We now turn to questions from the party spokespeople. The Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Simon Thomas.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, can you tell us why you consulted on 56 different proposals on the management of natural resources over the summer?

I brought forward the consultation on the sustainable management of our natural resources because I think it’s particularly important, in light of Brexit, that we have the views of stakeholders as to what legislation and regulations we will need to look at particularly over the next year ahead of our EU transition.

But it wasn’t quite the Heinz variety but you almost got there. [Laughter.] One other and you would have made it. Many people suggested this looked like clearing the desks before Brexit. Can I suggest to you that surely it would be better to deliver on previous consultations before opening up new ones? For example, last autumn, you consulted on nitrate vulnerable zones; ten months later, you still haven’t made a decision. How can we take it seriously when it takes a year for a consultation to come to any conclusion?

In relation to the NVZs, I’ve said many times we had a significant number of responses and I think many of the ideas that were brought forward in relation to NVZs are worthy of very detailed consideration. I have committed to bringing forward a decision on NVZs by the end of this year. I’ve actually got a meeting with officials later today regarding NVZs.

As to why we had another consultation, I think I set that out in my original answer to you, and I know there was a lot of noise around this consultation. I’ve listened to what stakeholders were saying. I did extend the consultation to the end of September. We’ve had 15,000 responses, of which, I would say, about 1,000 are independent and 14,000 are probably campaigners et cetera. Again, those responses will be have to be looked at very carefully. We need to be in a position to announce legislation very quickly maybe. That’s the problem, and I think it was really important to hear stakeholders’ views. I have to say, the stakeholders have engaged in the consultation very well.

I think they have engaged because they were concerned, to be honest, that you were suggesting so many changes in such a short time frame. This is not to criticise some of the individual ideas in some of these consultations; it’s the way that your Government is now approaching consultation—a constant stream of new initiatives and no sign of actually delivering on previous ones. So, let’s look at one that you have now just published last week. You finally published the new technical advice note 20, which is planning and the Welsh language. That took a year and a half. So, I do wonder how long 56 consultations with 15,000 responses is going to take. But we did get the TAN 20 last week. In the TAN 20, you say that you want a local-development-plan-led system, and TAN 20 in turn says that the best way of assessing the potential cumulative effects of development on the Welsh language across the local development plan area is to consider the use of the Welsh language during the preparation of the LDP itself. So, you want an LDP-led system and you say that the best way to consider the Welsh language and the effect on the Welsh language is during the preparation of the LDP. In which case, why is it that consideration of the Welsh language is not a mandatory part of preparing and reviewing the whole LDP and simply just one of the different assessments?

I think it’s disappointing that we’re criticised for consulting. Certainly that’s not what stakeholders say. I appreciate that it was a great deal of work for them over the summer and that’s why I did extend the consultation period, but I think it really is important that we consult. I think we’d be criticised if we didn’t, so I’m afraid that, on the basis that you can’t please all of the people all of the time, I’m very happy to consult. I’m also a Cabinet Secretary who insists as much as possible that we have the full time for consultation; I think 12 weeks is really important.

In relation to TAN 20, you are correct. I published the updated TAN 20 last week to provide local planning authorities, developers and communities with clarity on how the Welsh language can be supported and protected by the planning system. It is a legal duty to consider the language as part of the sustainability appraisal of LDPs, and I think that TAN 20 will help them with that task.

Conservatives’ spokesperson, David Melding.

Diolch yn fawr, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, yesterday, you spoke about, and indeed your party voted in favour of, a tax on non-reusable and non-recyclable plastics in Wales. I wonder if you can now provide us with some clarification on the details and practicalities of this intention and how you might take it forward, or was it just a vague reassurance to Plaid Cymru that they have some continuing relevance in Welsh Government decision making?

I would never take that stance with Plaid Cymru, David Melding. In relation to the plastic tax, we had a very good debate yesterday on the circular economy. There are several points that I mentioned about the extended producer responsibility feasibility study that I’m undertaking. Several Members spoke in relation to a deposit-return scheme, and, obviously, the Cabinet Secretary for Finance and Local Government announced, I think on 3 October, the possibility, from four of the taxes, of a plastic tax being one of them. I will be having those detailed discussions both with officials and with the Cabinet Secretary.

I am reassured that you will have a full assessment, because in the past you’ve said that a deposit-return scheme needs to assess the implications that that would have on everyday household bills, and can you assure us that, in any new tax that you might be considering, again, the effect that that would have on household bills would be fully considered?

Yes, absolutely. I mentioned yesterday that I was a child of the 1960s and I remember DRSs, but I think that things have moved a great deal since then, and, in Wales, we recycle 75 per cent of our plastic bottles. We have excellent kerbside recycling, so you must make sure that there are no unintended consequences or outcomes in relation to having a DRS. But absolutely, the cost to the household has to be part of the analysis as to whether we take this forward.

I echo that, and it’s very, very important, but as is how any tax would be applied. As I’ve already stated, polystyrene food containers are technically reusable. I think we need to be very precise in the actions that we are trying to take to achieve the outcome in reducing pollution from plastics. I just wonder whether you might be open to a more radical proposal, and one that these Tory benches would be pleased to support, if you can find a feasible way of advancing it, and that’s just banning some of these materials. That’s what they’re doing in the United States now. So, if they can do it and some find that it’s a horrifying attack on the free market, then perhaps we should be doing it too. It’s much simpler for the public to understand as well.

