The following amendments have been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Jane Hutt, and amendment 2 in the name of Paul Davies.

The next item on the agenda is the Plaid Cymru debate on the rural economy. I call on Simon Thomas to move the motion.

Motion NDM6111 Rhun ap Iorwerth

To propose that the National Assembly for Wales:

1. Calls on the Welsh Government to provide clarity regarding funding for Rural Development Plan projects post January 2017 and provide a more proactive approach to the current programme.

2. Affirms that remaining part of the single market is the best current option to ensure tariff and quota free access to that market.

3. Recognises the importance of migrant workers to the rural economy.

Motion moved.

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I move the motion in the name of Plaid Cymru and say how appropriate it is, I think, at this time that we discuss the importance of the rural development plan as part of the way in which the Government is dealing with rural communities and how important it is to deal properly and appropriately, as we leave the European Union, with the way in which the rural development plan works. We have discussed quite a lot in this Senedd the assistance that farmers get, but it’s important to remember that the other part of this support that comes from the EU is that which is broader under the rural development plan for making the agricultural industry more competitive, to ensure that there are sustainable and developmental resources, which are against climate change, and also to develop an economy that is balanced in rural areas.

This money is very valuable to Wales. It’s nearly £1 billion for a three-year plan from 2014 to 2020, and about half of that money is coming from the Welsh Government itself. I think that the best way that we can discuss how important this scheme is just to describe what I did on Monday in visiting the Blaencwm farm, Cynllwyd. I was welcomed by the Jones family there. It’s a mixed farm, about 5 miles from Llanuwchllyn—a sheep farm and a farm where there is a variety and a number of new enterprises that have been developed by the family over the last few years. They have a timber industry and over the last few years they have put biomass heaters there in order to use the wood chippings to heat the homes and to dry out the timber in the first place. They’ve used Glastir, the efficiency grant, to have a new storeroom for slurry, and a shed that goes alongside that in order to extend the number of calves that they can keep. In the wake of that, of course, the slurry is stored better and is distributed better on the land as well. In terms of improving the landscape, the grass and the hedges, there are all kinds of things coming together, from the traditional farming methods, if you like—it’s an upland family farm, which has been in the same family for 10 generations, by the way—to the most new and traditional methods to sustain the habitat for biodiversity and preventing climate change.

Now, in that context, I think it is important that farmers such as the Joneses in Blaencwm have an assurance about what’s happening with the rural development plan. Until now, the Government has only drawn down about £30 million of the money, which, as I said, is up to about £1 billion over six years. So, in two years of a six-year plan, only about 10 per cent—a little bit more, perhaps, if you include the money from the Government as well, but it can’t be more than 10 per cent of the money that has been spent. With the decision to withdraw from the European Union, we need to ask what the Government is going to do now to ensure that that money is spent and used in the most appropriate way in the years to come.

The Government has already said that it wishes to keep to any plan that has been formally approved by January 2017. But since they’ve said that, the Westminster Government has said that the money that it expects to be available for the environmental and agricultural funds will be in place until Brexit happens in 2019-20. So, I hope today that the Cabinet Secretary will be able to confirm that the Government wants to continue with the rural development plan in its present form until at least the time when we withdraw from the European Union.

There are two other elements to the motion that we have today. The first one underlines how important the membership of the single market is in terms of the current situation. Without anyone having made a better offer in terms of our relationship with the rest of the European Union, which doesn’t include quotas or any tariffs on Welsh agricultural produce, Plaid Cymru is still of the opinion that membership of the single market is vital. That opinion has been endorsed by the consultation that we undertook over the summer with the agricultural industry and the broader industry, the environment bodies as well, which feel that two things should continue: agricultural legislation and also the ability to be a part of a system without quotas and tariffs under the single market. In the absence of any other proposal by the Westminster Government or the Welsh Government in terms of the relationship with the EU that continues with those characteristics, Plaid Cymru believes that membership of the market is vital at present.

