The next item is a statement by the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs on the impact of a 'no deal' Brexit on the environment, agriculture and fisheries. I call on the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths.  

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. Environment, agriculture and fisheries are the areas most closely tied to the EU through the large body of legislation, most of which is devolved, and the huge volume of trade. EU legislation provides our current operating framework in these areas and the EU dominates trade in some of our key sectors, with 96 per cent of our meat exports going to the EU and 97 per cent of Welsh shellfish being exported, either to the EU or to South Korea, through an EU free trade agreement.

The Llywydd took the Chair.

We rely on the EU for imports too. Chemicals, including some of those that help us provide clean water, veterinary medicines, and more than four fifths of our food imports, accounting for half of the food we eat in the UK, come from the EU. All are tariff free and produced to standards we understand and expect. If we leave the EU without a deal, there will be no orderly or phased transition, and 40 years of integrated EU legislation, systems, funding and free trade will come to an end overnight. Our exporters and importers will face significant increases in prices, administration and delivery time. Tariffs are likely to be applied to imports and exports. A drop in sterling caused by a 'no deal' Brexit could mitigate some tariff costs for importers but contribute to higher food prices for consumers as import costs increase.

There is no good news for exports either in a 'no deal' scenario under WTO rules, which hard Brexiteers celebrate. Processed foods could attract tariffs of around 15 per cent and other products could exceed 50 per cent, with red meat attracting particularly high tariffs. Our businesses will have to develop their capacity to handle previously unnecessary red tape, including customs declarations, export health certificates or fisheries catch certificates. Document, identity and physical checks will be carried out at the border with the EU for products of animal origin and live animals arriving from the UK. This will inevitably cause delays, potentially ruining fresh food and live shellfish. Even the wooden pallets on which goods are transported will require certification and checks.

Our EU labour force is important to Wales. Almost all Government vets working in our abattoirs are European citizens from other EU countries, as are many workers in food processing more generally. We cannot afford for these essential workers to leave the UK at a time of exponential growth in demand for export health certificates post Brexit. The impacts of a 'no deal' Brexit will be felt differently across Wales. Our rural communities will clearly bear the brunt of any loss of markets, especially in the red meat sector. Our coastal communities will suffer if seafood businesses are unable to viably export shellfish. Although diversifying into different types of farming or fishing could lessen the impact, it will not make up for the loss of, or impeded access to, the EU market. All of this combines to create a perfect storm, which will begin on 30 March and last for an unknown length of time. The severity of that storm will depend on the type of deal we leave with. A 'no deal' storm will be the most damaging for Wales.

As a Government we've been working since the EU referendum to prepare for Brexit in whatever form. Across my portfolio, we've reviewed 1,200 pieces of legislation. With the UK Government we are in the process of amending 900 pieces of legislation in an unprecedented exercise to ensure we have a working statue book by exit day. This will make sure the framework of EU environmental legislation, within which we have developed our own ambitious plans for the environment, climate and future generations, continue to be available to us. The National Assembly has played, and will continue to play, an important part in developing and passing this legislation, and Wales will gain more powers in environment, agriculture and fisheries after Brexit.

We have been working to ensure the necessary systems are in place to meet newly applied EU requirements on third countries, as we will be after Brexit, or to replace soon-to-be-inaccessible EU-run systems. This includes systems for chemical approvals, for export health certificates, for catch certifications and training for additional vets. My officials are running more than 50 projects to put in place the necessary arrangements. To meet the shortened timescales and ensure this is in place by exit day, much of this has been delivered in conjunction with the other UK administrations, especially the UK Government departments DEFRA, the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy and the Health and Safety Executive. However, future decision making in many of these areas will fall to Welsh Ministers and ultimately to this Assembly.

We continue to provide advice and information to businesses, and last week the Welsh Government launched the Preparing Wales/Paratoi Cymru website. I am committed to working with key sectors to design support mechanisms around these serious challenges, and we've already provided £6 million from our transition fund to this end. My officials are working closely with the UK Government on emergency planning to safeguard our food supply, ensure an uninterrupted energy supply and, with Dŵr Cymru Welsh Water and Hafren Dyfrdwy, secure our water supply.

