Good morning, everyone, and a very warm welcome to you to the Climate Change, Environment and Infrastructure Committee. This is a meeting being held in a hybrid format, but everyone, as far as I can see, is present in the room this morning. Aside from adaptations relating to conducting proceedings in hybrid format, all other Standing Order requirements remain in place. The public items of this meeting are being broadcast live on Senedd.tv and a Record of Proceedings will be published as usual. This is a bilingual meeting, therefore simultaneous translation is available from Welsh to English. Also, if a fire alarm does sound—we're not expecting one today, but if you do hear a fire alarm, we do ask Members and witnesses to leave the room by the marked fire exits and follow instructions from the ushers and staff. Can I ask Members also to ensure that all mobile devices are switched to silent mode? And can I ask whether there are any declarations of interest to make? No. There we go.
On we go, therefore, to the main item this morning, which is the second item, where we will be holding Stage 2 proceedings on the Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Bill. I would like to give a warm welcome to Huw Irranca-Davies, who is the Deputy First Minister and Cabinet Secretary for Climate Change and Rural Affairs. Joining him are Chris Jones, the deputy director of mining legacy and reservoir safety with the Welsh Government, and Madeline Rees, who is a lawyer with the Welsh Government. A warm welcome to all three of you.
Now, you will be aware, of course, that there is a specific method that we follow in this process, so we will head straight into it. We will be having two breaks during the proceedings also, as needed, as we go ahead.
So, we'll get cracking with the Bill, if everybody's ready, and the first group of amendments relates to functions and duties of the disused tips authority for Wales. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 74, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group.
I would also like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to the development of this legislation so far. It is one of the most important legislative missions this Welsh Parliament has ever undertaken, because ultimately we are all already co-operating to hopefully make our communities safer.
Now, amendment 74 relates to Part 7 of Schedule 1, which places requirements on the authority in respect of its corporate plan and annual report. It would require the corporate plan to set out how the authority intends to consider biodiversity when discharging its functions under this Act during the planning period.
The Cabinet Secretary has already written to us advising that, in line with section 6(1) of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, the authority will be under a duty to seek to maintain and enhance biodiversity in the exercise of its functions in relation to Wales, and in so doing promote the resilience of ecosystems so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of its function. Now, whilst I expect that this will lead to your confirmation that amendment 35 is a statement of fact, I don't believe that this alone is a justifiable reason for objecting to including biodiversity in the corporate plan, as outlined in amendment 74. During a time when both the nature and climate crisis exist, and bearing in mind the evidence we received and the emphasis on the high biodiversity significance of disused tips, agreeing to my amendment would help to ensure that biodiversity is always one of the primary factors being considered by the authority. Amendments 88, 76 and 2 by Delyth are in line with that same principle too, so they have my support.
In terms of amendment 4, I would like further clarity as to why the Member has listed EU and international law and policy. In essence, is it the Member's intention to see the authority have regard to EU policy even though it is not law, even though we have no say in its creation, and even though it may be in conflict with our nation's own policies? That is a major risk that I feel I'm unwilling to take at this stage, and as such will vote against that amendment as it stands.
Amendment 3 strengthens the relationship between this Bill and, eventually, the authority and local communities. For reasons I will outline in relation to amendments in other sections today, I support this aim. In addition to emphasising the environment, I believe the authority should have a duty to promote skill development. The Mining Remediation Authority, representatives of local government and the mining and quarrying sector reported existing recruitment challenges. I think we're all aware here of the knowledge, experience and expertise required. We are concerned about those recruitment challenges.
Referring to a shortage of technical experts in and beyond Wales, and so that the authority's focus does need to include tackling the skills crisis, amendment 32 would do exactly that, and it would show that we are listening to organisations such as the MPA. They told our committee, and I quote,
'To have a separate authority, in my view, creates a bigger challenge to the skills challenge that the sector already faces...As well as the competition that you get between industry and local authority, you'll get competition from one authority to another.'
Rather than the authority creating a bigger challenge, it does need to be a key part of the solution. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
I'd like to start by thanking the committee team for their support and assistance as I worked on these amendments, and also Tomos Rowley, Lewis Owen and Niamh Salkeld in the Plaid office for their support. I'd like to begin by reiterating my support for the core principles of this Bill. Although we continue to believe strongly that there are a range of areas where the Bill could go further, this Bill will be an important step forward to provide long-awaited fairness for the communities that contributed so much to the industrial wealth of the United Kingdom—communities that received so little in return and that have had to live in the shadow of these tips for so long.
So, we fully support the aim of this Bill to establish a designated authority with responsibility for overseeing the remedial work of clearing disused tips, and I thank the Bill team for everything that they've done to bring it forward, and, of course, the Deputy First Minister. It would, though, be a perverse irony indeed if the process that we are trying to follow here of carrying out work to undo decades of harm caused by coal mining—if in trying to do that the authority were to inflict new environmental scars, and that's the motivation behind the amendments in this group in my name.
The purpose of those amendments is to place on the face of the Bill various pieces of environmental legislation, both Wales-specific and international, to which the authority should have regard while undertaking its responsibilities, including the principles of sustainable management of natural resources, as defined in section 4 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016, the most recent future trends reports, under sections 11 and 23 of the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and all recent international law relating to climate change policies, such as the Paris agreement. Janet asked why it refers to EU policy. Yes, it does do that, that is the motivation, as well as those other international structures. The aim and reason for that is so that there is every opportunity that's available to us that we are taking to protect our environment.
These amendments would ensure, if they're passed, that the work of the authority is held to the most robust standards, and would eliminate any potential for unintended consequences arising from its duties. I've sought to clarify the kinds of areas where the authority must undertake all reasonable steps to minimise potential disruption to communities, which have had to endure more than their fair share of disruption from the presence of the tips, such as noise levels, air pollution and access to green spaces. I believe that spelling these mitigations out explicitly on the face of the Bill would go some way towards securing the confidence and the buy-in of the affected communities. I hope, Cadeirydd, we can all agree that they have more reason than most to be entitled to such reassurance. Diolch.
Diolch yn fawr iawn. Okay. Is there any other member of the committee that wishes to speak? No. There we are. Well, can I invite the Cabinet Secretary to respond then? Thank you.
First of all, thank you very much. It's good to get into the detail now of this, and I'm very keen that we continue to work very constructively and collaboratively with the committee. Hopefully, you'll see as we go through the course of today that we've responded to many of the recommendations that the committee has put forward there. So, I'm keen to continue in that way. My thanks as well, just echoing the comments that have been made, both to the committee, but also to my Bill team for the work that they've been doing, and the wider stakeholders as well. I agree, Janet, entirely with the sentiments that you said and on the importance of this Bill, which I think we're all agreed on. It really is essential that we deliver this for all those communities who have been living in the shadow and with the legacy of the coal tips and disused tips throughout Wales.
So, let me turn to the items within this group. It's got a fairly diverse set of amendments relating to the authority's functions and duties. So, first of all, Cadeirydd, if I can turn to amendment 16. I've tabled this in response to recommendation 3 of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee's report. So, this amendment reframes section 2 of the Bill, to remove the concept of the authority's main objective, which did logically lead to questions from committees about the authority's other objectives. So, this amendment reflects the single focus of the Bill—the single focus of the Bill—which is to ensure that disused tips do not threaten human welfare by reason of their instability. The single focus of the Bill. I keep repeating that because it's pertinent to the discussions we'll come on to in a moment within this group. It does not change or dilute the policy in any way. It just changes the drafting, so it is now framed in terms of how the authority must exercise its functions under the Act rather than specifying a single main objective.
It provides that the authority must exercise its functions under the Act with a view to ensuring that disused tips do not threaten human welfare by reason of their instability. The requirement to promote high standards in relation to the management of disused tips and threats to the stability is retained. Placing a duty on the authority to exercise its functions in this manner makes clear, on the face of the Bill, what the authority is being established to do, and it helps to set the provisions of the Bill in that context. It will operate at a general level, to influence judgments made by the authority about how its powers and its duties should be performed, so, for example, the monitoring duty and the requirements relating to preliminary and full assessments. So, I'm asking the committee to vote in favour of that amendment.
I've spoken about this previously to the committee, how we fill this pipeline, but if I can just reflect on some of the comments I've made before. So, for example, we have work under way with Medr, the Commission for Tertiary Education and Research, to explore existing and new opportunities that might be available to fill this talent pipeline in the medium and long term. So, we actually have people coming in as we establish this body, and we fill that pipeline of skills. But we're also working to create, on that pipeline, opportunities to recruit skilled workers as part of the talent beyond boundaries scheme, which I've mentioned to the committee before, and this matches internationally displaced skilled workers with employers, to address these skills shortages as well. It's been very successful. They pioneered this north of the border in Scotland, and we've been working with them now in various areas here in Wales as well, including in this area. So, I would ask the committee not to support this amendment, as I don't want the authority to be diverted from the exercise of its core functions, and there are other bodies that are better placed to promote skills development.
Let me turn next to look at amendments 2, 3 and 4. Amendment 2 provides that the authority must, in carrying out its functions,
'take into account the impact on biodiversity, nature and the environment, to avoid and minimise harm.'
I understand the sentiments of this, but insofar as the amendment relates to biodiversity and nature, the aims of this amendment are already achieved by section 6(1) of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. In fact, the duty in section 6(1) to 'maintain and enhance biodiversity' actually goes further than the amendment proposes, and it's supported by a range of reporting requirements as well.
Regarding amendment 3, which would impose a duty on the authority to take into account the need to minimise negative impacts on communities, including but not limited to noise, air pollution and access to green spaces, well, as a public authority, this authority must act in accordance with public law principles. It must be mindful of the impact of its actions on local communities. That's what public law principles are. But furthermore, under the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the authority will be required to think about the longer term impact of its decisions, to work closely with people in communities, to collaborate with other bodies. It will follow the five ways of working to achieve the well-being goals, including collaborating with public bodies effectively.
Regarding amendment 4, again, section 6 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 will require the authority to have regard to reports prepared under sections 8 and 11 of that Act. So, that element of the amendment is already dealt with in legislation, in existing legislation. The Bill amends the well-being of future generations Act to add the authority to the public bodies that are subject to that Act. So, the authority will be required to set well-being objectives, and in so doing will be required to have regard to the most recent report under section 23 of the Act. Therefore, this element of amendment 4 is also covered in that legislation. And in relation to having regard to the most recent future trends report under section 11 of the well-being of future generations Act, this is something that is more appropriately, I would say, referred to in guidance.
Thank you, Cabinet Secretary. I've got to be honest, it's not the best start when I feel that these were articulately put forward, these amendments. Yes, of course, our priority is to make our communities safe, but we know that—and as a Welsh Government—we are far behind in terms of the support for nature, recovery, biodiversity and the resilience of our ecosystems, so during a time of both a nature crisis and a climate emergency, the evidence that we've received was described in moving these amendments. It's just disappointing, really, that members of this committee have worked hard, with our staff as well, and there isn't any goodwill put towards these amendments that would tighten this up, and would actually put a duty for that authority to take into account the biodiversity.
There we are. Okay. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you, Janet. So, the question is that amendment 74 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we move to the vote. The question is that amendment 74 be agreed. Those in favour, please show. Three. And those against, please show. Three. There we are. Because it's a tied vote, I use my casting vote as Chair in the negative, so against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Order 6.20(ii).
So, the second group of amendments relates to public and community awareness and involvement, and the lead amendment in this group is amendment 75. So, I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group.
Thank you, Chair. So, the principle at the core of these amendments is championing the local community. For me, that means ensuring that they are kept informed and can access information as easily as possible. Too often, we've seen major infrastructure plans come along and communities just feel disenfranchised. This is a matter of public safety and I believe that unless we really nail this down on the Bill, there will be a tendency for the authority to sometimes, if you like—being honest—ride roughshod over the feelings and views of our local communities.
Amendment 52 requires the authority to publish the annual report on its website. I cannot see any reason for not doing so. As I am sure you will all agree, this would help to ensure that the document is more easily accessible. For the same reason, I am supporting amendments 79, 82 and 84 by my colleague Delyth Jewell.
For amendment 52 to work, we need to ensure that there is a website, hence amendment 34.
Amendment 38 requires the publication of a notice of registration in a local newspaper, display near the tip, and further publication as considered likely to bring the notice to the attention of local people. Now, as an elected Member of some 14 years here, too often planning applications go in where the community are not made aware. Sometimes they can have a profound effect on their enjoyment of their own property. I would imagine, on a Bill so important as this, that there does need to be absolute adherence to the fact that members of the local community know exactly what's going on. The point has been made by Delyth earlier. These people will be worried once you start remediating these tips and there will be effects, so I think that they have a right to know. This is not dissimilar with planning applications, and even now I believe that planning authorities are quite weak when it comes to informing constituents of either small applications, or even large ones. That is quite a lot of casework that I deal with, so I'm speaking from reality.
It is vitally important that all voices and opinions are heard, and I'm pleased to add my name to amendment 81 by Delyth Jewell. As it stands, should this not be agreed, the authority could legally ignore all representations submitted by people who have not been given the notice of the proposed registration. I'm sure this is not your legal intention, Cabinet Secretary, so I do hope that, on this point, you will support my colleague Delyth and I. It is the same motivation behind my support of amendments 83 and 85 by Delyth.
The rationale behind amendment 39, which would provide the community with notice of proposed deregistration, 41, which would provide the community with notice of a notifiable change, 46, 47, 48 and 90, which necessitate a decision on requiring an owner of land to carry out operations, and 64, 65, which relate to the authority deciding to carry out operations on any land, is the same as for amendment 38.
In addition to the community being consulted, they must be informed of decisions. As such, amendment 40 requires the authority to publish the decision notice in a local newspaper, to circulate to those within the local vicinity of the site. As you know, the use of local newspapers for statutory processes like this is commonplace, such as with applications for premises licence, when we do road notifications—if someone’s having yellow lines, the statutory notice will go in the newspapers. I cannot understand why this has not been included, hence these amendments.
The Welsh Government should set a clear expectation for the authority to inform and consult communities living in the vicinity of disused tips of any changes to the categorisation of those tips. I would want to know, Cabinet Secretary. Once this Bill is passed, I would want to know what category tip I was living next to.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I speak principally here to the amendments tabled in my name, which are 79, 81, 82, 83, 84 and 85 in this group. These amendments have a similar aim to those submitted by Janet and the Conservatives, and I do support those amendments. I thank her for tabling them. I am also grateful for Janet’s support in relation to amendments 81, 83 and 85, which are, essentially, to ensure full transparency of any changes to a disused tip's category through making relevant public information readily available online, and allowing anyone, regardless of whether they’ve been issued with a notice of proposed works or not, to access the information that led to these changes. Diolch.
