The following amendment has been selected: amendment 1 in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Item 7 on our agenda is the Welsh Conservatives debate on the Wales-wide nitrate vulnerable zone and I call on Janet Finch-Saunders to move the motion.

Motion NDM7599 Mark Isherwood

To propose that the Senedd:

1. Calls on the Welsh Government to reverse the introduction of the Wales-wide nitrate vulnerable zone.

2. Further calls on the next Welsh Government to bring forward proposals to tackle pollution in Wales.

Motion moved.

Minister, it is a sad reality that your draconian NVZ measures that you're introducing are now bringing your own Welsh Government's honesty and integrity into question. Indeed, at least eight times you have promised not to do anything whilst we are in the middle of this COVID pandemic. Responding to me in Plenary on 3 February, you claimed that the voluntary scheme you had worked with NFU Cymru to deliver had failed. That simply isn't true. In fact, the blue flag farming approach was not backed by Welsh Government when farmers actually applied for funding through the RDP sustainable management scheme.

Shockingly, it is my understanding that despite project results and water standards being shared in letters to you and the First Minister in March 2020, including recommendations for next steps and a response being issued by officials stating that detailed consideration will be given to the water standard, NFU Cymru have yet to receive a further reply. Despite industry organisations committing to the Wales land management forum sub-group on agricultural pollution and the group submitting a progress report to you with 45 recommendations in April 2018, as of earlier this month you had not responded or even met the expert group. Clearly, you have written off the voluntary approach far before giving it a proper chance.

Earlier this month, the First Minister claimed that we've seen no diminution in the rate of agricultural pollution. That again is not correct. You yourself have acknowledged that there has been progress over the last four years. NRW's executive director for evidence, policy and permitting had spoken of a steady decline in pollution incidents in the last two years, and a clear downward trend of 28 per cent has been observed over the last three years. In trying to justify these regulations, you have referred me to NRW's dairy project. You informed this Parliament that 50 per cent of the dairy farms visited are not compliant. I tabled a written question asking you to clarify what steps officials took to examine reasons for non-compliance. You responded on Monday stating that you will thoroughly analyse the results once the project is complete. I think you know where I'm going with this. You may recall also in committee this month that you told me that, and I quote,

'In relation to the costs around the agricultural pollution, as I said, there is a higher cost if we don't do anything.'

Again, you're wrong. Your own regulatory impact assessment estimates that the upfront capital costs of the NVZ could run to £360 million. That's £347 million more than the assistance you are actually offering, £99 million more than the latest total income from farming in Wales. In fact, according to the RIA, over 20 years, the total cost is over £1 billion to our agricultural sector. Why are you making farmers spend these ridiculous sums of money that they don't have, between now and 2040, for benefits worth £153 million? The costs are £950 million more than the actual value of the benefits. In fact, Griffiths's great big gap between cost and benefit could be even larger, as the explanatory memorandum states, and I quote:

'Due to the large range of potential environment costs associated with these pollutants and the variability of farm types and practices, there can be no certainty of the cost benefit ratio.'

Why do you claim that these regulations are proportionate? Why increase the number of holdings affected by NVZs to over 24,000, when huge swathes of Wales have seen zero incidents during the last decade? Why make a mockery of Brexit and devolution by choosing a European option when we should be looking to work with farmers to develop a voluntary Welsh solution? Why pursue an NVZ when a study by your beloved European Commission found that about half of European monitoring stations on nitrates showed no significant change, and a further 26.6 per cent presented increasing trends of nitrates? Why push Wales into an all-territory NVZ when Denmark and Ireland have applied for derogation?

For the sake of Welsh farming and, indeed, for our farmers and custodians of our countryside, we need to halt the progress of this. Minister, I do hold you in high regard, and I realise it is a large portfolio that has some difficulties. One incident of pollution is one too many. But I will say to you, in all honesty, and in all earnest: it is not above somebody to be able to say, 'I am listening to my farmers, I am listening to the people of Wales, I am listening to my elected Senedd colleagues.' Change your mind on this decision, Minister, and let's change that lack of trust now into respect. Thank you. Diolch.

