The next questions are from the party spokespeople. Plaid Cymru spokesperson—Llyr Gruffydd. 

Diolch, Llywydd. Cabinet Secretary, you told the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee last week that the common agricultural policy and basic payments don't give the outcomes that we need to see. What evidence do you have that what you're proposing in 'Brexit and our land' will?  

Well, I have spoken to Llyr in the Chamber about this scheme before. I think one of the main things that we've seen this year is that the basic payment scheme is a blunt tool that doesn't protect farmers in the way that we would want to against volatility—I mentioned the weather when we spoke about this. Last week in front of the committee, I talked about it not rewarding the farmers' performance and about it not assisting with productivity.  

I didn't ask you to deconstruct CAP and the basic payments; I asked you whether what you're proposing will actually deliver the outcomes that you're critical of the current system of not delivering, because, of course you don't know, do you? And that's the reality, because you haven't done the modelling, you haven't done the piloting—there's no evidence that your never-before-tried proposals will actually deliver the outcomes that you want. Indeed, you're setting farms and the whole rural economy off on a journey where we don't really know where we're going, or at least we don't really know how we're going to get there, because you haven't done the homework. Now, don't you accept that the modelling and the piloting all should have happened before you introduced your White Paper, because if the modelling tells you in the spring, or whenever it happens, that it won't deliver the outcomes we want to see, then you'll have wasted a whole year of Brexit preparation, and that will make Welsh Labour's record look just as bad as Theresa May's? 

Well, I don't agree with you, because we haven't brought forward the White Paper yet; we'll be doing that in the spring. If I'd have done the modelling and the impact assessment before we went to consultation, we would have been criticised for pre-empting. It's much better to have those 12,000 responses we've had to 'Brexit and our land' on the two schemes that we're bringing forward. So, the economic resilience scheme—that's around food production. It's to make sure we make our farm businesses resilient and sustainable, exactly what they want—they want them to be prosperous. And in relation to the public goods scheme, we want to reward farmers, which is not at the moment being done, around the public goods that they're bringing forward—that wonderful air quality, soil quality, water quality, the flood prevention they're doing. So, when we do bring forward the White Paper in the spring, that modelling and that impact assessment will have been done.   

So, when that modelling, when that impact assessment and when the piloting will have been done, if that eventually shows that retaining a form of basic payment is actually necessary to achieve some of the outcomes that you've listed, or at least to keep farmers on the land in order to achieve the environmental, the economic, the social and the cultural outcomes that you've been at pains to tell us that you want delivered—if all of the evidence, having done that work, tells you that retaining a basic payment is necessary to achieve it, can you confirm to the Assembly today that that is what you'll do?  

I will be very interested to see what the modelling and the impact assessment brings forward. Because of the blunt tool that has been the basic payment scheme—and I've had many discussions with farmers over the past few months, many of whom tell me themselves that they don't think the basic payment scheme is enabling them to be resilient and productive in the way that they want to be—I would be very surprised if that were the case. I mentioned last week when I was in front of committee that I will be very flexible. So, let's see what comes out of the consultation, and what goes then forward into the White Paper before we produce the next stage of the policy. 

Conservative spokesperson—Andrew R.T. Davies. 

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Minister, back in ministerial questions in February, you indicated that when it came to issuing environmental impact assessments, you were minded to grant such an assessment to be made on the Barry incinerator. That was in ministerial questions. It is important that, when Ministers speak in this Chamber, obviously, people from beyond this Chamber, as well as Members who put those questions, do see action. Can you update us as to what progress you've made, given that, as I said, in February, you were minded as a Minister to undertake this and here we are now in December with no improvement in the situation?

I thank the Member for his question. I know that he's been vociferous in taking this forward alongside the constituency Member for the Vale of Glamorgan. Whilst we anticipated a decision by the end of November, further legal clarification of aspects of the case has been necessary. I want to make a decision to issue this as soon as possible, because I'm aware of the ongoing situation and the concern that's been raised, but it's important that, when we do this, we ensure that our actions as a Government uphold our international obligations in respect of an environmental impact assessment. So, officials are currently giving careful consideration to compliance with the EIA directive, taking into account representations from the Member himself and other Members, the developer, and, of course, the Docks Incinerator Action Group.

I hear, Minister, what your international obligations are, and no-one on this side of the Chamber, or indeed anywhere in this Chamber, I would assume, would be calling on you to break such obligations, but some 300 days have passed since you made that commitment in February. Whether it be Barry or any other part of Wales, when a Minister makes such a pronouncement, it is expedient for that Minister surely to carry out as quickly as possible the due diligence that might need to be taken in that decision and come back with a decision in an appropriate time. Can you please give us a more definitive response as to when we might have the response from you, given, as I highlighted last week in this Chamber, that the First Minister indicated in his letter to me that that decision was going to be taken in November? As I said, it has been nearly 300 days plus since you made that announcement. How much more time do you actually need?

