The next item is the motion to annul the Water Resources (Control of Agricultural Pollution) (Wales) Regulations 2021, and I call on Llyr Gruffydd to move the motion. Llyr Gruffydd.

Motion NDM7576 Llyr Gruffydd

To propose that the Senedd, in accordance with Standing Order 27.2:

Agrees that The Water Resources (Control of Agricultural Pollution) (Wales) Regulations 2021, laid before the Senedd on 27 January 2021, be annulled.

Motion moved.

Diolch yn fawr iawn, Llywydd. I'd like to start, maybe, by just shattering a few myths. Plaid Cymru is not in favour of accepting the status quo on water quality. We support action and stronger regulations on pollution. So, anyone who wants to characterise this debate in a way that suggests otherwise is intentionally misleading people. We absolutely support the need to tackle water pollution, and we're committed to introducing regulations to do that. The issue here, though, of course, is that these particular regulations put forward by the Government are not the right answer. 

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

These regulations are disproportionate. Natural Resources Wales's advice—of course, the experts' advice—to Welsh Government was to designate 8 per cent of Wales as a nitrate vulnerable zone. The Government has ignored that and gone for 100 per cent coverage. Why is that problematic? Well, it's because you're clobbering everyone, the whole of the industry, with the requirement for farms in all parts of Wales, even those who haven't transgressed, in catchments that maybe haven't experienced pollution incidents, to pay tens of thousands of pounds of money, that they don't have, actually, on infrastructure that, for some, isn't necessary when you look at the evidence.

There will be unintended environmental consequences as well, of course. Using calendar dates rather than weather conditions to dictate when slurry can be spread is an absurd proposition. The Minister herself expressed concern at this approach just a few months ago when I quizzed her on it. And others, such as the prominent environmentalist Tony Juniper, who chairs Natural England—he has said that it just doesn't make sense. It's an irrational proposition that will cause huge spikes in nitrates at particular times of the year, which could then, of course, introduce new pollution issues in areas where there are no problems currently.

According to the Government's own estimates, the upfront capital costs to the farming industry to comply with these regulations will be within a range of £109 million to £360 million. That £360 million is £30 million more than Wales's total average annual common agricultural policy budget over the last six years. Even the Welsh Government's lowest estimate places the cost for Welsh farms at 42 per cent of the total income from Welsh farming in 2019. Many farms are already operating on the breadline, and this is going to just push them over the edge. Losing these farms means, of course, losing some of our food-producing capacity, meaning increased levels of food imports, bringing with it a further environmental cost. One milk processor says that its analysis shows that possibly a third of their dairy farms will cease production. Losing those small and medium-sized family farms will mean a growth in the number of large farming units, leading to more industrial-scale dairy farming. How many times have Members in this Senedd spoken out against that?

It isn't just farmers, of course, who'll struggle to find the capital investment needed to meet these regulations; there are 1,000 council farms in Wales, and local authorities will have to find up to £36 million to pay for the necessary new infrastructure. It was only yesterday that the Government's budget had to find more money for the local authority hardship fund. Are councils really going to be able to find tens of millions of pounds of additional money, when the Government is already having to bail them out to pay for core services? So, we know what's going to happen; more council farms are going to be sold off, further reducing the opportunity for young people and new entrants to start farming.

Designating all of Wales as an NVZ isn't a silver bullet. An NRW monitoring report has shown that only two of 11 designated NVZ sites had seen an improvement in pollution levels. And evidence from other countries is mixed, to say the least. Northern Ireland has been 100 per cent NVZ for a decade, and still, even today, their water quality is worse than ours. So, the question we really should be asking ourselves here is why is the Welsh Government adopting regulations here that aren't actually delivering elsewhere, especially when we know that there are other approaches that are having a positive impact. One such scheme is the blue flag scheme. The Minister knew about it a number of years ago but is now, very belatedly, taking an interest. That programme has been running for five years. It has succeeded in reducing, on average, the nitrates leaving the farms of those involved in the scheme by over 1 tonne per farm, and that far outweighs the NVZ modelling of achieving a 10 per cent reduction of nitrates. Why is the Welsh Government settling for a cut-and-paste approach here with NVZs, instead of building on a made-in-Wales answer, tailored to our own circumstances?