I have selected the amendment to the motion and I ask the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs to formally move the amendment tabled in the name of Rebecca Evans.

Amendment 1—Rebecca Evans

Delete point 1 and replace with:

Supports the ambition of Welsh farming to be the most climate and nature friendly in the world and joins with the farming unions in recognising one agricultural pollution incident is one too many.

Recognises Welsh farming offers many of the most important solutions to the climate emergency, and many Welsh farmers already exemplify the changes in farming practice needed.

Accepts that control of agricultural emissions is an integral part of reaching net zero emissions in Wales and across the UK.

Agrees the first step in tackling agricultural emissions is to implement good practice measures already undertaken by the majority of farmers.

Amendment 1 moved.

Formally.

Members will be aware that I tabled a motion to annul these regulations that will be debated and voted on next week, but it's good to have an opportunity to air some of the arguments as we prepare for that important vote. Of course, we will be supporting this motion today.

I oppose these regulations not because there is no water quality problem in some parts of Wales; I oppose these regulations because these regulations are not the right solution to tackle this problem. The regulations are disproportionate, they will have unintended consequences for the environment and, of course, they will undermine the viability of many Welsh farms. Why are they disproportionate? Well, Natural Resources Wales has recommended that 8 per cent of Wales should be placed within NVZs, targeting those areas of Wales where there are problems. But, of course, the Welsh Government has ignored that and has gone for a 100 per cent approach, even those areas that haven't seen any cases of agricultural pollution over the past decade. We know that the trend across Wales has fallen. When you look at the cases year on year over the past three years, they're down 28 per cent in that period. So, yes, target where targeting is needed, make regulations where you need to regulate, but don't place this unreasonable burden on every farm in Wales and every acre of Welsh land, even where it is not an issue that causes concern. This Government needs to be far more sophisticated and more appropriate in this place. Follow the data and follow the science—that's the Government's mantra when it comes to COVID. Well, do the same in this context.

There will be unintended consequences for our environment. Using the calendar to spread slurry is absurd, and the Minister herself acknowledged that she found it difficult to accept that that is the best approach in this area. Weeks before the time where this can't be done, and weeks after it has come to an end, there will be huge spikes in the nitrate levels in land and water as every farm in Wales clears their stores simultaneously. That will create pollution problems in areas where there are no pollution problems currently. The only option for many farms, particularly in those less-favoured areas, which, perhaps, keep 20 or 30 cattle, will be to get out of keeping cattle because of the cost, and that will mean that we will miss out on the environmental contribution made by grazing those cattle in terms of biodiversity and habitats, particularly in our upland areas. In losing those cattle, what you will see is farmers being forced to introduce more sheep on those lands, which will graze harder and damage those habitats. If you do keep 20 cattle, then the cost of paying for this infrastructure to store worth three of four months of slurry is going to be beyond those people's reach. The Government will say, 'Well, we're providing some £11 million to support', but that's laughable. That's less than £1,000 for every agricultural holding in Wales. I know about one farm that's been quoted £300,000 to put in place appropriate agriculture on the farm to meet the needs of these regulations. There's no way that farm could afford that investment, even if the Government were to contribute half the cost.

I will conclude with this—

Can I ask the Member to wind up, please?

Okay. They are impractical regulations, they are regulations that can't be delivered without creating economic and environmental disruption to farms across Wales, and they will come into force a week before the original day that this Senedd is to come to an end. There's an election in a matter of weeks; don't rush these regulations through. Take a step back and reconsider.

Can I remind all Members that it's a 30-minute debate, and it's a three-minute contribution? Actually we've oversubscribed on the number of speakers, so some of you will be disappointed. Jenny Rathbone.

I think this is an important debate to ensure that people realise in the farming community that we are listening to them, but I think there has been some exaggeration of what the problem is as far as what we're asking of farmers. We're asking farmers not to pollute the land and not to pollute the rivers, and that is a perfectly rational and civilised ask. We can't go on having nearly 3,000 substantiated agriculture-related pollution incidents over the last 20 years. We've had more than three each week in the last three years. There's been loads of discussion going on between the Minister and representatives of farmers over the last five years, and the farming community has simply not come up with the solution that we need to see. We can't have zones where we have regulation and zones where there is no regulation. You wouldn't expect to see that when it came to a butcher's shop or a hospital—'We'll have a bit of regulation here but not there.' It seems to me that of course we need to listen to our farmers, but I just think that they have been made overanxious, and doing nothing is simply not an option.

