Group 7 is next, and this group of amendments relates to products made of oxo-degradable and oxo-biodegradable plastic. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 34, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Janet Finch-Saunders.

Amendment 34 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Thank you. I move amendment 34 in the Minister's name—oh no, that was you then. [Laughter.] Just stealing your thunder then. Right, amendment 34 would remove 'oxo-degradable plastic' from table 1 of the Bill. This would remove the prohibition of supplying oxo-degradable plastic to consumers in Wales.

Like I said earlier, the Minister and I, we disagreed on oxo-degradable plastic in Stage 2. I do want to, though, emphasise again that I think it is wrong to ban oxo-degradable plastics when (1)—No. 1—the Minister has admitted that she believes herself that oxo-degradable plastic is ill-defined and that (2), the material was simply not costed. So, I suppose the question I have to ask is this: does the Minister believe it is okay to introduce legislation when it's not costed?

I recognise that the Minister claimed that oxo-degradable plastics would take time to become prohibited, but that does make me wonder why you've committed to banning it if you yourself recognise that more research is needed. I'm also sure that the Minister is aware that the Welsh Government will face a legal challenge if it remains included. I agree with the Minister that more research is needed, and that will take time, and so, to me, the sensible and the correct option is to not ban the material on the face of the Bill.

Amendment 37 would remove the definition of 'oxo-degradable plastic' from the face of the Bill. I have retabled this amendment. I know the Minister disagreed with me on this last time, and I don't think it's a good use of time to repeat ourselves again just to come to the same conclusion, however, my reasoning for this amendment echoes what I've just said regarding amendment 34.

Amendment 20 would insert 'oxo-degradable plastic' into section 4 of the Bill, where Welsh Ministers must set out information surrounding their consideration of whether to exercise the power in section 3. Welsh Ministers would therefore need to enact this provision when seeking to prohibit the supply of oxo-degradable plastic in the future. Now, I tabled this amendment as I am hoping that the Minister may by now have accepted what we've said previously on oxo-degradable plastic and agree with me that it's not right to prohibit the material when no costings have occurred, and during committee Stage 2, I made clear some of those it would affect here in Wales, potentially including our farmers.

The Minister stated that more research is needed. Again, I ask why, when the Minister believes this, it is on the face of the Bill to be banned. I think this amendment that we've put forward is a good compromise. Moving oxo-degradable plastic to section 4 gives time—adequate time—to research it. If you're going to introduce legislation, if we're going to scrutinise legislation here in this place, we have to get it right.

Amendment 22 would insert a definition of 'oxo-degradable plastic' into section 4 of the Bill. The definition is the European Committee for Standardization's definition, as used by the EU directive on single-use plastics. Thank you.

I think it's worth having a brief discussion on this, because I have heard that there's no actual proper definition, that's completely agreed, on which oxo-biodegradable bags are actually biodegradable and which are not. For my money, obviously they have to disintegrate completely on contact with water or light, and they don't actually leave plastic in the environment when they disappear.

So, I went down to the Co-op to pick up one of these biodegradable bags, which they claim are certified to BS EN 13432 and the OK Compost HOME standards, and labelled compostable carriers are similarly of the same sort of material. The Co-op argues that using these bags as food caddy liners is cleaner and more convenient than not using a bag. Now, the alternative, obviously, if you're going shopping, is that you can use a paper bag, or be given a paper bag, but when it comes to disposing of kitchen waste, is a paper bag going to do the job, or it perversely going to lead to more people refusing to do food-waste recycling? I just wanted to probe this, as to whether there are perverse consequences to banning all biodegradables, if they are what they claim to be. Or what are the alternatives going to be? And what information has the Minister had from local authorities as to how they would deal with food waste if we ban these sort of things, which are widely used by local authorities to encourage people to recycle food?

The Minister.

Diolch, Llywydd.

Oh, before I ask the Gweinidog to respond, Huw Irranca-Davies.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. Thank you very much. Just speaking in support of Jenny's points, to probe the Minister a little further, one of the things that the Co-op particularly say is that they work with local authorities on this, that it is compostable. They've strenuously avoided the issue of degradable, because they say, 'Well, this is actually at the cutting edge, it will go into the compost heap, it will degrade', and so on. So, I just want to test the Minister a little bit further to see what her thoughts are on this and where the science currently is, as to whether this is a solution or whether it is, in effect, a solution to a question that was being asked previously—yesterday's solution, if you like.