The final part of the motion is to do with the movement of people. We’re in the situation that Plaid Cymru, the national party, as people call us—or people call us the ‘narrow nationalists’ sometimes too—is the only party that believes in the movement of people across borders and believes that borders shouldn’t prevent people from contributing to the economy in different areas. It’s true to say that the evidence, for example from the Wales Governance Centre, shows that there wasn’t a real effect in terms of the people from outside the UK in terms of the agricultural sector within Wales. That is something to remember. We’re in a situation now where the Home Secretary wants to list the foreigners who work for companies. I wouldn’t have thought that the Conservative Party, which used to believe in the free market, would enforce this on companies, but that’s the sad situation we’re in. And unfortunately, the Labour Party is going along with that disgusting attitude towards outsiders or people from outside the current country.

The Deputy Presiding Officer (Ann Jones) took the Chair.

I’m pleased to say that the SNP, the Green Party and Plaid Cymru have signed an agreement to fight against that disgusting attitude towards people from outside the UK. We still believe that it’s vital for the agricultural sector to foster the seasonal workers and the worker who contribute so much to our food production sector.

I have selected the two amendments to the motion. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs to formally move amendment 1, tabled in the name of Jane Hutt.

Amendment 1—Jane Hutt

In point 1, delete all after ‘Calls on the’ and replace with:

‘UK Government to provide an unconditional guarantee to fund all projects contracted under the Rural Development Programme 2014-20 after the Autumn Statement until 2023.’

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally.

Thank you. I call on Paul Davies to move amendment 2, tabled in his name. Paul.

Amendment 2—Paul Davies

Delete point 2 and replace with:

Affirms the importance of access to the single market for Welsh rural businesses.

Amendment 2 moved.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I move amendment 2 in my name. I am pleased to participate in this important debate and to highlight the importance of funding from the rural development programme for our rural communities. Of course, we on this side of the Chamber agree with the first point of the motion, which calls on Welsh Government to give us clarity on funding for rural development plan projects post January 2017, and to provide a more proactive approach to the current programme. The Welsh Government must ensure that schemes and grants provided through the rural development plan are accessible to rural businesses, and that farmers also can take part easily in these schemes.

Welsh Government have made it clear that they are eager to support projects that will lead to transformational change in the way in which farms are run, rather than supporting projects that would only produce minimal improvements. But, the figures show that, under the first bidding round for the sustainable production grant scheme, out of 271 that expressed an interest, only 12 were asked to submit full bids and applications. Perhaps, in responding to this debate, the Cabinet Secretary can explain that if the Welsh Government are really looking for transformational change, why only 12 out of 271 that expressed an interest have been accepted to submit full applications. It’s essential that the Cabinet Secretary confirms that there won’t be any changes to the single payment in Wales, or any changes to payments under the rural development programme, until 2020, especially as the Chancellor of the Exchequer has given a guarantee now that European Union funding will be guaranteed until 2020.

This second point of the motion refers to the single market and the position of farmers in Wales after Brexit. Members will be aware that I voted to remain in the European Union, so, obviously, I wanted to remain in the single market, as it is essential to our economy and especially the economy of rural areas. But, we must now respect the wish of the people of Britain and the people of Wales who voted to leave the European Union. So, it is vital that the UK Government, together with the devolved administrations, discusses the very best deal with the European Union, to gain access to the single market.

The farming unions have launched their own consultations and Brexit surveys over the summer. I hope that Welsh Government is playing its role in engaging fully with the farming unions, and farmers themselves, in discussing agricultural policies. I accept that the Cabinet Secretary said recently, and I quote, that

‘a great deal of work…has taken place over the summer with the farming sector, looking at what we will do post Brexit’.

I hope that that is true. However, I am disappointed that the Cabinet Secretary has had very little engagement with the United Kingdom Government since the referendum. In response to my written question recently, the Cabinet Secretary has made it quite clear that, since the vote, she has met with the Secretary of State at the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs only once, and that was at the Royal Welsh Show. I think that this shows a lack of interest, and a lack of priority, from Welsh Government regarding our rural communities. Considering the importance of agriculture to Wales and the massive difference the results of the EU referendum could have on Welsh farmers, I am concerned that the Cabinet Secretary hasn’t done more to engage with the United Kingdom Government.