Lord Deben, who chairs the Climate Change Committee, is coming to talk to the climate change committee here tomorrow, and he would be pretty shocked if we weren't doing all we needed to do to reduce our emissions. This is one of the ways in which we can do it. Money is available to help small farmers put in suitable places for storing the muck that they need to store. There's always been this phrase that there's money in muck, and I do not understand why it is not possible to make it into a marketable commodity in order to enrich the land and make it easier and better to grow crops on. This seems to me a really significant issue, and I think that the overspecialisation of farming with these mega dairy farms is really going to be a major source of the problem here. We need to ensure that the circular economy applies to farming, just as much as to plastic bottles.

So, I really do hope that we can find some resolution of the fine detail of this problem, but probably not in a 30-minute debate. We need to be looking at this in the climate change committee to see if there's anything here we can do to ensure that small farmers are not going to be put out of business by being compliant with the existing regulations, never mind anything that the Minister thinks we need to do to improve on them. We have to remember that this is all being done in the context of being warned that one third of all the fish and freshwater invertebrates in our fresh waters are due to be exterminated in the not-too-distant future, and, therefore, we have to act now to protect our environment, protect nature and ensure that we have sustainable farming that does not undermine other aspects of our economy.

Minister, I do want to be clear on this matter, I think it is vital the Welsh Government bring forward proposals to tackle pollution in Wales, but I do not believe this is it. Recognising the need to protect our environment, at the very beginning of all of this, I supported the calls for there to be a mixed suite of methods for farmers to be able to use to reduce nitrate levels on farms. I recognised that a one-size-for-all solution would not be the most environmentally effective or financially stable way forward, and I find it extraordinary that you've taken the decision to introduce a Wales-wide nitrate vulnerable zone, despite the compelling evidence that came before you. I'd like to point out to the previous speaker we already have nitrate vulnerable zones in certain areas of Wales, my patch of Carmarthen West and South Pembrokeshire being just such a one, you don't need to have it over the whole country.

Responses from farmers and land managers highlighted they'd be unable to afford the proposed all-Wales NVZ, and the vast majority of farmers actually use very little nitrate fertilisers. Seventy-three per cent of farms that produce slurry not have sufficient storage on their farms capable of meeting the proposed requirements of two and a half months' storage. Not only will the cost of this requirement put some farms out of business, even those who will decide they can achieve it will face issues with funding, with planning—try getting planning—and physically doing it in the short transition period. And remember, Minister, this places more pressure on already hard-pressed farmers who are dealing with a loss of cash due to COVID-19 and uncertainty over the post-Brexit plans.

Then there are the closed periods for spreading. As any farmer will tell you, you cannot farm by the calendar, you farm by the conditions. So, for example, here we are in late February and farmers could in theory be spreading slurry in very wet conditions, but could not have taken advantage of all the dry spells between 15 October and 15 January. The end result of this requirement will be very high risks of pollution before and after the closed period, something that's very common in Ireland.

I think the other major area I just want to briefly mention is the issue of no derogations for a limit of N produced on-farm. Farmers tell me this is the biggest issue with the regulations. The regulation stipulates that a farm cannot exceed 170 kg N N/h. In all the other home nations, a derogation lifting this figure to 250 kg is offered to farms of 80 per cent of the farm down to grass. It was in the draft regulations, but it's gone missing.

I could talk about the fact that I think that this is a quota on production per hectare and that it will have consequences on the price of land and consequences on the downstream business that comes out of farms. I'd like us to talk about the mental health issues, I'd like to talk about the difficulties of record keeping, but I think I just want to end with my utter frustration, because I've lobbied you and previous Ministers on actually tackling the sinners. You could have used a slingshot and got the guys who laugh, go to the bank, laugh at NRW, ignore NRW, pay their fines, trash their local communities and carry on regardless. Instead, you've used a sledgehammer to crack a nut. I do not believe this is the way forward, Minister, and I think you should reverse your decision. 

