Questions now from the party spokespeople. Conservative spokesperson, Andrew R.T. Davies.  

Thank you, Presiding Officer. Minister, there has been much conversation between you and me in this Chamber around nitrate vulnerable zones and, obviously, the environmental regulations you're looking to bring forward to control agricultural pollution, as you see it. Are you able to update us on what you told us in December, where you were having a pause in the process and you were rethinking and re-engaging with the sector to see what the regulations might finally look like? 

So, I think the last time we discussed this in the Chamber—. Well, there are two things to say: it's not perceived agricultural pollution—I think we know the number of incidents that we have of that—and I said to you that I would be receiving advice before the end of January. I received that advice on Monday. As you can imagine, it's a very large ministerial advice folder, which I am now reading, and I will be making an announcement, I would certainly hope, at the beginning of next month into the middle of next month. 

So, we can look forward to an announcement some time in February, I think, from that answer—

Yes.

—that you just gave me. Will you be making available, prior to that announcement, the regulatory impact assessment, because it is vital that we understand exactly the costings of this, the implications to the industry, especially for some of the livestock sectors, the beef and sheep sector in particular? And why, as I understand it, when pollution incidents actually declined in 2019, and between 2001 and 2018, there's no discernible difference between the years on agricultural pollution, you believe it necessary to bring such draconian measures forward, when obviously the working group—[Interruption.]—the working group that the Welsh Government set up itself talked and looked at bringing forward a voluntary proposal that the regulator and the sector agreed would be of benefit to reducing pollution in the agricultural sector? 

Well, I certainly don't think they're draconian. If you look at measures in other parts of the UK, I would say we're certainly not bringing forward draconian measures, if you compare them to other parts of the UK. But that's not an issue for me. And I'll just give you some figures so that you can understand that what you've said—I think I heard you rightly—is not correct.

So, the number of agricultural pollution incidents in 2019, at the current time, stands at 157. That's unsubstantiated, because we haven't got all the figures finalised for 2019. That figure of 157 already exceeds the average of the last 10 years, which is 151. It's higher than in 2015, it's higher than in 2016, and it's higher than in 2017. The figure for 2018 is the highest that we've had for the period since 2001. So, for 17 years, the figure for 2018 was the highest, and that stood at 195 incidents. I'm sure you will agree with me this is a cause for great concern. It's unacceptable—the agricultural sector recognises it's unacceptable—and we have to do something about it. And you've got to think about also the cumulative impact of these incidents. 

I agree with you. One incident is one too many, and ultimately the agricultural industry wants to do all it can to make sure that these pollution incidents are reduced. But you yourself said in 2018 there were 190 incidents reported. I think the figure you gave for 2019 was 157, which showed a downward trajectory. And can it be right to respond to these numbers with what is, in effect, a cut and paste of NVZ zones that have been put in other parts of the United Kingdom? There surely is a better way of doing this, working collaboratively with the sector to make sure that we get on top of these incidents—because, as I said, one incident is one too many; I accept that—and, above all, that there is capital funding put in place, so, whatever measures you bring forward via the regulations, the sector can apply for capital funding to make some of the improvements that the regulations will demand of them. So, can you confirm today, that, in tandem with what you're looking at with the regulations, you are also looking at the availability of capital funding and any money that might be left over in the rural development plan, or any money that you might be able to secure from the finance Minister, who is in her place this afternoon?

We'll start with the capital funding. So, I've said all along that we will be able to provide additional capital funding in relation to this, but not to bring farms up to the legal standard now, because, at the moment, we've got data that's being collected through our Natural Resources Wales dairy officer visits to the farms, and that indicates approximately 60 per cent of dairy farms lack sufficient slurry storage now. So, I'm not giving additional funding to bring those farms up to the legal capacity. However, I said all along, both in this Chamber and outside, that we will look to provide some additional capital funding. 

I go back to what I was saying about 2019: it's 157, but that figure has not yet been finalised, as some cases are still under review. So, that is not the final figure, I believe, for 2019. Again, I've spoken about this many, many times with stakeholders, with the farming unions. I want to work in collaboration with them. We've had the voluntary approach, it hasn't worked in the way that we wanted. One of the reasons—. We did say we would announce this at the beginning of January, but because we were getting more and more evidence—. You referred to the fact that there was a pause, it wasn't a pause, I just wanted to make sure that the advice that came to me was as thorough as we could possibly have.

Plaid Cymru spokesperson, Llyr Gruffydd.

You've just told us there were 157 incidents in 2019. Yes, 157 pollution incidents are 157 too many. Of course, there's no mention of the 30,000 sewage pollution incidents in 2018. So, I think we do need a little bit of perspective when we discuss these issues.

Now, you mentioned that you wanted to work in collaboration. I'd commend that. You might wish to collaborate with Natural Resources Wales, who told us that 92 per cent of Wales's agricultural land is not at risk of causing nitrate pollution, and their advice is that we move from the current 2.3 per cent of Wales as designated NVZ to 8 per cent.

Now, your regulatory impact assessment, or the draft RIA, considered only two options: one was the 'do nothing' option, which nobody, not even the farming unions, is advocating; and the other was to apply measures to address agricultural pollution to the whole of Wales. So, why did your RIA only focus on the two extremes, one of which was never a realistic option in the first place?

