falls.

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.

Amendment 123, Joel, in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders. Do you move?

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.

Abstentions.

Abstentions. Sorry. Two. I probably need to write it down, don't I? Thank you. Amendment 123 is rejected.

Amendment 55 is moved.

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.

Delyth, do you move amendment 143?

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.

There we are. So, is the committee content for it not to be moved? Yes. Okay.

We will move on, then, to amendment 56, in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders.

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.

Delyth, do you move 144?

With the committee's permission, I would not move it.

Okay. Similarly to the previous one, then, is committee content not to move that? There we are. Okay. So, 144 is not moved.

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.

Thank you. Delyth.

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.

Thank you. No indications of other speakers, so, Minister, can I invite you to speak? Minister.

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.

Thank you, Minister. Joel to respond to the debate.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, Minister, for your response there, but I'd still like to put it to a vote.

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.

Amendment 145. Delyth, do you move?

I'm not going to move it, if that's all right with the committee, because of the potential pitfalls that the Minister has outlined.

Fine, and is committee content for that not to be moved? They are. There we are.

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—

Yes.

—and I'd, again, appreciate more clarity on the purpose of that amendment. I look forward to hearing that. Diolch.

Diolch yn fawr. Thank you. Joel.

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.

Thank you very much. Do I have any other speakers? Jenny.

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.

There we are. Thank you. The Minister to respond to this group.

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.

Thank you, Minister. And to respond to the debate, Delyth.

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.

Okay. All of these?

Yes.

Okay, just for clarity. The request, therefore, is that we withdraw amendment 146 if Members are content for that to happen. Thank you.

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.

Amendment 125, Joel, do you move?

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.

Chair, can I just check amendment 125? What was the result of that?

It was passed, it was agreed. No, sorry, 125 wasn't—

You said 'carried'.

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.

Delyth, you do not wish to move amendment 147. Is committee content with that? Yes. Thank you.

Delyth, do you wish to move—

Similarly.

You do not wish to move 148. Is committee content for that happen? There we are.

Just to note, then, subsequently, amendment 155 will fall.

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.

I move amendment 166 in the name of the Minister, and call on her to speak to her amendment and the other amendments in the group. Minister.

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.

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.

Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thank you very much. Joel.

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, Joel. Delyth.

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.

Diolch yn fawr. Okay. No other speakers, so I'll invite the Minister to respond.

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.

Joel, amendment 128, do you move?

Yes, please.

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.

Delyth, do you wish to move 149?

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.

Delyth, do you wish to move 150?

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.

Delyth, would you like to move 151?

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.

Joel, do you wish to move 58?

Yes, please.

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.

Joel, do you want to move amendment 59?

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.

Joel, would you like to move amendment 60?

Yes.

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.

Thank you. Do we have any other speakers? Jenny.

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.

Thank you, Jenny. Can I invite the Minister to contribute to this group?

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.

Thank you, Minister, for that contribution. Can I invite Joel to repond?

Thank you, Chair, and thanks, everyone, for your comments on this. I'm still minded to go with Janet and put it to a vote.

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, Joel. Delyth.

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.

Diolch yn fawr. Huw.

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, Huw. Minister.

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.

Thank you, Minister. Huw's asking for a point of clarity.

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.

Thank you, Minister. Joel to respond to the Minister.

Sorry, Chair—

Sorry, you want to carry on. Of course you do—yes, indeed. It was an interjection.

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.

Diolch yn fawr, Weinidog. Joel to respond.

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.

Thank you. Are Members content for that to be withdrawn? Diolch yn fawr iawn.

We move on to amendment 129. If amendment 129 is not agreed, then amendment 130 will fall. I should ask Joel first if he wants to move that one.

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.

Amendment 130 has fallen, so we move on to amendment 152. Delyth, do you wish to move that?

The question is that amendment 152 be agreed to. Does any Member object? We have no objection. Therefore amendment, 152 is passed.

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, Jenny. Diolch yn fawr. Joel.

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.

There we are. Diolch yn fawr. The Minister, then, to respond to these.

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.

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.

Diolch yn fawr, Gweinidog. Jenny, then, to respond to the debate.

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.

Joel, would you like to move amendment 63?

Yes, please.

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.

Joel, do you wish to move amendment 64?

Yes, please.

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.]

We need a television match official. [Laughter.]

Yes. No, let's not do that. We'll dispose of one further group of amendments and then we'll have a short comfort break.

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.

Thank you.

Can I just ask for clarification? Is amendment 66 consequential to amendment 65? No, it's different. Okay, thank you.

Thank you. There we are. Okay, I'll invite the Minister, then, to speak to this group.

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.

Or 'all other amendments' maybe. Yes. There we are. [Laughter.] Thank you, Minister, for that. Joel, then, to respond to the debate.

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.

Do you wish to move amendment 66, Joel?

Yes, please.

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.

Do you wish to move 131, Joel?

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.