Diolch yn fawr, Cadeirydd. And I’m going to pick up the theme of working with, because I think there is something within this batch here that we are keen to work with. But I’m just going to explain, and, in some ways, try and clarify as well what the intent is here behind some of these provisions. And, by the way, just to say, Cadeirydd, we will be turning, Janet, I understand, later within these amendments, to the issue of the register and categories and so on, so there’ll be a further discussion we can get into on that.
Now, the amendments in this group have a common theme of raising awareness about the work of the authority, and I agree entirely with the importance of ensuring that local residents and the surrounding communities are well informed. We all want to make sure—and I certainly do—that communities feel safe and are informed. However, I’m going to explain that, actually, the Bill already provides for this, and some of the amendments in this group are not necessary, but I think there is a bit of a work-on that I’m keen to do with members of the committee.
So, first of all, it’s important that I set out that my expectations are that the authority will be seen to manage disused tips and threats to their stability in a transparent way that garners public trust. Now, as part of this, the authority will be proactive—we’ve stressed this before when I’ve appeared in front of the committee—proactive in helping and advising landowners on the management of disused tips and engaging with communities affected by disused tips in relation to the work that the authority is doing.
So, if I turn, first of all, to amendments 34, 75, 79, 82 and 84, like all public authorities, the authority will have a website where key information will be published. My concern with the amendments as tabled is that the information that must be included on this website appears to be developing in a—. It's an ad-hoc way. It would benefit from some further thought. So, what I would suggest is, let’s reflect this, work on this. We can bring something forward, I think, perhaps some more thoughts for Stage 3 there, just to make sure that it’s right. But there will be a website; it’s just getting that piece right. I can see the aim of these amendments, so what I’d like to do is to work with Members and bring forward an amendment at Stage 3 that sets out what information must be included on the authority’s website.
Amendments 38 to 41, 43, 46 to 47, 64 to 65, 90 and 91 require that the authority must publish notices in local newspapers, display notices on or near the tip, and publicise notices in such a way so as to bring to the attention of the majority of people who live in the vicinity of the disused tip. Now, there are a number of reasons why these amendments are not necessary or appropriate, but I’ll explain further how the authority actually will be very effectively engaging and communicating its work.
Yes. Thanks, Cabinet Secretary, and thanks for your offer to work with us. That's deeply welcomed. My only concern is—. You mentioned community and strategy. Now, anyone who knows anything about when we're passing laws and things here, a strategy is not worth the paper it's written on sometimes—it's how that strategy is interpreted, how it's then acted upon. I want to see stronger mention of how you engage and the authority engages with members of the community rather than relying on a strategy. So, I think we're almost there, that you agree, but it's the methodology of your delivery—I want to see it, hence my amendments in the Bill.
Diolch yn fawr. The question is that amendment 75 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we'll move to a vote. Can I ask for those in favour of amendment 75 to please show? We have three votes. And against amendment 75? Three votes. There are no abstentions. The vote is tied. I use my casting vote in the negative, that is against the amendment, according to Standing Orders. That means that amendment 75 is not agreed.
Yes, you do. The question is that amendment 88 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we move to a vote. The question is that amendment 88 be agreed. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Three in favour. Those against? Three against, and there are no abstentions. Because it's tied again, I use my casting vote against the amendment, meaning that amendment 88 is not agreed.
I move amendment 16 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 16 be agreed. Does any Member object? We have no objections, so amendment 16 is agreed.
Yes, you do. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, so we move to a vote. The question is that amendment 2 be agreed. Those in favour, please show. Three in favour. Those against? Three against. Again, I use my casting vote, because there's a tied vote, in the negative, so against the amendment, meaning that amendment 2 is not agreed.
Yes, you move. The question is that amendment 3 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. So, we move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 3, please show. Three votes. Those against amendment 3? Three votes. That's tied, so I use my casting vote in the negative, against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 3 is not agreed.
Diolch yn fawr. The question is that amendment 4 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 4, please show. Two in favour. All those against? Four against, meaning that that amendment—amendment 4—falls.
The question is that amendment 32 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, we move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 32, please show. Three in favour. Those against? Three against. No abstentions. I therefore cast my vote against the amendment, meaning that amendment 32 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 76 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, we'll move to a vote on whether amendment 76 is agreed. Those in favour of amendment 76? Three in favour. Those against? Three against. So, in accordance with Standing Orders, given it's a tied vote, I use my casting vote against the amendment, meaning that amendment 76 is not agreed.
We move on to the third group of amendments, which relates to charging of fees by the disused tip authority for Wales. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 33. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. Amendment 33 requires the Welsh Government to set out in secondary legislation what the charges are and what information they apply to. Rather than leave the authority to set fees, I believe that they should be set out in a statutory process, and as such, enabling involvement by this Welsh Parliament and the community we represent. The rationale is similar for amendment 69—again, it requires a consultation on fees. Diolch.
Diolch yn fawr. Delyth Jewell, do you wish to speak to this group? No. Do we have any other speakers? No. Thank you. Cabinet Secretary, do you wish to speak?
Diolch, Cadeirydd—yes, please. Janet, I'm going to disappoint you here. I'm going to ask the committee not to support these amendments, 33, 69 and 71, on the grounds that they're not necessary, but also they're unworkable. I'll explain why.
Amendment 33 amends section 3 to place a duty on Welsh Ministers to make regulations governing the fees the authority can charge for the provision of information, advice or assistance under the section. Amendment 71 makes such regulations subject to the affirmative procedure. The regulations must specify the amount of any fee that can be charged for specific information, advice or assistance. In our view, this amendment is too prescriptive, it's unnecessary and it is unworkable.
It will be the authority that has the expertise and the knowledge to set fees. Also, setting fees in regulations would mean that the regulations need to be amended frequently to keep the fee levels up to date. It also presupposes that the regulations can set out an exhaustive list of all the scenarios where information, advice and assistance could be provided by the authority, with the actual fee that may be charged in each case, which is not possible.
The existing general power in section 3(4) is sufficiently broad to allow flexibility in the amount of the fee charged and the circumstances in which a fee may be charged. The power will be subject to general administrative law principles on reasonableness and proportionality. There is a legal presumption that where a fee is charged, it must relate in some recognisable way to the direct and indirect cost of providing the service. If a different result is wanted, the Bill would need to say so.
The fact the Bill does not say so means that the authority would not be able to set fees at a rate that would make a profit for use on some other activity or that would permit a significant degree of cross-subsidisation of the service offered to one person by the fee charged to another person.
I also think it's important that I again confirm that the authority would not be allowed to charge a fee for services if the Welsh Government is providing funding for that service. This means they will be unable to charge for any of their core functions. Section 68 of the Bill enables the authority to provide administrative, professional or technical services to any devolved Welsh authority and to charge a fee for those services.
Amendment 69 requires the authority to publish a list of the fees chargeable for services, and prior to publication, consult with devolved Welsh authorities and anyone else the authority considers appropriate. Again, this is unnecessary, as public authority fees have to be reasonable. The aim of section 68 is to achieve economies of scale across the public sector in Wales, which I think the committee would support. A vast range of services could be offered; it is simply not practical to compile a definitive list of services and accompanying fees. So, as such, I'd ask the committee not to support these amendments.
If amendment 33 is not agreed, amendment 71 falls. The question is that amendment 33 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we'll move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 33, please raise your hands. Three in favour. Those against? Three against. No abstentions. As the vote is tied, I use my casting vote against the amendment in accordance with Standing Orders. Therefore, amendment 33 is not agreed and amendment 71 subsequently falls.
The question is that amendment 34 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. Those in favour of amendment 34, please show. Three in favour. And those against? Three against. No abstentions. Given it's a tied vote, I use my casting vote against the amendment in accordance with Standing Orders. So, amendment 34 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 35 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we move to a vote on amendment 35. Those in favour, please show. Three in favour. Those against? Three against. The vote is tied. I use my casting vote against amendment 35 in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that the amendment is not agreed.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I think one of the themes as we go through this is we have tried to listen to the recommendations that have come through from both committees and to respond to them positively. We've listened to the feedback received during Stage 1 on the balance between what is set out on the face of the Bill and what is in guidance. This is often a common theme, not least from the LJC committee. I remember I used to have a direct interest in that committee at one point.
Amendment 17 amends section 10, the duty to monitor registered tips, to include specific inspection requirements for category 1 and 2 tips on the face of the Bill. This responds to, and, I'm pleased to say, actually goes further—I hope they're listening—than the recommendation from the LJC committee, recommendation 5, which recommended that minimum requirements for monitoring and inspection be included in the regulations.
The amendment requires the authority to inspect a category 1 tip within six months of the tip being recorded in the register, and a category 2 tip to be inspected within 12 months of the tip being recorded in the register. For a category 1 tip, the authority must then inspect the tip twice within the period of the 12 months from the date of that initial inspection and twice within each subsequent period of 12 months. For a category 2 tip, the authority must then inspect the tip once within the period of 12 months from the date of that initial inspection and once within each subsequent period of 12 months.
The amendment provides that the authority may carry out any other monitoring activities that it considers appropriate in relation to a category 1 or category 2 tip. It also provides that the authority may carry out any inspections or monitoring activities it considers appropriate in relation to a category 3 or 4 tip. In addition, the amendment contains a regulation-making power that enables Welsh Ministers to change the time period within which inspections need to be carried out, and to change the number of inspections the authority is required to carry out within a set period. This will ensure that the legislation can keep pace with developments in technology and what is considered best practice, which, again, was a theme that we dealt with in some detail when we were discussing this in committee.
In accordance with amendment 27, such regulations are subject to the affirmative procedure. This reflects recommendation 22 of the LJC committee’s report, which asked for all regulation-making powers that amend primary legislation to be subject to the affirmative procedure. I would ask committee to support amendment 17.
Just to say that I welcome the Government's movement on this, and just to say that in Welsh the word for amendment means betterment or improvement. It doesn't just mean to change something, it means to make something better, and I think that this amendment does do that, so diolch.
The fifth group of amendments relates to assessment of disused tips. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 36. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in this group.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. Accurate assessments are essential to the success of the authority in safeguarding tips. As such, they need to be reliable, and at present there are concerns this may not actually happen.
The explanatory memorandum sets out the Welsh Government's intention for preliminary assessments to be desk based. Several contributions that we've received have raised concerns about the efficacy of this approach. Kevin Kinsey of Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council said, and I quote, he would 'question the validity' of a desk-based assessment,
'because I've certainly seen instances where tips have been identified just on a desktop basis, and when you actually go on site and visit them what you're presented with is something totally different.'
He added:
'nothing replaces just going to site and just having a walkover.'
Alun Davies MS will be delighted to hear me place on record that I agree with Blaenau Gwent County Borough Council, and, as such, urge all Members to support amendment 36 today.
I will be supporting amendments 18, 19, 20 and 21 tabled by the Cabinet Secretary and 78 by Delyth Jewell, but I will be abstaining on amendment 77. I would like to hear from Delyth whether it will be better for the Welsh Ministers to undertake the consultation on the programme, rather than the authority, because even after the authority has gone through that process, the decision remains with the Welsh Ministers who could, not knowing all the consultation responses, require changes to the programme.
Finally, you will see that amendment 37 deletes the requirement for the notice to carry out full assessments to state the name of the individual who will carry out the assessment. Now, I believe that, by including the specific name, you could be creating a serious legal problem for the authority, should the person accessing the land to undertake the assessment be different to the individual named on the notice. For example, what happens if the named person is ill and, as such—and it does happen; it already happens on occasion—another officer is sent? Will another notice have to be published? Wouldn't it be easier for all to delete the line, as I have recommended? Diolch.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I speak principally to amendments 77 and 78, tabled in my name in this group. As I've already mentioned and we've already been discussing, the need to secure community buy-in for the aims of the Bill, especially in terms of its practical implications, is vital, and that's the motivation behind these amendments. They would seek to reinforce the process by placing an obligation on the authority to consult with all affected parties prior to implementing their proposed programme of remedial work, and that would be to ensure that communities are fully aware of the nature and scope of the work beforehand. Now, I do recognise Janet's points on that, but that notwithstanding, our amendments also place an obligation on relevant Welsh Ministers to explain their decision to approve a programme of work, whether it has been modified or not. And this is, I suppose, with the aim of empowering those communities that have been so badly affected by the placement of these tips that they literally are under their shadow. And sunshine is the best disinfectant—just to make sure that they are as aware as possible of all of those decisions.
And then, to turn to the other amendments in the group, with the exception of amendment 37, I'm happy to support the rest of the amendments as they seek to achieve similar aims. I have a slight doubt about amendment 37. I would welcome clarification about the rationale behind it, because, on paper, I think there are reasonable grounds, especially on the basis of transparency, to include the name of the relevant person carrying out an assessment on the published notices. I do recognise that there might be some issues relating to privacy that I haven't fully considered. So, for the time being, I'm inclined to abstain and to allow for further debate on that point on this particular issue at Stage 3. Diolch.
Diolch yn fawr iawn. Thanks to Delyth and Janet for laying out the thinking behind these amendments. Before I turn to those, if I can just highlight that, once again, in our response to the committee's recommendations, which we've been keen to work with, on recommendation 17 of this committee's report, I'm very happy to have listened to your concerns relating to the publication of assessment reports. And I agree fully that such reports are of great interest to communities living in the vicinity of tips. So, as I set out in my previous response to recommendation 17 of your report, I'm happy to accept this recommendation.
So, amendments 18, 19, 20 and 21, which require the authority to publish reports of all preliminarily and full assessments show that we have listened on that and we're bringing forward those amendments, because they enable the authority to publish the report in a redacted form. This is necessary, by the way, to protect the personal information of individuals and to ensure that the authority doesn't, in so doing, breach obligations under the data protection regime. So, I hope you're able to support these amendments.
Let me turn to amendment 36. My view on this is that it would result in a disproportionate expenditure of effort and time and resource on tips where there is no potential threat to human welfare. So, this amendment could actually make the Bill quite unaffordable and unworkable. I'm very concerned about the diversion of resources away from category 1 and category 2 disused coal tips. Let me make clear that, if we were to accept this amendment, it would take several years for the authority to visit, sometimes again, because a lot of this work is being done right now, all disused tips—all disused tips—and this would focus the resources away from the highest risk areas, and would mean that the preliminary assessment process would take far longer than necessary. Bear in mind that this committee has been, as I have been, very focused on the priorities, which is the welfare and safety of those communities, and that's the category 1 and category 2 tips. Don't forget, we estimate that there are up to 20,000 non-coal tips, as well as over 2,500 coal tips.