Whilst there are some opportunities from Brexit in the future, I am deeply concerned at the immediate turmoil that will ensue, and I want to ensure the survival of our sectors. I'm concerned by the evidence from the CBI, FSB and others suggesting that many businesses are not yet actively preparing for Brexit and for a 'no deal' Brexit. Some will think they are immune from Brexit as they do not export or import, but because our economy is so integrated with the EU, the economic impacts will affect their suppliers and customers alike. There is a great deal of change to come, and in the event of a no deal, this will likely hit hard on multiple fronts at the same time. Some of this is for Government to manage. However, faced with a threat of this scale, we can only do so much. Businesses must also act, and quickly, because the scale of the challenge cannot be underestimated.

Minister, thank you for your statement this afternoon. I am someone who does believe that there should be a deal when we leave the European Union. I think that is a sensible course of action. Whenever you split from any organisation or any individual, or in a company disagreement, you're better doing it on an amicable basis, on agreed terms, than a violent shutdown. And I do hope that, in the time remaining, a deal does mature out of the Westminster political bubble, where many people seem to be in a real dogfight at the moment.

But, let's not forget that there is a deal on the table, and there are discussions around creating the atmosphere for a deal to come forward. The Labour Party, regrettably, have chosen not to enter into those discussions and, in particular, not to support the Prime Minister in her ability to secure a deal. So, I'd be grateful to understand: does the Cabinet Secretary support the principle of what the Prime Minister is seeking to achieve by creating the right conditions for a deal to emerge? Because that is vitally important, and the National Farmers Union and the Farmers Union of Wales and other farming organisations do support the Prime Minister's deal that was on the table, which I accept was rejected by all parties last week in the House of Commons. But it is a fact that, obviously, the farming unions in particular have given their support to that particular deal.

In your statement this afternoon, First Minister, you do touch on the fact that the Government here, the Welsh Government, have been working on EU preparedness since the referendum, but I find that a contradictory statement, given that the First Minister himself has indicated—or the previous First Minister, I should say—at several junctures when he was questioned on this in this Chamber that there had been no preparations put in place by the Welsh Government for a 'no deal' scenario. So, I would be interested to know what preparations the Government have been doing, as your statement indicates, over the last two years for the scenario that appears on our horizon at the moment.

I'd also like to understand how much of the £30 million that has come into the Welsh Government from the Chancellor of the Exchequer for 'no deal' preparations her department in particular has been able to secure from the finance Minister, because that's not an insignificant sum of money, and hopefully that has allowed her to obviously make certain provisions within the planning capacity of her department. DEFRA itself has had £410 million, and, in the statement, the Cabinet Minister does highlight the close working relationship with DEFRA on many issues. So, again, I'd be pleased to understand how, with that £410 million that has been made available to DEFRA for 'no deal' planning—what aspects of work are work that has been undertaken by Welsh Government and the UK Government to mitigate some of the circumstances.

It is vitally important that the work of the department is allowed to go on, and at the FUW farmhouse breakfast this morning and at the NFU council yesterday, at last night's dinner, the Cabinet Minister did indicate that 'Brexit and our land'—the response to that consultation—has now slipped back to the summer. Again, I would be grateful to understand what impact, obviously, various planning initiatives within the department are having on the day-to-day work of the department, because, obviously, many farmers, whilst knowing that the money is secure until 2022, because that's the commitment the UK Government have given, want to be able to engage in a process of formulating the next series of schemes and initiatives that will be used to obviously support the rural economy. But, as I said, from your statement last night and this morning, you clearly indicated that the 'Brexit and our land' consultation response has slipped now to the summer. Also something that has been highlighted by stakeholders is the engagement by the Welsh Government around 'no deal' planning. I'd be grateful to understand how you are communicating with all sectors in your portfolio—the environmental sector, the energy sector and the agricultural  sector—so that they understand fully what is being done by the department and the wider role that Welsh Government is playing in these preparations.