We know that NFU Cymru's lawyers have written to the Welsh Government yesterday, setting out their concerns about the lawfulness of the decision to introduce these regulations. I don't expect the Minister, obviously, to comment on that for legal reasons, but I do believe that it introduces another reason for the Welsh Government to take a step back and revisit its proposals. In the interest of achieving greater consensus and more effective legislation on this important matter, I believe that these regulations should either, for now, be withdrawn by the Government or annulled by the Senedd. If this happens, then I pledge the time and commitment of my party to work with the Government on introducing a more sophisticated and targeted set of regulations before the end of the year. We all want to tackle water pollution. We all want to get to grips with an issue that needs addressing once and for all, and we need to regulate in order to do that. But this particular set of regulations before us today, for the reasons I've outlined, is not the best way to achieve that, and I would urge Members to support my motion. Diolch.

Thank you. I call Mick Antoniw, as Chair of the Legislation, Justice and Constitution Committee. Mick Antoniw.

Thank you, Dirprwy Lywydd. We considered these regulations at our meeting on 22 February 2021, and in doing so we noted that the motion being debated today had already been tabled. Our report contained only one merits point, which I will briefly outline for Members.

Regulation 30 of the regulations enables the Natural Resources Body for Wales to serve a notice requiring a person to carry out works or take precautions or other steps, as specified in the notice. Appeals against regulation 30 notices can be made to the Welsh Ministers. Where such an appeal is made, regulation 31(6) provides that the period for compliance is subject to any direction made by the Welsh Ministers, and such a direction can include an extension to that period.

We consider this to be important because, where the Welsh Ministers determine that works, precautions or other steps are required, there appear to be circumstances where appellants are obligated to undertake such action on the same day as the result of their appeal is known. This may mean that appellants are unable to comply in time with the determination. If our assessment is correct, then the power for the Welsh Ministers to extend the period for compliance is important to reduce the risk of this occurring.

We asked the Welsh Government to respond to our assessment. The Government has confirmed that, when deciding whether or not to exercise their discretion-making power, the Welsh Ministers will be subject to their public law duty to act reasonably. The Government’s response to our report also states that the mechanism provides appellants with a sufficient safeguard from having to undertake works or take action within an inadequate time frame once the result of their appeal is known. Diolch, Dirprwy Lywydd.

I thank my colleague, Llyr Gruffydd, for bringing forward this motion to annul the Water Resources (Control of Agricultural Pollution) (Wales) Regulations 2021. And this, of course, follows on the Welsh Conservative debate from last week, where, it's fair to say, the vote was very close indeed. Now, Minister, I've asked you, we've debated, we've discussed, both in the Chamber and in committee. We've asked you to do exactly what Llyr Gruffydd has said—either to annul, or certainly come to some other conclusions, and please do not penalise our farmers in this way.

Now, as you stated to me in the Climate Change, Environment and Rural Affairs Committee last month, what you have to understand is many, many farmers don't pollute. So, how then do you think that those many, many farmers now feel, knowing that you are: one, punishing them with regulations that are not proportionate; two, offering as little as 3.6 per cent of the funding needed to cover the upfront capital costs; three, pushing them towards a situation in which they could be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction, or on conviction, on indictment to a fine? Why have you chosen not to respond to recommendations by the Wales Land Management Forum sub-group on agricultural pollution, including 4.4, which specifically calls for exploring the most effective means to deliver nutrient management, planning at scale and pace, and 4.11, which calls for a review into funding?

Implementing the 30-year-old European Union nitrates directive, despite Brexit, is unnecessary and totally out of order. Evidence from Natural Resources Wales shows that the area of land should be 8 per cent, not 100 per cent. The WLMF sub-group promised to work on identifying existing products that may assist with pollution reduction, such as weed wipers, precision feed management, scrubbers, smart rinsing systems, absorption systems, slurry separators in field troughs, riparian fencing, and reed beds—all reasonable measures that could be taken instead. You could be backing the blue flag farmer-led partnership approach, and responding to the draft water framework and water standard, shared with you in March 2020.