In practice, I expect the authority to make use of the intelligence that it has gained through the existing programme of operations that will be delivered, in effect, before its establishment. It will have walked. It will have put boots on the ground on every single tip. It is important to remember that the MRA will have physically inspected and categorised every disused coal tip prior to 1 April 2027.
This means that the authority will have the ability to consider the findings from its physical inspections, so it can prioritise its resources and direct effort to the most appropriate areas, or those most in need of assistance. So, I hope, with that explanation, this amendment can be seen as not being necessary. It could be completely impractical also. I urge committee members not to support it.
Well, there we are. [Laughter.] That's it. Okay. Short and sweet. I like that. So, the question is that amendment 36 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we will move to a vote on amendment 36. All those in favour of amendment 36, please show. Three in favour. All those against. Three against. So, I use my casting vote in the negative, against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 36 is not agreed.
I move amendment 18 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 18 is agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 18 is agreed.
I move amendment 19 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 19 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objection. Amendment 19 is agreed.
I move amendment 20 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 20 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 20 is agreed.
I move amendment 21 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 21 be agreed to. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 21 is agreed.
There we are. The question is that amendment 38 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 38, please show. Three in favour. All those against. Three against. So, I use my casting vote in the negative against the amendment in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 38 is not agreed.
You do, there we are. The question is that amendment 79 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we'll move to a vote on amendment 79. All those in favour, please show. Three in favour. All those against. Three against. No abstentions. So, given that it is a tied vote, I use my casting vote against amendment 79 in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that that amendment is not agreed.
So, we move on to the sixth group of amendments, then, which relates to a proposal to register a disused tip. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 80, and I call on Delyth Jewell to move and to speak to the amendment.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I move and speak to the only amendment in this group. The purpose of it is to ensure that Welsh Ministers are not able to amend the representation period for the proposed registration of a disused tip below an absolute minimum of 14 days. I obviously recognise that time is of the essence in implementing the provisions of the Bill. I also think we need to ensure the process of determining the scale of its implementation is as thorough as possible, so that no stone is left unturned in removing the toxic stain of our industrial past.
Yes, thank you. Diolch, Cadeirydd. Delyth, I think your amendment possibly shortens the representation period from 30 days to 14. Thirty days is common practice, such as with premises licence applications and other such notices. So, whilst I would appreciate clarity as to how you have reached the conclusion that the number of days ought to be 14, because as it stands, I am unable to support you on this point. Sorry.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. We have explored this amendment. We have considered it quite deeply. Amendment 80 limits the scope of the Welsh Ministers' regulation-making power in section 24 to amend the minimum period for making representations on proposals to register a tip. In reality, the Welsh Ministers would not use the power to specify a period of less than 14 days, as that would be unreasonable. However, I can appreciate the rationale behind the amendment to ensure that those who are making representations have sufficient time to do so. Therefore, on balance, I would indeed ask the committee to support the amendment. It's worth noting that a similar point arises in relation to sections 22(4) and 29(3). So, if the committee sees fit to pass amendment 80, I will bring forward Government amendments at Stage 3 to make the equivalent changes to those two sections.
Diolch. I'm very grateful to the Cabinet Secretary for that, because, as we've already been talking about, it's about ensuring thoroughness, the need to ensure that everyone has their say. It wasn't my understanding, Janet, that it would be limiting. It's intended as the opposite. I hope that is the case, but I will check afterwards. But I think it would be opposite of that. So, in that case, I'm very grateful to the Government and would be minded to push it to vote.
Janet objects. Okay, we'll move to a vote. So, the question is that amendment 80 be agreed. All those in favour, please show. Five in favour. All those against. One against. No abstentions. So, amendment 80 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 81 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. So, we vote on amendment 81. All those in favour, please show. Two—. Three in favour. Sorry, three in favour. Those against. Three against. So, given it's a tied vote, I use my casting vote against the amendment in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 81 is not agreed.
There we are. The question is that amendment 39 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, we'll vote on amendment 39. Those in favour, please show. Three in favour. Those against. Three against. So, I use my casting vote in the negative, given that it is tied—so, against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 39 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 82 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, we'll vote on amendment 82. All those in favour. Three. Against. Three. No abstentions. So, given that it is a tied vote, I use my casting vote against amendment 82 in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that that amendment is not agreed.
Yes, there we are. The question is that amendment 83 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, we'll vote on amendment 83. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Three in favour. Those against. Three against. So, because it's tied, I use my casting vote against amendment 83 in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that that amendment is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 40 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we'll move to a vote on amendment 40. Those in favour. Three in favour of amendment 40. Against. Three against. Again, because it's tied, I use my casting vote in the negative against amendment 40 in accordance with Standing Orders. So, amendment 40 is not agreed.
We'll move on to the next group, which is group 7, relating to the statement of policy on categorisation. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 22.
Diolch, Cadeirydd—a very short few words here. We've introduced amendment 22 in response to recommendation 20 of your committee's report, which recommended that we should bring forward an amendment to the Bill to place a duty on the authority to consult stakeholders, relevant experts and other persons with an interest in disused tip safety on its proposed policy for categorisation. So, the amendment does exactly this. It places a requirement on the authority to consult on the statement of its policy on the categorisation of disused tips prior to it being published. The amendment also requires the authority to consult before publishing any revised forms of the statement.
Diolch yn fawr. Do any Members wish to speak to this amendment? No. There we are. So, are you happy for us to move? Therefore, the question is that amendment 22 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. So, amendment 22 is agreed.
The question is that amendment 41 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 41. All those in favour, please show. Three. All those against. Three. It's tied. So, I use my casting vote in the negative against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 41 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 84 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, we'll vote on amendment 84. Those in favour, please show. Three in favour. Those against. Three against. No abstentions. So, again, it's a tied vote. So, I use my casting vote in the negative against amendment 84, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that it is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 42 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, so we'll move to a vote on amendment 42. Those in favour, please show. Three in favour. Those against. Three against. It's tied, so I'll use my casting vote against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 42 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 85 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I have an objection, so we move to a vote on amendment 85. Those in favour of the amendment. Two in favour. We're on amendment 85. Are you okay? Yes, two in favour of 85. Those against amendment 85. Do we have any abstentions? No abstentions. Janet, which way do you register your vote?
There we are. The question is that amendment 43 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we'll move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 43 please show. Three in favour. Those against. Three against. The vote is tied, so I'll use my casting vote against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 43 is not agreed.
We'll move on to the next group and then we'll break after this group, I think. So, the eighth group of amendments relates to a list of all disused tips. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 23.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I'm pleased to say we've tabled amendment 23 in response to recommendation 10 of your committee's report. You recommended the Welsh Government should bring forward an amendment to place a duty on the authority to create and maintain a register of all disused tips. I believe amendment 23 very neatly captures the essence of the recommendation. It requires the authority to prepare and maintain an electronic list of all disused tips that have undergone a preliminary assessment. Now, the tip must be included in the list as soon as practicable after the preliminary assessment has been carried out. The list must be available to the public electronically at all reasonable times and, in practice, this means it'll be available on the authority's website. In addition, it also prescribes what must be included in each entry for a disused tip—so, the name by which the tip is commonly known, the location of the tip, a unique identifier given to the tip by the authority.
Let me pre-empt, Cadeirydd, any questions as to why the amendment requires a list of tips that have been through the preliminary assessment process. There are really good reasons. Firstly, all disused tips must go through the preliminary assessment process. Ultimately, all disused tips—and by 'all' I mean both coal and non-coal—will appear on the list. However, as I've explained previously, the intention must be for the authority to focus its efforts on coal tips when it is first established and then move on to consideration of non-coal tips from 2032. This is because, generally speaking, coal tips are considered more likely to pose a threat to human welfare than non-coal tips. By requiring a list of all disused tips that have been through that preliminary assessment process, we're not interfering with that prioritisation process. If the amendment were to impose a duty on the authority to list all disused tips without any qualification, which is what recommendation 10 of the committee's report appeared to envisage initially, the authority would need to dedicate resources to their activity as soon as it is established. Doing so would risk diverting resources from more meaningful and prioritised activity, as the authority would need to undertake a lot of work to identify tips for the purposes of compiling an accurate list, and this would be particularly the case for non-coal tips that have not yet been mapped. So, tying the list to the preliminary assessments avoids this issue. On that basis, I would ask the committee to support the amendment as it meets the committee's recommendation in a very practical and, very importantly, in a very achievable way too.
Related to that, in my view, amendment 89 is unnecessary and it's impracticable in seeking to place a duty on the authority to identify and compile a list of all disused tips by 2030. I do understand the sentiment behind the amendment, but I'm really conscious that we do not place unnecessary and impractical duties on the authority. I'm confident that the effect is already achieved by proposed amendment 23 without placing resource-crippling time constraints on the authority.
So, I want to be clear that the number of disused tips in Wales is not fixed. We expect the number to change over time and this reflects our growing understanding of non-coal disused tips in Wales and, crucially, that we still have extractive industries in Wales, which could result in new disused tips. So, for example, where a quarry operation ceases and a site moves out of scope of the active legislation, any associated tips would qualify as disused tips under the Bill. So, on that basis, I'm unable to support amendment 89, but I would ask for the committee's support for amendment 23, which I think gets the balance just right.
Thank you. I support the amendment tabled by the Cabinet Secretary, but encourage all to consider the intentions of my amendment 89. There are no timescales included on the face of the Bill to identify any disused tips. The obligations for all tips on the face of the Bill begin equally when the provisions of the Bill are commenced. I've suggested that the authority must, by 1 January 2030, identify and compile a list of all disused tips. I am open to amending the date, but I would like to reach a point where we, as a Welsh Parliament, can set out in legislation a target for when the list of all disused tips has to be compiled. The basis for 1 January 2030 is so to enable the Welsh Parliament elected later in 2030 to go into that Parliament armed with that key information.
Diolch, Chair. Janet, if it's helpful simply to respond to that point you made on timescale, and it's worth repeating a point that I've made before, by making the link to the preliminary assessment, the authority will be able to really focus on those tips that pose the highest risk or those that need attention, and also make the maximum use of the work that the MRA is currently doing and is in the process of completing. All disused coal tips in Wales will have been visited, assessed and categorised by the MRA before 1 April 2027. So, I hope that gives you the assurance, on prioritisation, with the fact that the work will be completed—boots on the ground, assessments done, categorisation done—by 1 April 2027.
If you expect that number of disused tips to be assessed, if you like, by 2027, that contradicts some of my earlier amendments in terms of the timescales you're working to.
I think it's possibly a misunderstanding because, as we've discussed in the committee before, as a point of clarification, the work is already ongoing. So, I suspect that the amendment would suggest that we now need to go out and do all these assessments. They're being done, they're being completed, they will be done by 1 April 2027. What won't be done is the non-coal disused tips, and it's right that the authority should focus from day one on those that pose the highest potential risk.
Thank you for that clarification. We're not engaging in a discussion further on this, so we will move. So, the question is, then, that amendment 23 be agreed, first of all. Does any Member object? No objections, so amendment 23 is agreed.
There we are. So, the question is that amendment 89 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 89, please show. Three in favour. Those against. Three against. So, in accordance with Standing Orders, given that the vote is tied, I'll use my casting vote in the negative and against amendment 89, meaning that amendment 89 is not agreed.
Welcome back to the committee. We'll continue with our work on Stage 2 of the Bill. So, we move now to the ninth group of amendments, which relates to the removal and disposal of property for the purpose of carrying out operations. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 44, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. So, I wish to state at the outset that I'm aware there is a reserved matter in paragraph 98 of Schedule 7A to the Government of Wales Act 2006 that relates to coal. However, amendments by both Delyth and I consider coal because there can be no doubt that this legislation on tip safety is intrinsically linked to coal and potentially its moving or removal. We need to be open to the fact that steps taken to make tips safe could include the removal of coal, and where that is required, I believe the owner should be able to recoup costs by selling it to market. The UK imports approximately 3.4 million tonnes of coal annually.
It's a given, it's a well-known fact, that our Welsh mines—. We're very lucky in the fact that some of the coal mined—but we're not talking about mining, we're just talking about finding it in terms of remediation—burns at a higher temperature and so burns very cleanly. So, for this not to be able to be used by the tip owners I just think is short-sighted, because we're bringing in so much coal at the moment that actually doesn't burn as cleanly as the coal that we would find. I believe that we should be able to use this coal in the market; it would provide Welsh jobs, it would provide an economic boost to local communities and the Welsh economy.
At present, you are offshoring emissions, you are offshoring jobs, you are offshoring Welsh money. I just believe that anybody living within a community with a coal tip, as long as they knew that there was no further mining taking place, I cannot see how there would be an issue with the removal; it would even help, in some cases, the remediation of these tips. So, it will come as no surprise to you then that I do object to the amendments by Delyth that state that coal must not be sold for the purpose of burning. I politely ask the Member from where she wants the 3.4 million tonnes of coal required in the UK annually to come from—I'm not saying that there'll be anything like this volume—but, if her answer is 'abroad', to explain how such a position is in the best interests of climate change, our carbon footprint, and Wales.
Finally, amendments 45 and 63 aim to try and ensure that market value is achieved for the property disposed of. In short, the way the legislation is currently drafted could lead to a point, for example, where the authority sells or disposes of property belonging to another person for an unreasonably low price. I don't agree with that, and, as such, I would like to see safeguards put in place for property owners. I'm open to hearing your thoughts on this, Cabinet Secretary, and if we could co-operate to find a solution.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. On these amendments 5 and 6 in my name, in particular, I am indebted to a number of others I've worked with, including the Coal Action Network, Climate Cymru and Friends of the Earth Cymru, for their advice and suggestions. I'm very grateful to them and also local campaigners who I've worked with closely on this issue.
I've already mentioned that it would be a perverse and ugly irony if a Bill that is ostensibly designed to resolve the environmental damage of over a century of industrialisation ends up enabling the further degradation of our climate and our environment. The purpose of amendments 5 and 6 in this group, therefore, is to place a prohibition on the sale of any coal extracted during the course of remedial works for the purposes of burning. My motivation here is in part to ensure that coal tips cannot become new coal mines—that we won't see more cases like what might soon happen in Bedwas, where private companies produce plans to remediate coal tips, but wish to finance their work through coal extraction, making our Valleys again a mockery of mining. That would be an insult to our yesterdays and to our towns' tomorrows.
Now, I appreciate the Cabinet Secretary is likely to argue against the inclusion of these amendments on the grounds that they infringe on reserved areas. I was surprised to learn, in the course of preparing amendments for this Bill, that coal is largely a reserved matter as per the Wales Act 2017, which, for me, underlines the sheer absurdity of Westminster's continued refusal to pay its fair share for clearing up the mess that they have left. The current set-up is surely constitutional nonsense and can't be sustained. I would be interested, as a side note, to know whether the fact that coal is reserved is the reason why the word 'coal' is not mentioned in the Bill's title or, indeed, almost anywhere in the Bill itself.