I yield to Mark Reckless.

Surely if the Cabinet Secretary hasn’t met the Secretary of State for DEFRA or other UK Ministers sufficiently for the Member’s liking, is that not a matter that has two sides to it, and should there not be some responsibility taken by Ministers in London for not reaching out sufficiently to Welsh Ministers?

Of course, the responsibility lies on both sides. But the point I’m making is that she has only met the Minister of State once, and they have a responsibility, as a Welsh Government, to actually engage with the UK Government on this issue.

Mae trydydd pwynt y cynnig yma yn cydnabod pwysigrwydd gweithwyr mudol i’r economi wledig. Mae’n amlwg bod yn rhaid i farchnadoedd llafur a chynllunio’r gweithlu gael eu hystyried yn ofalus wrth gynllunio ar gyfer gadael yr Undeb Ewropeaidd. Mae mewnfudwyr o’r Undeb Ewropeaidd yn gwneud cyfraniad enfawr a phwysig, nid yn unig i’r diwydiant amaethyddol yng Nghymru, ond i ddiwydiannau a sectorau gwledig eraill hefyd. Yn ôl CLA Cymru, yn 2015, roedd mwy na 30,000 o bobl a oedd yn wreiddiol o’r tu allan i’r Deyrnas Unedig yn cael eu cyflogi mewn amaethyddiaeth, ac roedd un o bob pedwar o weithwyr yn y sector twristiaeth a lletygarwch yn dod yn wreiddiol o du allan i’r Deyrnas Unedig. Ac fel Aelod Cynulliad sy’n cynrychioli etholaeth sydd yn dibynnu’n drwm ar amaethyddiaeth a thwristiaeth, rwy’n derbyn yn llwyr y gallai newidiadau i bolisïau llafur mudo gael effaith negyddol enfawr ar economïau lleol yn fy ardal i, a dyna pam mae’n rhaid i Lywodraeth Cymru sicrhau bod ffermio yng Nghymru a busnesau gwledig wrth wraidd unrhyw drafodaethau ynghylch Brexit, a dyma pam mae’n rhaid i Lywodraeth Cymru fod yn gwneud llawer mwy i ymgysylltu â Llywodraeth y Deyrnas Unedig ar y materion hyn.

Felly, wrth gau, Ddirprwy Lywydd, rwyf am unwaith eto ailadrodd pa mor bwysig yw hi i Lywodraeth Cymru weithio’n fwy rhagweithiol i gefnogi cymunedau gwledig a’r diwydiant ffermio yng Nghymru. Mae’n hanfodol bod Llywodraeth Cymru yn camu fyny at y marc ac yn gweithredu ei chynlluniau ar gyfer y rhaglen datblygu gwledig yn effeithiol ac yn effeithlon, fel bod ein cymunedau gwledig yn cael eu cefnogi yn llawn. Ac, felly, rwy’n annog Aelodau i gefnogi ein gwelliant. Diolch.

We’re grateful to Simon Thomas for introducing this important debate today. It’s a pity it’s only 30 minutes. One of the reasons why we objected yesterday to yet another debate on the Government’s legislative programme for five years was that it took up valuable time that could be better spent talking about individual topics such as those that we are discussing today. Nonetheless, we’re grateful to Plaid Cymru for introducing this debate, because the rural economy is vitally important, of course, to Simon, who is a representative of Mid and West Wales, as am I, and we have the health and prosperity of our constituents at the forefront of our minds.

But, unfortunately, unlike Plaid Cymru, I see leaving the EU as an opportunity rather than taking the pessimistic view that Plaid Cymru does. But, I’m grateful also to them for affirming today that they’re against immigration controls. That is a principal reason why, of course, we are leaving the EU—you can’t just see a Wales or an individual sector like agriculture in isolation from everything else. The background reality is that there will be controls on migration, and we have now to take advantage of the opportunities that the freedom to take our decisions gives us. It’s up to our Government, whether it be in Cardiff or at Westminster, to take those decisions. Of course, I’ve said previously many times that every single penny of taxpayers’ money that comes out of British taxpayers’ pockets, which the EU spends on its priorities in Wales, should be protected overall, and we can spend that money and that budget in the ways that we think best suit our priorities. And there is a Brexit dividend as well, in as much as we have a massive net contribution that we pay—so much of our contribution to the EU is spent on other farmers in other parts of the EU, which should be spent on farmers and rural industries in this country.