But also, in addition to that, if this isn't the solution, if there is an intention to ban plastics entirely, and to take plastics out of the system, then how does she work with retailers and manufacturers of a British standard product in order to make sure that they can transition towards other products that will fall within this approach to actually tackle single-use plastics?

The Minister.

Diolch, Llywydd. I will address amendment 34 first. Amendment 34 would remove oxo-degradable plastic products from the list of prohibited products in Schedule 1, as well as the definition of 'oxo-degradable plastic'. And Janet's quite right, I did note in earlier committee appearances and at Plenary that oxo-degradable plastic is a complex area that is still being researched. But, at this stage, we are absolutely satisfied that there is credible evidence of the harm that oxo-degradable plastics cause to the environment. In our view, this absolutely justifies including the ban on the face of the Bill. However, we recognise the need to consider evidence further; for example, whether there are sub-categories of oxo-degradable plastic that ought to be exempt before the ban is brought into force. The commencement of the ban on oxo-degradable plastics is, therefore, being phased to allow time for further research and policy development. The regulation-making power would permit exemptions for oxo-degradable products to be added, or for this category of plastic to be removed entirely from the Bill should new, robust evidence indicate that such a course is advisable.

Just turning to the points made by both Jenny and Huw in relation to the bag from the Co-op, obviously some retailers have gone to some lengths to get ahead of the game at various points, but the evidence is ongoing all the time. If you collect food waste for collection by a municipal authority in Wales in a food caddy, that food does not go to compost, it goes to anaerobic digestion. That is much hotter, and many of the bugs that eat the food compost that you put in there are operating at temperatures that far exceed any domestic compost heap. Obviously, what goes into those anaerobic digesters is carefully regulated. We also don't want to kill the bugs; the people who run them get very fond of the bugs and talk about them as if they're pets. So, the food caddy bags that you have distributed to you by the local authorities are designed to work with the bugs to keep your food in a compact form for you to hand it in, but then to go completely into the anaerobic digestion system without having to be removed in advance. If you use oxo-degradable plastics, then I can assure you that they are removed from that system, and, actually, they cause problems.

It is also a fact that they are compostable in some circumstances, but most domestic compost heaps never reach anything like the temperatures required by BS EN regulations. I myself am a very keen home composter, and I can tell you that they do not degrade in my compost heap, which is quite hot—it has adder eggs in it, to my extreme delight. That's the issue; the issue there is that it's fine if you're going to do it through a municipal system that can deal with them, but we're talking about bags that are handed out to members of the public, and they can't be expected to be able to compost them. I applaud the Co-op for having worked really hard to get ahead of the game, but this science is advancing all of the time. Really, if you can get plastic out of the chain altogether, that is clearly preferable. There is a whole plethora of products that we consulted on—60 plus that people wanted us to look at. This Bill enables us to continue on that journey in a controlled fashion and make sure that we're on top of the research at all times so that we can add and take away from the list of products.

Of course, if the farmers can come up with a way of using oxo-degradable plastic that does not harm the environment and that can be demonstrated not to break down to leave nanoparticles in the soil, which, actually, are the worst kind of particles, then, of course, we will exempt them, but that information is not currently available. So, Llywydd, I make no attempt whatsoever to withdraw from us putting them on the face of the Bill. If the evidence becomes clear that they can be exempted, then, of course, we will act. 

Turning back to the amendments, Llywydd, amendment 37 is consequential to amendment 34 and would remove the definition of oxo-degradable plastics from the Schedule to the Bill. Amendment 20 amends section 4 of the Bill. It requires Welsh Ministers to include in the report they are required to publish under section 79(2) of the Government of Wales Act 2006 any consideration they had made about adding oxo-degradable plastics to column 1 of the table in paragraph 1 of the Bill’s Schedule. The amendment is predicated on amendment 34 having removed oxo-degradable plastic products from the Schedule. However, oxo-degradable plastics are already in column 1 of the table in paragraph 1 of the Bill’s Schedule, so Welsh Ministers need not consider adding them to the Schedule.