But to return to these amendments, I would argue that the consequences of not providing robust safeguards to prevent the combustion of this most harmful of fossil fuels directly relates to the devolved responsibilities of the Senedd, especially the sustainable management of natural resources principles of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 and, of course, the well-being of future generations Act. I would appreciate if the Cabinet Secretary could outline in his response the legal advice he's received on this matter and explain why the Senedd's devolved responsibilities in relation to environmental policy would not permit us to go further in regulating how the extracted coal is used. I would also wonder if the Cabinet Secretary has any insight as to the implications of this, if this amendment is agreed, in particular whether it would mean that there would be a Supreme Court case and, if so, what the Welsh Government's position would be were that to happen.
Yes, thank you very much. I mean, the principle behind Delyth's amendment 5, I think, is something that I strongly believe in, and I certainly think that coal tips should not become coal mines, and I'm aware that this does have the support of quite a lot of people in the community, and from different environmental groups. So, I would like the Government to respond in terms of how they will ensure that if this amendment was not agreed to, that you'd make absolutely certain that we couldn't end up in what would be a very ironical situation, in that we're trying to stop coal burning, and coal burning resulted because we didn't have an amendment in to say that. So, I'm very keen for the Cabinet Secretary to tell us exactly what his proposals are in either supporting this amendment or suggesting something, an alternative. Thank you.
Yes, please. I'd also like to speak to the amendment tabled by Delyth Jewell, amendment 5. I also have concerns about the extraction of coal, if there's going to be any remediation, for example, as has been mentioned, the extraction of coal. We are a member of the Beyond Oil and Gas Alliance here in Wales. We do have the well-being of future generations Act, and it shouldn't be happening, so I would like to understand. I've heard before that this is a separate policy to the coal policy, but could you explain this further, how there would be protection against the use and sale or sale of coal, especially going forward? We need to protect this, you know, should there be a different Senedd who does not care about the environment in the same way.
Regarding biodiversity, I also have strong concerns, while I'm speaking, if that's okay. I also have strong concerns about biodiversity as well, but I accept that it will be covered under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016.
Amendment 44 on the removal of coal for burning, I think that the permission to burn coal has the potential to open up a whole area of effective mining and increased carbon into the air. The Welsh Government has a very clear policy against the use of fossil fuels and it would work, and it clearly does work, against those key principles of the Bill to keep people safe, the principles of this Bill to keep people safe, albeit in a different category, and that would be creating carbon. That in itself goes against the well-being of future generations Act. However, I understand that the use of extracted coal for other environmental benefits, like filtration, will be useful.
I want to go then to amendment 5, and, again, raise, as has already been raised, the need for a clear explanation, because what I suppose we're all concerned with here is, going forward beyond this Government and the next Government, that the goodwill of this Government and the intentions of this Government can't be undone by another Government whose intentions could differ completely and allow the burning of that coal. And I understand the technicality that the person that sells it might not be the person who buys it and therefore burns it—I understand all of that—and I know that that will need further explanation, but I really do need to be assured here that we're not opening up something, as Delyth has quite rightly said, that gives fear, and 'fear' is not too strong a word here, to those communities.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I think I can give some reassurance, and I note, in responding to the comments from all Members who have spoken there, that we have listened to the concerns expressed today, but also the various other voices out there as well that are particularly focused on the extraction and the sale of coal for the purpose of burning. But I also note there is a range of views here within the committee and nuances as well and some differences of opinion, but there are some nuances as well around what committee members have been saying. Well, let me say first of all, and, Joyce, you're absolutely right, Welsh Government has a very clear and proud record that makes clear that we are seeking to keep fossil fuels in the ground. I just want to reassure Members that Welsh Government coal policy remains against coal extraction and mining. That's crystal clear.
But I'm going to go a bit further because I think the safeguards are in place and I'm going to clarify those and also explain a little bit more, Julie, about what else I might be able to do as well. So, first of all, I believe that existing coal policy already provides the protection that Members, overall, are seeking, especially when we also consider it along the requirements of the well-being of future generations Act, the wider objectives of 'Planning Policy Wales', and our commitment, as I've just said, to phase out the use of fossil fuels in energy generation. These policies are very well established, very robust, and they cannot easily be reversed.
The planning policy on coal development is quite explicit. Any proposals for opencast, deep-mine development or colliery-spoil disposal should not be permitted other than in wholly exceptional circumstances. The Government’s policy is very clear: it’s against the extraction of coal. The Bill is very specific—this Bill. It enables the authority and landowners to remove and dispose of property, which includes coal, only where—only where—this is done for the purpose of carrying out operations under section 42, or those required by a section 33 notice. It is very specific. Should the need arise to remove coal, it would automatically be subject to Welsh Government coal policy and to planning law.
So, coal mining operations, recovering coal from tips, incidental coal extraction activities, require planning permission before that extraction can commence. Where a planning authority does not propose to refuse an application for coal development, I can also make it clear that the Town and Country Planning (Notification) (Coal and Petroleum) (Wales) Direction 2018 requires the planning authority to notify Welsh Ministers, who will consider calling in the planning application to decide whether the application is consistent with Welsh Government coal policy, the coal policy I’ve just explained.
Yes, before this is up and running. We’re probably talking over the summer, doing this piece of work to finalise it. So, by the autumn, we’ll have it done.
Thank you. And I really welcome what you've said—thank you very much. Can I check? The reason I'm asking for this point of clarification is that the protections that are there, it doesn't seem like they are working, because a number of us have referred to a case in Bedwas, and that has continued at pace. It hasn't been granted that permission yet, but it seems likely to gain it, and the company there would be financing the remediation work by extracting coal, and, at the moment, I don't think there is anything there that would prohibit it from being combusted. So, what you're suggesting, would that be something that could look at, hypothetically, a case like that?
—particularly one where my understanding is that it hasn't progressed fully through the system. But, on any example—. I'll reiterate what I've said before. Any proposal to remove coal would automatically be subject to Welsh Government coal policy and planning law. If the planning authority does not propose to refuse an application for coal development, then, under the town and country planning et cetera direction, which I referred to earlier, it will be Welsh Ministers then who will decide on those wholly exceptional circumstances and whether that is appropriate or not. So, I can't comment on the individual one, but, as has been mentioned by other Members, there are sometimes good reasons why, for the purposes of this Bill, as opposed to wider things going on currently, there would be a need to actually move coal off site. Now, we don't want to stymie the ability to tackle the health and welfare imperatives behind this Bill by saying that we cannot take coal off site. But, in that situation, the coal policy, the planning policy, binds. There is a process in place where, under such hypothetical examples, the system kicks in and it would come up, then, to Welsh Ministers.
I just wanted to turn, Delyth, as well, to the point you made about what's reserved competence and what's not. That's clearly a matter, but it's not actually the defining matter in terms of our discussions and our considerations in terms of these amendments. The reserved/devolved matters on coal are slightly complex, as they often are within this sphere, but, generally speaking, if it helps for the committee, as a general rule, coal in a mine is reserved, coal in a disused tip that is regarded as, for example, waste is not reserved, if that helps with some clarity. But it is complicated. There are layers behind that as well.
If I can turn, Chair, to amendments 44 and 62, these amendments are not required. Coal falls within the natural meaning of the word 'property' and would be interpreted to include coal.
Amendment 63 relates to selling property that is removed from land during operations or the reinstatement of works undertaken by the authority. It would require the authority to achieve market value for property that is removed and sold by the authority. I would say to the committee that this amendment is not required, because the authority is a public body, as I've said before, and as such is subject to the principles of public law, meaning that it must be reasonable and proportionate in its activities relating to the sale of goods that belong to others.
Amendment 45 relates to selling property that is removed from land during section 33 operations undertaken by a landowner. The amendment would require the landowner to achieve market value for property that is removed and sold by the landowner. Now, unlike the authority, which has a responsibility to gain a reasonable price for any goods removed and sold during operations, landowners that are not public bodies are not subject to the principles of public law in the same way. So, I understand the intention behind the amendment, and I agree it's important to ensure that where landowners sell property a fair and reasonable value is achieved for those goods. However, the amendment requires the landowner to achieve market value for the goods. Market value is likely to be difficult to determine, because market value will be subject to fluctuation. If an owner is concerned that a transaction has not been completed properly and in accordance with the law, they could consider court action. I see no reason to change this. To do otherwise will create additional bureaucracy and administration as well as complexity.
Yes. Just to clarify the position that I have taken on this, and I feel very strongly about this, there's a huge difference to marketing coal found whilst remediating, and, as has been explained, coal will have to be removed off site at times—. No intention to support the reopening or even any attempt to reopen a coal tip. We have to face facts, though: we are still heavily reliant on and continue to burn coal here in Wales. And currently we are importing 3.4 million tonnes of coal, which burns much dirtier and provides a lot more carbon in our atmosphere than if we were able to use some of our Welsh coal. We're importing it from Kazakhstan, Australia and Singapore. And I have to ask all Members to just look at their own conscience in terms of how is it that we're allowed to burn, and also the carbon footprint of bringing in coal from other countries. It makes no sense to me. It's not a word I like to use, but there's a little bit of hypocrisy here that we're allowed to bring in 3.4 million tonnes of coal, burn it, and it burns—you know, the coal we're bringing in has been described as filthy by some. It's about—. It's not about extraction; it's about minimising the size of our carbon footprint. I just cannot see, if you're moving coal off site, why it can't actually—. Because, for every tonne you burn of that, it's less carbon going into the atmosphere than the kind of stuff that we're importing currently. And I would just ask: what are the Cabinet Secretary's views on any of that coal going off site for filtration purposes or other uses other than burning it?
Okay. So the question is that amendment 44 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] So, we have an objection. We'll move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 44, please show. One. All those against. Five. That means that amendment 44 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 45 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour of amendment 45, please show. One. All those against. Three. Any abstentions? Two. That means that amendment 45 is not agreed.
Yes. The question is that amendment 5 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 5, please show. Two. And all those against. Four. That means that amendment 5 is not agreed.
There we are. The question is that amendment 46 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. So, we'll move to a vote on amendment 46. All those in favour, please show. Three. All those against. Three. There we are, so it's tied. So, I use my casting vote in the negative against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 46 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 47 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We move to a vote on amendment 47. All those in favour, please show. Three. All those against. Three. That vote is also tied. So, I use my casting vote against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 47 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 48 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. So, we move to a vote on amendment 48. All those in favour, please show. Three in favour. All those against. Three against. The vote is tied. So, I use my casting vote in the negative against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 48 is not agreed.
Yes. The question is that amendment 90 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 90, please show. Three in favour. All those against. Three against. No abstentions. So, the vote is tied, and I use my casting vote against amendment 90, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that that amendment is not agreed.
So we move on to our next group, the tenth group of amendments, which relates to applications for appeals and reimbursement of owner's expenses. The lead amendment to this group is amendment 98, and I call on Delyth Jewell to move and speak to the lead amendment and other amendments in the group.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I move amendment 98. I've already mentioned this morning the importance of securing public buy-in for the Bill and its provisions, and that would apply to the communities that will be affected by the effects of the clean-up operations. But, by the same token, I do think that we need to ensure that the owners of land where remedial work might take place are sufficiently reassured about the proportionality of the Bill's provisions.
The purpose of this amendment, therefore, is to extend the maximum period in which appeals against section 33 notices can be made from 21 days to 90 days. I believe this will provide greater flexibility for these owners, especially those who may not have readily available access to legal counsel, to fully consider the cost implications of both the proposed programme of work and of challenging issued notices. I'm thinking particularly of owners of land who might have had no idea that these tips were on it when it was purchased.
In terms of whether the number of days should be 21 or 90, I wish to consider further the rationale provided by Delyth and the Cabinet Secretary with the aim of coming to a reasonable position by Stage 3. As it stands, I don't see why three weeks will not be sufficient time for an appeal to be made. Also, I am concerned that a potential consequence of increasing the number of days would be that the owner of land could dangerously delay much-needed works from commencing.
Legislation as currently drafted enables an appeal on the basis that the owner of the land is unable to meet the costs of the operations. However, there is a lack of clarity on what evidence is needed, if any, of unaffordability. Our amendment 49 addresses that problem.
Section 37 provides that an appeal application is to be determined by a person appointed by the Welsh Ministers. The Welsh Government has set out its intention for Planning and Environment Decisions Wales to be appointed to determine appeals. While the UK Environmental Law Association considered PEDW will be best placed to undertake this role, it is questioned why the Bill does not expressly provide for this. Amendment 50 addresses that point, and adds 'PEDW' in place of 'person appointed by the Welsh Ministers'.
Amendments 51 to 61 and 70 are consequential to amendment 50. Diolch.
Diolch yn fawr iawn, Cadeirydd. Amendment 98, as we've heard, seeks to extend the period for appealing against a section 33 notice from 21 days to 90 days. The observations, curiously, that Janet has just made echo some of our concerns as well. We're concerned that extending the period for submission of applications under section 36 could cause delay. Given that a section 33 notice suggests that works are necessary to ensure the stability of a tip, any delay could result in additional instability in or at or near to disused tips. This could put communities at risk. I know that's not the intention, but that's the risk here. It could alternatively mean that additional or alternative operations are required on site.
Just for clarity, this won't have come out of nowhere. Delyth, on your point saying that people might need that extended period because suddenly they're served a notice, actually this is a last resort in the vast majority of cases, as we've made clear in discussion with the committee before. There will have been extensive engagement, a landowner will not be surprised to get a notice. This notice is a last resort, where support and guidance and that more collaborative approach has failed to result in the necessary works being done. So, in my view, 21 days is sufficient in that case to mount an appeal; it hasn't come out of nowhere.
Amendment 49 we just think is not needed; it's unnecessary. The amendment requires that evidence must accompany an application made under section 36(4). In practice, a landowner will need to provide evidence of being unable to meet the cost of operations in order to rely on the hardship grounds set out in subsection 4. Therefore, it is not necessary to include this on the face of the Bill. Guidance given by Welsh Ministers to the appointed person will address the matter of evidence for all of the grounds on which an appeal could be made—so, section 36(3)(a) to (f) and section 4.
The amendment would also, by the way, introduce inconsistency by expressly requiring evidence for one ground of appeal and not for all grounds of appeal. This inconsistency could be interpreted to mean that evidence is not required where an application relies on another ground of appeal.
Turning to amendments 50 to 57, 59 to 61 and 70, these relate to the applications made to the Welsh Ministers under sections 36 and 41. Currently, these applications are to be determined by a person appointed by the Welsh Ministers, referred to as 'appointed person'. These amendments replace the references to 'appointed person' with, specifically, 'Planning and Environment Decisions Wales' in sections 36, 37, 38, 41 and 69. These amendments do not work, because they impose functions on PEDW directly. PEDW is a division within the Welsh Government and does not have a separate legal personality. Therefore, functions cannot be imposed on PEDW.