According to the explanatory memorandum, there is potential for a negative impact on mental well-being for our farmers. They are facing desperation for the long-term viability of their businesses, their family homes, and our food supply. Mental health concerns in the sector are rocketing, so why are you introducing the regulations despite the mental health warning in your own explanatory memorandum? Glanbia Cheese has highlighted serious concerns about the impact of the regulations on the security of milk supply in Wales. NFU Cymru's lawyers have written setting out their concerns about the lawfulness of this decision. We should all today, Members, be voting for annulment, as the regulations are set to damage our Welsh farms and the well-being of communities. I cannot be the only Senedd Member to have received hundreds and hundreds of desperate e-mails from our farming community. I would ask on this occasion to listen to them, all of your constituents, listen to them. Minister, I say to you, as I said last week: it takes a big person to say, 'Do you know what? I got this wrong.' Indeed, you have got it wrong—

Can you wind up, please?

Okay. You have got it wrong. Reverse this decision today. Diolch. 

I and my group shall be supporting the Plaid motion. In my five years as a Member of the Senedd, I have never had so many e-mails on any subject. Not only were the correspondents against these measures, they were desperate to have them annulled, because they literally feared for their livelihoods should they become law. 

Much of my contribution to this debate will duplicate the facts, figures and arguments I put forward in last week's Conservative debate, but I make no apologies for that because all of them withstand being reiterated. Again, the whole of the Welsh farming industry, unions, organisations, and farmers themselves, believe these regulations, implementing a blanket set of slurry regulations for the whole of the Welsh farming industry, are totally disproportionate, both in cost and implementation, to the problem. This is especially true given that the voluntary code now in place has seen a 24 per cent reduction in pollution incidences over the last few years. These proposals are scant reward for the huge effort put in by the entire farming industry. One pollution incident may be one too many, but attempting to halt the pollution by harming the farming industry as a whole is not the solution. It is a simple fact that many farmers will go out of existence because they will be unable to afford the cost of implementation.

This is particularly true for our already struggling upland farms. I am in receipt of a letter from Dylan Jones, milk procurement officer for Glanbia Cheese, the biggest mozzarella cheese producer in Europe, based at Llangefni. They use 300 million litres of milk a year, almost all from Welsh farmers. He states that he feels that these regulations will put many of his suppliers out of business, meaning they will have to source their milk elsewhere. The figure set aside—£22 million for the whole of Wales—is totally inadequate for the scale of investment needed, given the Government's own figures put upfront, full capital costs at £360 million. The farming industry is in the middle of a huge upheaval, with Brexit and the disruption caused by COVID. How does the Government expect farmers to cope with this massive extra expense?

Cost benefits over the next 20 years are estimated at £300 million, against an investment of £800 million. How can this be justified when only 113 of 953 catchment areas are failing? Surely, a far more cost-effective way would be to target these areas. Should these draconian measures go forward, we shall see many of our already impoverished farmers fail. The Minister says she's engaged with the farming industry, but the industry says almost all of their input has been ignored. I repeat again: British farmers are the most hard-working, innovative farmers in Europe, whose husbandry standards are second to none. Brexit creates a huge opportunity for our farmers to fill the gap in the food chain. I am sure they will, as always, rise to the challenge. It means we will be eating better produced and more wholesome foods. The Welsh Government should be doing everything to help the industry, not creating obstacles to their survival. I urge the Labour Members to show personal moral courage, not a slavish adherence to Government policy, and vote in support of this motion. It is bad legislation. You should back the farming industry, and not indulge in party politics. The stakes for the farming industry are far too high. And, in particular, I urge Kirsty Williams and Dafydd Elis-Thomas to vote against these draconian proposals. Thank you. 

