Turning to the committee's views, we support the aims of the Bill to accelerate the shift from single-use plastics towards developing more sustainable alternatives, and we acknowledge the environmental benefits of reducing plastic pollution. We are also pleased to hear that the Minister continues to engage with stakeholders to ensure that the aims of this legislation are effectively communicated, and we hope this will help bring businesses into compliance and thus reduce the need for enforcement. However, we identified areas within the regulatory impact assessment accompanying the Bill as problematic.

We are particularly concerned that the cost estimated for businesses switching to alternative non-single-use plastics was based on relatively old research and data from 2019-20. Furthermore, the initial cost modelling was based on nine products, rather than 11, as included in the Bill. The Minister told us that she expected that the costs of the nine products may have decreased due to the shift already taking place to alternative products and the effect elsewhere in the UK and globally from countries banning single-use plastics. Whilst this is good to hear, as this may have a positive effect on the costs, we still expect this information to be reflected in the RIA and we recommend that this is included in an updated RIA following Stage 2 proceedings.

Llywydd, it will come as no surprise to Members that the committee is concerned with the impact of current inflationary pressures on the financial impact of legislation. The HM Treasury Green Book says that the effects of general price inflation should be removed from estimates relating to Bills. However, the Minister told us that the costs of both continuing with single-use plastics and moving to non-single-use plastics would be subject to inflation. She also made the point that it may be of benefit for businesses to swap to alternative products away from oil-based plastics, given the rising costs of oil, to mitigate the cost impact of these measures. Whilst we appreciate these suggestions on how costs could be kept low, we are still concerned with the impact this could have on businesses, given the significant rate of inflation. We also believe that it poses an affordability risk for the Welsh Government. This is a concern for this Bill and for future Bills and, as a result, we're asking Welsh Government to give consideration to inflationary pressures when calculating cost impacts of legislation.

Turning to other issues, we heard from the Minister that it was difficult to estimate costs relating to manufacturers and other businesses switching production away from plastic items due to the lack of available data and the lack of engagement with businesses. We are disappointed that this was the case and recommend that further work is undertaken to assess these costs and disbenefits. The RIAs should include the Welsh Government's best estimated cost on introduction to allow us to effectively scrutinise the overall financial implications and benefits of a Bill.

Our third recommendation seeks clarification on whether the £8.6 million identified as benefits from manufacturing is on a UK or Welsh basis. If it accounts for UK manufacturing as a whole, as the RIA suggests, this should not be included as a benefit for Wales and the Welsh Government should revise its figures to calculate the specific benefit to Wales.

As Members will know, this Bill contains regulatory powers to ban further products in time. However, the committee was concerned by the lack of engagement between the Welsh Government and businesses, which meant that data to assess the costs of any future bans was not being collected. We therefore recommend that the Welsh Government improves its engagement with manufacturers and businesses in Wales to ensure that any plans to ban further products are costed accurately. The committee also felt that compliance within the sector, rather than rely on the Bill's enforcement powers—.