Diolch. I appreciate the points that have been made by Members and the Cabinet Secretary. Evidently, increasing risk was in no way the intention of this amendment, but because of that risk of the risk, I will not be pushing this amendment to vote, and I'm minded to withdraw it, please.
The question is that amendment 49 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, we move to a vote. All those in favour of 49, please show. Three in favour. All those against. Three against, so it's a tied vote and I use my casting vote in the negative against amendment 49, meaning that that amendment isn't agreed.
If amendment 50 isn't agreed, amendments 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56 and 57 all fall. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We move to a vote. The question is that amendment 50 be agreed. Those in favour, please show. Three in favour. Those against. Three against. That vote is tied, so I use my casting vote in the negative against the amendment in accordance with the Standing Order, so amendment 50 isn't agreed and the other amendments that I referred to earlier therefore fall.
That takes us on to the next group of amendments, which is group 11. The eleventh group of amendments relates to guidance and regulations under the Act, and the lead amendment in this group is amendment 58. I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and to the other amendments in the group.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. Amendment 58 places a duty on the Welsh Government to publish guidance on the appeals process under section 36. I don't think it's necessary for me to explain the benefits of such guidance. In short, it's just simple common sense to help give as much information as possible about the process to those looking at using it. The same rationale is true for amendment 68. I will be supporting all the amendments in this section tabled by the Cabinet Secretary.
Finally, amendment 72 relates to the definition of 'serious' in section 82. As such, I've made it a requirement for Welsh Ministers to publish guidance about the circumstances that may constitute a threat to human welfare. For example, what is the difference between serious human illness and human illness, or serious disruption to supply of water and disruption to supply of water? Diolch.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I've listened carefully, and we've noted the recommendations regarding guidance that have come forward from the committee. In the Bill, I've tried strenuously to strike the right balance between what's on the face of the Bill and what's to be included in guidance. But I've taken on board some of the views requesting express requirements on Welsh Ministers to produce guidance for the authority in certain areas and those appointed to determine appeals on behalf of Welsh Ministers.
If I turn, first of all, in this range of amendments to amendment 25, it places a duty on the Welsh Ministers to give guidance to the authority on charging, monitoring, preliminary and full assessments, compensations for damage and disturbance caused by monitoring or assessment activity, payments in connection with operations and management plans. This amendment also requires the authority to have regard to the guidance issued to it by the Welsh Ministers when exercising its functions.
Amendment 26 that we've brought forward places a duty on Welsh Ministers to give guidance to a person appointed by them to determine appeals under section 36, the application to vary or cancel a notice requiring operations, and on section 41, the application for reimbursement of owner's expenditure, where a notice to carry out operations is cancelled. Amendment 26 requires the appointed person to have regard to guidance that is given to them when exercising its functions.
This amendment also places the Welsh Ministers under a duty to consult such persons as they consider appropriate before issuing the guidance under the powers contained in the Act. So, in developing the suite of guidance, we will continue to engage with experts and stakeholders and ensuring, therefore, that those with the relevant expertise and experience will be involved in the development of the guidance.
I'm asking the committee to support those amendments 25 and 26, because I believe that they'll deliver the right level of assurance requested during Stage 1 and the right balance between what's on the face of the Bill and the detail that will follow within guidance. And they also, by the way, retain our ability and our flexibility to respond quickly to changing circumstances and requirements. So the guidance will remain relevant and timely and responsive to the needs of the regime we're trying to establish.
I've tabled amendments 28 and 29 in response to recommendation 22 in the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee's report. The committee recommended that I should amend the Bill to apply the affirmative procedure to the making of all the regulations in the Bill that amend primary legislation and to which the negative procedure currently applies. I've accepted this recommendation and these amendments, if agreed, will have the effect of applying the affirmative resolution procedure to regulation-making powers in the Bill that amend that primary legislation.
The question is that amendment 58 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll move to a vote on amendment 58. All those in favour, please show. Three in favour. All those against. Three against. It's tied, so I use my casting vote against the amendment in accordance with Standing Orders, so amendment 58 is not agreed.
If amendment 59 is not agreed, amendments 60 and 61 fall. As amendment 50 has not been agreed, by the way, amendment 70 will also fall. The question is that amendment 59 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. We'll vote, therefore, on amendment 59. All those in favour, please show. Three in favour. All those against. Three against. It's tied, so I use my casting vote against the amendment, in accordance with the Standing Orders. So, amendment 59 is not agreed, and those other amendments that I mentioned therefore fall. So, that's 60 and 61, and 70 when we get to it.
The question is that amendment 62 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. So, the question is that amendment 62 be agreed. Those in favour, please show. One in favour. Those against. Five against. Amendment 62 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 63 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will move to a vote on amendment 63. Those in favour, please show. One. Those against. Three. Abstentions? Two. So, amendment 63 is not agreed.
There we are. The question is that amendment 6 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We will vote on amendment 6. All those in favour, please show. Two in favour. Those against. Four against. Amendment 6 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 64 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. So, we will move to a vote on amendment 64. Those in favour, please show. Three. Those against. Three. It's tied, so I use my casting vote in the negative, against the amendment, in accordance with the Standing Orders. So, amendment 64 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 65 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection to amendment 65. So, those in favour, please raise your hands. Three in favour. Those against. Three against. It's tied, so I use my casting vote against amendment 65, in accordance with the Standing Orders. So, that amendment is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 66 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection, so we will vote on amendment 66. Those in favour, please raise your hands. Three in favour. Those against. Three against. It's tied, so I will use my casting vote against the amendment, in accordance with the Standing Orders. Therefore, amendment 66 is not agreed.
There we are. The question is that amendment 91 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we will move to a vote on amendment 91. Those in favour of amendment 91, please show. Three in favour. Those against. Three against. It's tied, so I will use my casting vote in the negative, against amendment 91, in accordance with the Standing Orders, meaning that that amendment is not agreed.
So, we come to our twelfth group of amendments, which relates to operations carried out by the authority and the power of direction. The lead and only amendment in this group is amendment 67, and I call on Janet to move and speak to the amendment.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. This amendment includes in the Bill a power of direction for Welsh Ministers to address, in emergencies, tensions between disused tip safety and environmental and planning law. The Bill, as currently drafted, does not make provision for emergency situations specifically.
The Deputy First Minister has previously told us that establishing better relationships and working practices across the agencies and statutory bodies is a much more practical, workable, proportionate approach in tackling these issues than providing a legal solution. However, what happens in the event that different agencies and statutory bodies simply cannot co-operate effectively in the state of any emergency? Diolch.
I understand where this is coming from because we had evidence where, in Blaenau Gwent, where they—. No, I don't think it was Blaenau Gwent, but an authority went to do emergency remedial work—yes, Rhondda Cynon Taf—and was threatened with prosecution by NRW for breaches that fell under NRW.
So, I'm assuming that that is where this has come from, and I would like the assurances that that could never happen again. Clearly, if we take the true meaning of this Bill to protect human life, which seemed, in this case—the one that I've just described—to somehow work against that, potentially—. We just need some clarity, and I'm sure that's really what Janet's looking for.
I think I can help, if indeed it is on the basis of that. I think there might be one other matter as well that is from that instance that this has arisen. It's notable that, in that particular issue, it was resolved. It's probably been helpful in clarifying misunderstandings. But rather than dwell on that one issue—which may be one of the things that has inspired this amendment, I don't know—let me turn to the main thrust of the amendment.
It's seeking to actually put a power of direction within the legislation. I would simply say, Janet, it's not needed. The authority already has the power to act immediately under section 42 of the Bill, if it considers it necessary to do so, to prevent or deal with threats to the stability of a disused tip, or stabilise it, or to prevent it becoming more unstable, to avoid or reduce the threats to human welfare.
Government amendment 24 on management plans strengthens the Bill's provisions on emergency planning. Under amendment 24, a management plan must contain information relevant to an emergency involving the tip, information about roles and responsibilities of the authority and other public authorities in such an emergency, and how the authority intends to co-operate with such public authorities in an emergency. So, within that management plan, they are preparing for that eventuality.
The committee will note the strong emphasis on emergency planning in respect of those management plans. It's essential that the authority works with public authorities such as NRW, local authorities, the Mining Remediation Authority, fire and rescue services, when planning for possible emergencies at a particular tip, and for the appropriate robust emergency response to be documented in the management plan. That's what we've got in here. So, such a system already exists for reservoirs, for example. That's why NRW have already started to work with our key partners on a protocol for how to develop and implement emergency plans for disused tips. The authority will continue this work, Chair, so that emergency plans will be in place for all category 1 and 2 tips. This will be crucial in terms of the effective emergency response to protect those communities living in the vicinity of tips. They'll be more effective than a power of direction.
There are also a number of issues, actually, with the proposed power of direction here. The policy behind the Bill is that the authority is an expert body that makes independent judgments as to the necessity of operations. This amendment actually can undermine this. It overlooks the fact that Welsh Ministers do not have, I have to say, the necessary expertise to determine whether operations need to be carried out on land. It's the authority that has that expertise. This amendment does also not define what is meant by 'environmental law' and 'planning law'. The result is that there may be uncertainty as to whether the authority is liable for regulatory breaches when carrying out operations required by a direction.
I'm torn on this one now, because we've had several instances, weather incidents in particular, for my constituency and other north Wales Members. Recently, we had a situation where there was a drastic crisis in regard to a water shortage. We were reliant then on gold command, or whatever, emergency planning measures, and it was chaotic. It didn't deliver. It was a shocking situation, I have to say. Where you've got an incident, like where you may have a situation here in terms of relying on emergency plans, even yourself can't deny, Cabinet Secretary, that plans are being looked at across Wales, because with weather incidents, wrong warnings went out, insufficient warnings went out—it happens so often on flooding incidents, where people feel that the community had been left behind in terms of plans. I'm really concerned. I was going to withdraw at one point, but I think I'd rather put it through, and then maybe we can work on something for Stage 3.
Thank you, Janet. Okay. The question is that amendment 67 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll move to a vote. All those in favour of amendment 67, please show. One. All those against. Three. Any abstentions? Two. So, amendment 67 is not agreed.
So, we move to the thirteenth group of amendments, which relates to payments in connection with operations. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 7, and I call on Delyth Jewell to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Delyth.
Diolch, Gadeirydd. I move amendments 7, 8 and 9. The purpose of these amendments is to extend the window of liability for the costs of cleaning up coal tip operations to the year 1800. And the aim of that would be to ensure that all those parties who contributed to the present state of the coal tips are held accountable, indeed, including those who placed the coal tips there in the first place. It was the National Coal Board, and hence the UK Government as its former owner, that created these coal tips. They must carry responsibility for clearing them. Now, some might call this amendment provocative. I would argue that it would be a gravely missed opportunity indeed to pass a Bill relating to coal tips that somehow seeks to push behind, under a carpet, Westminster's responsibility for creating them. And whatever creativity I might have deployed in drafting the amendments pales in comparison with the mental gymnastics deployed by successive Westminster Governments in dodging their duties when it comes to these tips.
The coal tips that litter our landscapes predate the time of devolution. And since coal is largely a reserved matter under the Wales Act 2017, I believe that Westminster, as the former owner of the National Coal Board, has both the moral and legislative responsibility to cover more costs associated with these activities. And there is a serious point here. When it comes to the National Coal Board and the liability they bear, I would quote an extract, which is something my father remembered reading many years later. It's an extract from The Times newspaper, published on 25 October 1966, four days after the Aberfan disaster. It recounts that at a coroner's inquest into that disaster, in which 144 people, 116 of them children, died, there were shouts of, 'Children have been murdered', and, 'Mark the death certificate: buried alive by the National Coal Board'. In the tiny chapel vestry, Mr John Collins, whose wife and two sons were killed, demanded that the cause of death should be recorded as 'buried alive by the National Coal Board'. Now, when the coroner sought to disagree, a woman from the back is said to have said that, no, Mr Collins was right, and said, 'They killed our children.' Now, that was their belief then. And Aberfan was the moment that should have changed everything. No coal tip should have been allowed to remain on our hillsides after that darkest of days. But nobody lost their job. Nobody was held responsible. Isn't it time that that wrong were made right?
By passing this amendment, the Senedd could at last ensure that justice was done for those families, to make recompense in some way for that pity of our past, and it would send a signal today that it's time that that shadow was lifted. And I move the amendments.
I understand fully the sentiment behind what Delyth has said, and we all remember it extremely well. I also note the comment that it might be impractical and impossible to evidence. My question here to you, Cabinet Secretary, is to seek an assurance about what Delyth has talked to, and not shifting the onus away from the original responsibility. I also recognise that, over the years, these coal tips would have been added to, and maybe some of them have been in different ownership, as a possibility. But I think it's a serious point, and I recognise it as such, and we all will. I'm also going to ask you, Cabinet Secretary, why we're going back 12 years. Where has that come from?
Also, coal tips might move to a different ownership—they were set up under another body, so it removes them from the responsibility of remediation as well. That's another concern that's been raised. Twelve years doesn't seem very long, so I'd like clarification on it. Thank you.
First of all, thank you to Delyth for moving this amendment and to other Members for their comments as well. I fully understand and agree with the sentiment and the intention behind these amendments to make sure that those who should be contributing to making good these coal tips and dealing with the threats of instability and the welfare of the communities are doing so. I agree with that entirely. I think we'd all agree with that. You and I and many others here live daily on and around and in the shadow of some of these tips. So we understand it, we get it very deeply.
And you are right as well, of course, that these tips are the legacy of a long industrial past, and some of that industrial past means that they have indeed passed through multiple owners as well: private owners, the National Coal Board, others. But Delyth, ultimately I think your point is we now need to see a fair proportion of funding coming from the last remaining, long-standing, multigenerational, multicentury possible player within this, which is the UK Government. We agree, okay?
However, I’ve got to say, with the amendment, as I looked at it and studied it—. You described it as a provocative amendment. I think it has inspired the right discussion here, but there are really significant practical issues associated with seeking contributions from legal persons for operations and maintenance for those with a historical interest in the land dating back as far as 1800, for 200 years. I think you know this.
It's going to be very difficult, if not impossible, for a court to verify estates or interests from over that period, or frankly, even over 50 years back, because as you and I will know, I have individual landowners on areas that now look like green fields that are disused tips where there are a dozen or more different owners, and some of them are literally individuals living in a terraced house, who own a patch of that land and had never realised, and so on—let alone the National Coal Board, let alone other big landowners.