So, there’s no reason to think that the current budgets, which are being spent in total, will be cut. In fact, there’s every opportunity to increase them, and indeed to make sure that the money that is currently being spent is better spent. In addition to things like the basic payment scheme, which is the foundation of farm incomes, the various individual projects, like the rural development plan and the projects that are within it, may be maintained, may be enhanced, may be cut. But it’s our decision and not that of unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. Ministers here, and perhaps in Westminster, will be responsible and accountable to us, and I think that that, in terms of democracy, is a significant advance—

Will the Member give way?

Yes, sure.

Just on that point, and I agree that it has to be our decision, obviously; would he therefore reject any moves by the Westminster Government also to hold back either resources or powers without devolving them fully to this place?

Yes, I certainly would. I agree with the Member on that point. I see the opportunity here to enhance devolution. In particular, because agriculture is a devolved matter, it now gives us an opportunity as an Assembly to have a real influence upon the policy that is going to affect farmers on a day-to-day basis in their working lives. I think that’s a massive advance.

There will be particular problems if we don’t secure a trade deal with the EU. We know that in beef and lamb, almost all our exports go to the EU, and therefore it is vitally important that we use all our negotiating power to secure free access to the single market. But that is not the same thing as membership of the single market. It’s not necessary to be part of a political union with a trading partner in order to carry out that trade. Actually, our biggest trading partner is not any individual member state of the EU, but the United States, and the second biggest partner in exports from Wales to the rest of the world is the United Arab Emirates. Individual member states of the EU are dotted around in the next 10 or 12 member states in the list.

So, we have to see this in a global context as well. The European Union is sclerotic and declining, relative to the rest of the world. Exports from Wales to the EU have fallen by 11 per cent and that’s because the EU economy is not succeeding because of the eurozone and all the other crises that afflict it, but the rest of the world is expanding. So, the world is our oyster. This is our great opportunity. We can enter into free-trade agreements with the rest of the world, which are currently stymied within this structure of the EU, like trade agreements with the United States—the trade agreement with Canada is not yet fully implemented—and countries like India and China. The EU has no trade agreements with them and yet these are the great growth engines of the world.

Unfortunately, I realise that time is very limited and I can’t make all the points that I would wish to, but I do implore Members opposite to see this as an opportunity, not as a challenge—not something to be feared, but something to be welcomed.

Thank you. I call on the Cabinet Secretary for Environment and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer, and I’m pleased to respond to this debate on behalf of the Government. As a Government, we’ve been absolutely clear about our commitment to provide support to deliver successful and sustainable rural communities. Our rural development programme supports a broad range of individuals, businesses, organisations and communities, including farming families and farm businesses. It boosts our rural economy, by providing avenues of funding for, amongst other things, better access to childcare, tourism, community energy creation and better land management.

To date, the total funding committed to the programme stands at around £530 million. That is over half of the funding in a little over two years for what is a seven-year programme. The majority of that significant investment goes to farmers and foresters and, of course, there is a time lag and the spend will catch up with the commitment in due course. At least 15 different schemes have opened with funding awarded, including the sustainable production grant, the food business investment grant and the rural community development fund.

We co-finance the programme with the European Union and so fully expect the UK Government to provide an unconditional guarantee to fund all projects contracted under the programme for their lifetime, and therefore we welcome Monday’s guarantee from the UK Treasury. However, this still falls short of a guarantee that all EU funding will be secured.