I and my group shall be supporting the Conservative motion. The regulations implementing a blanket set of slurry regulations for the whole of the Welsh farming industry are totally disproportionate, both in cost and implementation. It appears yet again that the many are being punished for the actions of the few. It may also be the case that, even with the few, the majority of pollution accidents were unavoidable or simply, as in life in general, a matter of simple mistakes. Even these, as has been said before, have fallen by over 24 per cent over the last three years. The Welsh Government say they have set aside £22 million to help farmers to implement the changes needed, but even a cursory glance at the cost of the infrastructure needed shows the sum to be totally inadequate. It is estimated that the average cost of the construction of slurry storage facilities is around £80,000. Given there are 24,000 farms in Wales that might be affected by these regulations, we get a flavour of how inadequate the figure set aside is. 

It is obvious that the farmers themselves will bear the brunt of the cost of implementation. The £80,000 figure only represents the initial cost for the necessary infrastructure. The Welsh Government's own cost analysis puts a figure for upfront capital costs of £360 million and ongoing annual costs in the region of £22 million, and this does not include the estimated one-off payment of £7.5 million planning consent fees. Given the farming industry is in the middle of a huge upheaval with regard to Brexit, not to mention the disruption caused by COVID, how does the Government expect farmers to cope with this huge extra expense? It is said that the banks are unwilling to make loans for the cost because they do not positively affect farm income.

We then have to ask ourselves: what are the benefits achieved over the next 20 years? Well, Welsh Government's own figures put this at around £300 million, set against a cost of over £800 million for implementation. Again, out of the 953 water catchment areas identified across Wales, just 113, 12 per cent, were failing through farming practices. Surely a far more proportionate and cost-effective way of managing the pollution problems would be to target these failing areas.

Should these draconian measures go forward, I believe we shall see many of our already impoverished farmers fail. One farmer has told me that his dairy herd will have to be halved if these measures go forward. The Minister says that there has been extensive consultation with the farming industry, but the farming industry tells us that almost all of their suggestions and input have been ignored. Given that British farmers are some of the most hardworking, innovative farmers in Europe and whose husbandry standards are among the highest in the world, we should be doing everything to help the industry, not creating obstacles to their survival. It appears the farmers are being made scapegoats on the Welsh Government's altar of environmental goals. Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd.

The Welsh Government's decision to bring forward regulations that will see the whole of Wales designated as a nitrate vulnerable zone from 1 April has certainly caused an immense amount of frustration and anxiety for farmers in my constituency. The volume of e-mails I've received on this issue demonstrates just that. As someone from a farming family myself and as someone who has married into a dairy farming family, I'd like to think I'm acutely aware of the impact that these proposals will have not just on the financial viability of many farms but also on the mental health of farmers, who face these regulations during a global pandemic. Indeed, the very fact that the Welsh Government has had this issue hanging over the farming sector for several years now has caused a lot of anxiety, uncertainty and, indeed, frustration, and it's deeply disappointing that the Welsh Government now intend to introduce these regulations, especially when they promised not to do so during a pandemic. The excessive burden that these regulations will put on farmers will do nothing to attract people to farming, and therefore I believe that it will seriously damage the industry in the long term. Indeed, the many e-mails I've received tell me that, sadly, many farmers will be forced out of business because of these regulations.

Now, the Welsh Government tell us that the regulations are necessary to tackle water pollution, but the portal run by the Welsh Government and Natural Resources Wales, which was sent to me by the Members' Research Service, shows that, in the last year or so, only up to 15 per cent of pollution occurrences were caused by agricultural incidents. As Angela Burns said, these regulations are a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Now, the Welsh Government's approach also fails to take into account some of the good work already being done by farmers across Wales. For example, in my own constituency, the Wales catchment sensitive farming demonstration project is an example of a very successful voluntary scheme that was well received by farmers. There was also an offset scheme operated successfully by a group of First Milk farmers in the Cleddau catchment, led by local farmers Will Pritchard and Mike Smith, which also delivered a workable alternative delivering measurable reductions in nitrates. Therefore, it was deeply disappointing that the Welsh Government has not sought to build on this activity and develop a solution that works with our farming sector and not against it.