Like I said, I hope to be able to be in a position to make a decision as soon as possible. I recognise the concerns around this, but, as the Member himself said, due diligence is of the utmost importance when it comes to such a complex case and issue as this. We must make sure that we follow all—take the relevant legal advice and do everything we can possible to make the best decision.

Well, that is a bitterly disappointing answer, given that I could understand that type of answer coming to me maybe a month, two months, perhaps three months after you initially stated your position, but some eight months on you are still trotting out that answer. Now, I did have a written reply from the Minister yesterday indicating that there were legal considerations that the Government are working through at the moment. Can you at least give us an indication—and I'm not looking for the legal advice that you were given, because I appreciate that you can't give us that, but could you at least give us some of the areas that that legal advice is referring to? And is it specific to Natural Resources Wales, who are your advisers on this matter, or is it wider planning issues that that legal advice has been taken on?

I do believe—and I hope you agree with me—that the residents of Barry require some greater clarity than the answers that I've received from you on two occasions now out of three, and I do hope that, as we break for Christmas now in the coming days, you can give me and other Members some confidence that we are within touching distance of a decision.

Like I said, I can't reiterate enough to the Member that I'm fully aware of the concerns of residents on this issue and of the Member himself, but it's very, very important to me and to this Government to make sure that we take all the legal steps necessary and make the right decision, not just legally, but for the residents of Barry as well.

UKIP spokesperson, Neil Hamilton.

Diolch, Llywydd. Well, we live in very uncertain political times, and I suppose this may well be the last time in which we shall face each other across the Chamber in the Cabinet Secretary's current capacity, although I should regret it if she is moved on. I've come in the last couple of years to admire and respect the open-minded approach that she has brought to quite a number of issues, listening to stakeholders and local people in particular decisions on nitrates and also on bovine TB, but I have to say that in recent times this reputation that she's built up has been rather dented by several decisions over which she's presided: one, of course, the shooting ban, which Natural Resources Wales has introduced on public land; the draconian fishing laws on salmon and sewin, proposed by NRW again on questionable evidence; and of course what I raised last time, the Hendy windfarm, overruling Powys County Council and her own inspector's report.

Theresa May has been criticised, rightly, I think, for failing to listen and has landed herself in a massive mess, which she'll find it difficult to extricate herself from. Does the Cabinet Secretary herself have any regrets about railroading her policy agenda over the interests of local people and local stakeholders?

Well, if you're referring to the Hendy windfarm situation, which, as you say, you raised in the Chamber, obviously, I am very aware that there's been a claim submitted to the High Court. So, I can't say anything further on that. I'm very pleased with the renewable energy targets that I've brought through the Chamber. I think it's very important that we have ambitious renewable targets. I'm very aware of my obligations and the Welsh Government's obligations in relation to climate change, and I think the renewable energy targets that we've brought forward—. We had a debate this time last week on carbon regulations; I'm bringing forward the carbon delivery plan in the spring of next year. So, I'm very proud of those.

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

Well, I accept that the application for a judicial review in the case of Hendy limits significantly what the Cabinet Secretary can say, but I do think that the decision that she took is troubling as a matter of general principle. Localism is an important principle of government, in my opinion, and I'd be surprised if the Cabinet Secretary disagreed with that. Occasionally, national considerations have to take precedence over local interests. Again, I fully accept that. In the case of calling in a planning decision to be made by her rather than by a local authority or, indeed, an inspector's decision, what is the principle upon which she will override the decisions of those who are at a lower position in the pecking order?

Well, I don't think I can give you a general answer to that question. Obviously, it's done on a case-by-case basis. I have two on my desk now that I read for the first time over the weekend, I read again yesterday, and I'll probably read again today. It's something that you obviously have to consider a great deal, but I don't think I can just give you a general answer to that specific question.

Well, I'm sorry that the Cabinet Secretary's unable to answer, because I think there's an important question of transparency involved here, that the decision on Hendy was very different from the decision that she took on Rhoscrowther. She decided there not to intervene, and so we now have a windfarm going up. I visited it myself last week. Scars in the landscape are being made, which will wreck the magnificent views across the hills. At Rhoscrowther, of course, the landscape and seascape was protected. In these circumstances, is it not appropriate for the Government to publish the reasons why it takes a decision in one case but not in another so that the people can understand upon what principle these very important decisions, which affect their daily lives, are based?

Well, the decision letter is always published and, obviously, that is available to anybody who wants to read it. I think it's really important that we make the planning system as simple and as uncomplex as possible. You'll be aware that last week I launched 'Planning Policy Wales: Edition 10', which is the new edition of 'Planning Policy Wales', and that's really been revised now to take account, in a much more holistic way, I think, of the decision making that's taken in relation to the built environment.