The reason I have had a pause, or a delay, in bringing these regulations forward is because, as I said, I wanted to look at the most evidence that was available to us. I certainly saw the first draft of the RIA. I am now approaching—. In my very large folder, I think the RIA is about document 18. I'm coming to that. I will see what difference there is from the draft, if any, but I'm not in a position to answer that specific question at the current time, because I am reviewing all the evidence that we've got. 

You're quite right: we see pollution right across Wales in different forms. Diffuse pollution is equally important. And, again, NRW had their 'Challenges and Choices' consultation in 2019. Again, that identified diffuse pollution from the agricultural sector as the reason for 113 water bodies across Wales failing to meet good status. So, there are lots of issues around pollution that we need to be looking at, because it's imperative that we sort this problem out now.

But the fact remains that NRW is not supporting the proposal to make the whole of Wales an NVZ, and whilst there are incidents and those need to be tackled, clearly they feel that doing so across 8 per cent of Wales would be sufficient to address the issue. We all look forward to seeing the regulatory impact assessment, because the draft one was only a 20-page document, and for a change this substantial, then we really need something a bit more robust than that. I'll leave it at that.

But of course, if you want to pursue a whole-territory approach, then we need to be convinced that that is the best way forward. I'm not convinced, and I haven't seen the evidence out there that tells us that a whole-territory NVZ will actually be effective in reducing agricultural pollution. Because information obtained, again from Natural Resources Wales, provides no substantive evidence of the effectiveness of the NVZ action programme in reducing agricultural pollution, despite designations dating back to 2002. We've seen numerous scientific research papers that consider the effectiveness or otherwise of NVZs, and they tell us that the approach has little or no effect, with some highlighting actually detrimental effects as well. One study found, and I quote:

'that 69% of NVZs showed no significant improvement in surface water concentrations even after 15 years. In comparison to a control catchment, 29% of NVZs showed a significant improvement'— that's positive—

'but 31% showed a significant worsening.'

So, where's your evidence that a whole-territory NVZ approach will actually have the effect that so many of us want to see?

As I said, I'm currently—. There haven't been that many hours that I've been awake and not been in work to give me that time to read, as I say, this very, very large body of evidence, which I want to give my full consideration to.

We had a consultation on this back in 2016. This is not something that we're rushing towards. This has been a very long process. Some would say too long. But it's really important that we get it right, and I will publish as much as I can to show how that policy has been derived.

It just begs the question: how much consideration had you given to previous iterations of these proposals, or whether you had been involved at all? Because you sound as if you're disowning what we've had so far, because you haven't had a chance to look at the file that you've now been provided with. So, I think that there are big questions there about who's making decisions or bringing forward suggestions around this.

Now, I've hinted earlier that there could well be unforeseen—or maybe foreseen—negative consequences from what seemed to be your previous approach. Now, we not only know that there are huge spikes in nitrate levels in those areas where we've seen, in the past, closed periods—you know, nitrates spiking immediately before the closed period and immediately after, for obvious reasons—but also, there is concern that there could well be a loss of cattle from Welsh farms and a subsequent reduction in mixed grazing on Welsh uplands.

Now, farms with 20 or 30 suckler cows are not going to invest tens of thousands of pounds in new infrastructure to meet the requirements of these new regulations, because that is wholly disproportionate to the low levels of stock that they keep. They're telling me that the choice for them, therefore, is to go out of cattle farming, and that will bring with it, of course, the subsequent consequences to upland habitats and biodiversity, but also to the wider beef sector here in Wales.

Environmental organisations are concerned about that potential outcome. Hybu Cig Cymru is also concerned at the potential outcome to the wider beef sector. Nobody here is saying, 'Don't do anything'—that needs to be understood and heard by everyone—but as far as I'm concerned, so far, the Government has clearly failed to make the case for your proposals, or to provide evidence that justifies the approach that you seem to wish to pursue.

So, I would ask you to revisit again these proposals and, please, to look at the 45 recommendations that came from the agricultural pollution sub-group, which should have been properly considered as part of the regulatory impact assessment that has been available in draft form.

To start with your first point, I'm certainly not disowning. I've been very involved since I've been in this portfolio. I mentioned there'd been a consultation before I came into portfolio; it was one of the very first things on my desk. What came from that was a voluntary approach: working with the farming unions particularly, and other stakeholders. You may be aware of a scheme that came forward from two Pembrokeshire farmers; I worked with the farming unions to make sure that voluntary scheme had time to work. You can see by the number of incidents it's clearly not working. That's why we have to do something now. That's why we have to move to regulation. So, that's in answer to your first point. The advice that I've been given this week is the advice that I've been waiting for around regulation, and I've certainly given it my very thorough time and consideration, because as I say, we need to get this absolutely right.

Regarding your second point, every farm is different, so it's really not possible to specify exactly which measures would apply to an upland farm, for example. You're talking about thousands and thousands of pounds when we don't know what each farm will need. I've made it very clear that we will provide some additional capital funding, but not to bring farms up to legal requirement. So, I will be making an announcement, certainly by the middle of February, and obviously Members will be the first to hear.