Now, as you would expect, local farmers in Pembrokeshire have raised several issues with the regulations, for example, the closed periods, as we've already heard, for spreading do not take into account the weather conditions that farmers have to work with, and the prolonged wet weather has an impact on the ability to undertake slurry spreading and storage. As has already been said, there are also concerns over the regulation that stipulates that farms in Wales can't exceed a certain amount of nitrogen per hectare, while in other parts of the UK, the limits are much more flexible. To put this into context, one business has made it clear that they will either have to find another 125 acres of land to support their current stock numbers or reduce their stock levels, which will have a significant impact on their output and therefore their business. This shows the very real impact that these regulations will have on farmers, and how some of them will now be forced to make huge decisions that will impact their livelihoods.

And the Welsh Government has committed to providing some financial assistance to farmers in order to help them comply with the regulations, but the £13 million offered by the Welsh Government does not sufficiently support the farming sector, and there's no mention in the Welsh Government's statements about the support that the Welsh Government should be making available to businesses that have had to reduce their stock levels because of these regulations. So, therefore, perhaps the Minister will take the opportunity today to spell out exactly what support will be offered to farmers who have had to reduce stock or accrue additional land to comply with these regulations.

And finally, Deputy Presiding Officer, I believe these regulations will harm the future of the sector in the long run, and they will do little to attract the younger generations into farming, and so the Welsh Government must consider all of these wider consequences and find an approach to tackling water pollution that is not only evidence based and proportionate but that ultimately works with the industry and does not destabilise its future. I therefore urge Members to support the Welsh Conservatives' motion.

Can I now call the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffiths?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. As a Government, we support the ambition of Welsh farmers to be the most climate and nature friendly in the world, building on a reputation for high animal welfare standards, high environmental standards and the high quality of the food they produce. This ambition is under threat because of the ecological and reputational damage caused by widespread pollution from poor agricultural practice.

A prosperous future for Welsh farming will involve capturing more domestic and international demand for truly sustainable produce. I believe our farmers have the expertise and determination to achieve this, and I believe the public want the very significant support we give to the farming sector on their behalf to be focused on achieving that sustainability for the rural economy and for Wales' natural heritage. I'm aware there's been a great deal of misinformation surrounding the Government's intentions in dealing with agricultural pollution, and that some have seen it as their role to create anxiety and uncertainty in farming communities, rather than to carefully scrutinise, to put forward constructive ideas, and to responsibly inform the public about the issues at hand. Jenny Rathbone referred to the exaggeration about asking farmers not to pollute. Shall we just remember, it is their statutory duty not to pollute? In that context, I welcome the opportunity for this Senedd debate so that we can seek to reach a consensus on the need for change and around the need to support the sector to implement existing good practice measures as a first step towards making both our farming sector and our natural environment more resilient.

Earlier this month, I made regulations before the Senedd to set in law a net-zero emissions target for Wales. I hope this ambition for an urgent and accelerating response to the climate emergency is shared by everyone in this Senedd. I do know that the ambition is strongly supported by Wales' farming unions, who have themselves set a net-zero goal for the sector. The scientific evidence is clear: the scale of the net-zero challenge means we cannot afford to put off until tomorrow the emissions reductions we can achieve today. It is not credible for opposition parties to say they support the net-zero goal if they are not willing to follow the scientific advice on the measures we need to take to meet it and the timescales to which we have to work, where there is no room for delays or reversals. All I've heard from Members of opposition parties this afternoon is a call for inaction; this Government is about action.

Implementing good practice in nutrient management means planning where, when and how to spread slurry in a way that minimises the losses to the environment that are otherwise driving our emissions up to unsustainable levels. The farming sector has a very broad contribution to make to providing the solutions we need to the climate and biodiversity emergencies. Raising the standards of nutrient management such that the good standard already met by many becomes the minimum standard is one of the most important and immediate actions they can take, and I hope the whole Senedd can agree these steps are now needed. 