Also, if we do end up with a 'no deal' scenario, there will be opportunities, obviously, for the UK livestock sector to make up some of the shortfalls from imports into the country. If we look at beef, for example, a huge amount of Irish beef comes into the market. What preparations are you making to make sure that Welsh livestock producers are in a good place to work with processors to make up that shortfall? I draw your attention to the fact that £460 million-worth of beef is imported into the United Kingdom, predominantly Irish beef; we only export £140 million out of the UK. So, there is a huge opportunity there to bridge that shortfall if it was to come about.

I reiterate the point that I made in my opening remarks—that I believe it is vitally important that we do have a deal, and it makes sense for us to progress to a situation where we have a transition period so that we do move to an area where we can make sensible provision for the changes that we are going to unlock by our leaving of the European Union. I very much hope that over the next 60-odd days that are available to us, we do secure those conditions for a deal to come forward. But I would be grateful for answers to the questions that I've put to the Minister, and in particular, the way the Minister will be communicating with stakeholders over the weeks and months ahead so that people can fully understand the department's actions in 'no deal' preparations.

I thank Andrew R.T. Davies for that series of questions. I'm very intrigued by your optimism in the Prime Minister's deal. It doesn't really matter what I think because that deal was rejected by a very large majority of 230. But the deal that she placed on the table certainly doesn't protect our jobs and our economy in the way that we would want to.

You mentioned Jeremy Corbyn not engaging, well, frankly, I think it was a cynical ploy. She didn't want cross-party discussions at all. They lasted for a couple of days, and I think he absolutely saw through that. It's the inflexibility of the Prime Minister and the complete rigidity not to be able to move away from the deal. It's been wholly rejected, as I say, by one of the largest majorities I think we've ever seen in Parliament, and now is the time for her to be far more flexible and look to coming forward with a better deal.

I accept what you were saying about the NFU and the FUW saying that they would rather the Prime Minister's deal than a 'no deal'. It was really interesting last night at the NFU dinner, at which you and others were present, when it came through that the Prime Minister said she had spoken to Welsh farmers who were enthusiastic about a 'no deal'. And you heard the president of the NFU say he would die in the ditch rather than accept a 'no deal'. He was absolutely horrified that the Prime Minister could possibly say that.

You ask about preparedness, well, you will know, and many other Members here will know, that I think it was two weeks after the EU referendum vote I set up the Brexit ministerial stakeholder group, which I chair. We have met very frequently and we are now meeting monthly. The last meeting was last Thursday here in Cardiff, and, round that table, I have everyone right across my portfolio. Nobody works in silos, we all work together. So, everybody has been included in that, and I will continue to include members of that round-table. There's been a variety of sub-groups, and one of the areas that one of the sub-groups looked at was scenario planning. So, we looked at no deal. I have actually been preparing for a 'no deal', but even I—. Last summer, I remember being asked at the Royal Welsh Show did I think a 'no deal' would come forward. Even though it's obviously the default position, if there is no deal by the end of March, I could not believe that the UK Government and the Prime Minister would allow that to happen. So, of course we've had to start now to move towards a 'no deal' much more seriously. But you have to remember, we only have one set of officials; they are doing their day job as well, but there is obviously more of a focus now on no deal. And some things will—you can't have business as usual and prepare for no deal and do everything else.

I know you were there this morning as well as last night, and I said that I had hoped to bring forward the next stage of the consultation around 'Brexit and our land' by late spring, certainly, but I have now committed to early summer. It will be well ahead of the Royal Welsh Show and the summer shows, because I think that's really important, because that's certainly my chance to engage with so many people on a large scale. I have assured farmers that I will do basic payment schemes for 2020 as well. Obviously, we went for that further year, and I hope that's provided some reassurance to them.

In relation to funding, last week I attended a quadrilateral meeting in London, and it was made very clear to Michael Gove by myself and by my Scottish counterpart that we expected a 'no deal' to be taken off the table completely, and if that was the ultimate outcome, we would expect the UK Government to pay for a 'no deal', and, certainly, businesses are now telling me that already the prospect of a 'no deal' is costing a great deal of money. So, that message was given wholly to Michael Gove, and I know the Minister for Finance has now received a letter from HM Treasury around that.