I'm not going to engage in any party politics on this, but what I am going to do is express some of the thought that I've given this matter, and some of the views that have been expressed to me by constituents as well. But, first of all, I want to thank the National Farmers Union and the Farmers' Union of Wales for meeting with me last week. We had an hour-long meeting, and we've been in dialogue last year about this issue, and it's undoubtedly the case that there is very real concern in the farming community about these regulations, particularly with regard to the need to keep a nutrient management plan, the limitations on spreading, which will require storage facilities that some farms are concerned—particularly small farms who cannot absorb the cost—about the facilities that they will need in order to store slurry. Now, I've raised this, as a result of those conversations with Welsh Government, and I've had a response, which I'd like the Minister to elaborate on in her answer to this debate. 

First of all, she said—sorry, the Welsh Government response said—that the requirements in the regulations are basic and do not require soil testing, which you have to do in Scotland, and are compatible with nutrient management software routinely used by the industry. Standard values for nutrient content of manures are provided and there are step-by-step tools available. Much more sophisticated forms of nutrient management may be something that the sustainable farming scheme can provide. There's no need to employ consultants, particularly on small farms, because the Farming Connect Advisory Service can provide expert independent and bespoke advice, for which there is also, through Farming Connect, funding available. 

And the other issue I raised was regarding the spread of the slurry, in which they said that storage in a small farm is not necessary in all circumstances, as you can treat it as manure, which is still permitted to be spread under the new regulations. Those periods do not apply to farmyard manure, which can be stored in field heap, subject to certain conditions to minimise pollution risk. If they're producing larger volumes of slurry, then, this would be a significant pollution risk and would not be compliant with current regulations. 

Now, that's the response I've had with regard to concerns I've raised with the Welsh Government. I'd like the Minister to be able to tell us that, should the concerns that have been raised by the previous speakers come to fruition, there will be flexibility within the plan to address that, and provide support for those farmers who may be unduly affected in ways that the Welsh Government hasn't considered in their answer to me. 

So, it's been something I've considered very, very carefully, and I need to come back to my constituency. There's an industrial size dairy farm in Gelligaer, in my constituency. It's an enormous farm, and there have been reports—. You've probably seen in WalesOnline a report that said Gelligaer is the village that stinks all-year round. Now, I know this is related to river pollution, but, nonetheless, odour is a huge issue with regard to spreading. I've had meetings with residents and NRW. NRW said to me that—. When I've gone to them before, they've said, 'We simply haven't got the powers to deal with this. There's a strong and offensive odour in Gelligaer, and we haven't got the powers to deal with this.' When I spoke to NRW last week, they said that this will give them the powers to deal with it; this will give them the powers. In fact, what they said is they would go further, and have a phosphate plan included in it too. The Government isn't going that far. 

People in Gelligaer, Penybryn, Nelson and Ystrad Mynach have suffered too long with issues related to that farm in Gelligaer, and it is the regulations that are at fault, not the farm, and we need stronger regulations in those circumstances. So, in those circumstances, I would be calling for an NVZ for my area, for that community. People of Gelligaer, Ystrad Mynach, Nelson and Penybryn want more farming regulations, not less. They want more regulating of activity, not less, because what they are seeing at the moment is not enough powers to deal with the concerns that they've got— 

The Member needs to wind up, please. 

—about activities in their community. So, with that in mind, it's been a difficult decision to take, but in the circumstances in my community, that I have seen at first hand, I have to support these regulations.

May I thank all the very many correspondents, many farmers, that I have heard from on this subject? I find perhaps the most shocking aspect of this is the number of times that the Minister promised, on the record and in this place, that she would not be bringing forward these sorts of NVZ proposals until the COVID pandemic had finished. Yet, here she is doing it. Surely that is just a breach of promise, unless there's something I have misunderstood here, but I just think that is a shocking betrayal of what had been promised. 

I'm also quite struck by how she's treated NRW. We've spent vast amounts on this organisation, which is supposedly arm's length and giving her advice, and it's done this big report, lots of work behind it, and says, 'We should increase the area of Wales covered from 2.5 per cent to around 8 per cent.' Yet, here she is going to 100 per cent. What's the point of having this body, given the way she's treated it? 