Sadly, it remains the case that, because of shortcomings in nutrient management in some parts of the farming sector, we still see far too many preventable agricultural pollution incidents. Even on the eve of this debate, I was alerted last night to a substantial slurry incident on a river and estuary in Pembrokeshire. The incident has not been self-reported and therefore investigations by NRW are under way. Janet Finch-Saunders said one incident is too many; well, let me tell you, over 100 every year for over 20 years is far too many. These incidents kill wildlife, they poison our air, our soil and our water. They increase greenhouse gas emissions, and they damage the good reputation of Welsh farming. I hope, therefore, all Members of the Senedd can agree with me and those in our farming communities and the wider public who say we have had enough of these incidents; we will no longer accept the poor practice that causes them. And I repeat what Janet Finch-Saunders said—one such incident is one too many.

Thank you. I will now call Members who've indicated they wish to make an intervention of up to one minute. Llyr Gruffydd. 

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. I just wanted to pick up on the assertion that the Welsh Government is actually providing sufficient funds for farmers to respond to these new requirements. I make it around £11.5 million that's being provided. According to the Government's own estimates, that would just about cover the needs of Anglesey alone, let alone the rest of Wales. The low-cost-scenario estimates from the Welsh Government make it £109 million required, the high cost is £360 million, and you're providing £11.5 million, I think. So, let's not believe what we heard from some Members in this debate—that the Government is providing the support required. 

Thank you. Can I now call on Russell George to reply to the debate?

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. The Minister talks about action; well, the farming community, Minister, want action from you. Now, the only area that I can agree that you spoke to this afternoon, Minister—and Jenny Rathbone—was that we all have a role in improving water quality. That's correct—all of us do, businesses and farmers included, and farmers accept that role. But any regulations have to be evidence based, proportionate and targeted, and the regulations that you have proposed and will be bringing forward next week are none of those things. Minister, it seems that you will bring forward these regulations next week to introduce a Wales-wide NVZ, and, in doing so, you have broken your commitment to Welsh farmers and this Senedd that you would not bring forward these regulations during the course of that pandemic, and I'm sure the First Minister and the health Minister will confirm to you that we are still in the middle of this pandemic.

Now, I heard the contributions from Jenny Rathbone. I'm astonished. She talks about exaggeration. She talks about not being able to introduce zones. That's why they're called NVZs. This is done all over Europe. I can't believe that contribution from Jenny Rathbone. 

In regard to other Members, Janet Finch-Saunders and Llyr and others pointed out the devastating impact on farmers and the many businesses that will rely upon those farming businesses, the complex record keeping of regulations that will be subject to cross-compliance, inspection and the penalty, leaving little option but to resort to costly consultations that farming businesses simply cannot afford. As Janet Finch-Saunders and others pointed out, your own impact assessments talk about the upfront costs of £360 million to the industry, and then there's the evidence that shows that many catchments across Wales have incurred zero incidents of agricultural pollution over the last 10 years, and Llyr, of course, points correctly as well to the NRW evidence, which backs that up.

Over the past 48 hours, I've had hundreds of e-mails from farmers across my own constituency in Montgomeryshire, urging me to vote against the regulations next week. Minister, you've heard from opposition parties, you've heard from the farming unions, you've heard from the farming community, and your response is, 'I'm going to ignore and carry on', which is so disappointing. I met with—

Can the Member come to a conclusion, please? 

Thank you, Presiding Officer. I met with Montgomery Young Farmers last night, making many of the points, I think, that Paul Davies and Angela did—Angela Burns made—in terms of the health and safety implications of rushing in terms of managing that slurry and the timetable involved.

In coming to a conclusion, Deputy Presiding Officer, I urge you, Minister, to rethink about this. I'd urge Labour backbenchers to examine the evidence, examine how proportionate this is, examine whether the targeted approach is correct or not. And I would urge Dafydd Elis-Thomas as an independent Member of the Government to think very independently when he comes to vote next week, and I'd urge Kirsty Williams to listen—

Yes. The Minister—

—and support our motion—

The Member does need to close. Thank you. The proposal is to agree the motion without amendment. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I see objections, therefore we will vote under the item in voting time. 

Voting deferred until voting time.