I hear the concerns about 'Brexit and our land'. Of course, the best way to mitigate those concerns is to not have Brexit in the first place, but there we are; that's for another statement, I suppose.

I don't need anybody to tell me how bad a 'no deal' Brexit would be for Wales. I'm in the same camp as the Minister; I've been pretty clear about that from day one, and I have to say, in thanking you for the statement today, it's quite thorough in outlining some of the key concerns and issues and impacts, but I—. And whilst you're saying that you're on it, that you're on the case in terms of trying to mitigate some of those, I'm not seeing, actually, many concrete outcomes in terms of what is happening, other than, 'Trust me, we're on it.'

So, my first question to you, given that the EU, of course, regulates the air we breathe, the food we eat, the water we drink—you know, it is quite important—how confident are you that what needs to be done will have been done in time, in relation to mitigating all of the risks that come from a 'no deal' scenario? I think that was a key message I was hoping to see in your statement. I don't, so maybe you could maybe give us your assurances that you will get there in time, as difficult as it might be.

But of course, achieving that, as you say in your statement, does mean working closely with other devolved administrations and the UK Government. I'm just wondering how, in this current climate, you're ensuring that the Welsh voice is heard in those discussions, because, you know, I'm not full of confidence that, even if it is being heard, it's being listened to. If there are disagreements about some proposals, how do you resolve those? My fear is that, too often, the UK Government might be pulling rank in a way that works against Welsh interests. The Prime Minister did say yesterday that the devolved administrations would have a more prominent role to play. I'm just wondering how you envisage that happening in reality.

Two years ago, you said that UK Government Ministers felt they had, and I quote, 'magic powers', over Welsh agriculture, despite it being a devolved matter. You said you made it clear that there can be no imposition. Well, I'm just wondering what part are you playing, then, in the discussions on the new trading agreement between the UK and New Zealand, because by your own admission, an influx of New Zealand lamb would—in your own words

'absolutely destroy the Welsh lamb industry.'

Now, particularly within the context of a 'no deal' Brexit, I think the impact doesn't bear thinking about. So, when you come to these arrangements with the UK Government, of course, timing and time pressures mean that you, very often, have to subvert the normal scrutiny procedures that we have here in the Assembly. So, what assurances can you give ourselves as opposition Assembly Members, and your own backbench Members as well, that we will be able to properly scrutinise your decisions and hold you accountable in a way that allows us to fulfil our duties and obligations as Assembly Members?

And two very short points to close—although they're very, very important points. In any post-Brexit scenario, but particularly within a 'no deal' context, what plans does the Government have to maximise the domestic market for Welsh produce? And I'm thinking particularly of public procurement, because we've been talking about this for many, many years. We still haven't got to a point where we feel that the Welsh pound is working as hard as it can in the interests of Wales, and, of course, it'll need to work harder than ever in this kind of scenario. Finally, on environmental governance, last year you told the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee that you would—and I quote

'take the first proper legislative opportunity to enshrine the environmental principles into law and close the governance gap.'

Well, clearly, the clock is now ticking louder than ever, and I'm just wondering if you could give us an update on how you intend to plug that gap in the short space of time that we now have left, potentially.

I thank Llyr for that series of questions. I thought I'd pick up on two examples of where, I think, we are making real progress because, as you say, time is running out. So, one area—. And it's about a balance. It's about—. You know, when do you divulge information? Because we're accused of scaremongering, but, equally, I think, the people of Wales deserve to be made aware of where there are concerns. So, an area that I had real concerns about was water supplies. So, we've been working very closely with DEFRA—and I have to say, my engagement with DEFRA has been very good, not so good in other departments, but I have to say DEFRA has been good, and I think it's because there's been a framework between DEFRA and the Welsh Government, perhaps, for longer than other departments. So, we've been working, as I say, very hard with DEFRA because my concern was a 'no deal' risk to water treatment chemicals, if we weren't able to store them, for instance, if there was a short supply. But that has now reduced in recent months. We've got a much better understanding of the risks, the sector is taking the risks very seriously, they're taking action to avoid any problems occurring; and we're working with, as I say, the UK Government, but also with Welsh suppliers on managing the risks. So, we've had a desktop exercise, for instance, earlier this month. That tested, again, various scenarios in the contingency plan. We've got a practical exercise coming up, and now I am much happier with that contingency plan.