So in this situation, on a practical level, the provision is pretty much impossible to enforce. It would be really difficult to establish contributing factors from something that happened or didn't happen 200 years ago, causal links. It is going to take up a disproportionate amount of time in courts, I have to say, as well.
The really good question is why 12 years. There's a very simple explanation for that. The 12-year period included in the Bill maintains continuity with the current regime under the Mines and Quarries (Tips) Act 1969, so it's considered both reasonable and proportionate. And importantly, bearing in mind my comments just now, evidence is likely to be available to establish whether a person should be required to make a payment. So it's very practical, very focused.
Diolch. As I've said, I realise that the framing of the amendment was going to be provocative, but I do think that Members have understood the intention behind them is gravely serious, and I do appreciate the debate that we've just had. There would, of course, be practical issues with that length of time. On the point, though, about the NCB, I think that that does still stand, and the utter dereliction of duty that body showed all those years ago, and indeed the failure of successive Governments in Westminster over many, many decades to do enough. So, in terms of the intent behind these amendments, I very much stand by them, and I appreciate the comments that have been made.
Diolch yn fawr. The question is that amendment 7 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll move to a vote on amendment 7. Those in favour, please show. Two. And those against. Three. Any abstentions? One abstention. Amendment 7 is not agreed.
Yes, you do. The question is that amendment 8 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll move to a vote on amendment 8. Those in favour, please show. Two. Those against. Three. And abstentions? One. That means that amendment 8 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 9 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We'll move to a vote on amendment 9. Those in favour of amendment 9, please show. Two in favour. Those against? Three against. One abstention. So, amendment 9 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 68 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection, so we'll vote on amendment 68. Those in favour, please show. Three in favour. Those against. Three against. No abstentions. So, it's a tied vote and I therefore use my casting vote in the negative against the amendment in accordance with Standing Orders. So, amendment 68 is not agreed.
The fourteenth group of amendments relates to dealing with activities that destabilise a disused tip. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 92. I call on Janet to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. Amendments 92, 93, 96 and 97 create a regulation-making power to create an offence of anybody undertaking an activity on a disused tip that could destabilise it and has the potential to threaten human welfare. In addition to making tips safe, we need to ensure that individuals or companies are deterred from undertaking activities that could pose a threat to the tip's stability and, as such, has implications for human welfare. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on this point. I will also be supporting amendments 86 and 87 tabled by my colleague Delyth Jewell. Diolch.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I speak to amendments 86 and 87 in this group principally. The purpose of these amendments would be to introduce a civil sanction regime for offences relating to this legislation. That would enable Welsh Ministers, in line with Part 3 of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008, to make regulations to provide for alternative civil sanctioning powers for certain criminal offences, which would include fixed monetary penalties, discretionary requirements, stop notices and enforcement undertakings. In that respect, I've sought to replicate existing provisions contained in the Environmental Protection (Single-use Plastic Products) (Wales) Act 2023.
I'm hopeful the Cabinet Secretary would acknowledge that there is a legal precedent for the Welsh Government using powers of this nature. The approach set out here would be just an initial suggestion. I would, of course, be open to further discussions about alternative options that could achieve the same overarching aim—this is one way only—and to iron out any practicalities of implementing such a regime, like arrangements for distributing receipts from the payment of monetary penalties. I'm also happy to support the rest of the amendments in this group. They have a similar aim of ensuring that the Bill is underpinned by robust enforcement mechanisms, and I welcome them.
Diolch yn fawr iawn. The amendments in this group provide a series of regulation-making powers, enabling the Welsh Ministers to create additional offences and enforcement provisions. I do understand the motivation behind the amendments, but I'm going to try and persuade you that these are not necessary, and could be working against the spirit of what you're trying to do.
Amendment 92 gives Welsh Ministers a regulation-making power to create a stand-alone criminal offence in relation to activity that could destabilise a tip. I understand the intention behind this, but it isn't clear from the amendment what sorts of activities will be captured with this power. So, let me just make clear: this amendment could inadvertently capture some things that I don't think you would want to capture. For example, it could capture and criminalise activities such as farming or popular outdoor activities such as horse riding or mountain biking on trails, and the erosion caused by them, and so on.
If the intention behind the amendment is to try and stop illegal activities, such as quad biking, off-road motorcycling, or other activities that might destabilise a tip, I've got to say there are powers that are already available to deal with cases where those riders are, for example, trespassing. So, this amendment is not necessary, but, as I've set out, it could actually have unintended consequences that I don't think the Member would want to do, such as criminalising activities such as farming, or legitimate activities such as mountain biking, or things like that.
Amendment 93 gives the Welsh Ministers the power to make regulations conferring a power on the authority to serve a stop notice in relation to an offence created by the new section in amendment 92. Stop notices would involve a significant amount of additional administration, and, can I just say, they are likely to cause delays, caused by the introduction of appeal mechanisms. So, you'd need an appeal mechanism on that as well.
The authority is an expert advisory body. It is not intended that the authority will police activities taking place on tips across Wales. The application of a stop notice regime in this Bill would have considerable impact for additional resources to those that have been budgeted for. However, Natural Resources Wales has the power on stop notices. It has a workforce of around 1,900 staff, located in 18 offices, right across Wales. Just by way of comparison, we anticipate the authority will employ around 75 people, with expertise in a particular area, not to deliver stop notices.
Amendment 86 inserts a provision in respect of civil sanctions in the Bill. Again, I understand what you're pushing at here. It would give the Welsh Ministers the power to make regulations making any provision in relation to an offence under the Bill that could be made under Part 3 of the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008. RESA makes provision in relation to the creation of civil sanctions, and, as you say, there is precedent for this in things such as plastics legislation. But that's the point of departure. Fundamentally, this isn't plastics. This is, again, coming back to what we've talked about regularly, the protection of those communities, and the health and safety of them.
At the next Stage. Okay. Thank you. So, just to remind Members, if amendment 92 is not agreed, then amendments 93, 96 and 97 fall. So, the question is that amendment 92 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection, so we'll move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 92, please show. Three. Those against. Three. It's tied, so I use my casting vote as Chair in the negative against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 92 is not agreed and, subsequently, amendments 93, 97 and 96 fall.
So, we move on to the next group, then. The fifteenth group of amendments relates to management plans for registered tips. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 24.
Diolch. During Stage 1 scrutiny, stakeholders and committees expressed the view that there should be specific provision on the face of the Bill in relation to management plans, and this was reflected in the recommendations made in the reports of this committee and of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. Now, I've always indicated how important the management plans will be to the oversight of the category 1 and 2 disused tips, and I accepted those recommendations. So, amendment 24, which we discussed, places a duty on the authority to prepare and maintain management plans for category 1 and 2 disused tips. That amendment also places the authority under a duty to prepare a management plan as soon as practicable after a tip is recorded in the register as either a category 1 or 2 disused tip. The authority has the power to prepare and maintain management plans for category 3 and 4 tips too. But this amendment goes further than recommendation 19 of the LJC committee report, because it sets out the minimum requirements for the content of a management plan on the face of the Bill, rather than in regulation. And we think that is the right way to do it.
So, management plans must set out how the authority intends to exercise its functions under the Act in relation to the particular tip, including the details of advice it intends to give to the owners and the occupiers of land. It will set out information relevant in an emergency involving the tip. It will set out information about the roles and responsibilities of the authority and other public authorities in such an emergency, and it'll set out how the authority intends to co-operate with those public authorities in an emergency. Now, these are the minimum requirements. The authority can choose, if they want to, to go further and include other information as well.
The committee will note the strong emphasis we have on emergency planning in management plans. It is essential, as has been reflected in the views of committee members earlier, that the authority works with other public authorities, such as NRW, local authorities, the Mining Remediation Authority, fire and rescue services, et cetera, when planning for possible emergencies at a particular tip, and we have the appropriate robust emergency response documented in the management plan.
So, as you know, we will, by way of Order, make the authority a category 2 responder for the purposes of the Civil Contingencies Act 2004. This will strengthen the authority's position in an emergency. There is some read-across here, by the way, to amendments 25 and 26. I don't wish to dwell on those amendments, because we discussed them earlier in group 11. However, I just want to say, Chair, that those amendments require the Welsh Ministers to consult on and to publish guidance on management plans. Taken as a whole, I believe that the amendments significantly strengthen the importance of management plans in the Bill.
Amendment 31 is just—I say 'is just'; it's important—. Amendment 31 is a technical amendment that adds reference to management plans in section 86 of the Bill, which contains an index of defined terms.
Okay. I don't have any Members indicating they wish to speak and I presume you've no wish to respond to your own remarks, so we'll move on, then.
So, if amendment 24 is not agreed, then amendment 31 falls. So, the question is that amendment 24 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. So, amendment 24 is agreed.
I propose maybe that we have a very short, five-minute break now before we conclude the remainder of our group. So, if we could reconvene for, literally, restarting at a quarter past, I'd appreciate it. Diolch yn fawr. Thank you.
We continue with Stage 2 of the Disused Mine and Quarry Tips (Wales) Bill, and we've got to group 16, and that group is a group of amendments that relates to information sharing, and the lead amendment in this group is amendment 10, and I call on Delyth Jewell to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I move amendments 10 and 11, and the purpose of these amendments would be to include the Secretary of State for Wales and the Crown Estate in the list of public authorities in section 55 that would be obliged to share relevant information with the authority as it undertakes its functions. Given that both these offices either previously had oversight of coal mining activity in Wales or currently manage land on which clean-up operations could take place, I believe it's entirely appropriate that they would support the work of the authority where appropriate.
I'm also happy to support amendment 94. I'm inclined to abstain on amendment 95, because, whilst I do agree with the rationale for introducing penalties for providing false information, and I completely understand why the amendment would have had to have been drafted in this way, I'm guessing, as a point of principle, the exemption of the Crown does not sit easily with me, which is why I will be abstaining.
Yes, please. Diolch, Cadeirydd. It appears to me that amendments 10 and 11 are outside of competence, so I cannot support them.
In terms of amendment 94, it does create a new section to require owners to share information with the authority. In short, the aim is to introduce a requirement in law for landowners who may be near a tip far more often than a representative of the authority to notify the latter of any threat to stability. It is an additional safeguarding measure and helps ensure that those nearest to the tips are more vigilant. Amendment 95 makes it an offence not to share information, so, again, this would help to encourage landowners to be more vigilant and take part in this vital process of making our tips safe. Diolch.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. With regard to amendments 10 and 11 tabled by Delyth, I do understand the reason why the amendments have been tabled, as the definition of 'relevant public authority' in section 55 of the Bill is a very important one. It governs the bodies to whom the information-sharing provisions in sections 56 and 57 of the Bill apply. However, I am content with the definition of 'relevant public authority' in the Bill as introduced, so, in my view, the amendments are not needed.
I'll explain a little bit more why. The bodies that form the definition of 'relevant public authority' are considered appropriate, and they comprise those bodies who have relevant experience and relevant knowledge in supporting the functions of the authority. Now, this is because they are the bodies that are most likely to become aware of threats to the stability of a disused tip when exercising their day-to-day functions. So, for the purposes of section 56, which gives the authority power to require a relevant public authority to provide information that the authority requests for the purposes of exercising its functions, again, the bodies that are most likely to have such information form the definition of 'relevant public authority'. So, in practice, for example, the Coal Authority, now known as the Mining Remediation Authority, is the primary custodian of information relevant to the authority's functions, so it's already included in the definition.
And as an additional point, a duty cannot be placed on the Crown Estate. The appropriate body would actually be the Crown Estate commissioners. But, regardless of the technical point, I don't consider that amendment to be necessary for the reasons I've just outlined—within that definition of the 'relevant public authority', we have the right organisations captured. Therefore, I would ask the committee to vote against these amendments, because they're not necessary.
Amendments 94 and 95 have got to be read together. Amendment 95 provides that it is an offence for an owner of land not to provide the information required by amendment 94, unless there’s a reasonable excuse for an owner not to do so. And amendment 95 also makes it an offence to give false or misleading information.
Now, I’ve got a number of concerns with these two amendments, which I’ll explain. To bring a successful prosecution against an owner of land, it will be necessary to prove that the person, in line with what we’re discussing, (a) became aware of the threat to the stability of a disused tip, or evidence of a disused tip’s instability, and, (b) considered that the information ought to be shared with the authority in the interest of avoiding or reducing a threat to human welfare. Who could argue with that? Except, it may be possible in some cases to prove point (a), became aware of the threat to the stability—there might be more water running through the stream in it, or something might have changed on the topography, or a slip happened in one corner, so it may be possible in some cases to prove point (a)—but it seems almost impossible for the prosecution to prove what the person considered ought to have been done.
Diolch. I appreciate the points that have been made, particularly the technical point about Crown Estate commissioners, rather than on the Crown Estate. But I’m aware of time and I’m happy for us to move to a vote.
There we are. Okay. So, the question is that amendment 10 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There is an objection. We move to a vote on amendment 10. All those in favour, please show. Two in favour. Against. Four against. So, amendment 10 is not agreed.
Moved. The question is that amendment 11 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection on amendment 11. So, those in favour of it, please show. Two. Against. Four. Amendment 11, therefore, falls.
Yes, okay. If amendment 94 is not agreed, amendment 95 falls. So, the question is that amendment 94 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, we'll vote on amendment 94. All those in favour, please show. Three. And those against. Three. So, the vote is tied, and I cast my vote in the negative, against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 94 is not agreed, and, therefore, amendment 95 falls.
The question is that amendment 69 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. All those in favour, therefore, of amendment 69, please show. Three in favour. Those against. Three against. No abstentions. It's tied, so I use my casting vote in the negative against amendment 69, according to Standing Orders, which means that it is not agreed.
I move amendment 25 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 25 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 25 is agreed.
I move amendment 26 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 26 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 26 is therefore agreed.
You do. So, if amendment 86 is not agreed, then amendment 87 falls. The question is that amendment 86 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. We move to a vote on amendment 86. Those in favour, please show. Three. Those against. Three. It's tied, so I use my casting vote in the negative against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders. Therefore, amendment 86 is not agreed and amendment 87 falls.
Amendment 71 has previously fallen as well, so I move amendment 27 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 27 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 27 is agreed.
I move amendment 28 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 28 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 28 is therefore agreed.
I move amendment 29 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 29 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. Amendment 29 is therefore agreed.
That brings us to the next group, the seventeenth group of amendments, which relates to interpretation. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 30.
I move amendment 30 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary and call on him to speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Cabinet Secretary.
Diolch. Amendment 30, Cadeirydd, which amends section 81 of the Bill to require consultation before making regulations under section 81(5), has been tabled in response to recommendation 29 of your committee's report. So, section 81(5) confers a significant regulation-making power on Welsh Ministers and I agree that it is right that it is subject to a duty to consult. I therefore ask the committee to support this amendment.