Of course, until the UK exits the EU, the funding continues, as do our obligations. All existing rural development programme contracts will be honoured. Like Simon Thomas, who opened this debate, I’ve visited many farms and have seen for myself the benefits that the RDP funding brings. As a responsible Government, it was pertinent to put the 2017 Glastir advance window on hold, until we have clear undertakings from the UK Government on funding. [Interruption.] No, I haven’t got time, sorry. Following a previous announcement from the UK Treasury in August, we recommenced negotiations with applicants straightaway and expect to approve contracts in the normal run of business.

Turning to point 2 of the motion, we accept Plaid Cymru’s point and so there is no logical basis to accept the Conservative amendment. In my many discussions with the agriculture, food and fisheries sectors since 23 June, this is the one issue that comes up time and time again: access to the single market, to 500 million people, tariff free is crucial. A point made clear also by the First Minister and my Cabinet colleague the Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure. Full and unfettered access to the EU single market is a fundamental priority and a red line.

The EU taken as a whole is the UK’s major trading partner. Wales exports significant amounts of its produce. In 2015, the food and drink exported directly from Wales was worth over £264 million—over 90 per cent was exported to the EU. Red meat exports are worth well over £200 million a year and seafood exports are worth £29.2 million, with 80 per cent exported to the EU.

This week, the Prime Minister has indicated she will trigger article 50 by the end of March 2017. The issue of free movement of people is something that will need to be examined and discussed as part of the negotiations of that exit. However, I know that the importance of migrant workers to the rural economy and wider is unquestionable. Free movement of labour has supported industries and services such as agriculture and food processing that are reliant on a level of movement within the EU. Since 2005, the percentage of immigrant workers in the Welsh labour force has doubled. It is important to acknowledge their value and respect their contribution to our Welsh economy, and reject discrimination, inequity and prejudice, which are often aimed at these workers.

Picking up Paul Davies’s point, tomorrow, I will again be meeting with George Eustice, the UK Government’s Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in London. Unfortunately, the DEFRA Secretary of State was not available, again. At the weekend, I’ll be heading to Luxembourg for an EU Agriculture and Fisheries Council, and, again, meeting my ministerial counterparts, where further discussion on Brexit and other matters with the Ministers I will discuss.

Dialogue is two way, Paul Davies—you should bear that in mind. My officials have engaged weekly with DEFRA officials, and it’s really important that those officials in DEFRA respect devolution. It is also very crucial that we build a common understanding across the four administrations and that we have a shared position with respect to the key opportunities, the challenges, the risks and the threats posed as a result of the vote to leave the EU. But I’ve made it very clear to my ministerial counterparts that agriculture has been devolved to this place for 17 years and we expect full repatriation of the legislation, policies and powers to this place when the time comes.

Thank you. I call on Simon Thomas to reply to the debate.

I’m grateful to all Members who took part in the debate. Clearly, this will be an ongoing conversation that we need to have, but I think three clear themes have emerged.

First of all, we must ensure that there is no holding back of the powers or resources in London when we move away from the European Union. It was very disappointing to me that Andrew R.T. Davies, when he managed to have his breakfast, came up with this strange idea that structural funds should be administered directly from London into Wales. That principle—yielding it on the economy—means that we could yield it also in agriculture. Structural funds have also been devolved for the last 17 years, and the history of direct London intervention in the Welsh economy, with garden festivals and overnight inward-investment projects that never actually bore fruit, is extremely bad as well, so we need to fight for that principle.

The second principle I think that Plaid Cymru is interested in is that, in the current situation, continuing membership of the single market is the best way forward, certainly for our agricultural sector. There is a difference between membership of the single market and of the political union. It is curious that those who argued, for 20 years and more, that the single market and the customs union had become too political now want to give up that central part of free-market trading relationships when we have given up on the political union, and I think we need to bear that in mind.

The third point is about how we ensure that farmers get access to these funds now, and I think we need to see more from the Government, now that we have certainty of the funding for the foreseeable future. [Interruption.] I don’t have time, no. Now that we have the certainty of funding for the foreseeable future, I want to see the Government move on much more quickly with the current Glastir and rural development programme schemes so that farmers are able to make the best use of them. I know that there are good projects out there—let’s make sure that we share that best practice.

Thank you very much. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] Thank you. Therefore, we defer voting under this item until voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.