What assessment has the Welsh Government made of the European Court of Justice’s ruling on the breach of clean water rules in Wales, including at Burry Inlet near Llanelli? TAQ(5)0134(ERA)[W]

We acknowledge the ruling. We will continue to work with Natural Resources Wales and Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water on our £130 million programme for Llanelli and Gowerton to reduce the number of spills, improve water quality and reduce the risk of local flooding by 2020.

I thank the Minister for stepping into the breach once again and responding on behalf of the Cabinet Secretary for environment. I think the best response to this decision of the European Court of Justice may be, ‘How dare the EU tell us we can’t bathe in our own sewage’, because that’s what it boils down to. It’s taken a EU Court of Justice to tell the UK Government that the 3,000 overflow pipes that we have in Wales still today, which can discharge sewage directly into our water when we have heavy rain—and heavy rain does happen in Wales, although it might not have happened quite recently, but it does happen in Wales—and the 14 overflow pipes specifically at Burry inlet do break EU law and are actually polluting our bathing water and the habitat as well for tens of thousands of wild birds, for example, around the salt marshes at Burry Port.

The cockling industry particularly has always felt that the pollution at Burry inlet is affecting cockle death. That’s not been proven, but there’s a strong correlation between these events and the dearth of that industry and the economic effect and traditional effect on lifestyles on parts of the inlet and the estuary.

Specifically, I’ve seen Welsh Water’s RainScape project in Llanelli and Burry Port—there are improvements going on there and I’ve welcomed very much what they’re trying to do, but the UK argument, which it lost in the European Court of Justice, was that these improvements were good enough for the year 2020. So, I want to know: does the Welsh Government also think that it’s good enough to improve by 2020, because the European Court of Justice thinks we should do it more quickly, and since the European Court of Justice does think we should do it more quickly, what specifically now is the Welsh Government doing to ensure that we don’t have dirty bathing water and dirty habitat water anymore in Wales?

I thank Simon Thomas for the question. In response to those specific points, the Welsh Government has been working with Natural Resources Wales and Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water to develop and implement a programme of work to reduce the number of spills, to further improve water quality and to reduce the risk of local flooding by the end of 2020. I’ve obviously mentioned the £130 million investment. It is important to report again today how close engagement with local residents and local businesses, as well as elected representatives, has been in the area, working hard to minimise disruption to residents, which, of course, will, as a result of the investment of the funding—. But, of course, the age of the current infrastructure system in the local area clearly has to be addressed.

I think it is important to recognise that the urban waste water treatment directive was adopted back in 1991 and was vital in terms of the steer towards assessing quality. It’s implemented and enforced principally now through devolved matters and those concerns were raised by representatives of the cocklers and local councillors and various parties in Llanelli and Gower about water quality. Therefore, clearly on this ruling, in terms of the court on 4 May, there has to be a very clear and robust response.

Minister, it’s now been 12 years since the cocklers of the Bury inlet have reported significant die-offs of shellfish and we still don’t know the cause of these deaths. We do know, however, of its economic impact: an export industry has been devastated and local cocklers are now struggling to make even a basic living.

Six years ago, courts found against Welsh Water and now they found again against the UK Government. Would the Government look again at this and consider helping this devastated local industry, as it has helped other industries?

I thank Lee Waters for that question, and clearly, the importance of understanding and identifying the reasons why there has been that increased cockle mortality is vital. In fact, Welsh Government commissioned research into this. As you will be aware, findings did show water quality in the area was unlikely to be the cause of problems experienced by the cockle industry, but engagement with the cockle industry, the cocklers themselves, and their representatives and, as I said, local elected representatives and businesses, have been vital in addressing this and making sure that action is taken. I think it’s also important to recognise that Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water undertook monitoring and developed a programme of works to reduce the number of spills. I’ve already mentioned this. For example, at the wastewater treatment storm tank assets in Llanelli and Gowerton, which you will be aware of, spills occurred much more frequently, and, whilst they conform to current UK urban waste water treatment directive implementation, they were in excess of what the Commission would consider to be acceptable. So, I think, again, I hope that the evidence of engagement locally, the action taken, the investment by 2020 in RainScape, of course, are ensuring that this can be addressed and will reassure those in the community and the businesses, in particular in terms of the cocklers, and enable, of course, the water quality to be improved and the risk of flooding to be reduced.

Well, I agree that it’s very disappointing that these breaches have taken place and that there’s been a second court ruling now on exactly the same issue. Natural Resources Wales may well be right that the resolution of the problem is difficult, but, bearing in mind it’s not just breaches of the law that we’re talking about, but serious changes to the ecology of this area, I don’t think that it’s particularly appropriate to pin all the blame on NRW and Welsh Water in this.

Now, Welsh Water, of course, does insist that the breach isn’t the cause of the cockle deaths that have already been raised here. It may well be the case, but it has been five years since that parasitology report that you’ve referred to obliquely, leader of the house, and that report didn’t talk necessarily straightforwardly about water quality, but said that parasites weren’t the sole reason for any mortalities. So, we’re talking about five years ago and, since that time, NRW kept what it’s called ‘an overview’ of the science. There’s a plethora of research initiatives either at application or final bid stage. So, in short, it strikes me that, since 2012, it doesn’t seem there’s been an awful lot of intervention in trying to maintain what is, potentially, still a profitable local industry and, obviously, one of local cultural significance as well. Would it be fair for me to say that, perhaps, the focus on infrastructure that you’ve referred to in some of your answers today has being at the expense of scientific research that could have solved the problem regarding the cockles? Thank you.

I think, in terms of looking not only at the outcome of the research but then that which had an impact on the works that would be undertaken—the £113 million investment—I would say that this consists largely of environmentally friendly sustainable drainage techniques that improve the quality of the local environment and reduce the risk of flooding locally in terms of those works. Also, despite the ruling by the court on 4 May, the quality of shellfish water in the area has consistently met statutory standards since 2000. I think the importance of the response now, in terms of addressing this issue as laid down by the court is a priority not only to Welsh Water, but also to the Welsh Government, and NRW will be monitoring that.

I thank the leader of the house. The next question comes from Llyr Gruffydd.