There's also, obviously, concerns about food supplies, and, again, it's about managing—. You know, I had somebody coming to my surgery who'd read something in the press—they were very concerned about food supplies, and we've got the DEFRA food chain emergency liaison group. That includes DAs and, obviously, industry trade bodies, and, again, they're gauging preparedness. So, manufacturers tell us that they're very confident of the supply to the public. So, I think that's a very positive message to give. Choice might be affected, of course. If you're used to getting food from Spain, that might not be on the shelves as quickly as you can, and it might be much more limited than usual. So, I think that's two areas where we ensure—working with other UK Government departments—that that Welsh voice is heard. How we continue to do that is to make sure that we're round the table. So, the First Minister's made it very clear, as did the previous First Minister, if we're invited to meetings, we turn up and we are there. And, I have to say, we're expected to go to London far more than anybody's expected to go anywhere else, but we are always there, and I know that that's right across with all my Cabinet colleagues.

It's really important that we are round the table about trade. It's absolutely correct when you say that, and I absolutely was adamant about New Zealand, and nothing's reassured me about that. It was interesting to see that the UK Prime Minister met the New Zealand Minister yesterday. You know that I visited New Zealand in April last year and met with their chief negotiator who made it very clear to me a UK free trade agreement was absolutely top of his priorities. So, that concern is really there. So, my colleague Ken Skates—his officials are, obviously, leading on this. I just got a paper in my box today that I need to read about trade, but, again, it's just about making sure that we're round that table having those discussions, and I can assure you we are.

It's also about having red lines, and you ask about scrutiny. I had a debate in the Chamber—Suzy Davies brought forward the motion on SIs last week, and I explained that if the Assembly was going to scrutinise every SI that I am clearing at the moment, it would probably take about six months of Tuesdays and Wednesdays with very little other business. I'm doing the work, my officials are doing the work, I'm trying to help save you the work because it is really important that we have a fully functioning statute book when we leave the EU. However, it's also important that when we're taking transitionary powers, for instance, from the UK Agriculture Bill and the UK Fisheries Bill—and I know we're in front of committee on Thursday—that the red lines are met, and I have red lines on the Agriculture Bill, and by working with DEFRA, we've overcome those. I've got red lines on the Fisheries Bill, and that work is still ongoing.

I think you raise a really important point about public procurement, and I do think that is one of the opportunities. When we talk about opportunities post Brexit, I think public procurement is one. When I was health Minister—and I've had conversations with the First Minister about when he was health Minister—it was very frustrating that we weren't able to procure Welsh produce in a way we can. So, I absolutely think that is an opportunity. When it's really hard sometimes to see any opportunities, it's good to find them now and again. In relation to governance, I'm currently looking at that and looking to address that, identifying the gap, and I will be going out to consultation. 

There can be no excuse or justification for the UK Government's failure to prepare for the possibility of a 'no deal' Brexit. I'm sure I shall carry the Minister with me in starting in that way. We've had two and a half years to prepare for leaving the EU and it's shocking that no real preparation has been done by the UK Government, because this was always a possibility. Monsieur Barnier was reported in French magazine Le Point saying in 2016 that: I shall have succeeded in my task if the final deal is so hard on the British that they'll end up preferring to stay. And that's what this has all been about, of course, because unelected technocrats like him pursue their own agenda, which is very different from pursuing the well-being of the people. There are massive opportunities in Brexit. There are challenges—nobody's ever denied that. The challenges are much bigger now than they needed to have been, because Theresa May's intransigence and deafness to reality has made this an unexpected end to the two-year process, where we've actually done virtually nothing to prepare for the outcome that looks as though is going to take place. That, I think, is a gross act of negligence on her part and the part of her entire Government. 

