The first group of amendments today relates to the meaning of single-use plastic products and prohibited single-use plastic products. Amendments 39 and 40, tabled in the name of Delyth Jewell, are identical to amendments 11 and 12 tabled in the name of Janet Finch-Saunders. The amendments for both Members were tabled on the same afternoon, and although identical they were admissible at the point of tabling. However, it wouldn't be admissible to consider and vote on identical propositions twice; therefore, I have decided not to select amendments 39 and 40 tabled by Delyth Jewell, as they were tabled after the amendments tabled by Janet Finch-Saunders. 

Amendments 39 and 40 not selected.

We will, therefore, move on. The lead amendment in the group is amendment 11, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.

Amendment 11 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

Thank you. Diolch, Llywydd. What a great day, actually, to be working on legislation coming through this place. I think we've all been wanting this to come forward, and it's actually been quite good to work with the Minister in terms of some of the amendments that I'm putting forward. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Beth Taylor, a researcher working here, who has helped me greatly with this, and I thank all the clerks of the committee and everybody else who's worked to ensure that this Bill can come forward. So, thank you, Llywydd. As you said, I'll be speaking to amendments 11, 39, 12, 40, 13, 14 and 1.

I've tabled amendment 11 to bring the Bill's definition of 'single-use' in line with that of the UK and Scottish Governments' respective legislation. This amendment will insert the word 'conceived' in the definition alongside 'designed' and 'manufactured', which have already been placed in the definition. I did originally table this during Stage 2. However, I disagree with the Minister's response, and so I will reiterate what I said during Stage 2. Stakeholders have made it inherently clear that definitions need to be consistent with legislation that already exists in Great Britain. Otherwise, we are simply risking confusion and misinterpretation. In Stage 2, the Minister stated the practical effect would be delivered more effectively using the definition they have chosen rather than using consistent definitions with existing legislation. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain this further and explain how a consistent definition would be detrimental to the practical effect of the Bill. What in the Wales context makes a different definition necessary?

Amendment 12, which I tabled, seeks to do the same as amendment 11. I would just like to thank Delyth for tabling the same amendments. As they say, great minds think alike. I won't speak on her behalf.

Amendment 13 would change the definition of 'plastic' to that used by the European Union's single-use plastic directive. Again, consistent definitions are very important. This definition of 'plastic' is used by the UK Government in their legislation banning plastic straws, cotton buds and stirrers. It is also used by the Scottish Government in their legislation banning single-use plastic products, so I will ask the same question to the Minister—if she could explain why using different definitions is better for Wales. Is this not simply risking unnecessary misinterpretation?

I also tabled amendment 14, which I tabled as a result of amendment 13. This amendment would simply amend subsection (5) to remove reference to points (a) and (b) due to the changing to the definition of 'plastic'. I won't speak to amendments 39 and 40 as I have already been told that the Llywydd won't bring these forward to be tabled. However, to be clear, these amendments are the same as amendment 11 and 12.

Amendment 1, which was tabled by the Minister, simplifies section 2(1)(b) to address a possible ambiguity in interpretation that would be inconsistent with the policy. It seeks to omit provisions that no longer fully correspond with the provisions in the Schedule and to remove any doubt about the scope of the power of Welsh Ministers under section 3. Thank you. Diolch. 

It's an existential quandary—I want to speak to amendments that haven't been selected, so I'll speak to amendments 11 and 12, which, as has been rehearsed, were identical in scope. Janet, we were in a race and we didn't realise that we were in that race, but well done for tabling them just before I did. I won't repeat again the arguments on these at length. My intention with these amendments was the same—to ensure that 'single-use' covers all possible scenarios, and that the word 'conceived' would appear alongside 'designed' and 'manufactured'. I hope very much that the Senedd will support these amendments. Diolch. 

Minister.

Diolch, Llywydd. Turning first to amendments 11 and 12, tabled by Janet Finch-Saunders, both amendments aim to achieve the same goal, namely to align the definition of 'single-use' to that applied elsewhere, such as in Scotland. The amendments propose the addition of 'conceived' to the terms 'designed' and 'manufactured' currently in the Bill. We discussed these amendments in committee at Stage 2. Prior to this, the key definitions within the Bill were debated at the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee's evidence session, where Members felt that these should reflect, word for word, those used in the EU's single-use plastics directive.

I've carefully considered the amendments and tested them against the Bill as drafted. I can assure the Senedd that we are confident that the intended practical effect is delivered more effectively, using the definitions that we have developed in the Welsh context. The drafting is not identical, as we have sought to clarify text or removed wording that we consider to be unnecessary. This is in accordance with our drafting practice. For the reasons outlined and outlined in committee, I do not support these amendments.

Turning to amendment 13, also proposed by Janet Finch-Saunders, this seeks to amend the definition of plastic by referencing the EU's registration, evaluation, authorisation and restriction of chemicals regulations, rather than including a description on the face of the Bill. Again, this is an amendment that was considered at Stage 2. As I stated then, the proposed change would not be in line with best drafting practice, or with our aim to make legislation more accessible. I maintain that the definition in the Bill is sufficient and worded to provide certainty and clarity. Amendment 14, which is another tabled by Janet Finch-Saunders, is consequential to the amendment, as she's just said. I therefore oppose amendments 13 and 14.

Amendment 1 was tabled by the Government. The purpose of the amendment is to simplify section 2(1)(b) of the Bill. It intends to address a possible ambiguity in interpretation that would be inconsistent with the policy. The amendment will omit provisions that no longer fully correspond with the provisions in the Schedule. Furthermore, the proposed change removes any possible doubt about the nature and scope of the power of the Welsh Ministers under section 3 to amend or add to the exemptions in the Schedule. The amendment is needed to ensure that the prohibition set out in section 2 accurately reflects the policy intention. It makes the Bill more straightforward and accessible, which corresponds to our wider aims when making legislation in Wales. I therefore ask Members to support and vote for this amendment. Diolch. 

Janet Finch-Saunders to reply. 

Thank you, Minister. As I've plainly said earlier, stakeholders that we've engaged with have said themselves that definitions need to be consistent with other UK legislation, and therefore I stand very firm on moving those amendments. 

The question is that amendment 11 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is objection. We will therefore move to a vote. The first vote therefore is on amendment 11. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 25, no abstentions, 28 against, and therefore amendment 11 is not agreed. 

Amendment 11: For: 25, Against: 28, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 39 has not been selected. Janet Finch-Saunders, amendment 12.

Is it being moved?

Amendment 12 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

I move.

The question is that amendment 12 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection to amendment 12. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 12. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 26, no abstentions, 28 against, and therefore amendment 12 is not agreed. 

Amendment 12: For: 26, Against: 28, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 40 has not been selected. Amendment 13. 

Janet Finch-Saunders, is it being moved? 

Amendment 13 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

I move. 

The question is that amendment 13 be agreed to. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Yes, there is objection. We will therefore move to a vote on amendment 13. Open the vote. Close the vote. In favour 14, no abstentions, 40 against. Therefore, amendment 13 is not agreed.

Amendment 13: For: 14, Against: 40, Abstain: 0

Amendment has been rejected

Amendment 14, Janet Finch-Saunders.

Amendment 14 (Janet Finch-Saunders) moved.

I move.

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

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

Amendment has been rejected