Turning to amendments 12 to 15, the authority is established with the aim of ensuring that disused tips do not threaten human welfare by reason of their instability. And given what we know about the potential consequences of tip failure, this absolutely must be the focus of the authority's functions. So, I’m satisfied that amendments 12 and 15 are unnecessary, as the substance of them is already covered by the Bill. So, if the impact of flooding or fire is serious, it is likely to be covered by the Bill because it could result in serious injuries, loss of human life, or serious damage to property.
And with regard to amendments 13 and 14, which seek respectively to add serious contamination of water and serious environmental harm to the definition of threat to human welfare, the Bill's purpose, I repeat again, is to prevent disused tips from threatening human welfare by reason of their instability, and threats to matters other than human welfare are, in the Government's view, outside of the Bill's scope. So, in my view, extending the authority's responsibility in this way would seriously undermine the ability of the authority to focus on the stability of disused tips and it would make the Bill undeliverable also from a financial perspective as outlined in the regulatory impact assessment. So, for these reasons, I’d ask the committee not to support amendments 12 to 15.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I speak to amendments 12 to 15. The purpose of them would be to widen the definition—as we’ve heard—of 'human welfare' in section 82 to specifically include serious threat by fire and flood and contamination of water. Now, these would be in line with recommendation 30 of our committee's report, as well as a further provision to ensure that the threat of environmental harm is also considered in this context. I believe that these would be necessary to strengthen and clarify the remit of the authority as a body with specific responsibilities for environmental protection. I also hope that amendment 14 will act as an additional safeguard against the possibility that the authority's work could lead to an unintended consequence of further environmental damage.
I was minded to abstain on 13, as I think that the serious contamination of water may already be covered by serious disruption to the supply of water. However, having considered the Welsh Government response to a previous recommendation—basically that consideration will need to be given on a case-by-case basis as to whether the particular circumstances of each case of contamination comprise serious disruption to a supply of water—I have reached the conclusion that Delyth's amendment 13 provides this helpful clarity in law, and as such, it has my support.
Simply to say, Chair, in respect of amendment 13, which seeks to add serious contamination of water to the definition of threat to human welfare, there's no link in this amendment to a threat to human welfare. So, both with 13 and 14, they appear to be seeking to alter the scope of the Bill to turn it into an environmental Bill. Now, this significant broadening of the scope could have an adverse impact on delivery of the core functions of the authority, so that's why I would resist these amendments.
There we are. The question is that amendment 12 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, all those in favour of amendment 12, please show. Three. All those against. Three. No abstentions. So, it's a tie and I use my casting vote in the negative against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders, so amendment 12 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 13 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] We have an objection. So, the question is that amendment 13 be agreed. All those in favour, please show. Three in favour. Those against. Three against. It's tied, so I use my casting vote against the amendment in accordance with Standing Orders, so amendment 13 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 14 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. So, we'll vote on amendment 14. Those in favour, please show. Three in favour. Those against. Three against. It's tied, so I use my casting vote against amendment 14, in accordance with Standing Orders, meaning that amendment 14 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 15 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. So, we'll vote on amendment 15. Those in favour, please show. Three in favour. Those against. Three against. No abstentions. I therefore use my casting vote in the negative against the amendment, in accordance with Standing Orders, and as a consequence amendment 15 is not agreed.
The question is that amendment 72 be agreed. Does any Member object? [Objection.] There's an objection. We move to a vote. Those in favour of amendment 72, please show. Three. Those against. Three. It's tied, so I use my casting vote against amendment 72, in accordance with Standing Orders, so amendment 72 is not agreed.
I move amendment 31 in the name of the Cabinet Secretary. The question is that amendment 31 be agreed. Does any Member object? No objections. So, amendment 31 is agreed.
So, we come to our final group. The eighteenth group of amendments relates to coming into force. The lead amendment in this group is amendment 73, and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move and speak to the lead amendment and the other amendments in the group. Janet.
Thank you. Diolch, Cadeirydd. Amendment 73 would secure that all provisions of the Bill would be enforced by 1 April 2026. Now, I appreciate this would be ambitious, but we've waited long and hard for this to come forward, but I'm concerned that we're going to have to wait until 1 April 2027.
I suspect that you, Delyth—we haven't conferred—have the same idea, so I will support your amendment too. I look forward to hearing from the Cabinet Secretary whether there is any possible chance of bringing provisions of this much-needed legislation into force sooner. Diolch.
Diolch, Cadeirydd. I speak to amendment 1, and it does have a very similar purpose to amendment 73. I do appreciate that there would be substantial and complex practical steps to put this in place earlier. Balancing that with the need to keep in mind that the affected communities have endured decades of inaction under the long, dark shadow of our industrial past—quite literally in this case as well as figuratively—any efforts to accelerate any of the provisions, I think it would be useful for them to be explored, in order to send that clear signal of intent to those affected communities that their needs are being prioritised. And I'd appreciate knowing that, if this is not possible, what communication can be made with affected communities in the interim period to gain further buy-in and further support from them to let them feel and see that their needs are being addressed and that their voices are being heard. Any communication that can be made with those communities—not just communication, not just broadcasting to those communities, but involvement with them—would be really welcome.
Thank you very much. I think I can give you some further explanation of some of the work that we're already doing, actually, that will give reassurance to the communities, but also the wider public, that it's not simply waiting for the new authority to be put in place and all the work to flow; we're doing the work already, and certainly on the community aspect and communication. We have a communication plan currently being developed and it will be implemented in the autumn, so we won't have to wait for the full establishment and the full empowerment of this body.
I get the sentiment behind both of these amendments. We're absolutely committed to bringing forward the authority as quickly as possible, but I just want to urge that word of caution, which is that it's more haste, less speed. We need to do this right as well, because what these communities deserve is for the authority to be there, really, properly functioning with all the resource behind it to do it. So, I'll explain why, but it's not possible simply to magic-up a date and say, 'We can bring this forward a year ahead of when we said'—it is simply not possible, but I'll explain why.
There is an implementation team already in place. It is working on setting up the authority. There's a lot of work to do in a very short space of time. We think the deadline we currently have is achievable, but it is actually also very ambitious, but we're committed to it. There are certain tasks that cannot legally start, by the way, until after we have Royal Assent, which—if the Bill passes, subject to the will of the Senedd—is expected to be in August this year.
For example, let me give some of the practical realities here. I cannot, until we've got Royal Assent, recruit a chair. That process on its own normally takes, based on precedent, around four months; it sometimes takes longer if you don't get the right person, but four months. I can't recruit the chief executive officer. That process normally takes slightly longer, typically about five months, after which the applicant themselves—if they're the right applicant with the right skill set of the right calibre—may need to work a period of notice themselves. That could be, typically, in that sort of job, three to six months.
You can see how this is stacking up. We've thought this through. We haven't plucked the commencement date out of nowhere. I can't start the recruitment of staff and board members to the authority until after the appointment of the chair and the CEO. I can't start the procurement for the new digital, the data, the technology for the authority until we've got the Royal Assent, until those things are under way. The development of the IT system typically takes, for a new organisation like this, around 19 months to complete.
Given your very detailed and, it's fair to say, reasonable explanation, I would like to withdraw that amendment, 73. My final say on the passing of this Bill is to thank you for bringing it forward in the first place. I thank your team, I'd like to thank the lawyers that help us as Members, and my own team, Molly Skates and Mostyn Jones. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
As we all take a sharp breath, can I thank you? It brings us to the end of Stage 2 proceedings. Thank you, Deputy First Minister and your officials, for your attendance this morning. A transcript of the meeting will be sent to you to check for factual accuracy. We don't rest on our laurels, because Stage 3 begins tomorrow, but the relevant dates for Stage 3 proceedings will be published in due course.
Standing Orders make provision for the Member in charge to prepare a revised explanatory memorandum taking account of the amendments agreed today, and the revised memorandum will be laid at least five working days before Stage 3 proceedings, so we look forward to seeing that. Diolch yn fawr iawn, Deputy First Minister and your officials.
Chair, can I just reciprocate by thanking committee members for all the scrutiny they've turned to this, right up until this stage and ongoing? I'm keen to keep on working with you.
That takes us to the third item, which is papers to note. In relation to paper 3.4 on the legislative consent motion for the UK's Planning and Infrastructure Bill, Members are aware that we've had quite a bit of correspondence on that. What I'm suggesting is—I'm aware that the Government has tabled a supplementary LCM, which will come to us for discussion, and we will report on within the next couple of weeks—that maybe we have a discussion on those issues, and I know concerns have been expressed by some in relation to that, at that time, if you're happy to do that. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
Next is item 4, where we propose to move into private session. I propose in accordance with Standing Order 17.42(vi) and (ix) that the committee resolves to meet in private for the remainder of the meeting. Are Members content? We'll pause a moment then whilst we move into private session. Diolch yn fawr.
Let me turn now to the other amendments in the group. I do understand why amendment 32 has been tabled. As we've discussed previously, I've made very clear that I'm aware, as the committee is, that there is a skills gap in this area—and opportunities, by the way, if we can fill that skills gap. We've spoken about that before. However, in my view, this amendment is unnecessary. Firstly, the authority is not a training provider. There are bodies that already exist to provide specialist training. They are funded for it, they have the necessary skills to do so, and my officials are actually working with these bodies, as I've explained to the committee before, to create a skills pipeline to fill this gap.
With regard to placing the authority under a duty to have regard to scientific knowledge about climate change, technology relevant to climate change, and EU and international law and policy related to climate change when carrying out its functions, my first observation is that these provisions are very broad and would place a significant obligation on the authority. Let me point out, when we go back to the primary purposes of this body, the authority is not an environmental body. The authority will, however, comply with applicable environmental legislation. But I think we have to be wary of placing extensive duties upon it that take it above and beyond and, indeed, detract from protecting human welfare. Our priority must be focused on making sure our communities are safe. This is not an environment Bill in and of itself.
Amendment 35 adds a new section to the Bill that expressly provides the authority is a public authority for the purposes of section 6 of the Environment (Wales) Act 2016. Now, this is unnecessary, as the authority is already a public authority for the purposes of that section in that Act.
Amendment 74 would require the authority to set out in its corporate plan how it intends to consider biodiversity when discharging its functions. This is also unnecessary as the authority is already under similar duties under the Environment (Wales) Act 2016.
Turning to amendments 76 and 88, which are linked, they require the authority to have regard to the principles of sustainable management of natural resources and to set out in its annual report how the authority has had regard to these principles when carrying out its functions under the Act. Well, these amendments are unnecessary and inappropriate because, as I've explained, the authority is not involved in the management of natural resources.
And just to expand on that a little bit, those amendments—76 and 88—require the authority to have regard to those principles of sustainable management of natural resources, et cetera, well, the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 places the duties relating to the management of natural resources on Welsh Ministers and Natural Resources Wales; that's what it does. Section 4 of the 2016 Act lists the principles of sustainable management of natural resources. So, this creates—. There is a tension between the authority's role—the principal role that I've said—and the principles listed. The authority's functions won't allow it to do many of the things listed. So, for example, if we consider the appropriate spatial scale for action, this will be set by reference to the locations where operations need to be carried out to prevent tip instability, et cetera, or take action to prevent significant damage to ecosystems. So, what I'm suggesting to you is a question over the appropriateness of those amendments, 76 and 88.
Therefore, I would ask the committee to support amendment 16, but not the other amendments in this group, although I do understand why they've been laid to try and probe our intentions behind this, but I hope I've clarified that many of these are covered in other areas of legislation already.
We need to do more in terms of public meetings. We as Members quite often hold public meetings ourselves on issues that might be considered not as important as this. So, I just can't understand why a Government, putting legislation through, would seek to avoid keeping their community as well informed as they possibly can. I'm really keen to see engagement with local schools and councils. What is genuinely missing in this legislation is clarity as to how the communities living beside these tips are going to be included in the process of making them safe. That has to be addressed, and I will be eager to work with you in order to achieve that. Diolch yn fawr iawn.
First of all, in my view, these amendments would put a disproportionate bureaucratic burden on the authority, which could indeed cause delay and use resources that could be better utilised on other tasks. But also these amendments are not necessary, because existing notice provisions already ensure that those persons affected by the work of the authority will be directly notified. I can’t stress that too much. In addition, these amendments—and I understand why—potentially misunderstand the registration and the notifiable change processes, which are determined by factual and scientific considerations. Those people who may have information that contradicts or undermines the conclusions of the authority are notified under the processes already in the Bill. The wider public, as per the amendments, are very unlikely to have such information. So, it isn’t clear what benefit these amendments would bring, other than possibly, I have to say, to say to people that their voices are not being heard. So, the focus is on the scientific and the technical, the need to deal with instability in the tips. That's the focus. So, I just want to clarify that, what we're trying to do here.
But the authority will also develop a communications and engagement strategy, which will ensure that the work of the authority is widely publicised. I expect that the communications and engagement strategy will be developed ahead of the authority’s establishment on 1 April 2027. And just to say, given the reduced circulation numbers, as we know and we've all talked about, of many local newspapers, I believe that there are far more effective and cost-efficient methods for the authority to achieve the aim of maximising local publicity. I want to give, Janet and Delyth, the authority that opportunity for them to develop their own strategy, which they're obliged to do, and this will be set out in their communications and engagement strategy.
Now, amendment 42 adds a new section requiring the authority to have regard to the need to keep local communities informed about a proposal to make a notifiable change to the register and to consider whether there should be consultation with local communities. Under section 28, 'notifiable change' means a change to the area shown as the area of a disused tip on the map of the register or a change to a disused tip's category. These are matters that are informed by professional, technical opinion as to whether there is a necessity to change or recategorise a tip. Therefore, I do not support amendment 42. As I've already outlined, the best way to keep local communities involved will be through the comms and engagement strategy, and I think that there's a role for the authority in devising how that strategy for comms and engagement with the local community should be. It's different from the notifiable change and the scientific and technical input to that.
Turning to amendments 48 and 66, these amendments essentially do the same thing in relation to sections 35 and 45 of the Bill. Section 35(3) and 45(3) set out that, where a disused tip is referenced in subsection (2) of those sections, it is referring to the tip in the relevant section 33 or 44 notice. The amendment seeks to apply that definition to the whole of section 35 and the whole of section 45, as opposed to just subsection 35(2) and 45(2). Now, this amendment is not necessary because the term 'disused tip' is only referred to in subsection (2) of those provisions.