A moment ago, the Minister did speak of opportunities in public procurement. I wonder why these statements that we're hearing this afternoon seem to offer no hope or optimism whatsoever in this process. Of course these things are all a balance at the end of the day and I've always accepted that leaving the EU, in a transitional period at any rate, is going to impose certain costs, but the advantages in the medium to long term far outweigh those costs.

One of the opportunities, for agriculture in particular, that's opened up by Brexit was referred to by Andrew R.T. Davies. He mentioned only beef, but we have a massive deficit in our trade with the EU in most areas of produce, particularly livestock. For example, in poultry, we import four times as much as we export; beef, three times as much as we export; pork, three times as much as we export; and even things like eggs—24 times as much as we export is imported. So, there are huge opportunities here for import substitution. And if the EU is so stupid as not to agree some kind of interim free trade arrangement that preserves the status quo in the short term, without keeping us within the governmental institutions like the single market and the customs union, then EU countries are going to face massive losses, not least the Irish Republic, as Andrew R.T. Davies referred to—82 per cent of their milk exports go to the UK and 49 per cent of their beef. If there are taxes of 25 to 35 per cent on the export of beef, or in the case of milk even more, I believe, then they're going to be in serious trouble in Ireland. So, the same kind of conundrum that we're trying to solve here is going to have to be solved elsewhere, because we're in a huge deficit with almost every member of the EU: a £4 billion trade deficit with Holland, £2 billion with France, £3 billion with Germany, and £0.5 billion a year with Ireland, which is a small figure for the UK but a very large figure for Ireland. I could go through the whole litany of countries and produce similar figures. So, their problems are our opportunities.

I wonder what work the Welsh Government has done, or proposes to do, with Welsh farmers to plug the gaps that will open up if, after 29 March, we do have tariffs on food imports and exports, which nobody wants to see, least of all me—I believe in free trade. I always thought that a free trade agreement should be in place with the EU by the end of the two-year period, but the Government unfortunately didn't embark upon that course of action. Theresa May embarked upon a course of action that was bound to fail right from the start, because nobody wanted a halfway house solution such as the one she seems to think is the best. 

Last night, at the same dinner that the Minister attended, I had many discussions with farmers as well about the uncertainties of Brexit, and one of the uncertainties that they were complaining about was the uncertainty that the Welsh Government had introduced through its proposal to end basic payments for farmers. One of the ways in which the Welsh Government could reduce uncertainty is actually—although I approve of the general direction of policy of the Welsh Government—not to telescope it, as I believe is proposed, but to phase in the movement away from basic payments over a period of years, to give farmers the time to adjust—although I do think that certain types of farm unit will always need to have some kind of basic payment scheme method of support, particularly on marginal land, in upland areas and so on and so forth. It seems to me that to go over the cliff edge, to use a very familiar analogy, as the Minister proposes in her consultation, is quite the wrong way to deal with whatever uncertainties are going to take place as a result of the failure of Theresa May's negotiating strategy.

The third and last point I'd like to ask about is: one of the opportunities that we will have as a result of repatriating agricultural policy here to Cardiff is in regulatory reform. There are lots of areas of regulations that farmers complain about that could be simplified, where costs could be reduced, without any violence being done to the overarching public policy issues that most people would agree on in terms of environmental protections. The EU wants to ban glyphosate, for example, as a weed killer, and there is no more efficient form of weed killing that farmers could have. Glyphosate would be a big problem for many types of farmers, if that's not available. Nitrates regulations, habitats regulations—there are nuts-and-bolts kinds of alterations that can be made to these forms of regulation that will make farmers' lives easier and less costly. That also helps to open up new opportunities, because, yes, if there are costs that will be imposed as a result of Brexit, there are also countervailing savings that could be made by having an agricultural policy that is tailor made for the different topographical, climatic and cultural traditions of Wales. So, what work is being done to look at the EU statute book, as it were, with a view to scaling down regulatory costs without actually prejudicing the overarching policy objectives, which we would all share?