Now, I want to cite one correspondent in particular, who farms to the west of Hay-on-Wye, for 45 years as a dairy farmer, a former Dairy Farmer of the Year and Grassland Farmer of the Year. And one point he makes to me is that, on his farm, he's managed to reduce the use of chemical fertiliser by 20 per cent over the past 10 years by more timely application of slurry. And he also emphasises the increased costs of a five-month storage period and the extra burden of record keeping, which he pleads for us not to underestimate. Perhaps it's easy for us in Government or politics—extra forms to fill in perhaps aren't that big a job, but for those who have different businesses and aren't that way inclined or have the desire to do that it really is a very significant burden, and I think we need to understand that.

The main reason I want to quote this particular correspondent is that he has a son who farms in Somerset, and there are two catchments there. One is an NVZ and one isn't, and it depends on the level of pollution what's required. And the one that is has an upper tributary that was taken out of the NVZ when there were improvements. Why can't we have have a system like that, that's sensitive to local needs, rather than a one-size-fits-all policy across Wales, just to be different from England and contrary to the promises that were made? We see, across our border, that I think 58 per cent of areas get this type of treatment, but they also have the possibility of applying to increase the amount of slurry that can be spread from 170 kg to 240 kg or 250 kg per hectare, depending on the area and depending on whether that's appropriate given the environment at the time. Surely, we'd be much better off with that sensitivity to local needs, rather than this blunderbuss policy that is across the whole of Wales.

We heard last week from Jenny Rathbone, saying that you can't regulate a butcher's shop differently on one side to another. How on earth is that a comparison that says therefore you cannot regulate anything except the whole of Wales as one unit? And also I felt from her remarks, and some others that we've had from the Labour side, that the real objective of this is to push cattle off the land, and it's about climate change and reducing emissions and Labour not understanding and not supporting our farmers. I think it is wrong to bring this NVZ in across the whole of Wales. We should have a more proportionate approach, like that the UK Government takes, and I think we should vote for this motion to annul and that's what my party, the Abolish the Welsh Assembly Party, will be doing.

Thank you. Can I now call the Minister for Environment, Energy and Rural Affairs, Lesley Griffths?

Thank you very much, Deputy Presiding Officer. Achieving a greener Wales will rely on the commitment and expertise of our farmers. They have a unique role in producing high-quality food at the same time as protecting habitat, safeguarding our irreplaceable soils, capturing carbon and cleaning our air and water for the benefit of human health and, of course, the health of our planet. The need we see for these agricultural pollution regulations reflects our commitment to fairness. It is a matter of fairness for future generations, so that they will not be denied access to their natural heritage, which we are entrusted to protect. It is a matter of fairness to those farmers who already go above and beyond the requirements of regulation, earning the sector its reputation for the highest environmental standards. This reputation has never been more important than it is now, to meet the expectations both of our international trading partners and consumers in the UK.

This reputation and our natural heritage is under threat from agricultural pollution. I disagree with Janet Finch-Saunders stating that the regulations are punishing farmers. I will tell her who's being punished: farmers who already undertake good practice in nutrient management, preventing pollution from their own farms, and who have to watch as others do the bare minimum, with the cost of any damage being passed on to others—the costs of water treatment added to customer bills, the cost to the reputation of the sector, and the price we're all paying in the loss of fish, insects, sensitive habitats and the character of our countryside. This has been a blight on the reputation of Welsh farming for many years.

Since I came into post, I have sought to create the opportunity for the agricultural industry and others to come forward and address the issue without further regulation. Unfortunately, there has been no consistent downward trend in agricultural pollution. Since 2001, there have been almost 3,000 substantiated acute agricultural-related pollution incidents across Wales, continuing at an average rate of more than three each week in the last three years. In 2020, when fewer reported incidents were investigated due to the COVID pandemic, numbers were still higher than in 2015, 2016 and 2017. There were more recorded incidents in 2018 than any other year in the last 20 years. Even with the current media attention since I announced these regulations on 27 January, NRW has received 49 pollution reports related to agriculture, of which 20, as of 1 March, have been substantiated. These are the substantiated incidents where NRW has been able to confirm an incident reported to them. However, acute pollution incidents are only the most visible example of agricultural pollution. Diffuse pollution occurs over time and is damaging water quality, contributing to air pollution and increasing greenhouse gas emissions.