Amendment 22 would add the Bill’s definition of oxo-degradable plastics to section 4, predicated on amendment 34 having removed it from the Schedule. There are no definitions for the other products in this section, for example wet wipes and sauce sachets. The Bill is structured so that all definitions are in the Schedule; for instance, where the bans and restrictions are implemented. A definition Welsh Ministers used for consideration and reporting may differ from any final definition used in any regulations Welsh Ministers might decide to lay, and thus be in the Schedule. I therefore urge Members to reject amendments 20, 22, 34 and 37. Diolch.

Janet Finch-Saunders to respond.

Diolch, Llywydd. Oxo-degradable has not been costed, so it simply comes down now to whether Welsh Ministers think it's acceptable to include a material that's not been costed, one that they admit needs more research. We've offered a compromise by inserting 'oxo-degradable' into section 4, and this is potentially preventing a legal challenge against the Welsh Government, so I'll be moving those amendments. 

As someone who has to sort my food waste out later on tonight, I was unexpectedly interested in that debate on that group of amendments.

The question is that amendment 34 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection, so we will move to a vote on amendment 34. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 40 against, and therefore amendment 34 is not agreed. 

Amendment 34: For: 14, Against: 40, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 59 is next, which was debated as part of group 4. Delyth Jewell, is it moved?

Amendment 59 (Delyth Jewell) moved.

Formally.

It is. Therefore, is there any objection to amendment 59? [Objection.] There is objection to amendment 59. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 59. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 42 against, therefore amendment 59 is not agreed. 

Amendment 59: For: 12, Against: 42, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 10 is next, debated as part of group 2. Rhys ab Owen, is amendment 10 moved? 

Amendment 10 (Rhys ab Owen) moved.

Move, Llywydd. 

It is moved. Is there any objection to amendment 10? [Objection.] There is. We will therefore proceed to a vote on amendment 10. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 12, no abstentions, 42 against. Therefore, amendment 10 is not agreed. 

Amendment 10: For: 12, Against: 42, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 3 is next, debated as part of group 5. Minister, is amendment 3 moved? 

Amendment 3 (Julie James) moved.

Formally. 

It is. If amendment 3 is agreed, amendment 35 will fall. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection, therefore we will move to a vote on amendment 3. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 40, no abstentions, 14 against, therefore amendment 3 is agreed. 

Amendment 3: For: 40, Against: 14, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been agreed

And amendment 35 falls.

Amendment 35 fell.

Amendment 36 is next, debated as part of group 6. 

Janet Finch-Saunders, is it being moved?

Amendment 36 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

I move. 

It's moved. The question is that amendment 36 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 36. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore amendment 36 is not agreed. 

Amendment 36: For: 26, Against: 28, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

We'll now move to amendment 4, which was debated as part of group 5. Minister, is it moved? 

Amendment 4 (Julie James) moved.

Move.

It is moved, therefore is there any objection to amendment 4? No, there is no objection to amendment 4. It is therefore agreed. 

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We now move to amendment 37. Is it moved, Janet Finch-Saunders?

Amendment 37 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Move.

It is moved. Is there any objection to amendment 37? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 37. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 15, no abstentions, 39 against, and therefore amendment 37 is not agreed. 

Amendment 37: For: 15, Against: 39, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 38, is it moved, Janet Finch-Saunders?

Amendment 38 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Move. 

It is. Is there any objection? [Objection.] There is. Therefore, a vote on amendment 38. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 28 against. Therefore, amendment 38 is not agreed. 

Amendment 38: For: 26, Against: 28, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

We'll move now to amendment 5. Minister, is amendment 5 being moved? 

Is it being moved? 

Amendment 5 (Julie James) moved.

Yes. 

It is. Is there any objection to amendment 5? There is none, therefore amendment 5 is agreed. 

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.

We'll move now to amendment 16. 

Is it being moved, Janet Finch-Saunders? 

Amendment 16 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Yes. 

If amendment 16 is not agreed, amendment 30 will fall. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will open the vote on amendment 16. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 28 against, therefore amendment 16 is not agreed, and amendment 30 therefore falls. 

Amendment 16: For: 26, Against: 28, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 30 fell. 

We'll move to amendment 17 next. 

Janet Finch-Saunders, is it being moved? 

Amendment 17 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Yes, please. 

The question is that amendment 17 be agreed to. There is objection to the amendment. 

No, I'm not objecting. 

All right. Okay. That was a double negative in my mind there. No objection. I don't think there's an objection to amendment 17. 

Therefore, amendment 17 is agreed. 

Amendment agreed in accordance with Standing Order 12.36.