Questions now from party spokespeople to the Cabinet Secretary. The Welsh Conservatives’ spokesperson, Paul Davies.

Diolch, Lywydd. Cabinet Secretary, this lunchtime, I co-sponsored a National Farmers Union briefing session, with Angela Burns, on the Welsh Government’s proposals for nitrate vulnerable zones. There are some very, very serious concerns regarding the consultation proposals, which could impose huge burdens on farmers and, as a result, force many out of business. Given the First Minister’s comments that it’s up to the Welsh Government now to decide which laws should be retained and which shouldn’t be retained following the UK’s decision to leave the European Union, could you explain why the Welsh Government has proceeded with this consultation to introduce nitrate vulnerable zones, which is as a result of a European directive?

Because we’re still in the European Union.

Well, I need to say to the Cabinet Secretary that she has an opportunity here to look at these proposals once again given that we are now leaving the European Union. I appreciate that we need to maintain the quality of our natural environment and, for that reason, it is worrying, incidentally, that a regulatory impact assessment hasn’t been provided alongside the consultation document, because surely a regulatory impact assessment is crucial to demonstrate how these proposals will result in an improvement to our water quality and to our natural environment. Can you, therefore, explain to us why a regulatory impact assessment has not been issued alongside the Welsh Government’s proposals?

I go back to your first question: implementation of the nitrates directive is a European obligation, and whilst we still are part of the EEC, and we’re going to be still part of the EEC for at least the next two and a half years, we are committed to comply with these obligations. I have to say that minimum standards were introduced for the storage of slurry over 25 years ago—25 years ago—and the assessments we’ve done show that around 65 per cent of farms do not meet these standards. My message has been to farmers, when they’ve raised this with me, is that for those already meeting existing storage standards, the cost of compliance with NVZ requirements would be minimal. To me, that’s rewarding good practice, and I think that’s really important. As I say, we’re out to consultation and there will be an RIA published in due course.

Well, it is disappointing that an RIA hasn’t been published alongside the consultation document, and is it not the case that a regulatory impact assessment hasn’t been issued because there is simply not enough scientific evidence to support the Welsh Government’s plans? Not only is there not enough scientific evidence, but these proposals will actually cripple farmers across Wales and have a significant effect on the wider rural economy. And it seems to me that these proposals are simply a sledgehammer to actually crack a nut and, no doubt, the findings of the consultation will actually echo these concerns. So, in the circumstances, can you tell us why the Welsh Government has not adopted a voluntary approach on this matter, and, following the consultation, will you now take on board the views of farmers and, indeed, the agricultural industry and consider working with them by adopting voluntary measures instead?

I don’t agree with the question that you asked me. I don’t want to pre-empt the consultation. I’m very happy to work with the industry. I mentioned in my previous answer to you how long these standards have been there, what our assessments have shown and that, for those already meeting existing storage standards, the requirement would be minimal. And I think that is really important and it’s really important that we recognise and reward good behaviour.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Simon Thomas.

Diolch, Lywydd. Minister, I want to talk about another European directive, but I just want to put on record that I’ve written to you asking you to adopt the voluntary approach on the NVZ directive as well. But what assessments have you made of the High Court ruling last month that DEFRA’s air quality plan under the air quality directive did not, in fact, comply?

Officials are looking very much at the court case that was undertaken and, obviously, came down against the UK Government. I haven’t got that information to hand at the moment, but I’m very happy to share it when I do have it.

Well, thank you, Minister. I think it is a very important court case and it’s one that might be against DEFRA but it’s actually a UK reporting responsibility under the air quality directive. So, it does affect us, and it overtook or ran concurrently with your own consultation on air quality, which closed on 6 December. In that consultation on air quality you said this:

‘There is considerable uncertainty about the extent to which we will still be bound by our current EU obligations— though your response to Paul Davies sounds like you are bound by your current EU obligations— relating to air and noise pollution following the UK’s withdrawal from the European Union. Therefore, we are not yet in a position to state precisely what further action we propose to take forward in the second, third, fourth and fifth years of this Assembly.’

Can I put it to you, Minister, that having had an estimate from the British Lung Foundation that air pollution in Wales is linked to over 1,300 early deaths—that’s the Welsh figure; we’ve heard UK figures before; that’s the Welsh figure—can you really be so laissez-faire in your response to tackling air pollution?

No, I am not laissez-faire at all, and it’s because of my concerns that so soon after I came into post I launched the consultation. We do have both European and national legislative frameworks in place in Wales. It does concern me greatly. We certainly have hotspots, if hotspots is the right word, of really poor air quality, which concerns me. You mentioned the consultation that closed on 6 December. Officials have already started analysing the responses, and I’ll be able to bring forward, obviously, more information when that’s complete.