Thank you for those observations and questions. I don't know why you're so surprised that Michel Barnier said that about a hard deal. There are 27 of them. There's one of us. If you ever thought that we would get a better deal leaving the EU—well, you clearly did think we would get a better deal leaving the EU, because that's what you wanted—. I just don't understand why people think that would happen. I've been to agricultural council and environment council and fisheries council, where I feel so isolated, because I watch the EU-27 going about their business and we are completely on our own. Why you would think that they would not get a better deal than us is beyond me.

You say there are massive opportunities. I don't see those massive opportunities. I see massive challenges, and that's what I've spoken about in my statement. I was just trying to say to Llyr that I did think that public procurement was one opportunity, but I am struggling beyond that. I see challenges in my own advice surgery when I have a constituent who comes to me who, if he wants to take his pet on holiday on Friday, so long as he's got a pet passport, he can take his pet on holiday on Friday. That will not happen after 29 March. It will probably take about four months. You will have to take your pet to the vet probably three or four times to have blood tests. It's all going to be so much more difficult than people are used to, and it's about making sure that people are aware of what those challenges are going to be.

We had—well, we have, at the moment, for another two months at least, frictionless trade with our closest neighbours: 0.5 billion people. Why would you not want that to continue? You talk about regulations and environmental standards. I made it very clear that environmental standards will not fall, but I want to remove as much bureaucracy as I can, because, certainly, when I first came into post, and there was the referendum result, and I spoke to farmers, a lot of them had voted 'leave', and when I asked them why, bureaucracy was one of the things they told me they wanted to get rid of. Yet we know that the impact on our agricultural sector is: if we have a 'no deal', we'll have high tariffs, we'll have increased bureaucracy, we'll have delays at the border, and that will all add to the cost of exporting. So, whilst I too want to reduce bureaucracy, that is really not going to happen if we have a 'no deal' scenario. I hear what you say about you don't think there should be a 'no deal' scenario. This was the default position, and, frankly, it was always there, wasn't it—the danger of that.

In relation to 'Brexit and our land', I've made it very clear that there will be no cliff edge. One of the reasons for going out to New Zealand was to see what happened there, and I have said all along that there will be a multi-year transitional period. There will be no cliff edge. New schemes won't be brought in until they are absolutely ready, and the old schemes will not be removed until those new schemes are in place. 

Two quick points. The first one is: if people had told me that, when we put article 50 in and we triggered it, almost two years later, we wouldn't have got anywhere near a deal, I wouldn't have believed them. We also talk about public procurement a lot. If we want to get more public procurement in Wales, it's not about rules, it's about the size of the contracts. The larger the contracts you put out, the more likely they are to be won by large companies. You make the contracts smaller and local firms win them. That works in highways and agriculture, or almost anything else.

In 2017, 50 per cent of the food consumed in the UK came from the UK, 30 per cent from Europe and 20 per cent from the rest of the world—to put the rest of the world and Europe into some form of context regarding Britain. This morning, Mr Roberts of the FUW said:

'We do not know what tariff rates will be charged on imports from other countries after March, as the draft tariffs will not be published until the end of February and need to be approved by parliament—so deals with importers must be reached with no knowledge of the additional costs likely to be incurred at ports.'

That's not really a good way of running anything, is it?

Of course, as well as tariffs, there are also environmental checks on any agricultural or fisheries product being exported. With a number of our exports, such as shellfish, being time-sensitive, any slowing down of exports—instead of taking them to market, we'll be taking them to the tip.

I've got two questions for the Minister. Can the Minister explain how we can gain beneficial agricultural trade deals now that we could not do before 1973? The second thing is: can the Minister see how a free trade deal covering lamb with New Zealand could not be disastrous? I'm not forgetting, of course, the west Wales farmer who was looking forward to exporting his lamb to New Zealand.

I thank Mike Hedges for those questions and, again, observations. Sadly, as time has gone on, I could see this 'no deal'. As I say, last summer, at the agricultural shows, I had several conversations because I could just see what was looming, unfortunately. As I say, why would the EU-27 give us a good deal? It's no good blaming the EU. People seem to blame the EU. This is our mess. This is our self-made mess.