I’m all for radical policies, so I’m very happy to look at anything that will help us reduce, particularly, plastic litter. There’s been a campaign recently about plastic litter in our oceans, and I think it’s absolutely appalling, so anything that we can do to help—. So, I’m very happy to look at any radical policy, and if the Member would like to meet with me to discuss it further, I’d certainly be happy to do that.

UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

The Cabinet Secretary will be attending NFU Cymru’s conference in two weeks’ time, and I’m sure she’ll have seen the advance press release from John Mercer, the director of NFU Cymru, in which he says that

‘The Union firmly believes that we can make a success of Brexit if our collective focus is centred on supporting our industry to meet the challenge of feeding a growing world population with safe, quality, affordable food’.

I’m sure the Cabinet Secretary will agree with me that it’s vitally important that farmers in Wales should have a firm idea of what the legislative framework for agriculture will be after we leave the European Union and, therefore, it’s vitally important that the Welsh Government should make its framework decisions, at any rate, as soon as possible and make them public. This is a great opportunity for Welsh farmers, as John Mercer says. Could the Cabinet Secretary give us some firm idea of the time it will take her to develop at least a framework agricultural policy that she can make public?

I thank Neil Hamilton for his question. Yes, I certainly am attending the NFU conference. I think it’s early November or late November—

It’s 2 November.

That’s right. So, I’m looking forward to that very much. I’m not sure I’ve actually seen the press release that you refer to, but, certainly, I engage frequently with the NFU and I’m very aware of their views around opportunities as well as the challenges that we’re facing. There is a huge amount of work going on by my officials in relation to frameworks, possible legislation and also discussions with their counterparts. So, I know all the senior officials met last Wednesday here in Cardiff from the four nations. You’ll be aware of the ministerial engagement that I have. We now have another date for our monthly meetings—unfortunately, in October, we haven’t had one—with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary of State, but we are meeting again, unfortunately again in London, on 6 November. But it’s really important those discussions are ongoing.

In relation to a timescale, I would imagine that we’ll be starting to be able to make that public maybe early next year, but, again, there’s a huge amount of detailed work being undertaken for a time.

I fully understand that. No-one underestimates the vast scale of this project, but it is vitally important to us and the UK Government in the context of the current negotiations going on in Brussels also, because, if we are to get the best possible deal that is available out of the EU, they need to know that we are fully prepared for no deal. And the more, therefore, that we can make public in advance will help us, I think, to get a reasonable deal out of the EU if they are rational about it.

The fundamental basis of the current regime is the basic payment scheme, and UKIP’s policy is to continue a variation of that but to cap payments at £120,000, so that we end the discrimination in favour of larger farmers and agribusinesses and give more support to smaller enterprises. We also believe there should be a 25 per cent uplift for organic farms. Given the nature of agriculture in Wales being very different from England—we don’t have the vast prairie lands of Lincolnshire and so on—it should not be difficult for the Welsh Government to come to broadly similar conclusions. So, I wonder if she can give us any indication on at least the basis of a future agricultural policy.

I think you raised a very important point at the beginning of your contribution then about having that best possible information. I think it’s really important that we share information also and, certainly, I’m very happy to share information with my ministerial counterparts. I think we are starting to see more of that.

In relation to being fully prepared for a ‘no deal’, well, I don’t know how you can be fully prepared for a ‘no deal’. I don’t actually understand how you can have a ‘no deal’, because leaving the EU, to me, is like a divorce. Now, you can’t have a ‘no deal’ with a divorce. You have to have a deal of whatever description; you have to have a deal. So, all this talk about no deal—I just am completely perplexed as to how you can have ‘no deal’. I think it should be absolutely the UK Government’s top priority that they get the best deal possible, and that’s what we are pushing for for the people of Wales.

In relation to your proposals, again, I’d be very happy to look at what UKIP’s proposals are for future farming post Brexit.

Well, obviously, we all want a deal if one is available, but it takes two to tango and, if the EU is not prepared to do a deal, and is not prepared to carry on talking, until we pay the ransom demand, then that’s what a ‘no deal’ looks like. That wasn’t the purpose behind my question today. It’s to look at the future of Welsh farming and fishing.

Further to Michelle Brown’s question earlier on, what UKIP would like to see to restore life to our fishing and coastal communities is an exclusive economic zone all around the United Kingdom and, obviously, in our Welsh waters, under the control of the Welsh Government, halting equal access to these waters by European fishermen, to have no-take zones to aid spawning and replenishing fish stocks—yes, we might have foreign trawlers able to access our waters, but with permits—and to ensure that all fish caught within UK waters, including those taken by foreign vessels operating under licence, are landed and sold in the UK to help finance and attract investment in the newly developing fishing industry.

So, I hope the Cabinet Secretary sees that we can make a positive contribution towards this debate in a non-partisan way. I think that there is scope for doing that with all parties in this Assembly.

Yes, absolutely. I’ve just mentioned to David Melding that I’m very happy to look at anybody’s ideas, of course, and certainly, I want to have a very positive fishing and fisheries policy. I think, talking to the fishing industry—and we are just starting, now, to get our negotiations ready ahead of the fisheries council in December—they do feel very badly done down by the EU. There are no two ways about it, certainly from talking to the Welsh fishing industry. So, it’s absolutely right that we get that Welsh fisheries policy correct. So, yes, I’m very happy to look at any ideas you want to bring forward.