Well, I hope that more information also includes your response to the High Court judgment, and also I hope that you can take into account the fast-moving public policy in this area. Five of the cities that I think you actually joined with in a regional network following Marrakech have signed up to the proposal of banning diesel transport from the cities. Often, diesel cars are seen as a particular problem, though in fact it’s diesel lorries and transport that creates most of the pollution. Jeremy Corbyn has suggested banning all fossil fuel cars; it might not be his most—. [Interruption.] All cars, in fact; yes, possibly. It might not be his most ridiculous suggestion, actually, because Copenhagen has already suggested that in 10 years. Paris is looking at it. Cars are banned on alternate days in many cities throughout the world. But, of course, the answer is not to attack private cars; the answer is to move to an electricity infrastructure. And the answer is to use the tools that we have here already in Wales—the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, the Active Travel (Wales) Act 2013 and the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 to achieve those policy proposals. So, in response to what other cities are doing, how can Wales step up and really achieve that transition away from personal fossil fuel-driven transportation to that of electric vehicles and much more sustainable integrated public transport?

You’re absolutely right. The C40—the group of cities that you’re referring to—I met with several of the mayors when I was in Marrakech at COP22, and it was really interesting to hear about their plans to end the use of diesel cars, for instance, by 2025. Other countries are looking to do it also by 2030, 2035, and we have to keep pace, otherwise we’re going to look like dinosaurs. So, it’s really important that we do that. I’m having discussions with my colleague Ken Skates, Cabinet Secretary for Economy and Infrastructure, around sustainable transport. I think we need to set some targets, and I mentioned last week in the energy statement that we have to have a realistic target, but I’m very happy to look at that. I’m also very happy if any cities—. I suppose Cardiff, I think, have made some comments around Cardiff looking to do that also, so I’m very happy to have those discussions, but we really do need to ensure that we do keep at the fore of these announcements.

UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Lywydd. I think farmers and, indeed, small businesses in general will be very disappointed by the intransigent response that the environment secretary gave to Paul Davies’s question earlier on. The National Farmers Union has done a survey of farmers and the impact that the introduction of nitrate vulnerable zones would have upon them and their industry, and they found that 73 per cent of slurry-producing farmers in Wales currently don’t have storage facilities sufficient to meet the requirements of the NVZ proposals, and that the average cost of complying with them would be nearly £80,000. In a world where farm incomes are not only low but plummeting—farm incomes have dropped 25 per cent in the last year—an insensitive approach to this problem is simply going to mean that large numbers of farmers, particularly in the dairy industry, are going to go out of business. I certainly don’t think that that is a price worth paying for the short-term gains that the environment secretary is consulting about.

Well, I don’t think that one word you could apply to me is ‘insensitive’, and I’m certainly not insensitive to this. My officials did meet with representatives of the NFU early in October, and they had a very constructive meeting. I’ve also met with the NFU on several occasions, the last being a week last Thursday, I think. Obviously, they are concerned and they raised those concerns with me. Without consultation—I’m not going to pre-empt that consultation, and I go back to my answer to Paul Davies around those who are already meeting those existing storage standards, for whom the cost of compliance would be minimal.

Well, the facts, of course, belie that, and the NFU I think are pretty reliable consultees on this particular issues. But there are other solutions to the problem of nitrate pollution, and they’ve been applied in England. ADAS has produced a booklet that is entitled, ‘101 ways to reduce nitrates’. In fact, in Wales, nitrate fertiliser consumption has gone down by 43 per cent between 1990 and 2013, so it’s not as though nothing is happening out in the real world. And, in fact, in the Cleddau area in Pembrokeshire, where there was a creamery that had to reduce its nitrate waste by 8 tonnes, local farmers formed together as a co-operative—25 of them—and they each reduced their own nitrate waste by a tonne. So, they actually reduced the amount of nitrate waste in that area by 25 tonnes altogether. Now, that’s without the kind of sledgehammer approach of the regime that the environment Secretary is currently consulting on. So, I wonder if I can get to—without pre-empting, obviously, the outcome of the consultation—an open-minded commitment for her to look at things in the round and to consider, nonetheless, the possibility of a voluntary regime if the

I’m always open-minded when I go into a consultation, but I go back to what I said, that 65 per cent of our farms do not meet those standards—standards that have been there for 25 years. But, of course, the flip is that 35 per cent do reach those standards. So, maybe we should make sure that the best practice is shared from that 35 per cent of farms to that 65 per cent, but I’m absolutely open-minded.

Good. Well, I’m delighted to hear that. We’re making progress, but, you know—

So patronising.

Well, we are making progress. I mean that as a compliment. Well, I have to say that in her answers to me previously, Llywydd, all I’ve had are some monosyllabic replies on the issue of regulatory impact assessments, for example, which is part of the Government’s own code of conduct. They promised to have regulatory impact assessments as part of consultations such as this, and it isn’t there, and I think for the reason that Paul Davies alluded to.

Given that we are going to leave the EU within the next two or three years, by the time this consultation is concluded and by the time regulations are in a position to be imposed, there may be only a matter of months left anyway. Surely, in circumstances such as this, where we so have the opportunity to tailor-make regulations that suit Wales as a separate entity, as opposed to a regime that covers an entire continent, it must make sense to have a moratorium upon measures of this kind, which can have a devastating impact on business for marginal improvements in environment quality, given that there are other ways of solving the problem.

I’m sure the Member would love to leave the EU far quicker than we’re going to, but we are still in the EU. While we’re in the EU, we need to live within our obligations to the EU. So, I’m afraid I don’t agree with you on that point. Going forward, after we leave the EU, that’s a completely different kettle of fish, if you like. We need to make sure, then, we have those specific policies right for Wales. But at the moment, we are still in the EU.