I think you're right about public procurement. You heard me say to the previous two speakers that I do feel that that's a big opportunity, and we need to look at how we procure. Tariffs are also incredibly important, and the UK Government has indicated that it's considering trade liberalisation—eliminating tariffs on goods from the EU and the rest of the world as a contingency measure in a 'no deal' scenario. So, you can see why our farmers are so very concerned about that.

In relation to shellfish, you're absolutely right. The majority of shellfish leaves the vessel or the company and within 24 hours, it's delivered, live, somewhere else. So, if it ends up sitting on a port for any time later than that, we're going to have fish mortality. We're going to have ruined fish, and I really am very concerned. I said this morning at the lobby briefing that I am very concerned for the industry if it is a 'no deal'.

A free trade deal with New Zealand is of great concern. As I said, when I met with Vangelis Vitalis, the chief negotiator in New Zealand, he made it very clear to me that it was absolutely the top priority. All our farmers that I speak to are very concerned because, obviously, the Welsh lamb market has been shrinking here in Wales, and they are very concerned about being flooded with cheap lamb.

I think that whilst there may be some opportunities for import substitution in the medium term, the most immediate concern that any Government should have is to secure food security. So, with over three quarters of the food that we eat being imported from the EU, including half our vegetables and 95 per cent of our fruit being imported, this is all very significant. So, I'd be keen to know, if it's possible, what tariff there will be on fresh fruit and vegetables coming from Europe in the future. You mentioned 15 per cent on processed food, so I'm hoping you may be able to enlighten us there. 

Just going to the threats that are also potential opportunities, if we have these WTO-imposed tariffs, it does change the business case for growing more of our own vegetables and fruit, and I just wondered, as the growing season starts next month, whether this is an active conversation that you’re having with our farmers. Is this something that’s going to be raised at the Farming Connect conference on 7 February?

And, I suppose, the final question I have is that you talk about Wales gaining more powers over the environment, agriculture and fisheries after Brexit. Unlike Neil Hamilton, who seems to want a free-for-all for nitrate spreading, I’m rather keen to understand, if we don’t any longer have the protections of EU food regulations, how we are going to prevent a flood of chlorinated chicken and other adulterated foods just simply flooding our markets and literally putting our much higher standards of welfare and quality farmers out of business.

Thank you. In relation to your question around whether the discussion around Welsh fruit and vegetables will be discussed at the Farming Connect conference, I’m not too sure about the agenda, but I can certainly find out and let you know.

In relation to tariffs, I can’t give you any figures, because, as you will have heard previously, they're not going to be published—and they’ve got to go through Parliament—until the end of February. But, certainly, a 'no deal' scenario could mean that some of our food could be subject to 50 per cent tariffs. That’s the highest figure I’ve heard, and, certainly last week, in the discussion I had in the quadrilateral with Michael Gove and my counterparts, those figures were used. And, as you say, it’s very dangerous that if it is a 'no deal', and the worst-case scenario for Welsh agriculture is that we allow cheap food imports at a time when our exports could then be subject to a tariff as high as 50 per cent.

Agricultural pollution is something that, obviously, concerns me greatly, and I’ve just taken some measures to look at baseline regulations, and you’ll be aware of the written statement that I’ve had. We’ve made it very clear. Fortunately, I think that Welsh Government was, looking back, pretty prescient to have brought forward the Environment (Wales) Act 2016 that we did, the Well-being of Future Generations (Wales) Act 2015, and, certainly, when I talk to my Scottish counterparts, they can see that that was very forward looking. However, you’ll be aware that I’m taking transitionary powers from the Agriculture Bill, mainly so we can continue to pay our farmers. It’s really important that we do the same with the Fisheries Bill, because, whilst we don’t pay our fishers in the way we pay our farmers, we still have the EMFF money that we need to obviously use in a way that we have been doing. So, those powers will only be temporary, though, until we bring forward our own agricultural Bill and our own fisheries Bill.

Addressing the environment gaps is very important, and you will have heard me say in my answer to Llyr that we will be going out to consultation around how we address that gap, because the gap is very different in Wales, because of our environment Act, than what it is in the UK.

I thank the Minister.