Misinformation about the regulations has been a cause of unnecessary stress to farmers, many of whom, far from being forced out of business as the opposition have claimed, will be in a good position to meet the new regulatory standards and stand to gain from improved nutrient management on their farms. Farmers who are unsure about how they can achieve compliance may seek support and advice through Welsh Government's Farming Connect advisory service, including how to access the financial support available. The regulations are targeted on activities that produce a risk of pollution, wherever they take place.

The opposition say, rather than a baseline standard, we should take one approach for phosphorus pollution in the nine river SACs, a different approach for those water bodies failing water framework directive standards, another for nitrate thresholds, yet another for catchments affected by acute pollution incidents and so on—a prospectus for confusion and delay. Such an approach would do nothing for air pollution or emissions reduction; they are not practical or meaningful alternatives. Setting a baseline standard means the expectations can be clear, making it easier for farmers to be confident they are compliant, and easier for advisory services and the regulator to support farmers to achieve compliance. Where activities are low risk, such as in relation to sheep farming, the requirements are minimal. The requirements will be introduced over time, with the first step requiring farmers to follow good practice in when and where to spread slurry, as many already do.

In last week's Tory debate, I sought a consensus with other parties that, given the climate and nature emergencies, we could all recognise that the first step, as set out in the advice of the Committee on Climate Change, would be to make current good practice into the baseline standard across Wales. Neither Plaid Cymru nor the Tories could bring themselves to accept the need for action, simply showing how completely out of step they are with the public's expectations. They would rather ignore the scientific advice and allow Wales to become the last refuge of agricultural pollution. I'm grateful to those farmers who support the actions we are taking to make a difference, and to other stakeholders, such as the Wildlife Trust and angling groups, who have so clearly articulated what can be achieved and why it is so important.

The agricultural pollution regulations are one step, but a very important one, in the journey towards cleaner rivers, cleaner air, and the achievement in Wales of the most nature- and climate-friendly farming in the world. After today, there will still be much more to do to deliver our ambitions to achieve a net-zero, nature-positive economy in which the benefits of our rich natural heritage are shared fairly. I hope all Senedd Members will today demonstrate their commitment to those ambitions in the decision they take. Vote against the annulment motion, vote against lowering environmental standards in Wales, vote against delaying our response to the climate and nature emergencies, and vote against agricultural pollution in Wales. Diolch.

Thank you for that. I have no Members who wish to make an intervention, therefore I call on Llyr Gruffydd to reply to the debate. Llyr.

Thank you, Deputy Presiding Officer. I started this debate by encouraging Members to acknowledge the fact that this motion was no call on us not to take action, and certainly I am not looking to not introduce regulations and to ignore the problem. Unfortunately, the Minister's comments in response to the debate show me that she hasn't listened to a word I've said, and that's disappointing. I thought better of her, to be honest. And to make such accusations about me, I take that as a very grave insult, and I am saddened she felt the need to do that. I don't know how many times I have to say that I am serious about taking action on this problem. The challenge for me, of course, is that what we have here today, in my view, isn't going to deliver the outcomes that we want to see.

Now, the Minister said that she'd made an offer to the industry to bring solutions forward. Well, she may recall that the industry did present her with two reports, including recommendations on the way forward—one in April 2018 and one in March of last year. They are still awaiting the Minister's response to those proposals. So, let her not say that she's given the sector an opportunity to respond. She has not, and that is misleading, because she has ignored what has been proposed to her.

Now, I would support these regulations if I believed that they were going to work, but there are so many questions about unintended consequences in environmental terms, the detrimental impact that they will have on the future of farms, the likelihood that it will lead to the loss of some of our family farms and the broader impact that that will have on the rural economy and communities in rural Wales. Portraying this argument as a choice between regulating or not regulating doesn't fairly describe the choice that we have before us today. What supporting this annulment motion would do would be to ensure that the Government takes a step back to look at alternative options that will bring better outcomes for the environment and less destruction to the economy and rural communities. I am willing to play my part in that. The question is: are you?

Thank you for that. The proposal is to agree the motion. Does any Member object? [Objection.] I see objections, therefore we will vote on this item in voting time.

Voting deferred until voting time.