Amendments 81, 83 and 85 require that the authority must have regard to the representations of any person when making decisions about registering a tip—any person when making decisions about registering a tip—or removing a tip from the register and making changes to the register. Currently, the authority must have regard to any representations about such proposals from a person who was given the relevant notice of the proposed registration, the proposed deregistration or the proposed notifiable change. These amendments could result in a large number of representations being made, which would be administratively unworkable and could cause significant delay. And I keep coming back to that point, bearing in mind the focus of this Bill, that we could be adding delay and additional burden and bureaucracy into this.
Let me explain further. Currently, the authority must have regard to any representations about such proposals from a person who was given the relevant notice. This, we feel, is appropriate and sensible. The current provision does not prevent anyone from making representations to the authority, and the authority has to act within the principles of public law when making its decisions. So, this will include making sure that it considers representations made to it.
So, we will therefore not be supporting the amendments in this group. But, as I mentioned previously, I'm committed to working with Members to bring forward an amendment at Stage 3 that places a duty on the authority to have that website and that sets out what information is to be published on the website as well. Thank you, Chair.
Let me, however, turn to amendments 77 and 78, Delyth, and I have a proposal. I considered these carefully, and I understand the intent behind them. I don't think that it's appropriate to consult on the programme of preliminary assessments, as that programme will be open to change, depending on what is happening at any particular time, so, for example, during an adverse weather event or because of circumstances at a particular tip.
But I'd like to work with Members at Stage 3 to bring forward an amendment to the Bill that will place a duty on the authority to consult such persons as it considers appropriate on the corporate plan, which will include information on the programme of preliminary assessments, and the authority's plans. So, I hope that, on that basis, if we can work together, you'd consider not pushing these amendments and work with us as we go to Stage 3.
In relation to amendment 78, which places a duty on the Welsh Ministers to explain the decision to approve the programme of preliminary assessments, with or without modifications, and the reason for the decision, this specific amendment is not necessary. The Welsh Ministers must act in accordance with the principles of public law and, in so doing, make reasonable rational lawful decisions. So, including this express statutory duty in the Bill will put again an unnecessary administrative burden on the Welsh Ministers. So, for this reason, I would urge the committee not to support this amendment.
Turning to amendment 37, this amendment removes the requirement to state the name of the individual who will carry out the assessment in a notice of intention to carry out a full assessment. Now, this provision was originally included in the Bill as a safeguard for occupiers—i.e. it gave them advance notice of the identity of the person who would be seeking access to the land. However, I recognise that this result can be achieved by extra statutory means.
This amendment would provide the authority with the flexibility to reassign resources at short notice. For example, in the event of a sickness of a planned inspector, it would not delay an inspection from happening. So, the amendment would help in that regard. The planned inspector would still be engaging with the relevant parties in the run-up to an inspection visit, and so their name would be known by the landowners or the occupiers from phone calls or e-mails and so on. And inspectors who are arriving at the land would be carrying ID. The form of that has not been defined, of course, but it would be up to the authority to make sure that they could be identified.
But if a landowner or an occupier is unsure or concerned whether the person who is attending the inspection is the appropriate person, there would be mechanisms in place for them to call the main authority phone number to verify their identity, similar to how householders now would call a local authority or the police to verify the identity of somebody knocking on the door, claiming to be from the council or the police or whatever. So, based on this, we will be supporting amendment 37. Thank you, Chair.
The Cabinet Secretary has also previously given assurances that such legislative mechanisms would not be necessary in any case, given this Government's commitment to climate action. Of course, I'm more than willing to accept that, but as we all know, the political landscape is especially volatile at the moment, with all the forces of the hard right, with their climate denialism, amassing at the gates, and we need to make every effort to futureproof this Bill against those who might in the future seek to distort its worthy principles for nefarious ends. For these reasons, I am afraid I cannot support amendment 44 in this group, which I believe runs completely contrary to the spirit of the Bill and, indeed, some of the other amendments that have been tabled by Janet in relation to biodiversity. I think that that amendment would take us into dangerous territory. I think if it were passed, it would send a very ugly message to communities that have already suffered so much from the fallout of humanity's reckless exploitation of the planet, and particularly of our Valleys.
At this stage, I can't support amendment 45 either. Although I do sympathise with its aims, I'm concerned about whether there would be unintended consequences of slowing down the pace of clean-up operations in practice. So, I will be abstaining on that amendment, but I would welcome further assurances that perhaps my fears might be unfounded on that. But, in terms of the amendments in my name in this group, I really would urge committee members to support them.
Welsh Ministers determine what are the exceptional circumstances in each case, and I’m confident that the policy is in place to strictly control extraction. But, as Joyce and other Members have said, there will be occasions where there may be a need to move coal, and to move coal off a site to make it safe, under the purposes of this Bill, to actually protect those communities we were concerned about.
So, whilst I understand the intention behind amendments 5 and 6, which seek to prevent landowners and the authority from selling coal to a person who intends to burn it, just to be clear, legislating to achieve this is not without some significant technical difficulties. Should the amendments be passed—amendments 5 and 6 in Delyth’s name—I do not believe they’ll actually achieve the intended objective. The amendment would prohibit landowners and the authority from selling coal for the purpose of burning. It would not prevent the person buying the coal from burning it.
However, I have taken on board the continuing concerns being expressed by Members, and I am keen to provide some additional assurance. So, I therefore ask my officials to take forward work immediately to amend the Town and Country Planning (Notification) (Coal and Petroleum) (Wales) Direction 2018 to make it absolutely explicit that the definition of ‘coal development’ includes operations connected with disused coal tips. We think it’s clear, but, in case it isn’t clear, we will make it explicit. So, work has already started on this update, and more information will be developed as we develop the update, and I’m very happy that we share ongoing work and progress on that with the committee.
So, for the reasons I've set out above, and with the assurance I've given and the additional work that we will do to amend the Town and Country Planning (Notification) (Coal and Petroleum) (Wales) Direction 2018 to make it explicit that the definition of coal development includes the operations connected with disused coal tips, I would ask the committee not to support these amendments, but I understand the intention behind them.
Even if this were the case, the amendments are unnecessarily restrictive and inflexible. I'll explain why. The reference to a person appointed by the Welsh Ministers has been deliberately included as it gives the Welsh Ministers flexibility in terms of who determines the applications under sections 36 and 41. This flexibility could be very important if there is an extremely urgent case or if an organisation does not have the expertise to hear a particular case. It's deliberate. But I can confirm that the policy has not changed. My intention is still to appoint PEDW to determine these appeals, but it is important that the Welsh Government retains the flexibility to respond to changing circumstances.
Amendment 27 provides that regulations made under section 10, the duty to monitor registered tips, are subject to the affirmative procedure too. This is in keeping with recommendation 22 of the LJC committee's report as the regulation-making power in section 10 confers a power to amend primary legislation. Therefore I would also ask committee to support this amendment, which is in line with committee's recommendations.
Amendment 58 tabled by Janet requires Welsh Ministers to publish guidance about the appeals process under section 36 and it references the revision of such guidance. Just to say that it's in my clear view that this duplicates the effect of Government amendment 26, so my preference, Janet, is to ask the committee to support amendment 26.
Amendment 68 tabled by Janet requires Welsh Ministers to publish guidance on the appeals process under section 52, with an associated power to amend such guidance. Just for clarity, we do not consider that this is appropriate as appeals under section 52 are for the courts to determine. It's not appropriate for Welsh Ministers to give guidance to the courts.
Turning finally to amendment 72, this amendment requires Welsh Ministers to publish guidance about what might constitute a threat to human welfare under section 82. I do understand the thinking behind this amendment. We will absolutely provide guidance on this, but it will be in the context of the guidance that we are providing in relation to the authority's functions on, for example, monitoring and assessment and their management plans, so the guidance will be there.
In my view, this guidance in that context will be much more useful than stand-alone guidance. I also fear that examples contained in stand-alone guidance could be treated as a definitive list of the circumstances that would give rise to the threat to human welfare—we want to strenuously avoid that. Therefore, for the reasons outlined, I would ask committee not to support this amendment but please to support the Government amendments, which seek to work in the grain of the recommendations of committees.
Now, in our earlier discussions on this in Stage 1, I made the point then that no-one has been able to say exactly what is covered by these loose and broad terms of 'environmental law' and 'planning law', what precisely needs to be switched off in the case of a direction or an emergency. Since it's unclear what's meant by 'planning' or 'environmental' law, let me make clear that this could potentially capture elements of reserved areas.
The suggestion that Welsh Ministers take a regulation-making power to switch off environmental and planning laws is not a new one. As I stated during Stage 1, it's something we have looked at. However, for the reasons I've outlined above, our view is that such a direction is unworkable, not to mention highly unusual, but I'm really satisfied that the better solution is to strengthen the emergency planning, which is what we've done with amendment 24 on management plans, which we'll be discussing later in one of the subsequent groups.
So, therefore, whilst I understand what you're trying to drive at here, I'm asking the committee not to vote for amendment 67.
On your bigger point, Delyth, just to return to it, I just want to make clear that what you've said today we agree with. We need the UK Government to step up as well. This is a joint endeavour. It has to be. We are pleased with the contribution that came forward last year. It'll take us to £102 million by the end of this Parliament. We've had a £25 million one-year contribution from the UK Government.
The Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Welsh Language has written to his Treasury counterpart in the UK Government to say, 'Here's the quantum we need for next year, the year after and the year after', bearing in mind this is a multi-year programme that we are talking about, and we think this is right.
The First Minister herself has raised this directly with Keir Starmer, the Prime Minister, and with others, and I raise it as well. So I think they're pretty clear—as clear can be—that this is a shared responsibility. But the amendment is probably unworkable for the reasons that I've said, but I understand the sentiment. So, I ask the committee to vote against these amendments.
In my view, amendment 86 isn't necessary, but it's also not sufficient. This is because I believe that the criminal sanctions regime in the Bill is sufficient to fully enforce the Bill's provisions. But it also reflects, frankly, the severity of the Bill's offences, the kinds of matters to which the Bill applies criminal sanctions—such as obstructing monitoring activities or assessments, failing to comply with notices that require operations. They are of such a level of seriousness, Cadeirydd, that civil sanctions are considered inadequate, and, in fact, they'd send the wrong message.
But that doesn't take away from the collaborative effort and the nature of the authority to engage with landowners, to work with them, and so on. But at the point where they say, 'I'm sorry, no entry, you're not coming on, I'm not working with you', well, actually, it's not civil sanctions at that point; when there's work that it is needed, there are other sanctions available. But also, including the supplementary civil sanctions—. As we mentioned previously in discussions earlier in committee, adding those civil sanctions to the regime not only would be unnecessary, but it could place excessive administrative and bureaucratic burdens on the authority. So, this amendment has the potential to divert those vital resources, financial and otherwise, away from the authority's core purpose, which is preventing disused tips from threatening human welfare by reason of their instability.
Amendments 97, 96, 86 make the regulations under amendments 92, 93 or 86 subject to the affirmative procedure. But, as I say, for the reasons set out, I'm asking the committee not to support these amendments, because they're not needed.
If the offence isn’t capable of being proven, we should not be creating such an offence. Criminal offences have to be reasonable, rational and have a sufficient level of foreseeability. That is, a person should be able to tell if they are committing an offence or not. So, when you say to somebody that they have to consider that the information ought to be shared with the authority in the interest of avoiding or reducing the threat to human welfare, that’s an interesting one in a court of law.
So, in my view, these amendments are unclear, but they’re also unreasonable. They appear to place a duty on an owner requiring them to make the judgment when a disused tip is threatened with instability, and then potentially be punished if they don’t report this to the authority. It’s unreasonable to expect laypersons to be able to make such a technical assessment, and, moreover, potentially punishing them for, in effect, not having the correct skill set. So, I’m concerned that this provision, whilst I understand why it’s been made, may conflict with the very fundamental principles of public law, and it does not clearly set out the parameters of the criminal offence.
In addition, Chair, the amendment doesn’t specify that the owners must be owners of land on which a disused tip is situated or land adjoining such a tip. So, accordingly, any person who owns any land anywhere in the UK, or, just to stretch this a bit, anywhere in the world, is potentially liable under this new section if the person fails to give the authority information in relation to any disused tips in Wales. That is clearly, in my view, unworkable.
If a person notices an issue with a disused tip, they can indeed report it to the authority, and the authority, of course, as we’ve discussed, will be carrying out regular programmes of expert inspection. So, for these reasons, I ask the committee not to support amendments 94 and 95.
There's no way to fast-track this; that's what it takes to set up a new body. I can't finalise the governance structure or start discussions with staff who could be impacted by the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations from the existing organisations who might move across. Where TUPE applies, there'll need to be sufficient time to enable all the relevant organisations to comply with their legal obligations and facilitate a smooth transfer of staff. I definitely cannot finalise pension arrangements. It's a process that, typically, based on precedent, takes between 9 and 12 months.
By the way, for some of this piece of work, the implementation plan is already in place. So, it's not that one follows after another; it's very carefully being mapped out how we do this to arrive at the time that we've currently got of the commencement of the authority. But as I've previously set out to Members, establishing the authority on 1 April 2027 is achievable, even though it's ambitious, and it's because of the work we're currently doing. In my view, it is the earliest possible date.
Moving delivery a year forward would not allow sufficient time to undertake those actions I've outlined, and nor would it give time to implement and to validate things such as essential cybersecurity controls across multiple systems. If we didn't do that, we'd significantly increase the risk of the authority being vulnerable to data attacks—creating a risk, by the way, to personal data as well as tip management data.
Throughout the development of the Bill, we've engaged and consulted with stakeholders. We'll continue to take this collaborative, considered approach in the development of everything we do, including the timeline and the planning for the full implementation and the guidance and other things that we've touched on today.
It's also important to recognise that whilst the authority will be established on 1 April 2027, the Welsh Government and the Mining Remediation Authority will continue their work—and this is the important point. As well as that communication strategy that is under way, and that will be brought forward in the autumn, the other work continues on disused tip safety until the authority’s functions come into force. This will ensure we've got a seamless transition to the new authority. I can also give the assurance to committee we're already working to ensure that appropriate transitional arrangements will be put in place so that we have that continuity from the current regime, to the new regime.
Given those logistical difficulties involved in setting up a new body, one of the things I really don't want to do here is create a real reputational risk, setting up the authority in a rushed way where it's not able to carry out its functions due to a lack of proper implementation, or rushed implementation. Given the importance of public trust in this authority, it could be very damaging if a lack of lead time, a curtailed lead time, led to, for example, IT systems that aren’t fit for purpose, or a lack of skilled people to carry out the authority’s functions. It could lead, by the way, to an increased risk of challenge if the authority isn’t carrying out its functions in the way it's required to do. So, for all of those very good, practical, hard-hitting reasons, whilst I understand the intention behind asking can we bring it forward, it is not possible. So, I'd ask the committee not to support those amendments today.